Just a few points.
If the standard is that someone has to be convicted before their person, property or rights can be violated, than taken to its logical conclusion that would exclude the possibility of arrest, questioning, wiretapping, searching, or even trial, prior to conviction. Suspects would have to be tried in absentia even before their arrest, unless they had already agreed contractually to submit to the arrest of a voluntary legal body.
Torture in this sense would not be different than any other coercion, just a higher degree of coercion. If the standard is coercion vs noncoercian, torture would just be one kind of coercion. Some other standard would have to be used to separate it out, such as humaneness, pain, morality, etc.
Of course, I agree that the idea of exonerating otherwise illegal behavior post facto if the victim turns out to be guilty of some other crime does not follow logically from any argument Rothbard has made. In that case, if I randomly picked someone to beat or rob, and they later turned out to be guilty of a crime, my act could just be written into the the person's sentence, post facto. Obviously absurd.
Rothbard was here, as elsewhere, way out of his depth. This is generally the case when he was discussing ethics and the basis of law. He was best was a journalist, historian and organizer. As for the main area of his work, economics, mediocre and mixed, at best.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: