Crime and Punishment

[workerscommunes]

I was having one of my many arguments with my pro-death penalty friend the other night when it suddenly hit me that I don't really know how certain 'dangerous' criminals like mass-murderers and serial sex-offenders would be treated effectively in a prisonless anarchist society. Her argument for the death penalty was the usual bullshit ("you're not going to kill someone if you know you'll be put to death as a result", yeah? So why is the one western nation with the death penalty, the US, also the one with by far the highest murder rate?) and I obviously remained unconvinced but when asked what I'd do with the Bradys and Hindleys of this world, all I could do was mumble something about 'communal sanctions', not entirely convinced by my own argument.

Obviously we're all banking on the idea that as inequality disappears, so too will crime but I doubt this will stop certain crimes altogether, even if it gets rid of most of it. We assume (correctly in my opinion) that 'criminals' are largely victims of circumstance and can therefore be rehabilitated. However the effects of these circumstances can be very powerful indeed and some may be so deeply affected that they can never truly be 'reformed' (and I don't mean reformed in a scary 'Clockwork Orange' way!).

The genuinely psychopathic should obviously be garuanteed the same rights as any mentally impaired person. But what of those with no mental impairments who, for whatever reason, have chosen to act in ways they know are harmful to society and do not seem capable of changing their ways?

Obviously we should prioritise attacking the causes of crime first and then concentrate on reform and rehabillitation when that fails but what about those (hopefully very few) persons for whom neither of these proves effective? Where do we draw the line between socialisation and punishment (public shaming for example)? I only ask as I think our stance on crime is what turns many people off anarchist communism as they assume with no prisons the streets will be overun with criminals. How can I convince my pro-death penalty friend (and those like her) that an anarchist society would be able to cope with the relatively few criminals left who seem incapable of changing? We can't just assume that crime will cease to exist entirely in this kind of society.

[vequalsv0plusat]

Workers said:

Obviously we should prioritise attacking the causes of crime first and then concentrate on reform and rehabillitation when that fails but what about those (hopefully very few) persons for whom neither of these proves effective?

Unfortunately, the majority would likely have to resort to force in those sorts of situations. Better one person forcibly restrained than ten people dead.

Workers said:

Where do we draw the line between socialisation and punishment (public shaming for example)? I only ask as I think our stance on crime is what turns many people off anarchist communism as they assume with no prisons the streets will be overun with criminals. How can I convince my pro-death penalty friend (and those like her) that an anarchist society would be able to cope with the relatively few criminals left who seem incapable of changing? We can't just assume that crime will cease to exist entirely in this kind of society.

Well, there are six billion people in the world. I'm pretty sure that the combined strength of six billion people would be enough to forcibly overcome the few people who happen to be beyond rehabilitation.

[Fenria]

As an American, I'm totally against the death penalty...but then what exactly do we do with the Jeffery Dhamers of the world? This guy was neither reformable nor treatable...he was sane!!! How do we handle a person who does this sort of thing for fun, and is for the most part, sane?

Should tax payers be required to pay for this person's interment in jail for the rest of his life? Just how much as a society do we really owe a guy life Jeffery Dhamer?

I often think about letting the families of the victims decide what should be done to the perpetrator of heinous crimes...but then we will most certainly see the desolution of the rule of law in favor of tribal justice..which might not be such a bad thing, but unregulated, who's to say we might not all at some point become victims of the monster we create.

Remember, the Salem witch trials were a perfect example of tribal justice. How do you regulate something like that without calling it law? And once you regulate it, it will pretty much end up looking exactly like what we have going on today. I really don't know what the answer to it is.

[theyellowspot]

i have a hard time referring to serial killers (and particularly cannibals like Dahmer) as "sane". i think you have to be at least mildly sociopathic if not psychopathic to take joy in killing people. killing someone in rage or whatever is way different than being methodical and habitual about it. not sane. i wholeheartedly believe that folks like this would cease to "exist" in a sane society. serial killing is a very new phenomena, caused by the insanity of western civilization.

[workerscommunes]

theyellowspot said:

i wholeheartedly believe that folks like this would cease to "exist" in a sane society. serial killing is a very new phenomena, caused by the insanity of western civilization.

Yes but we cannot assume that this phenomenon would dissappear instantly and completely. There are bound to be at least the occassional freak occurances (especially early on) and we should have some idea of how this should be dealt with.

[claptonpond]

I suspect what would happen is that victims' families would take matters into their own hands. I'm not saying that's what should happen, and I'm not sure how we'd avoid falling too far into tribal justice, with vendettas and such, but I don't see any real non-authoritarian alternatives (at least in the short term).