How would an anarchist/communist society deal with murder?

[learnercommie]

say if in a society as the one stated, someone was murdered, or there was a massacre,
how would that society deal with the murderer(s)?

I've wondered what action would be taken..

how would justice be served?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well all Leftists have differing opinions. Mine is completely opposed to prisons. Even if a person has massacred a group of people we cannot allow them to rot and go uncured. This person deserves our help and we should rehabilitate this person so that they can return to the community.

[Demogorgon]

Prisons are a necessary evil for this sort of thing. Of course they should always focus on rehabilitation where it is at all possible.

Anyone who suggests retreating into barbarism and using the death penalty has no business calling themselves a leftist, quite frankly.

[F9]

The murders that will occur on such society, means that the person is facing some problems, usually mental ones and needs to be taken under hospitality.We dont want to "punish" people but to make them understand their wrongs, and get back with everyone and live their free life.So prisons and punishments?No, those have nothing to do with the society s you are referring to.
You should take the "criminal" from another view point, the view of the person him/her self, and why was s/he forced to do something so terrible like murder, and you will see that either their would be a reason(talking about a free society always) which almost every time the "reason" are some medical problems the "criminal" is facing.So we should take care of him as a "patient" not as a "criminal".So eventually when he is okay, rejoin the society, feel good with him/herself and enjoy the life others died for.
This is a very common question around here, so im not getting any deeper as it would be unnecessary, and will just give you some extra links to see if you want.
1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/prisons-criminals-psychos-t97295/index.html?t=97295&highlight=Prisons+Communism),2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newbie-question-crime-t95252/index.html),3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-and-courts-t88835/index.html?t=88835)

Fuserg9:star:

[Agrippa]

If there's a violent conflict between an individual and the community that can't be peacefully resolved, the individual should be forced to leave or be killed...

If someone wanders into anarchist/communist territory and starts massacring people, the people should defend themselves. They should shoot to kill, unless there's a tactical advantage in capturing the person. If it's just a random disgruntled psychopath, it's unlikely that they will be willing to contribute their labor to the communal production of goods once they are captured, and thus, in any situation of captivity (be it under the pretense of psychological rehabilitation or not) they would be a burden on the community. The community might not have the resources to support this burden especially if they are currently involved in prolonged conflict with the capitalist state. (or other enemies such as fascists)

Detainment under the pretense of psychological rehabilitation can easily become a fraudulent excuse for sadism and exploitation. I think in many instances a quick death would be more humane. Why risk the chance of a person breaking out and going on another massacre? Why risk the chance of building up a security infrastructure to make sure that never happens, only to have said security infrastructure be co-opted and used to exploit and oppress innocent people?

I might be considered "conservative" or "right-wing" in this matter, but I come from a Mennonite upbringing, where I am taught that if someone kills your brother, rapes you, or molests your children, you need to "turn the other cheek", unconditionally forgive them, accept them back into the community, and actually serve them under the pretense of contributing to their spiritual salvation. Just switch out the Christian paradigm for a Freudian paradigm and you have in a sense the argument that the community needs to bend over backwards to try to "cure" malicious assholes of their malice.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon1.gif How would an anarchist/communist society deal with murder?

Who knows?

[apathy maybe]

Prisons are a necessary evil for this sort of thing. Of course they should always focus on rehabilitation where it is at all possible.

Anyone who suggests retreating into barbarism and using the death penalty has no business calling themselves a leftist, quite frankly.

Yes, but you aren't an anarchist. Anarchists completely oppose long-term prisons. One reason is because they are worse than death. Depriving someone of their freedom is not a good way of going about things.

To answer the OP, exile or execution. These options come from the principles of free association on the one hand (a community can refuse to have anything to do with you, i.e. exile), and self-defence (if you attack someone, they have the right to defend themselves).

[SecondLife]

Retaliation is not for communism. Communism must help every single human or citizen, even criminals. Criminals have the same rights even if question in in mass-murders. This is simply humanism and of course this requires more work, more money and more ressources to retain laws and find out alternative mathods to prevent crime. This is needed because if we can't appreciate human, then we can't also prevent crime.

[revolution inaction]

Some people are saying that murders should be exiled. I think this is completely irresponsible, it means just dumping them one on the rest of the world where they will free to kill again and again.
I think that such people should be isolated fro the rest of the community and given treatment until we can be reasonably sure they wont do it again.
I don't support execution because some times you get the wrong person.

[Demogorgon]

Yes, but you aren't an anarchist. Anarchists completely oppose long-term prisons. One reason is because they are worse than death. Depriving someone of their freedom is not a good way of going about things.

To answer the OP, exile or execution. These options come from the principles of free association on the one hand (a community can refuse to have anything to do with you, i.e. exile), and self-defence (if you attack someone, they have the right to defend themselves).
With respect, it is not for you to decide whether somebody's life means less than their freedom or not. Most faced with imprisonment will still choose it over death. We value our lives above all else, except perhaps the lives of our loved ones.

Long term imprisonment isn't a particularly appealing concept but it is better than the alternatives. Imprisoning someone demonstrates that society will not tolerate certain behaviour and keeps dangerous people out of the way while still allowing them to develop themselves within their confinement, to achieve things within prison and one day to be released and resume their lives.

On the other hand when you execute someone, you subject them to the psychological torture of waiting to be killed, the physical torture of being killed and at that point take everything they have away completely and irreversibly, giving them no prospect of any kind of freedom ever again. Moreover you don't just kill them, you destroy the lives of those around them. You bereave their friends and families, dealing them a blow from which they may well never recover. And that is to people who haven't even committed a crime.

No, the death penalty is a despicable thing, inseparable from cold blooded murder.

[Agrippa]

With respect, it is not for you to decide whether somebody's life means less than their freedom or not.

As you yourself go on to decide someone's freedom is worth less than their life.


Most faced with imprisonment will still choose it over death.

Do you have statistical evidence for this claim or are you just making an assumption?


We value our lives above all else

Speak for yourself. I, for one, don't value my individual life above the individual lives of many others, (eg: if I had a psychotic breakdown and went on a killing spree, I'd want those people to shoot me in that situation rather than risk loss of further lives) the planet Earth, my ethical principles, etc. If "we value our lives above all else", than we should squeal to the pigs when they have us captured and are threatening us with death.


Long term imprisonment isn't a particularly appealing concept but it is better than the alternatives.[/quotes]

No it's not. Both death and long-term imprisonment are cruel, whereas the former can be short and painless, the latter cannot. Furthermore, the latter is a burden on the community's resources and it serves as a potential tool for future enemies of the peoples' freedom.

[quote]Imprisoning someone demonstrates that society will not tolerate certain behaviour and keeps dangerous people out of the way while still allowing them to develop themselves within their confinement, to achieve things within prison and one day to be released and resume their lives

And if they're never able to be released and resume their lives, than the community must support them with their resources. Think about this within the context of a struggling communist society that already must spend a good deal of resources combating counter-revolution. It's one thing to say "Ideally...", it's another to say "this is how it must always be!" It offers indescriminate condemnation to people in situations more difficult than one's own, assumes a "magical" world of no scarcity, etc.


On the other hand when you execute someone, you subject them to the psychological torture of waiting to be killed

Only in a bureaucracy.


at that point take everything they have away completely and irreversibly, giving them no prospect of any kind of freedom ever again.

Life ends. It's not the worst thing in the world. Maybe your materialist principles are preventing you from having a mature relationship with death.


Moreover you don't just kill them, you destroy the lives of those around them.

And imprisoning them for life doesn't?


No, the death penalty is a despicable thing, inseparable from cold blooded murder.

And life imprisonment in a penal institution, in my view, is inseperable from capitalist exploitation.

[Forward Union]

Well all Leftists have differing opinions. Mine is completely opposed to prisons. Even if a person has massacred a group of people we cannot allow them to rot and go uncured. This person deserves our help and we should rehabilitate this person so that they can return to the community.

Yes. and in the meantime would they be free to roam about killing people or would they be contained for safety reasons.... :rolleyes:

Anarchists have always had and supported imprisonment until the horrific liberalization of the movement in the 1960s.

[Demogorgon]

As you yourself go on to decide someone's freedom is worth less than their life.

So we just kill them and don't let them make the choice for themselves. Killing someone takes away their freedom more completely than jailing them ever could anyway.


Do you have statistical evidence for this claim or are you just making an assumption?

How many on death row fight their sentences in the hope of it being commuted to life? How many serving life commit, attempt to commit or express serious desire to commit suicide? compare the figures. The answer to the first question is "almost all", to the latter it is "a minority"


Speak for yourself. I, for one, don't value my individual life above the individual lives of many others, (eg: if I had a psychotic breakdown and went on a killing spree, I'd want those people to shoot me in that situation rather than risk loss of further lives) the planet Earth, my ethical principles, etc. If "we value our lives above all else", than we should squeal to the pigs when they have us captured and are threatening us with death.While you are unlikely to be threatened with death by police in any Western country, however how do you know you wouldn't cave under such threats? Humans have a remarkable survival instinct. That isn't a moral principal, simply a statement of fact. Most people do not want to die.


No it's not. Both death and long-term imprisonment are cruel, whereas the former can be short and painless, the latter cannot. Furthermore, the latter is a burden on the community's resources and it serves as a potential tool for future enemies of the peoples' freedom.

Future enemies being anyone who defies the Committee For Public Safety for instance? This is my problem with so many anarchists, not the sophisticated ones, but the less politically developed ones who spew out rhetoric that sounds like a description of the Reign of Terror.


And if they're never able to be released and resume their lives, than the community must support them with their resources. Think about this within the context of a struggling communist society that already must spend a good deal of resources combating counter-revolution. It's one thing to say "Ideally...", it's another to say "this is how it must always be!" It offers indescriminate condemnation to people in situations more difficult than one's own, assumes a "magical" world of no scarcity, etc.
Okay, so let's take a trip to the real world shall we? Almost all Western Countries along with many others have abolished the death penalty, some hundreds of years ago when resources were only a fraction of what we have now. Whether you want to fantasise about the glorious fight against the counter revolutionaries or not, there are more than enough resources available to avoid the need for judicial murder.


Only in a bureaucracy.
I see, so not only are you advocating judicial murder, but judicial murder before there is any possibility of appeal?


Life ends. It's not the worst thing in the world. Maybe your materialist principles are preventing you from having a mature relationship with death.

You are displaying a quite horrifying disregard for human life here, not to mention hypocrisy, if death is not so bad, why are murderers such a problem?


And imprisoning them for life doesn't?
Not that I support imprisoning someone for life, but no it is not nearly so bad. It is hard, but it is not the acute bereavement caused by execution.


And life imprisonment in a penal institution, in my view, is inseperable from capitalist exploitation.
Mice try, but you will have to go back even further to find a society that the death penalty is tied into. I don't believe in locking someone away for life for normal crimes anyway. Potentially for genocide and such crimes, but not
for normal crimes. Plenty of countries have abolished both the death penalty and life imprisonment anyway.

[Agrippa]

I imagine the suicide rate for those serving life sentences is actually very high. (I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same as death row) And you're still not presenting statistical evidence regarding peoples' preference for life in jail over death row. It is doubtful such a statistic exists, but our argument shows that personal preferences vary. Therefore, don't make blanket moral condemnations that don't always apply.

You say "you are unlikely to be threatened with death by police in any Western country", I believe that is naive. However, the question as to whether or not I'd crack under pressure is irrelevant to the ethical argument I'm trying to make. You might as well base your argument on my signature or user icon.

Also, the resources available to "Western countries" (a.k.a. capitalist states) are not the same thing that resources that would be available to the communist struggle. (If only they were the same thing!) It is unlikely that, for example, a factory uprising involving a few thousand people would have the means to create and maintain its own prison. Why not just kick out or kill the people causing the problems? This seems totally different to me than the capitalist-administered death penalty.

As for your sensationalistic claims that I want to conduct a "Reign of Terror" that will crush "anyone who defies the Committee For Public Safety", that's precisely what I fear will happen when the aforementioned "less politically developed" anarchists start building their own prisons. (a.k.a. "rehabilitation centers") This would by definition require centralism, bureaucracy, etc. and it would, in my mind, very easily lead to the imprisonment of other people besides war criminals.

And let's say the counter-revolutionaries do crush this anarchist society and these beneficent jail-keepers are overtaken. Now every rapist, psycho killer, and counter-insurrectionary that has been locked away has broken free and they want to take revenge on the society that imprisoned them. Even putting them all together in one place just seems like it would inhibit rather than encourage the goal of rehabilitation and would instead only encourage the collaboration of characters that this more egalitarian society has deemed unfit to live amongst the general public.

Am I really displaying "a quite horrifying disregard for human life" by suggesting that those that take human life for selfish reasons may have forfeited the entitlement to expect others to respect their life? If someone killed one of my loved ones out of malice, especially malicious forethought, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The individual will be arrested by individual citizens. In theory, individuals may act purposefully as law enforcement, since they have a passion for justice perhaps, and regularly pursue these individuals.

Organization will consist of individual contracts and agreements. If these conflict, they'll be decided by a mutually agreed upon procedure. If the procedures cannot be agreed upon, or they disagree on which procedures to adopt, the issue will ultimately resolve itself through power.

Off topic:

Society still works the same way. The problem now is that our procedural systems necessarily restrict our ability to execute our power, and they continue to exist despite the absence of consent, implied or explicit. You can't consent to an unfair agreement and sacrifice your ability to resent the agreement. Any individual given the specific choice between homelessness and society will necessarily choose society given the absence of a cooperative effort.

Given that cooperative efforts are unenforceable due to legal limitations, it's particularly develop to spark revolutionary action. If someone agrees to be killed if they fail to protest with you, theoretically, you can't enforce such an agreement without considerable self-detriment. Modern society places us as mice in a maze. The bulk of the cheese is blocked off by clear glass. If we obey the rules of the maze, we get small rewards. If we disobey, we get punished. As we evolve our revolutionary efforts, the masters attempt new restrictions. They convince us, even, to appreciate those restrictions.

When the master sees what he can get away with, can he indefinitely worsen our conditions? No, not indefinitely. In theory, he can create a sustainable circumstance for himself. While power is addictive, it won't necessarily overcome him. We might get empathetic masters. After our master is perfectly satisfied, will we get some rewards? It seems that way.

We can become sufficiently provoked to action against oppression. The question is, though, how capable are mice against a mouse who controls all the power? While instrumental power is useful only if utilized, technology makes people less necessary. Then, power is simply fetishism for its own sake.

Society seems to be improving. Is this fear of our power or generous masters, and do we have the power to overcome our oppressors? In a global economy, it becomes more difficult. I think economic independence of nations should be advocated by leftists. Even though a global revolution is the moral ideal, communication and enforcement barriers are an issue in an age with government control of media increasing. Not to mention the widespread acceptance of government.

Someone destroy my pessimism!

[Demogorgon]

I imagine the suicide rate for those serving life sentences is actually very high. (I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same as death row) And you're still not presenting statistical evidence regarding peoples' preference for life in jail over death row. It is doubtful such a statistic exists, but our argument shows that personal preferences vary. Therefore, don't make blanket moral condemnations that don't always apply.
I am not the one claiming they should all be put to death. Certainly prison suicide rates are high, but it still accounts for a minority of prisoners, even in the most horrific prison systems. By contrast very few on Death Row want to die. And of those that do, it is suicide that is their chosen method, not execution, and it is suicide brought on either by the terror of the prospect of execution, the general barbarity of death row or pre-existing mental illness that apparently wasn't bad enough for them to be spared the death penalty.


You say "you are unlikely to be threatened with death by police in any Western country", I believe that is naive. However, the question as to whether or not I'd crack under pressure is irrelevant to the ethical argument I'm trying to make. You might as well base your argument on my signature or user icon.It is not irrelevant, I am trying to make you think about your own instinct for survival before you make ridiculous claims about people wanting to be executed.


Also, the resources available to "Western countries" (a.k.a. capitalist states) are not the same thing that resources that would be available to the communist struggle. (If only they were the same thing!) It is unlikely that, for example, a factory uprising involving a few thousand people would have the means to create and maintain its own prison. Why not just kick out or kill the people causing the problems? This seems totally different to me than the capitalist-administered death penalty.If you would be so good as to return to the real world what do you think resources are? They don't fade into thin air. Of course a Communist society will have the same resources, they still exist. Even if some are destroyed, that still leaves most, including prisons that have already been built. A few thousand factory workers is not the basis for a Communist society, talking about that as if it is a likely scenario doesn't give you much in the way of credibility, does it?


As for your sensationalistic claims that I want to conduct a "Reign of Terror" that will crush "anyone who defies the Committee For Public Safety", that's precisely what I fear will happen when the aforementioned "less politically developed" anarchists start building their own prisons. (a.k.a. "rehabilitation centers") This would by definition require centralism, bureaucracy, etc. and it would, in my mind, very easily lead to the imprisonment of other people besides war criminals. Whereas killing people would create a nice, free society, would it? Sometimes people have to be put in prison. Not for stealing, not for using drugs, not for a whole multitude of petty crimes that land to many people in jail these days, but violent people do have to spend time in prison. We are not barbarians though, we don't kill them. We try and rehabilitate them and failing that at least allow them to live and try and achieve something within their confinement.


And let's say the counter-revolutionaries do crush this anarchist society and these beneficent jail-keepers are overtaken. Now every rapist, psycho killer, and counter-insurrectionary that has been locked away has broken free and they want to take revenge on the society that imprisoned them. Even putting them all together in one place just seems like it would inhibit rather than encourage the goal of rehabilitation and would instead only encourage the collaboration of characters that this more egalitarian society has deemed unfit to live amongst the general public.And you are off to this fantasy world again. Prisoners allying themselves with counter revolutionaries who will form armies to crush a communist society, who will have limited resources, previous resources having vanished on all that. Let's talk about the development of actually existing society, shall we?


Am I really displaying "a quite horrifying disregard for human life" by suggesting that those that take human life for selfish reasons may have forfeited the entitlement to expect others to respect their life? If someone killed one of my loved ones out of malice, especially malicious forethought, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them.
Executing someone is killing someone with malicious forethought. What are we going to do after that? Execute the executioner? The sentencing Judge?

Are we going to go down the barbaric path of insisting on blood revenge? Human life is worth more than that.

[Agrippa]

violent people do have to spend time in prison. We are not barbarians though, we don't kill them.

That's such an arbitrary ethical standard. Just don't force it on me.

[Demogorgon]

That's such an arbitrary ethical standard. Just don't force it on me.
With all due respect, you cannot complain that anyone is forcing an ethical standard on you by telling you that it is wrong to kill another human being. It is you who would be forcing a pretty sick moral outlook on others by practicing judicial murder.

[apathy maybe]

With respect, it is not for you to decide whether somebody's life means less than their freedom or not. Most faced with imprisonment will still choose it over death. We value our lives above all else, except perhaps the lives of our loved ones.

Long term imprisonment isn't a particularly appealing concept but it is better than the alternatives. Imprisoning someone demonstrates that society will not tolerate certain behaviour and keeps dangerous people out of the way while still allowing them to develop themselves within their confinement, to achieve things within prison and one day to be released and resume their lives.

On the other hand when you execute someone, you subject them to the psychological torture of waiting to be killed, the physical torture of being killed and at that point take everything they have away completely and irreversibly, giving them no prospect of any kind of freedom ever again. Moreover you don't just kill them, you destroy the lives of those around them. You bereave their friends and families, dealing them a blow from which they may well never recover. And that is to people who haven't even committed a crime.

No, the death penalty is a despicable thing, inseparable from cold blooded murder.
I don't believe in execution as such. What I do think, is that prisons are terrible places, and to deprive someone of their freedom for a long time is a terrible thing. I also think that punishment is not the answer, and that we should not be seeking revenge against "criminals".

Not only are prisons terrible things, they create a "class"-society in miniature. The prisoners, and the guards. You are setting up a hierarchy, where the guards have power over the prisoners.

Experiments (such as the Stanford Prison Experiment) and real life data has shown us that prison guards are not nice people, and aren't the attitude that being a guard produces, isn't the sort that you want in society. Especially not an anarchist society.

So, no prisons thank you very much...

So, what to do?

If someone kills someone, and then comes into the local town-hall the next day, very remorseful, and promises not to do it again, I believe that the community has only two real options.
One, is to permit the person to continue to live in that community, providing rehabilitation, psychological treatment and care, etc.
The other is to say that the person is no longer welcome (exile).

No punishment, no prisons.

However, if a person is a proven psychopath, or demonstrates that they can not live peacefully in a community, regardless of the care or treatment given to them, the community loses the first option. And, in my opinion, gains a third one. The second option, exile (derived from the communities right to free association) is still valid.

The third option is derived from the communities right to self-defence. That is, if someone is attacking you (or the community in which you live), you have the right to defend yourself, up to, and including killing the attacker if required.

Here are some quotes from the Wikipedia article on self defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory))

It acts to provide complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. Likewise, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack.

Justification for self-defense usually cannot be applied to actions committed after a criminal act has taken place. A rape victim who, after the rape is committed and the rapist leaves, subsequently finds and shoots her rapist, is not entitled to claim self-defense. Most other victims of assaultive offenses are similarly not entitled to this defense if they act in revenge.

[Demogorgon]

You prove yourself wrong on self defence with your second quote. It cannot be valid after the event. It can't be valid before the event either come to that. You can't kill someone for what they may or may not do later, no more than you can invade a country because they may or may not have "weapons of mass destruction".

At any rate you are telling us that prisons are bad, yet offer us something even worse as an alternative. Nobody is saying that prisons are a good thing, they need to be greatly improved so as to be entirely geared towards rehabilitation, but they are better than the alternatives on offer. It is simple reality that there are bad people out there that need to be confined, but that does not justify cruelty and murder and certainly does not justify devastating their families with their death.

[apathy maybe]

...
If someone has a machine gun and walks into {school|market place|airport} and starts shooting to kill as many people as they can. What is the appropriate response?

If you try and get near the person, they will shoot you.

How are you going to put them in prison then?

Oh wait...

And no, I didn't "prove myself wrong", I provide a quote saying that "revenge" is not legitimate. However, I've also "proven" (in other words, I simply stated, but hey, we're miss-using "prove" here) in other places that persistent attacks by a person legitimises "pre-emptive" self-defence in certain circumstances.

[Demogorgon]

If someone has a machine gun and walks into {school|market place|airport} and starts shooting to kill as many people as they can. What is the appropriate response?

If you try and get near the person, they will shoot you.

How are you going to put them in prison then?

Oh wait...

And no, I didn't "prove myself wrong", I provide a quote saying that "revenge" is not legitimate. However, I've also "proven" (in other words, I simply stated, but hey, we're miss-using "prove" here) in other places that persistent attacks by a person legitimises "pre-emptive" self-defence in certain circumstances.
If someone is shooting you, you take what action is necessary to stop them, but that is not the same as killing them after the fact. Self defence involves using necessary but not excessive force to defend yourself as well, so even if we accept the fact that it can be pre-emptive, we can only reasonably use the minimum amount of force required. Confining someone to prison is perfectly adequate for protecting society, so the far more drastic and brutal act of killing them is utterly unjustified.

[apathy maybe]

...
I think you are confusing my (present) position with a position that others hold (and that I used to hold, admittedly). I don't believe in executions as such.

Except that confining someone to prison is not justified (from an anarchist perspective at least, I accept you aren't an anarchist). Because, while you can protect society from that one murderer, you introduce a far worse threat, prisons, guards, judiciary, judges etc. (Not to mention, by confining all these "illegals" in one place, you create a place where they can learn from each other, and re-enforce undesirable behaviour (e.g. killing people).)

How do you decide who has to be locked up? How long for? When do you let them out? And many other questions have to be answered.

[Demogorgon]

Well as you know, I am no anarchist, so my answer is when someone is accused of a crime you let them face their accusers in open court and be judged by a Jury and if found guilty sent to jail for a certain period of time, which can be reduced on grounds of good behaviour. In other words an evolution of what we have now. I am not a great believer in prison. Jailing non-violent offenders is outrageous and will only make them worse criminals anyway. They are best made to undo their damage and do work in the Community as a means to achieve this.

But for violent offenders, you do have to keep them out of the way while you attempt to rehabilitate them, and potentially if they won't change their ways, keep them under supervision after you let them out. I am not saying this is a good thing, but it is better than any alternative. Exile is meaningless. Telling someone to live somewhere else isn't going to achieve anything, it will simply pass on a problem to someone else and as I say killing is unacceptable for ethical reasons as well as the harm it does to others.

Which brings me to a problem that would exist even in an anarchical society. You say that a prison system would do harm to the society. Okay, but what kind of harm would a system where people can be voted to death do? Especially given that there would be no pre-set code of law-such a thing obviously being inconsistent with anarchy-meaning that these decisions would by definition by arbitrary. It is hardly a stretch to see such a situation turn into one where false accusations against enemies start flying around in the hope that enough votes can be gathered to bump them off.