Should there be police and jails under anarchy?

[fa2991]

The anti-authoritarian in me says "no," but I don't see what choice we have.

[Widerstand]

Police implies centralized force which is very anti-Anarchy. Same with jails. Not to mention that jail sentences rarely do any good to the one put in jail.

A lot of common "crimes", for example theft, shouldn't exist/be a problem in an anarchist society.Obviously though, there should be some way of dealing with aggressors (eg. psychopaths). I'm a firm believer in rehabilitation, but some in some cases, I guess, this needs to go along with locking up the individual. But I'm confident this would be rare enough for per case arrangements, decided on by the affected community, to be sufficient.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

The anti-authoritarian in me says "no," but I don't see what choice we have.
Anarchism would deal with the main causes of crime so I don't see a reason why they would need to remain. Rehabilitation instead of punishment would deal/help with those with mental issues. Punishing people won't help with any thing.

If you are interested you should read Emma Goldman's Essay Prisons: A Social Crime And Failure if you already haven't.

[Magón]

Why have police, when all of society is armed? Why have jails, when rehabilitation is either the first choice, or simple execution the second? (Possibly the first, if the crime is serious enough like multiple rapes, murders, etc. In that case, execution.) I mean, you can't obviously expect everyone to be rehabilitated, so they must inevitably be taken out of society for good.

Plus, it'd be up to the community to decide what happens.

[west bank mcdaniel]

what if a person thinks the community is wrong, how would they appeal to another community if the original community cut off contact with others?

[Psy]

Why have police, when all of society is armed? Why have jails, when rehabilitation is either the first choice, or simple execution the second? (Possibly the first, if the crime is serious enough like multiple rapes, murders, etc. In that case, execution.) I mean, you can't obviously expect everyone to be rehabilitated, so they must inevitably be taken out of society for good.

Plus, it'd be up to the community to decide what happens.
There would be some use to having security forces that can deal with security issues for example railway security using security cameras to guide security forces to suspects. The point of railways having security forces? Well other then for crimes like sex offenses there would be a force to quell minor fights (mostly by separating the parties involved by force and letting them cool off) and prevent vandalism of public property.

[leninfan]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-styled-communists-t141398/index.html?p=1858991#post1858991

[Raúl Duke]

Why have police, when all of society is armed? Why have jails, when rehabilitation is either the first choice, or simple execution the second? (Possibly the first, if the crime is serious enough like multiple rapes, murders, etc. In that case, execution.) I mean, you can't obviously expect everyone to be rehabilitated, so they must inevitably be taken out of society for good.

Plus, it'd be up to the community to decide what happens.

QFT

The community ultimately decides, but as anarchists we have certain principles and these principles are against jails and police (at least as defined in bourgeois society) and ideological anarchists will and should advocate towards their principles in the decision-making assemblies of an anarchist/socialist society.

[Magón]

There would be some use to having security forces that can deal with security issues for example railway security using security cameras to guide security forces to suspects. The point of railways having security forces? Well other then for crimes like sex offenses there would be a force to quell minor fights (mostly by separating the parties involved by force and letting them cool off) and prevent vandalism of public property.

I suppose a form of Security would be in place, but they would not be separate from the workers of the plants, factories, businesses, etc. For example, say this week Steven, Jeff, Phil, and Tim were security. They'd be security for this week, or maybe even next week too, but their job wouldn't be a standing security guard. The following week they'd be replaced with a new security team that consists of Juan, Julia, Rachel, and Paul. While Steven, Jeff, Phil, and Tim all return to their places in the work force. Of course, all eight of these people would be working at the same place, and you wouldn't be having some Steel Miller taking up guard at the local food store. There would be rotations of the guard, but they wouldn't be separate from the workers still doing the Factory work.


QFT

The community ultimately decides, but as anarchists we have certain principles and these principles are against jails and police (at least as defined in bourgeois society) and ideological anarchists will and should advocate towards their principles in the decision-making assemblies of an anarchist/socialist society.

Exactly, it all inevitably comes down to exactly what the community deems right to do.


what if a person thinks the community is wrong, how would they appeal to another community if the original community cut off contact with others?

All communes would be autonomous from one another, cooperating for goods and inevitably sustainability and defense. But besides that, anything to do with crime, the communes would be autonomous from one another, and have no say in if the Seattle Commune decides a man is guilty of stealing or murdering. Same would go for anything else like that. Communes would be autonomous communities, that would just work with each other over goods and mutual protection from outside forces. If someone found say the Seattle Commune unfair because it executed a guy on the grounds of murder, then they'd be free to have their say, but would ultimately have to either live with it, or move to another commune if they found it that distasteful.

[Tablo]

Most crimes would disappear. Some people may commit crimes, but prison is unneccesary and rehab will be optional. I mean optional kinda in the same way eating is optional. Pretty much the community can refuse to provide goods and services until the individual undergoes rehabilitation. Very effective, yet still anti-authoritarian. :thumbup1:

[Barry Lyndon]

Even in an anarchist society, I presume there would still be murderers, rapists, thieves, and child molesters. Just because most crime is due to poverty and class inequality doesn't mean it all is.

Some form of policing would have to exist. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

[hatzel]

Claiming that any crimes would disappear in anarchism is pretty naïve, actually. I mean, sure, some things, largely related to property, could presumably be decriminalised by the whole system, perhaps also financial crimes. I guess it depends on the exact nature of the society created...

However, I can't see crime being wiped out. The problem is, even if you abolish the centralised police force and prisons, you'd still need law enforcement. And this would presumably be enacted by vigilante law enforcers, or even militia-type groups. This wouldn't, strictly speaking, do anything about the existence of a police force or prison system, it would just change it to small groups of individuals, doing as they see fit. And I think that without this, with crimes going unpunished, the crime rate would soar. I've heard a few people say that the reason they don't commit crimes isn't because they consider the act fundamentally wrong, they just don't want to end up in prison for doing it. If it were possible to commit crimes without consequence, I think most of us would be criminals :unsure:

Still, I advocate autonomous law-making on a local level. I don't know how much this would fit in with anarchism, though, as the judges and law makers and so on might be given disproportionate, and, from the decentralised nature of the system, unchecked power. I suppose the only way to fix this would be by having a randomly-selected panel of judges from each case, where anybody can be called up. Like our jury service, but the jurors either deliberate the punishment by themselves, or there is a set system of punishment, with no variation for the situation. Rather than the current system where the situation, and behaviour of the accused, might lead to them getting a reduced sentence, whilst those with a history of such crimes might get a longer sentence than a first-time offender. I think all these variations are too numerous to be fully codified in the law book...

[AK]

The anti-authoritarian in me says "no," but I don't see what choice we have.
You call yourself an anti-authoritarian (which is fair enough, so do I), but police are figures of authority and always will be - but the real question that needs to be answered is whose authority is it that they represent? Under class-based societies, it has been the ruling class' - and a kind of police force (or equivalent, like soldiers and guards enforcing laws and apprehending criminals) was one of the first components of the state (which was a by-product of class struggle). Now, as we prepare to abolish class society, it is clear that our own laws and regulations must be enforced after the destruction of class-based society. We need people who are specialists in their field. If someone kills a person, we need whole forensics teams to work out who it was and how they did it. It's not one of those things were you can just "arm the populace" for and pray for the best. Make no mistake about it - a police force which enforces democratically-made laws is a vital part of workers' self-government.

My answer to the second part of your question is a straight 'no'. Prisons are almost completely ineffective in preventing crime. We should really be removing the causes of crime instead of just locking criminals up and hope they learn a lesson from it. Moreover, many criminals come out of prison as hardened men - and their experiences inside can lead them to, again, commit more crimes. The alternative solution is rehabilitation as the primary way of dealing with criminals. Like Barry has said, there would most likely still be murderers, rapists and child molesters in an anarchist society. These crimes are not just the result of poverty, social inequality or alienation (although I would argue that a lot of rape has to do with patriarchy - and some are hinting at the possibility that paedophilia is in some way connected to capitalism). These people have poor mental health. They need to be properly treated and rehabilitated, not just locked in a prison cell.

Also, I would like to direct everyone's attention to this discussion in the Anarchist user group: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=3593

[Magón]

Even in an anarchist society, I presume there would still be murderers, rapists, thieves, and child molesters. Just because most crime is due to poverty and class inequality doesn't mean it all is.

Some form of policing would have to exist. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

Nobody has said, that all crime would be abolished or cease to exist in an Anarchist Society, just that all the majority that is caused by Capitalism, Inequality, Money, etc. would cease to exist. You can't have a Anarchist Society, with Capitalism, Inequality, and Money running our lives. It's just completely wrong. And the only police force would the communes populous. Those living in the commune, would be their own police.


Claiming that any crimes would disappear in anarchism is pretty naïve, actually. I mean, sure, some things, largely related to property, could presumably be decriminalised by the whole system, perhaps also financial crimes. I guess it depends on the exact nature of the society created...

So hypothetically speaking, after the Revolution, because we destroyed Capitalism, Inequality, Money, any anything else that brings unbalance into people's lives, we'd still have the same sort of crimes we have today, caused by Western World politics? Absolutely not. Wrong, wrong, wrong. How can you rob a bank, when there is none, how can you call someone a lower being because of the color of their skin, when the majority of the people are against you on that. How can you capitalize on something, without the help of the workers who deserve just as much share in the production as you do, since without them you'd be left with nothing to make? Rape, Murder, Robbery, would still exist sure, that's never been denied, but the majority of crimes that exist because of what I've already said would cease to exist anymore, in a Anarchist Society.


However, I can't see crime being wiped out. The problem is, even if you abolish the centralised police force and prisons, you'd still need law enforcement. And this would presumably be enacted by vigilante law enforcers, or even militia-type groups. This wouldn't, strictly speaking, do anything about the existence of a police force or prison system, it would just change it to small groups of individuals, doing as they see fit. And I think that without this, with crimes going unpunished, the crime rate would soar. I've heard a few people say that the reason they don't commit crimes isn't because they consider the act fundamentally wrong, they just don't want to end up in prison for doing it. If it were possible to commit crimes without consequence, I think most of us would be criminals :unsure:

Like I've said already, the communes populous would be it's own police force. How can you seriously get away with something, if you know everyone (or a vast majority of people outside) are armed themselves. Policing in todays world is to uphold the rich and step on the little guy. Any police force is like that, and in an Anarchist Society that cannot be. Anarchists are for mutual equality for everyone, and if everyone understands that doing wrong isn't going to get them anywhere fast, they're less inclined to do such a thing as rob a store, murder someone, etc. Crime Rates would drop dramatically, seeing how the populous wouldn't just be some sheep to hide in while the heat dies down, the populous would be the ultimate fear of any criminal in an Anarchist Society.

I don't know why you think in Anarchism, crimes committed would go without consequence. If you bothered to read the other posts, you'd have read that it's either rehabilitation or execution, depending on the seriousness of the crime.


Still, I advocate autonomous law-making on a local level. I don't know how much this would fit in with anarchism, though, as the judges and law makers and so on might be given disproportionate, and, from the decentralised nature of the system, unchecked power. I suppose the only way to fix this would be by having a randomly-selected panel of judges from each case, where anybody can be called up. Like our jury service, but the jurors either deliberate the punishment by themselves, or there is a set system of punishment, with no variation for the situation. Rather than the current system where the situation, and behaviour of the accused, might lead to them getting a reduced sentence, whilst those with a history of such crimes might get a longer sentence than a first-time offender. I think all these variations are too numerous to be fully codified in the law book...

You can't have sentences, where there are no jails. Jails go against all Anarchist theory, on this matter. Judges and juries would probably not exist at all, as it'd be the community as a whole, that chose the person's ultimate fate.

[ContrarianLemming]

If crime is a problem then there will be police, if crime is not a problem anymore then no police.

pretty simple guys :p