The Anarchist Response to Crime

[Aflameoffreedom]

Anarchists believe that most crime is a product of social deprivations, inequalities, and abuses inherent to Authoritarian, Capitalistic, and Chauvinistic socioeconomic systems. By doing away with these systems we can begin to do away with the many problems they create. But, there will still be people who want to exploit and victimize others for their own personal satisfaction as well as some reactionaries who want to establish a system of domination, exploitation, and social control. To deal with these criminal personalities a society must be able to segregate them from the general population so they cannot harm anyone.
An Anarchist society recognizes only three types of crime: (1) Chauvinistic Crimes, (2) Economic Crimes, and (3) Violent Crimes. Chauvinistic Crimes are those actions that deprive us of freedom or the fruits of the community’s labor because of social prejudices, religious dogma, or personal malice or animosity. Economic crimes are those that deprive us of the fruits of the community’s labor by fraud, or vandalism. Violent crimes are those that deprive us of our life, freedom, or the fruits of labor through force, physical abuse, or coercion..
In an Anarchist society everyone has total freedom. Crime is therefore a choice. No Individual or group dictates to any person how they should live but, we must recognize that an injury to one is an injury to all. There can be no tolerance of one of our community members being hurt by another person without the rest of us being threatened. Social peace is an essential element of an Anarchist society because the only function of violence and predatory behavior is to institute slavery, injustice, and exploitation. Those who do not respect the social peace should not be a part of the community. Without this assurance, no society of free individuals can exist. By creating a free society we reject the idea that we need to subject our behavior to any authority; that we need someone else to take care of us and to tell us what to do. We act out of respect and understanding of all other Individual’s freedom along with the recognition of the necessity of cooperation for the survival of our species. This understanding must be instilled in the youngest members of the community, enforced equally by all members of the community, and applied equally to all members of the community regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or lifestyle.
In an Anarchist society there is no punishment for crime, only social remedies. The only social remedy for an economic crime is 100% restitution. This means that a person’s possessions which can be bartered are forfeit and they may be asked to do labor if this is not enough to correct for what they have damaged or stolen. It is not necessary for a person to be incarcerated to provide restitution or remedial labor. Incarceration of nonviolent criminals only creates violent criminals. Their alternative, if they chose, is banishment from the community until such time as they chose to provide full restitution. Anarchists believe in free association which means that you can associate with whomever you chose but, cannot be forced into an association against your will. Free association means that the community has the right to expel undesirable individuals who threaten the community or refuse to meet their personal responsibility to make amends for their criminal actions. In a modern society where the person cannot be released into other communities without putting them at risk, banishment must mean incarceration for a non-negotiable period of time dependent on the severity of their crime if full restitution is beyond their ability to pay through voluntary work. Again, this is unlikely since Anarchist societies do not produce large concentrations of wealth like stocks and bonds that are worth more than a person could possibly earn by honest labor.
I, as an Anarchist do not believe in a death penalty for any crime. First, death is not a corrective measure. When a person is killed, it in no way changes the act of the violent criminal nor makes the people anymore safe than merely segregating the violent criminal. Therefore, the death penalty is merely a political act. Its sole function is to enable the government to legally murder someone as an example to a group of people it wishes to coerce for reasons beyond the interest of public safety. Second, death is not a deterrent. It is impossible to use the threat of violence to coerce a determined violent criminal into not committing an act of violence because violence is either spontaneous or premeditated. People who go to the trouble to plan crimes of violence do not believe they will be caught. Some people may feel that segregation of violent criminals is somehow inhumane but, only the most inhumane individuals will require segregation. This is especially true of the criminally insane who pose an even greater threat to the social peace than premeditated killers. Any prison system which remains must have aspecial facility for the criminally insane. All criminally insane violent criminals will have to be kept in isolation. Anarchists believe that a society with social justice and free mental health care will greatly reduce the number of mentally ill people, including those who are criminally insane. It is the ultimate goal of an Anarchist society to do away with prisons altogether. We can begin by releasing all those unnecessarily incarcerated under the current system and closing those prisons where they were held. Afterwards, as society is transformed and prison populations dwindle we can systematically close and dismantle all the remaining prisons as the need to banish violent criminals is minimized.
…
-Aflameoffreedom (I edited this for my personal view, my individual response to crime assuming other Anarchists agree).
Originally this is,
Scott of the Insurgency Culture Collective
The Anarchist Response to Crime
*Not enough posts to be able to share links yet

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I am not an anarchist, but I do agree with some of the stuff in here. I defiantly agree with your idea that non-violent prisoners that go to prison (such as drug users, people committing economic crimes, etc.) come put violent. Psychologists have called this phenomenon the "prisonization" effect. When someone goes to prison they are surrounded by hopelessness and fear, which are not good environments for rehabilitation. Combine this with the constant rape, abuse, etc. that happens in prison and it is no wonder people come out of prison violent and angry.

However, I do not agree with the idea of "banishing unwanteds" from the community. These "unwanteds" could be mentally unstable people who committed a crime but couldn't comprehend what they did was a crime. Also, all this does is put the problem on some other community. People committing violent acts like pre-meditated murder should be separated from society. This separation would obviously mean incarceration.

I would think a society attempting genuine socialism would follow the "customary law" that the anarchist Peter Kropotkin had in mind. This would mean that laws like don't murder, don't steal, don't exploit people etc. that are needed for a stable society would be the law of the land while other unneeded laws that only benefit and protect the ruling class (which are most of the laws) would be gone. While I am not in any sense a Kropotkinist and I am not an anarchist, I do see the usefulness of his theory on law.

edit: Also, I am also against the death penalty.

[AnarchicSaint]

I agree with everything 100%. Having been sent to prison at the age of of 18, I came out a smarter criminal. Not saying I utilized what I learned, but I did become quite the pickpocket in prison. Prison is simply a school for criminals to train and practice their 'disciplines'.

That's why Anarchists must place rehabilitation, understanding, equality, etc., above punishment. I actually was in an argument on Facebook today with a guy who wanted to justify the death penalty for murderers, rapists, and child molesters.... but he called himself an Anarchist. No, I don't condone any of the above. If anything, I'd be the one to combat it in a free society. But you can't call yourself an Anarchist and sit there and promote the fuckin' death penalty! Can't stand idiots like that.

I think your alternatives to imprisonment are right on and I'd love to read any future articles involving alternatives to prison... since that seems to be the main thing people confront me with. "Laws protect us."... :rolleyes:

[Aflameoffreedom]

I agree with everything 100%. Having been sent to prison at the age of of 18, I came out a smarter criminal. Not saying I utilized what I learned, but I did become quite the pickpocket in prison. Prison is simply a school for criminals to train and practice their 'disciplines'.

That's why Anarchists must place rehabilitation, understanding, equality, etc., above punishment. I actually was in an argument on Facebook today with a guy who wanted to justify the death penalty for murderers, rapists, and child molesters.... but he called himself an Anarchist. No, I don't condone any of the above. If anything, I'd be the one to combat it in a free society. But you can't call yourself an Anarchist and sit there and promote the fuckin' death penalty! Can't stand idiots like that.

I think your alternatives to imprisonment are right on and I'd love to read any future articles involving alternatives to prison... since that seems to be the main thing people confront me with. "Laws protect us."... :rolleyes:

"Prisons are universities of crime, maintained by the state."- Peter Kropotkin

I am a radical feminist. Rape and molestation is one of the worst things humans are capable of and sickens me, scars people for the rest of their lives in most cases. I am pro castration of rapists and have written poems about this topic if anyone would like to read. I see that 1) Prisons are just microcosms of society, fire to them all! 2) Sex offenders are almost ALWAYS repeat offenders 3) Waste of resources keeping them in prison while they bask in the thoughts of their past crime therefore castrate them, (circumcise women rapists) and they can't torture another person again! Sort of a punishment but more a remedy to prevent future crimes!
Every 2 minutes in the US someone is sexually assaulted, every 2 minutes.
We must support women in the struggle and let them know they have the power to fight back against the people oppressing them and against the sexist and racist state with violence if necessary.

[AnarchicSaint]

Hmm, this reminds me to tell my girl to look into Anarcho-feminism. Once again, I have to say I agree. You're outlook is a good one and a necessary one to operate in a truly free and equal society.

[MarxSchmarx]

The only coherent libertarian response to rare criminals is compelled psychiatric treatment.

It is import to have a critique not only of the existing infrastructure of crime and punishment, but the very notion of retribution and, to some extent, restitution, as a legitimate basis for depriving individuals of their liberty.

Restitution for property crimes is a no brainer - if spmeone steals your television they should be compelled to return it to you.

But defining restitution for cases like murder is really inadequate. Monetary compensation won't be of use in a society with no real scarcity. The death of the perpetrator (or depriving them of liberty or making them your servant or whatever) won't bring the victim back. So the only basis, it seems to me, to justify this sort of sanction is retribution. I am, of course, working on the assumption that threats of punishment are beyond being deterrances.

And here it becomes tricky. Is a commitment to individual liberty subservient to the neet for retribution? Punishing the perpetrator to satisfy the victim's desire for retribution doesn't restore the victim's liberty as in the case of restoring a television set. By banishing or forcing the perpetrator to labor on behalf of the community or victim, this means that we value retribution, at least in this perpetrator's case, above their freedom.

But if freedom is our greatest value, then the first priority needs to be neutralizing the perpetrator's ability to take away the freedom of others any further.

The next order of business should be maximizing the freedom of the perpetrator within that constraint. Ultimately, I think there is no real case for a "genuinely evil" person - even the likes of Dick Cheney played hide and seek as 5 year olds although they might have tortured little animals on the side. It is highly likely that only people with serious mental illnesses would commit such antisocial crimes when they have every other alternative. In this very real sense they are just as unfree as someone who is bed ridden with a terrible illness, and curing them in psychiatric hospitals where they can't threaten society should be a high priority. This may mean some people will have to spend their lives in psychiatric wards.

The goal of a response to criminals in a free society must be to proceed with liberty as the highest value as in other spheres of life. If education, work, kinship etc... is structured around trully liberating people how we deal with crime should be no different.

[NoPasaran1936]

We're looking at crime and deviance in sociology. Crime increases when governments make the police enforce law harsher, whilst this doesn't answer for crimes such as: murder; rape; kidnap etc. It does give insight into the look of non-violent 'criminals' becoming violent, due to the fact that prison will restrict their economic capability, so leaving prison will give them less opportunities and therefore, as Merton in 1940 said, use "illegitimate opportunity structures" to pursue society's set goals (aka get rich). Anarchists are absolutely right that crime is a consequence of social and economic deprivation, and prison often increases such deprivation.

However, many crimes such as murder, and rape aren't always down to deprivation and psychiatric treatment may not even work. Rape is often about power, control and humiliation of the women by which the rapist enforces himself into her personal property, but my question is, if psychiatric treatment doesn't work, then what? A genuine question, comrades, as anarchism and serious personal violent crime is something that I'm very interested in.

[MarxSchmarx]

However, many crimes such as murder, and rape aren't always down to deprivation and psychiatric treatment may not even work. Rape is often about power, control and humiliation of the women by which the rapist enforces himself into her personal property, but my question is, if psychiatric treatment doesn't work, then what? A genuine question, comrades, as anarchism and serious personal violent crime is something that I'm very interested in.

Well, look at those factors that you identify as "causing rape" - power, control, and the systematic conversion of individuals into mere property. Isn't this precisely the values people in capitalism are conditioned to seek? Why would these be at all desirable if people are raised from infancy to disregard them just as they currently almost uniformly disregard the demands of the Oracle at Delphi?

I suspect that as good as the science of psychiatry will be in the future, there will be a handful of false positives - cases considered "cured" when in fact they are not.

The problem is no system is absolutely fool proof. Arguably today's system, where a shocking MAJORITY of murders (much less rapes) are ever solved, is far more terrifying than the prospect of a few false positives of genuinely psychotic individuals being let out prematurely.

This is the sleight of hand capitalists and other authoritarians play - ok, what happens if a deranged person does xyz in your anarchist utopia - the rational answer has to be the present system does a piss poor job prevent violent crime (or, perhaps, an admirable job given the mountain of misery is creates), and that, not some idealized secret tulip garden, has to be the baseline through which we analyze questions of societal responses to violent crime.

[revhiphop]

Not an anarchist but I used to be. Still can agree with some of the stuff here, especially the part about non-violent crimes. thanks for the post.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm not very comfortable with the idea of abolishing the death penalty. Ending the lives of those who ended the lives of innocent people seems like a pretty natural thing to do. As I said in another thread, if a family member or a friend of mine were murdered, let's say, in a mugging, or out of rage or jealousy or whatever, I would wish death to the murderer with every fibre of my soul and I wouldn't consider myself to have done something wrong if I took it into my hands to end this person's life.

I guess most, if not all, would disagree with me around here. But then again, I come from one of the roughest societies in the world. Culture differences and all.

[MarxSchmarx]

Not to derail the thread too much into the death penalty question


if a family member or a friend of mine were murdered, let's say, in a mugging, or out of rage or jealousy or whatever, I would wish death to the murderer with every fibre of my soul and I wouldn't consider myself to have done something wrong if I took it into my hands to end this person's life.


So what exactly does killing this person accomplish, except making you feel better?

[Ostrinski]

The problem is that the question of "what if rehabilitation doesn't work?" is never responded to with a direct answer, but with the reassuring that "oh well there won't be conditions for such and such crime so don't worry." We know that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree with the spirit, if not some of the specifics, of the points in the OP.

I think the main things are figuring out how to deal with social problems by going after the root, not the individual examples. First the kind of law enforcement we have in present society is only suited for a society that wants to deal with problems by scapegoating individuals while ignoring or more often covering up the systemic issues leading to "crime". Workers would have a totally different set of priorities and would need to approach things in a totally different way.

Just the act of revolution itself would do away with much of what is considered crime in capitalism. The less measurable sort of spontaneous feelings of solidarity that I think would necessarily arise along with a working class revolutionary wave would also make anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-all-oppression a high priority of people. Even in the Egyptian movement we saw prominent examples and anecdotes of anti-sexism and solidarity with the Coptics. So it would be possible for people at the time of a massive revolution to make concrete changes towards these goals. These changes may or may not include some kind of over-arching principles depending on how people go about it. At any rate a victorious revolution would also likely lead to a minimization or total social marginalization of the old attitudes associated with oppression under capitalism.


I'm not very comfortable with the idea of abolishing the death penalty.

I'm not very comfortable with the idea of not abolishing the death penalty. It's not a principle, and I can see times under extreme circumstances where it could be needed. I don't mean like a really awful serial killer, I mean like if the revolution was still on-going and if there was actual combat between worker's militias and national or counter-revolutionary armies, then there may be cause to at least not advertise the idea that we wouldn't kill a counter-revolutionary general or whatnot.

But assuming a victorious and robust post-insurgency revolutionary phase where there isn't a serious threat from counter-revolutionaries and people are just dealing with the odd crazy killer or lone-wolf anti-revolution nut-job terrorist, then I don't think there's any need for the death penalty.

Banishment seems like a good possibility for some people if they consciously do not want to participate in the new working class society. I think that better medical and de-stigmatized psychological treatment and a less competitive and stressful life would probably reduce the instances of truly crazed killers (I mean it's called "going postal" not "going spa") but for the odd murderer or true sociopath who really can't be in public then they will probably have to be under some kind of managed supervision. It's not in the interest of workers to "punish" people like this because if it's a crime of passion then you can't really stop it by warning people beforehand. If it's some kind of mental illness, again, what benefit is there to punish them for workers? Capitalists do it to justify police and prisons that aren't really mainly for the reason of a handful truly unbalanced people.

They only way I can, coldly, see a justification for capitol punishment is expediency. If someone really can't be reformed, if workers don't want to have some kind of institution for supervising people who are a danger to themselves or others, and it would be cruel to dump them on unused land to fend for themselves, then execution is an alternative. I don't think it's a very good alternative and I also think this is more in-line with societies facing scarcity. Personally I think workers would set up some kind of monitored housing for people with severe and dangerous mental disorders or for people who are a danger. I don't think it would be like prison because without scarcity, there would be no reason to deprive them of anything but their ability to harm themselves or others. So they could potentially enjoy nice basic accommodations, internet access, television and the ability to get the food they want and other things too. Each person would have to be individually evaluated for what kind of restrictions or allowances they have.

[Aflameoffreedom]

Radical simply means “grasping things at the root.” - Angela Davis

[PhantomRei]

"The problem is that the question of "what if rehabilitation doesn't work?" is never responded to with a direct answer, but with the reassuring that "oh well there won't be conditions for such and such crime so don't worry." We know that"

Well, in the case of individuals who refuse any form of rehabilitation and repeatedly commit acts of extreme violence, it's only fair that we kill them to defend ourselves. But surely such cases would be extremely, extremely rare, much more-so than today.

[l'Enfermé]

Not to derail the thread too much into the death penalty question



So what exactly does killing this person accomplish, except making you feel better?
You think it's a bad thing but I don't, consolation for the loved one of the victim is a pretty important thing for me. I would walk with a heavy pain in my heart everyday if I knew that, say, my brother's murderer still breathes.

[MarxSchmarx]

You think it's a bad thing but I don't, consolation for the loved one of the victim is a pretty important thing for me. I would walk with a heavy pain in my heart everyday if I knew that, say, my brother's murderer still breathes.

It's not so much that I "think it's a bad thing" as it is that I don't erstand why alternatives are unacceptable at that point.

I mean, if society had an obligation to ameliorate your pain, would it be justified by strapping you to a gurney and administiring morphine to make you feel somewhat better after your brother's murder?

Why should your consolation be satisfied IN THIS PARTICULAR FASHION BY KILLING THE PERP? There are plenty of otherways you can feel more content about what happened - and clearly it isn't up to you. For example, if you said "i'd feel better by massacring a village of innocents" why that wouldn't cut it. and nor would administering sedatives to you to chill the fuck out. So it is obviously quite a bit more than just seeking some degree of personal contentment. that in itself is problematic, but I think if you are going so far as to take someones life, at the very least you should be willing to articulate why you really want to see them dead, and perhaps moreover, why society should honor your desires above the very life of another, however monstrous.

[zonmoy]

"The problem is that the question of "what if rehabilitation doesn't work?" is never responded to with a direct answer, but with the reassuring that "oh well there won't be conditions for such and such crime so don't worry." We know that"

Well, in the case of individuals who refuse any form of rehabilitation and repeatedly commit acts of extreme violence, it's only fair that we kill them to defend ourselves. But surely such cases would be extremely, extremely rare, much more-so than today.

wouldnt nearly all such cases be cases of the person being mentally ill in some way, Sociopathic behavior being a form of mental illness.

[freakazoid]

It all sounds good to me except the no death penalty part. Sometimes certain people just need to be permanently removed from society.