How would a Socialist Society handle legal disputes?

[Deity]

I apologize if there is an obvious answer that I haven't thought about, but how in a Socialist society would legal disputes such as custody over children be handled? Who would determine where a child gets to live when both parents are fit to take care of him/her and want to?

Also with things such as property disputes. Who determines which person is in the "right" and wins said property?

[Blake's Baby]

I have been thinking of posting a similar question posed specifically at Anarchists, along the lines of 'who has the authority to decide or arbitrate, when a dispute arises?' - not because I'm trying to start an argument but because I think it's about the simplest way of cutting through layers and layers of non-essentail stuff.

In answer to your question, my view is that the responsibility to bring up any child is a responsibility for the community, so in the end the community will decide in 'custody' cases should this be necessary.

As for property... there is no property so I'm not sure what you might be referring to... but should there be such a dispute, the community woul decide on that too. So, yeah, in 'communism' the 'commune' would make those decisions...

[Deity]

I have been thinking of posting a similar question posed specifically at Anarchists, along the lines of 'who has the authority to decide or arbitrate, when a dispute arises?' - not because I'm trying to start an argument but because I think it's about the simplest way of cutting through layers and layers of non-essentail stuff.

In answer to your question, my view is that the responsibility to bring up any child is a responsibility for the community, so in the end the community will decide in 'custody' cases should this be necessary.

As for property... there is no property so I'm not sure what you might be referring to... but should there be such a dispute, the community woul decide on that too. So, yeah, in 'communism' the 'commune' would make those decisions...

What if the parents live in communities a good distance from eachother? Whose community makes that decision?

And there is personal property. Say a ring, watch, or even a home.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

Also, would all current law be discarded? How about common law? Could a new system of common law be established within the framework of the socialist society?

My view is that current civil legislation would need to be scrapped as it will inevitably be biased towards the protection of a capitalist system. This could then be replaced with a system based on the current system of common law, and court decisions could be made by some sort of body elected from the local community, and answerable to the local community if judgements are made that the community do not agree with.

I imagine that within a socialist society most crime would disappear, but as Deity says, there will still be disputes that require arbitration, and there will still be the odd nutter about.

[Comrade #138672]

In addition to the property issue, opponents of Communism sometimes seem to suggest that the problem with Communism is about who gets the newest stuff (assuming minor and temporary scarcity in certain luxury items).

Sure, you can have food every day, free health-care, free education, security, lots of free-time, etc., but who will get the newest Mercedes?

[Tim Cornelis]

I imagine a council of third party jurors would mediate disputes. Law would be based on custom and freely chosen social contract.


Also, would all current law be discarded? How about common law? Could a new system of common law be established within the framework of the socialist society?

My view is that current civil legislation would need to be scrapped as it will inevitably be biased towards the protection of a capitalist system. This could then be replaced with a system based on the current system of common law, and court decisions could be made by some sort of body elected from the local community, and answerable to the local community if judgements are made that the community do not agree with.

I imagine that within a socialist society most crime would disappear, but as Deity says, there will still be disputes that require arbitration, and there will still be the odd nutter about.

Common law may be developed by jurisprudence in accordance with communist principles. However, courts should not be subject to democratic decision-making. Otherwise, what's the point of courts if popular assemblies could make all such legal decisions. We should be wary of tyranny of the majority.

[Comrade #138672]

What if the parents live in communities a good distance from eachother? Whose community makes that decision?Then the two communities would have to handle the dispute together?


And there is personal property. Say a ring, watch, or even a home.If they really can't handle a minor issue like that alone, then let the community decide.

[Nevsky]

The judicial system shouldn't be all that different from ours once a stable socialist society is established. It should neither be democratic nor conditioned too heavily by communist politics. A serious judicial branch needs to be independent from the political ideology of a state/society. It could finally live up to that purpose in developed socialist society as it would be purged from all the rotten, corrupt elements present in a capitalist state.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I would think there'd still be a court(-like)/justice system in communism. I don't see why there wouldn't be one.

[Red Nightmare]

I would think there'd still be a court(-like)/justice system in communism. I don't see why there wouldn't be one.

Interesting, I wonder whether there would be judges on this "socialist court system" if there even would be one. Also how would the judges be chosen? Or would there simply be juries of peers?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Interesting, I wonder whether there would be judges on this "socialist court system" if there even would be one. Also how would the judges be chosen? Or would there simply be juries of peers?

I would think they'd be apponted hopefully democratically I guess.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

Yes, tyranny of the majority could be an issue. Perhaps then, as others have suggested, a jury of peers, presided over by a judge. Similar to the current system, but with legislation purged to remove the capitalist bias.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There has to be a formal legal framework; a social institution, if you will. The difference, I would think, in a post-capitalist society is that it would not follow some lengthly - and sometimes arbitrary - process, as it does in capitalism currently, something like below:

Election - 4/5 years of representative (but not direct) democracy - Laws made and voted upon with anything between central control (i.e. no consultation) and a middle ground (i.e. representatives vote, but also consult interest groups) - Election, and so on.

The above creates an ever-changing and self-perpetuating framework within which laws are made, changed, replaced and abolished, and upon this, law and order is upheld by those who wield state power.

In a socialist society, you would hope that, moving from representative democracy to a form of direct democracy, with features such as recallability and the ability for a slightly less rigid legal institutional framework might result in a more 'common sense' approach to legal issues, such as the opportunity for 'the community' (ill-defined, I know) to be able to deal with some issues on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps for smaller legal institutions, so that laws can be adaptable to regional or even local circumstances.

Just an idea, I don't know.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

There's a thread called Crime, punishment and the law without a state by MarxSchmarx with links to other Revleft threads about crime etc. I've not got enough posts to link to it, and the links from the thread don't appear to work anyway? So this post is pretty pointless really :grin:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

As for property... there is no property so I'm not sure what you might be referring to... but should there be such a dispute, the community woul decide on that too. So, yeah, in 'communism' the 'commune' would make those decisions...

There is personal property in communism. And while there is no financial inheritance, you can bet that most people out there would want to keep things which they hold as sentimental from others. This creates a context where property crimes could still occur. What of a wife who has a beautiful piece of jewelry given to her by her late husband? What if a thief wants to take it for himself because it would make a good mother's day gift (or if gender roles have broken down further, because it would look good on himself)? Do we just let him rob her? It seems that there are still cases where the community would want to protect people's personal, emotional space, even if it does not protect people's private economic wealth.

[Blake's Baby]

'wife'... 'husband'... 'thief...'

'overthrow of all existing social conditions...'?