How far should the initiative of the individual go?

[BIXX]

This is in response to this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-officer-rapes-t187521/index.html?t=187521) thread, where we started the discussion of the death penalty, and I out forward that whilst I was opposed to the death penalty, I am not opposed to individuals killing oppressive people (rapists, cops, bourgeoisie, etc...). I support this idea partially because I do thoroughly believe that most people would choose life, come a life or death decision.

I started this thread as to avoid cluttering up the other one. So, thoughts, questions?

[Rosa Partizan]

This is in response to this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-officer-rapes-t187521/index.html?t=187521) thread, where we started the discussion of the death penalty, and I out forward that whilst I was opposed to the death penalty, I am not opposed to individuals killing oppressive people (rapists, cops, bourgeoisie, etc...). I support this idea partially because I do thoroughly believe that most people would choose life, come a life or death decision.

I started this thread as to avoid cluttering up the other one. So, thoughts, questions?

I kind of don't get this one. There will always be someone wanting a rapist, cop etc to be dead, so in how far is this relevant? Would there be kind of some voting about whom to kill and whom not? Maybe I'm just stupid, but I really don't understand.

[Sinister Intents]

I generally oppose the death penalty, or people voting on the lives of others. But when it comes to people who commit extreme acts such as someone who murders people en masse or commits genocide. I believe the perpetrator should be killed outright and not be given the choice of life, for they've committed a heinous act. As per rapists, it depends, is the person mentally ill and can they be rehabilitated or assisted in some way, so as they don't commit an atrocity again? Or are they a serial rapist and/or someone who will commit this crime again? If they're going to rape people for the their own pleasure, then I think they should be punished, possibly killed off.

I think this is a really broad topic EchoShock, so I don't think anyone can really answer it correctly, but they can be answering it wrong if they're making light of rape and murder and slavery, and they should be punished by the BA of this forum.

[Creative Destruction]

if you're attacking these people in self-defense, then i don't think there's any moral issue here. but it's sort of ridiculous to advocate individual murder of anyone else just because of their social status (as cops, bourgeoisie, etc.) the only thing you're doing by that is getting yourself into a situation where you'll become useless to the larger struggle.

[BIXX]

I kind of don't get this one. There will always be someone wanting a rapist, cop etc to be dead, so in how far is this relevant? Would there be kind of some voting about whom to kill and whom not? Maybe I'm just stupid, but I really don't understand.


You aren't stupid!

Of course, the action of killing would only crop up in extreme circumstances. For example, if someone raped one of my family members, I don't think it is up to the community if they live or die- I want the person dead.

If people did choose life though (as I believe most people would), that person could be rehabilitated (if that is possible). You get what I'm saying?

I have a tendency to explain things badly, so if you need clarification let me know.

[Rosa Partizan]

So it depends on the individual's will whether the rapist, cop etc lives or not, right? If even one single person wants them dead, they may kill them, right?

[BIXX]

I generally oppose the death penalty, or people voting on the lives of others. But when it comes to people who commit extreme acts such as someone who murders people en masse or commits genocide. I believe the perpetrator should be killed outright and not be given the choice of life, for they've committed a heinous act. As per rapists, it depends, is the person mentally ill and can they be rehabilitated or assisted in some way, so as they don't commit an atrocity again? Or are they a serial rapist and/or someone who will commit this crime again? If they're going to rape people for the their own pleasure, then I think they should be punished, possibly killed off.

Ok, but what is the role of the individual in your mind? (Not the individual to be killed, but rather, the possible killer)


I think this is a really broad topic EchoShock, so I don't think anyone can really answer it correctly, but they can be answering it wrong if they're making light of rape and murder and slavery, and they should be punished by the BA of this forum.


Yeah, this is a broad topic, so let me narrow it down a little: should the individual be subordinate to the community in regards to the punishment of oppressors? (Meaning if an individual killed (for example) a rapist, would they be punished by the community?)



if you're attacking these people in self-defense, then i don't think there's any moral issue here. but it's sort of ridiculous to advocate individual murder of anyone else just because of their social status (as cops, bourgeoisie, etc.) the only thing you're doing by that is getting yourself into a situation where you'll become useless to the larger struggle.


I should've cleared up that this hypothetical was taking place in a post-revolution setting, so becoming useless to the larger struggle isn't really an issue.



So it depends on the individual's will whether the rapist, cop etc lives or not, right? If even one single person wants them dead, they may kill them, right?


It can be. Of course I would say that the would be avenger should talk to the victim first, but we can't accept that as a reality.

Also, we do have to discuss whether the would be avenger would actually choose to kill this person.

[tallguy]

I'm against the death penalty in principle. The simple reason being that in order for it to be consistently applied, it would have to be applied by a state. Any state which has a statutory right to kill it's citizens for given criminal acts is a state with too much power.

I don't trust any state with that kind of power.

All of the above is to be distinguished from a civil war or fighting an external aggressor. I'm talking about the rights of the state to sanction the death of a citizen during peacetime.

[Blake's Baby]

You aren't stupid!

Of course, the action of killing would only crop up in extreme circumstances. For example, if someone raped one of my family members, I don't think it is up to the community if they live or die- I want the person dead...

What if someone wants dead people who want other peole dead?

Just say, a you believe a member of my family raped a member of your family, and you decided to kill the member of my family.

But I don't believe that the member of my family rape a member of my family. As far as I'm concerned you're a random nutcase who killed a member of my family. So, I kill you.

Sensible much?

[BIXX]

What if someone wants dead people who want other peole dead?

Just say, a you believe a member of my family raped a member of your family, and you decided to kill the member of my family.

But I don't believe that the member of my family rape a member of my family. As far as I'm concerned you're a random nutcase who killed a member of my family. So, I kill you.

Sensible much?


Well, again, an important part of this discussion in my opinion is if the initial killing even takes place. I tend to believe the average person will decide not to kill, so the situation you describe would be unlikely in total. And, if said situation did occur, that would be unfortunate, but tragedies do happen.

I mean, is it sensible to let someone get away with rape if the community doesn't think it happened? No matter what you solution will be, there will be tragedy.

[Creative Destruction]

I should've cleared up that this hypothetical was taking place in a post-revolution setting, so becoming useless to the larger struggle isn't really an issue.

then i was thrown by your use of "cops" and the "bourgeoisie" as examples since these presumably wouldn't exist in a post-revolutionary setting. so, it's moot on that front.

if we're talking about violent crimes like murder and rape, then, no, i'm still not in favor of vigilantism. it's pure retribution and that's not something that should be encouraged.

[Creative Destruction]

Well, again, an important part of this discussion in my opinion is if the initial killing even takes place. I tend to believe the average person will decide not to kill, so the situation you describe would be unlikely in total. And, if said situation did occur, that would be unfortunate, but tragedies do happen.

I mean, is it sensible to let someone get away with rape if the community doesn't think it happened? No matter what you solution will be, there will be tragedy.

it's a dicey situation, but not one that calls for falling back on a system that encourages shit like old time blood feuds and rivalries.

[Sinister Intents]

Ok, but what is the role of the individual in your mind? (Not the individual to be killed, but rather, the possible killer)

Why does my mind go blank at this question... The roll of the individual/possible killer is the roll of the person who perpetrated some crime or atrocity, or maybe you need to explain what you meann... I sometimes misunderstand things, also this isn't something I get to discuss very often, so thanks for starting this thread.


Yeah, this is a broad topic, so let me narrow it down a little: should the individual be subordinate to the community in regards to the punishment of oppressors? (Meaning if an individual killed (for example) a rapist, would they be punished by the community?)

I would say it would be up to the community to decide what to do with a serial killer, racial killer, et cetera, and the community would decide what to do with a serial rapist or someone who just raped someone. They could punish the person if what they've done is terrible enough to warrant punishment, but nothing like lynchings, stonings, crucifixions (those should be saved for the bourgeois tyrants and their lackeys) Punishment I'd assume wouldn't be used if the murder was say an accident, I'd assume the community would give the person an option. They could choose to go to a rehabilitation type place. However, when socialism is achieved I don't think rapes, murders, et cetera will happen anymore, and if they do, to a significantly less frequency. Once patriarchy, capitalism, and bullshit hierarchy are eliminated those so called crimes will fade away because their roots will have been torn out of the ground and destroyed.

[Crabbensmasher]

I don't really think I know my views on this one yet. Can I just say something though?

When thinking about this question, people always see it as a moral dilemma from the criminal's perspective. It's always a debate behind the philosophy of it. Is it right for somebody to die from a crime they committed? How far can justice go? Would someone prefer a life sentence over execution?

Instead, I think it's valuable to look at the implications from the perpetrators (our) perspective. And not so much morally, but rather, practically. We have to ask the group, whoever perpetrates this execution, whether its responsible to kill somebody. Rather than asking if the criminal should die, ask if doing so is practical, or if it leads to further consequences. If we start by executing one person, it validates the practice; it kind of opens the door for doing it more. The second we allow it, it sends a message that under some circumstances, it's okay to execute people. It kind of opens the floodgates, so to speak. Are we prepared to deal with the possible consequences of that? Conversely, if we put our foot down from the beginning and say strictly no executing, then the issue will stop there. It has no chance of running away on us.

It sounds like some libertarian bullshit I know, but whereas they would ask "Does the group have the authority to kill somebody?", we ask "Is it practical/responsible to kill somebody?"

I'd like to say some people should be executed for very heinous crimes. It's only logical. At the end though, we have to ask, are we just opening up a jar of shit by allowing this?

And when I say 'we' I mean anything, really. Whether it be a sort of vanguard party, (depending on your view) a collective, a group of any sort, larger society maybe.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

What's wrong with having some set rules that protect people from violence based on a majority vote by the community? I think most communities in a communist society would agree that rape, child molestation, severe physical violence, murder, torture, etc should be severely punished. I would say the death penalty is the only option. Why should we keep these scumbags alive using OUR resources to keep murderers and rapists alive? Just think about that for s second and try to justify why we should feed and house them if they have violated a member of the community. That is my view.

[Sinister Intents]

What's wrong with having some set rules that protect people from violence based on a majority vote by the community? I think most communities in a communist society would agree that rape, child molestation, severe physical violence, murder, torture, etc should be severely punished. I would say the death penalty is the only option. Why should we keep these scumbags alive using OUR resources to keep murderers and rapists alive? Just think about that for s second and try to justify why we should feed and house them if they have violated a member of the community. That is my view.

Of course the worker's council, trade union, commune, et cetera would have given rules and customs that are decided upon democratically. When full communism is achieved these things will become extremely rare because the root of the problem, i.e. patriarchy and capitalism, will be uprooted and destroyed. So rapes, murders, theft will be practically non exsistent because what causes them will be destroyed and eliminated. Severe punishment isn't always necessary, it should only be used in the most extreme cases. The commune or whichever will not decide on killing off everyone for committing minor things. Rape and murder aren't minor and should be dealt with immediately and democratically by the community. Perhaps the person can be rehabilitated or helped, it'd be really fucked up just to kill someone over accidentally killing someone (assuming it was an accident) If the person raped someone, they may have mental health issues, so it'd be stupid to indiscriminantely kill them when they could be helped. Also we should freely share with anyone in the commune, so it's pointless to say lets kill them all because that'd be counter intuitive.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Of course the worker's council, trade union, commune, et cetera would have given rules and customs that are decided upon democratically. When full communism is achieved these things will become extremely rare because the root of the problem, i.e. patriarchy and capitalism, will be uprooted and destroyed. So rapes, murders, theft will be practically non exsistent because what causes them will be destroyed and eliminated. Severe punishment isn't always necessary, it should only be used in the most extreme cases. The commune or whichever will not decide on killing off everyone for committing minor things. Rape and murder aren't minor and should be dealt with immediately and democratically by the community. Perhaps the person can be rehabilitated or helped, it'd be really fucked up just to kill someone over accidentally killing someone (assuming it was an accident) If the person raped someone, they may have mental health issues, so it'd be stupid to indiscriminantely kill them when they could be helped. Also we should freely share with anyone in the commune, so it's pointless to say lets kill them all because that'd be counter intuitive.

I agree mostly. I do think though that there should be zero tolerance with rape and murder and that they should be killed. Unless the murder was in self defense of course. But I do recognize that a lot of people disagree with me. I just don't agree with trying to rehabilitate someone who rapes or murders.

As for it disappearing, you're right in that violent crimes like that will seriously decrease once class struggle is eliminated. However, there are still psychopaths which class struggle cannot suppress. So they must be suppressed using other measures, in my opinion. But of course if people disagree, I'll simply get outvoted.