A question about Anarchism

[Donnie]

Now as i see it Anarchists are against prisons? Correct? But what i want to undertsand is if someone was to break a universal moral law e.g. murder or rape? What would happen to that person?
I mean there would be bound to be murder in anarchist society. I mean not everybody is mentally stable if you get me?

[ZACKist]

Good question... hmm.

[Roses in the Hospital]

With the sociological change Anarchist, or indeed even Socialism, would bring about there would be very few crimes of any sort, though obviously there'd be exceptions. I don't think there's anything fundementally wrong with prisons, though they should be only used when the indvidual represents a real threat to society. Otherwise, I think some form of community service would be the most likely punishment, prefereably for the benifit of the victim, or in some other way which 'makes up' for the crime. The emphasis should always be on rehabilitation, rather than revenge for the victim...

[ZACKist]

Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 19 2005, 08:56 PM
Otherwise, I think some form of community service would be the most likely punishment, prefereably for the benifit of the victim, or in some other way which 'makes up' for the crime.
Yeah, that makes sense. Something like a "labor camp" type thing?

[Donnie]

Oh yeh i totally agree in an Anarchist society there would really be no crimes except for the odd few but that could be to do with the person themselves not society. For example a rapist?

I suppose a rapist would be re-habilitated to see what is really wrong with him, but essentially if likes doing it just for fun and that there is a serious probability that he would do it again then I suppose he would be locked up.

[LSD]

Those who indefensibly commit acts which the community has communaly decided should be forbidden (e.g., rape, murder, assault etc...) would indeed be punished / rehabilitated / treated depending on the severity / nature of their crime.

I don't think that prison is an effective way of doing any of those things however.

In very serious cases, in which treatment / rehabilitation were impossible, I think exile, or perhaps even execution (although I'm ambivalent on this one), would be appropriate, although I expect that as science and medicine improves we will be able to treat / rehabilitate more and more.

[Clarksist]

This has bothered me as well, because the elimination of the state elminates so many forms of crime rehabilitation.

[Palmares]

I agree fundamentally with Lysergic Acid Diethylamide.

The key to this matter is rehabilitation. In such an anarchistic society, the very mentality would be much different, and such, both the acts and reactions would be different.

It is then difficult to ascertain exactly what would then be the circumstances, but I would think it would be a more equitible graduated system of treating the perpertrator according to the "crime" as it were.


Originally posted by Clarksist
the elimination of the state elminates so many forms of crime rehabilitation.

I think your usage of the word rehabilitation is inaccurate, as the current system we live under is ruled by law, not justice.

So quite clearly the state's structures for dealing with crime are quite inadequete, and since the structures in an anarchistic society would be different, they would then act in different ways, and may well treat and rehabilitate "criminals" much better.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Yeah, that makes sense. Something like a "labor camp" type thing?

I'm not sure I like the conotations of 'labour camps.' They do have a tradition of going a bit dodgy...

[Commie Rat]

hate to say it but the death penalty for extreme crimes

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:34 PM
Now as i see it Anarchists are against prisons? Correct? But what i want to undertsand is if someone was to break a universal moral law e.g. murder or rape? What would happen to that person?
I mean there would be bound to be murder in anarchist society. I mean not everybody is mentally stable if you get me?
Prisons are restrictive, oppressive and in the present system, exploitative also. Prisoners are forced to work in prisons and are often subjected to harsh and arbitary cruelty and neglect.


But what i want to undertsand is if someone was to break a universal moral law e.g. murder or rape? What would happen to that person?

First of all, the term "universal moral law" for me is pretty disturbing. Nothing is universal and morality is as equally as oppressive as prison.

I think you have to look at what murder and rape is? Rape is usually an act by someone who lacks personal power themselves and feels disenfranchised from society. It could also be a medical condition, a chemical imbalance of some sorts. The same for murder. People who murder in ways like Harold Shipman are obviously psychologically disturbed, and the reasons for that should be studied in depth.

It maybe that the creation of an anarchist society, which would eventually wipe out economic inequalities and bring society into the hands of those who live in it, giving them opportunities they never imagined possible, will do away with social conditioning. People hopefully won't feel disenfranchised.

I have to get off this computer now, so that's all your getting.

[Donnie]

What about Ian Huntly? I mean i wouldn't want that guy in society if he murdered those two children?
I mean im for the realase of political prisoners and bank robbers. The reason why is because political prisoners are fighting for something and bank robbers only robbed because of the inequalites in wealth.

But then im a bit unsure on rapists and murders.
I mean when im working at the garden centre (where i work) i'd feel a little uncomfortable working along side a "child killer".

[SpeCtrE]

Why do you guys have to be so scared of killing someone.

If someone does something and the posibility of reforming the offender is minimal, I would go ahead and Have him SHOT.

you know humans are imperfect, and the only way of stopping crime is making them scared of the punishment. Ofcourse, I am talking about an Ideal human society, not the kind of society that will be found only in Utopian societies.

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:27 PM
Why do you guys have to be so scared of killing someone.
Because taking someone's life is the ultimate usurption of freedom and it is something that should *never* be taken lightly.

You would subvert the fundemental aspects of an anarchist society if you just start killing people...
Reminds me somewhat of the whole Salem Witch Trials...

[SpeCtrE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 03:38 PM



Because taking someone's life is the ultimate usurption of freedom and it is something that should *never* be taken lightly.


True, But my dear Prince Kroptykin ( However it is spelt,), you did not seem to notice that I am favoring death sentence when the potential of radically altering the behavior of the offender is 0. I am against lobotomy BTW


Reminds me somewhat of the whole Salem Witch Trials...

I should remind you more of the Spanish Inquisitions ;)


BTW, Nice avatar.

[NovelGentry]

Because taking someone's life is the ultimate usurption of freedom and it is something that should *never* be taken lightly.

Agreed! Abolish capitalism at any costs.

[Dre_Guevara]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 20 2005, 10:23 AM
hate to say it but the death penalty for extreme crimes
I agree with you, although I don't hate to say this. :che:

Death penalty and imprisonment should not be abolished. I would rather have a cold-blooded killer EXECUTED than rehabilitated. No mean to sound harsh, but this is my opinion, which can be universally accepted. If a 10-year old girl is raped and killed and the murderer just goes to rehab or some form of institution to structure them, what happens to the family of that poor girl? They have to live through the rest of their life knowing that the brute who viciously killed their daughter is going to rehabiliation and trying to find structure in his life. That's not justice. It's hardly even punishment for this animal. Criminals who rape and murder because it's their "need" should be wiped off the face of this Earth. Why spend money or especially time to rehabilitate them? As for imprisonment, prisons keep the animals from the civilians. But of course, not all prisoners are animals but a lot need very strict discipline because they lack structure and sense of morality. Prisons can improve their conduct and some (not all) will be able to step foot into society again.

[SpeCtrE]

Originally posted by Dre_Guevara+May 24 2005, 10:50 PM--> (Dre_Guevara @ May 24 2005, 10:50 PM)
Commie [email protected] 20 2005, 10:23 AM
hate to say it but the death penalty for extreme crimes
I agree with you, although I don't hate to say this. :che:

Death penalty and imprisonment should not be abolished. I would rather have a cold-blooded killer EXECUTED than rehabilitated. [/b]

EXECUTED than rehabilitated.

Nice words.

I would like to add something here. I think although the death penality seems very harsh, it would be rather better and economical to kill someone than make futile attempts to rehabilate him.

Look at Charles Manson, If I were the Judge I would have hanged him long time ago. He is the kind of a guy who never changes, and will never change.

www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/ new_site/biography

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Modern technology might have the answer. Put dangerous people under electronic survalliance (excuse my english) so they can be located at any time.

[Dre_Guevara]

Look at Charles Manson, If I were the Judge I would have hanged him long time ago. He is the kind of a guy who never changes, and will never change.

ha, what a coincidence, just last week I did some research on him just because i like to study criminology and all, and you should hear the shit he says..I've seen some footage on him talking about devils and satanic crap. He makes Hitler's Nazism look like hippies. But yes, I agree, bestiality upon humanity should be corrected by the punishment of "EXECUTION."

[LSD]

I would like to add something here. I think although the death penality seems very harsh, it would be rather better and economical to kill someone than make futile attempts to rehabilate him.

Why do you assume that those attempts would be futile?

As technology and medicine and psychology improve we will be able to treat more and more, not to mention that with the abolishion of capitalism we will be able to actually invest resources and labour into discovering new methods of treatment.


If someone does something and the posibility of reforming the offender is minimal, I would go ahead and Have him SHOT.

The problem is that the death penalty is an irreversable one. That is if the person accused did not actually commit the crime for which he has executed ...there's no way to bring him back.

If, on the other hand, he were exiled or, hopefully, treated, this would not be a problem. Indeed, if he were treated instead of executed, it would probably become clear fairly quickly that he did not actually commit the crime in question!


No mean to sound harsh, but this is my opinion, which can be universally accepted. If a 10-year old girl is raped and killed and the murderer just goes to rehab or some form of institution to structure them, what happens to the family of that poor girl? They have to live through the rest of their life knowing that the brute who viciously killed their daughter is going to rehabiliation and trying to find structure in his life.

Yes they do.

It may not be as emotionaly satisfying as "killing", but it's ultimately a much better idea.

Treatment helps both the criminal and society as a whole by providing valuable insight into the nature of the disorder in question and by retaining the criminal as a contributor to society.

The victim, or their family, must, yes, tolerate the continued existance of their rapist/assaulter/molester/abuser/tormentor, but they also know that he has been treated and know that by his treatment and by the knowledge gained out of it, others have been prevented from suffering similarly. They also know that society has been enriched by allowing the criminal to remain a contributing part of it.

We are asking them to supress their animalistic desires in favour of reason, compassion, and humanity.

That's how civilized society works.


That's not justice. It's hardly even punishment for this animal.

...who cares?

If it helps him, prevents him from committing future crimes, and provides insight into preemptively stopping other such crimes, who cares whether he's "punished" or not?

You're letting bullshit moralism get in the way or rational thinking. I know it gives us all a visceral pleasure to see our enemies, our transgressors, "punished", but it's the same sort visceral thrill we get out of driving down the autoroute at 200 km/h. It doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Indeed, as with speeding down the highway, in this case it's a particularly bad idea. All it does is give a temporary emotional satisfaction to a few while cementing fear and a sense of oppression with everyone else. It does nothing to prevent or diagnose others with similar problems and it removes one more member of society who would otherwise be able to contribute, perhaps in an essential way.


Why spend money or especially time to rehabilitate them?

Money?

What money?

There is no money!

...and we spend the time and resources because it is our obligation as a society.

[OleMarxco]

If we can't "reform" (or if we could, someone should still give them some sanctions besides that "sanction" -- sometimes people who do crimes don't need "treatment" -- they did it consciously as a normal person (Is criminal insane?) or even by accident, however unlikely that is) someone to comply with society's norms and not do 'bad', then how does that become "Oh well, just shoot 'em!" what happened to life sentences in prison, and society-duty sanctions? We have no use of a dead body, y'know :D

[Dre_Guevara]

Yes they do.

It may not be as emotionaly satisfying as "killing", but it's ultimately a much better idea.

Treatment helps both the criminal and society as a whole by providing valuable insight into the nature of the disorder in question and by retaining the criminal as a contributor to society.

The victim, or their family, must, yes, tolerate the continued existance of their rapist/assaulter/molester/abuser/tormentor, but they also know that he has been treated and know that by his treatment and by the knowledge gained out of it, others have been prevented from suffering similarly. They also know that society has been enriched by allowing the criminal to remain a contributing part of it.

We are asking them to supress their animalistic desires in favour of reason, compassion, and humanity.

That's how civilized society works.

This is all utopian talk here... I'm sure if someone were to brutally kill your loved one for no reason just for the fuck of it, you wouldn't be saying all this. Some nuts can't be fixed or examined because they are insane. Sure, do experiments on the animal and then toss him in front of a firing squad. But not all criminals are insane. There are many who kill people and are not clinically insane. What happens to them? Do we have to try to figure them out to?? They deserve the worse of punishments since they kill in a conscious state of mind.


...who cares?

If it helps him, prevents him from committing future crimes, and provides insight into preemptively stopping other such crimes, who cares whether he's "punished" or not?

You're letting bullshit moralism get in the way or rational thinking. I know it gives us all a visceral pleasure to see our enemies, our transgressors, "punished", but it's the same sort visceral thrill we get out of driving down the autoroute at 200 km/h. It doesn't mean it's a good idea.

How does it stop criminals from committing crimes if we "fix" one criminal? The fact that if the state does not apply punishment to criminals is IRRATIONAL. Punishment, discipline, and correction of our mistakes is what makes us better human beings. But for those who rape and kill because they enjoy do not deserve another chance because they've been taught all their life what is acceptable to society and what is not.

And it's not about pleasure (maybe on some occasions) but for the most part it is not because of the fact that it is beneficial to society -- one less evil we have to deal with.

All in all,
A society with no disciplinary action or punishment is like a zoo with no cages or zookeepers.

[LSD]

I'm sure if someone were to brutally kill your loved one for no reason just for the fuck of it, you wouldn't be saying all this.

Again, you're letting emotion be your guide rather than reason.


Some nuts can't be fixed or examined because they are insane.

Assertion.


How does it stop criminals from committing crimes if we "fix" one criminal?

We learn about the disorder that lead them to commit the crime in question and can diagnose others before they commit similar acts.


The fact that if the state does not apply punishment to criminals is IRRATIONAL. Punishment, discipline, and correction of our mistakes is what makes us better human beings.

Firstly, there is no state.

Secondly, there is no evidence that prison makes us "better human beings", quite the opposite. What makes us "better human beings" is treatment!


But for those who rape and kill because they enjoy do not deserve another chance because they've been taught all their life what is acceptable to society and what is not.

And clearly they have emotion / psychological problems which can be treated. Maybe not all today, but certainly as our scientific knowledge improves. Killing them does nothing for society, all it does is remove someone who otherwise could contribute. Treating them not only helps the "criminal", it also helps society as a whole.

Animalistic blood-lust notwithstanding.


All in all,
A society with no disciplinary action or punishment is like a zoo with no cages or zookeepers.

You mean no hierarchy?

Wow, sounds like communism!

[Dre_Guevara]

Again, you're letting emotion be your guide rather than reason.

Just answer me the question.


Assertion.

No, assertion on your part for thinking treatment will cure all insane criminals or at least the majority of them.


We learn about the disorder that lead them to commit the crime in question and can diagnose others before they commit similar acts.

Diagnose others?? So you're going to pinpoint every criminal in society and try to fix them?? :huh:



Firstly, there is no state.

Secondly, there is no evidence that prison makes us "better human beings", quite the opposite. What makes us "better human beings" is treatment!

Personally I don't believe in Anarchism. And actually punishment does make us better human beings, for the most part. If a child is not punished by his parents, he will continue to become a rebel. If a citizen is not punished by authority, he will continue to act against it.


And clearly they have emotion / psychological problems which can be treated. Maybe not all today, but certainly as our scientific knowledge improves. Killing them does nothing for society, all it does is remove someone who otherwise could contribute. Treating them not only helps the "criminal", it also helps society as a whole.

Sure, as scientific knowledge improves, we can study more about criminals, but I definitely think those who are sane and conscious and commit acts of brutality must be wiped out. All in all, I think that its rather utopian to think that we can "treat" these criminals and help them to become normal like the rest of society. It is in their nature to commit these heinous crimes.


You mean no hierarchy?

Wow, sounds like communism!

How could you not have authority in society???

[LSD]

Just answer me the question.

Which question?

Do you mean "I'm sure if someone were to brutally kill your loved one for no reason just for the fuck of it, you wouldn't be saying all this."? Because that's not really a question..

But my response is yes I would because I don't let my animalistic passions rule my rational mind, and neither should you.


Diagnose others?? So you're going to pinpoint every criminal in society and try to fix them??

We're going to try.


And actually punishment does make us better human beings, for the most part. If a child is not punished by his parents, he will continue to become a rebel. If a citizen is not punished by authority, he will continue to act against it.

Good!

We need more rebels and dissidents! What we don't need are mindless conformists. Communism isn't abour subjugation it's about liberation. We don't want to prevent crime by terrifing society, but by liberating them such that they have no reason to commit crimes.

For the insane, the sick, yes, we will treat them, because that's in the best interest of everyone.


Sure, as scientific knowledge improves, we can study more about criminals, but I definitely think those who are sane and conscious and commit acts of brutality must be wiped out.

Why?

If they can be treated and rehabilitated and can contribute to society, why "wipe them out"?

Out of spite!?


It is in their nature to commit these heinous crimes.

Just like it's in out "nature" to be greedy and materialistic?

Hmmm, that's the capitalist's cry, isn't it?

There is no "human nature", not for humanity not for an individual.


How could you not have authority in society???

um...you do realize that this is a communist forum, right?


Personally I don't believe in Anarchism.

Maybe not, but you believe in communism, right? Well, maybe you should look up the definition of what communism is.

One of the defining features is that it is stateless!

[Dre_Guevara]

But my response is yes I would because I don't let my animalistic passions rule my rational mind, and neither should you.

I highly doubt that. <_< But that&#39;s you..universally, it&#39;s not tolerated.


Good&#33;

We need more rebels and dissidents&#33;

When I said rebels, I mean people who violate rights. ( To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention. )


Why?

If they can be treated and rehabilitated and can contribute to society, why "wipe them out"?

More utopian talk will get you no where..


Just like it&#39;s in out "nature" to be greedy and materialistic?

Hmmm, that&#39;s the capitalist&#39;s cry, isn&#39;t it?

There is no "human nature", not for humanity not for an individual.

For the majority of humanity, it is human nature to be greedy, but the the more capitalism and all its characteristics diminish away, the more selfless people we become, I agree.


um...you do realize that this is a communist forum, right?

No, this is a leftist forum.


Maybe not, but you believe in communism, right? Well, maybe you should look up the definition of what communism is.

One of the defining features is that it is stateless&#33;

Actually, I&#39;m not a Communist because of the simple fact that I have a faith.

[LSD]

I highly doubt that. <_< But that&#39;s you..universally, it&#39;s not tolerated.

Oh?

Then why have nearly all industrialized nations on earth outlawed capital punnishment?


For the majority of humanity, it is human nature to be greedy, but the the more capitalism and all its characteristics diminish away, the more selfless people we become, I agree.

Then you are claiming that "human nature" is mutable. If so, why do you find it so hard to imagine that the "nature" of "criminals" is mutable as well?


No, this is a leftist forum.

It&#39;s a Revolutionary Leftist forum.

But I&#39;m curious, if you don&#39;t consider yourself a communist, what do you consider yourself? Socialist or somesuch?


Actually, I&#39;m not a Communist because of the simple fact that I have a faith.

Faith in ...what?

GOD?&#33;? :o

[SpeCtrE]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 08:41 AM



As technology and medicine and psychology improve we will be able to treat more and more, not to mention that with the abolishion of capitalism we will be able to actually invest resources and labour into discovering new methods of treatment.


If someone does something and the posibility of reforming the offender is minimal, I would go ahead and Have him SHOT.

The problem is that the death penalty is an irreversable one. That is if the person accused did not actually commit the crime for which he has executed ...there&#39;s no way to bring him back.

If, on the other hand, he were exiled or, hopefully, treated, this would not be a problem. Indeed, if he were treated instead of executed, it would probably become clear fairly quickly that he did not actually commit the crime in question&#33;


No mean to sound harsh, but this is my opinion, which can be universally accepted. If a 10-year old girl is raped and killed and the murderer just goes to rehab or some form of institution to structure them, what happens to the family of that poor girl? They have to live through the rest of their life knowing that the brute who viciously killed their daughter is going to rehabiliation and trying to find structure in his life.

Yes they do.

It may not be as emotionaly satisfying as "killing", but it&#39;s ultimately a much better idea.

Treatment helps both the criminal and society as a whole by providing valuable insight into the nature of the disorder in question and by retaining the criminal as a contributor to society.

The victim, or their family, must, yes, tolerate the continued existance of their rapist/assaulter/molester/abuser/tormentor, but they also know that he has been treated and know that by his treatment and by the knowledge gained out of it, others have been prevented from suffering similarly. They also know that society has been enriched by allowing the criminal to remain a contributing part of it.

We are asking them to supress their animalistic desires in favour of reason, compassion, and humanity.

That&#39;s how civilized society works.


That&#39;s not justice. It&#39;s hardly even punishment for this animal.

...who cares?

If it helps him, prevents him from committing future crimes, and provides insight into preemptively stopping other such crimes, who cares whether he&#39;s "punished" or not?

You&#39;re letting bullshit moralism get in the way or rational thinking. I know it gives us all a visceral pleasure to see our enemies, our transgressors, "punished", but it&#39;s the same sort visceral thrill we get out of driving down the autoroute at 200 km/h. It doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s a good idea.

Indeed, as with speeding down the highway, in this case it&#39;s a particularly bad idea. All it does is give a temporary emotional satisfaction to a few while cementing fear and a sense of oppression with everyone else. It does nothing to prevent or diagnose others with similar problems and it removes one more member of society who would otherwise be able to contribute, perhaps in an essential way.


Why spend money or especially time to rehabilitate them?

Money?

What money?

There is no money&#33;

...and we spend the time and resources because it is our obligation as a society.


Why do you assume that those attempts would be futile

Why do I assume that rehab attempts will be futile. Only this...Let me give you an example or two. Have you heard of a nice guy called Charles Manson, who was repeatedly sent to prison but kept offending and doing the worst of crimes everytime he came out?

And have you heard of John Penry, Xian Fu, and Vladmir Cristo....&#092;

All these people were from different places, but what they did was almost the same, they kept offending even after they came out.

[QUOTE]As technology and medicine and psychology improve we will be able to treat more and more, not to mention that with the abolishion of capitalism we will be able to actually invest resources and labour into discovering new methods of treatment.

Hmm.. Are you sure you haven&#39;t taken LSD, you are hallucinating, IF medicine, Psychology and the likes of it will ever change the characterstics of humans embbeded in our genes, I will be goddamned.

It goes without saying that your ideals seem utopic, and a little off. :blink:

[LSD]

All these people were from different places, but what they did was almost the same, they kept offending even after they came out.

Yes, because prison doesn&#39;t work.

As I said earlier, prison is not an effective method of punnishment, rehabilitation, or treatment. That&#39;s why we should replace it with actual treatment&#33;


It goes without saying that your ideals seem utopic, and a little off.

Welcome one and all to the Revolutional Left Forum where we discuss Revolutionary Leftist theories, Revolutionary Lefitst societies, and, in this thread, how criminal justice would work in that society.

We&#39;re talking about a hypothetical communist society here, of course I&#39;m being utopian. Communism is a utopian society, that doesn&#39;t mean that its unattainable&#33;

For your part, you still have not provided a reason why treatment is not a preferable option to incarceration or execution. Even Dre_Guevara came up with the weak excuse that it makes the victims "feel better".

What you got?


F medicine, Psychology and the likes of it will ever change the characterstics of humans embbeded in our genes, I will be goddamned.

What?&#33; :blink:

Whence do you get the idea that "criminal" acts are genetic?&#33;

...talk about "a little off"&#33; :lol:

[Dre_Guevara]

Oh?

Then why have nearly all industrialized nations on earth outlawed capital punnishment?

State and government officials abolish capital punishment, not the masses, buddy.


Then you are claiming that "human nature" is mutable. If so, why do you find it so hard to imagine that the "nature" of "criminals" is mutable as well?

Human nature of greed is not mutable if capitalism and all the evil characteristics that come along with is faded away. Again, I said that some criminals can be accepted back to society but a lot cannot.


It&#39;s a Revolutionary Leftist forum.

Smart ass, you&#39;re the one who said this is a COMMUNIST forum. Next time, get the first statement right, retard.


But I&#39;m curious, if you don&#39;t consider yourself a communist, what do you consider yourself? Socialist or somesuch?

Socialist not a serious Communist and I tend to lean a little more as authoritarian than libertarian.


Faith in ...what?

GOD?&#33;?

Stop being immature. I hate when people go nuts when someone believes or says something that doesn&#39;t harm them whatsoever and yet they say shit like "Holy shit, you believe in that???&#33;&#33;&#33;" "How could you say that?&#33;&#33;" Shut the fuck up already&#33; It&#39;s not going to kill you.


Yes, because prison doesn&#39;t work.

Yeah, and rehabilitation works right??? Pathetic. Prisons keep the animals from the citizens. Of course there are a lot in prison who can be accepted to society once they complete their time. Discipline is important in society, without it you have a fuckin zoo without cages or zookeepers like I said.


As I said earlier, prison is not an effective method of punnishment, rehabilitation, or treatment. That&#39;s why we should replace it with actual treatment&#33;

What actual treatment&#33;?&#33;


Welcome one and all to the Revolutional Left Forum where we discuss Revolutionary Leftist theories, Revolutionary Lefitst societies, and, in this thread, how criminal justice would work in that society.

No, you said it&#39;s a Communist Forum. Damn, you&#39;re such a little immature pre-school smart ass.


We&#39;re talking about a hypothetical communist society here, of course I&#39;m being utopian. Communism is a utopian society, that doesn&#39;t mean that its unattainable&#33;

Yes, you&#39;re right. After all this thread was pertaining to Anarchism..

But welcome to the real world. Revolutionaries (no matter what theologies they practice) must all be realistic.


Even Dre_Guevara came up with the weak excuse that it makes the victims "feel better".

When the fuck did I say it makes them feel better??? I said that they become better people&#33; Discipline is essential to the improvement of humanity. Without that, you got a bunch of wild boars. Treatment will not fucking work with people like Charles Manson.

[KptnKrill]

The rehabilitation vs imprisionment debate seems kinda moot for the conditions we have right now.

One could argue that rehabilitation hasn&#39;t been very successful so far. But there hasn&#39;t a huge push for it. Most developments seem to have been very gradual. And you quite frankly don&#39;t know the nature of crimes or of people under communism.
After all, there is no real blank slate that we can use for analysis of people under certain conditions. There are no untainted people. There is capitalism, failed socialism, and combinations of the two.
All one can do is guess.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:08 PM
Smart ass, retard, little immature pre-school smart ass....

You like to insult people much alot, don&#39;t cha? :lol:
</Hypocrisy>

[Dre_Guevara]

Originally posted by OleMarxo+May 28 2005, 09:05 PM--> (OleMarxo &#064; May 28 2005, 09:05 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 08:08 PM
Smart ass, retard, little immature pre-school smart ass....

You like to insult people much alot, don&#39;t cha? :lol:
</Hypocrisy> [/b]
No, I just got mad when he offended me because I hold a "faith". That&#39;s not right. When did I insult people for no reason? Name me another occasion where I insulted people.

[LSD]

State and government officials abolish capital punishment, not the masses, buddy.

Actually all oppinion polls show that the masses oppose capital punnishement as well.


What actual treatment&#33;?&#33;

Psychological and medical treatment for their disorder that lead them to commit the transgression in question.


Yeah, and rehabilitation works right??? Pathetic. Prisons keep the animals from the citizens.

"Animals"&#33;?

If anyone here is pathetic, it&#39;s you. :angry:


When the fuck did I say it makes them feel better???

" If a 10-year old girl is raped and killed and the murderer just goes to rehab or some form of institution to structure them, what happens to the family of that poor girl? They have to live through the rest of their life knowing that the brute who viciously killed their daughter is going to rehabiliation and trying to find structure in his life."


Treatment will not fucking work with people like Charles Manson.

Again, I said that some criminals can be accepted back to society but a lot cannot.

This is all assertion and assumption.

Clearly the last hundred years have shown that technology and medicine and, specifically, psychology, can make astounding leaps.

But let me ask you a question. If a way is developed (and, honestly, it probably will be given current rates of scientific discovery) to treat "criminals", would you still support imprisonment and execution?


Smart ass, you&#39;re the one who said this is a COMMUNIST forum. Next time, get the first statement right, retard.

Because, to be honest, it is.

The overwhelming majority of members are communist, or some variant thereof, and most of the views expressed onthis board are communist. Effectively this board is a de facto "COMMUNIST forum".

In fact, revolutionary left (which means not only leftism, but revolutionary leftistm) implies revolution. That is, this board advocates revolutionary change not merely reforms to the existing system. From a practical perspective that kind of revolutionary leftist change is indistinguishable from communism.


I hate when people go nuts when someone believes or says something that doesn&#39;t harm them whatsoever and yet they say shit like "Holy shit, you believe in that???&#33;&#33;&#33;" "How could you say that?&#33;&#33;"

I notice you didn&#39;t answer my question.

What do you have "faith" in?

Are we actually talking about religion here? Are you saying you believe in "Jesus" or "Mohammed" or somesuch, or is this more of a spiritual "faith", like a "creater spirit" type thing.

I&#39;m not being "offensive", I&#39;m just trying to understand where you&#39;re comming from.


When did I insult people for no reason? Name me another occasion where I insulted people.


Stop being immature.

Damn, you&#39;re such a little immature pre-school smart ass.

Shut the fuck up already&#33; It&#39;s not going to kill you.

Smart ass

retard.

Pathetic.

welcome to the real world

:lol:

[Dre_Guevara]

Actually all oppinion polls show that the masses oppose capital punnishement as well.

What opinion polls? Source/statistics, please?


Psychological and medical treatment for their disorder that lead them to commit the transgression in question

No matter what psychological and medical treatment you perform on somebody like insane cold-blooded killer, you will never find the source behind it. The mind is not physical matter.


"Animals"&#33;?

Yeah, I refer animals to killers and rapists.


If anyone here is pathetic, it&#39;s you.

No, you&#39;re the one who thinks that we should let the monster get help and contribute to society rather than punishing him/her. You even think that there will be some type of "cure" that will change these maniacs to productive citizens.


" If a 10-year old girl is raped and killed and the murderer just goes to rehab or some form of institution to structure them, what happens to the family of that poor girl? They have to live through the rest of their life knowing that the brute who viciously killed their daughter is going to rehabiliation and trying to find structure in his life."

Yeah? You think that family is going to "feel better" wholly if the monster is executed? No, of course not. It&#39;s just justice. They want justice. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, but it seems like you don&#39;t believe in that.


Clearly the last hundred years have shown that technology and medicine and, specifically, psychology, can make astounding leaps.

What&#39;s all assertion and assumption is thinking that hardcore criminals will contribute to society once they are treated with future discoveries of criminal pyschology, science, medicine, etc.. You&#39;re assuming and asserting that they will have a "cure" for insane people with no evidence or profound theories of today. You&#39;re not a criminal psychologist, a physcian, a doctor, a scientist,a neurologist, so don&#39;t say that medical treatment upon maniacs is improving and will eventually lead to the source of all its problems.


But let me ask you a question. If a way is developed (and, honestly, it probably will be given current rates of scientific discovery) to treat "criminals", would you still support imprisonment and execution?

IF there is a way to "fix" these monsters (which I doubt), I still think that some form of punishment should be established. That would be so dumb if you were to perform a bank robbery, get caught, and then go to rehabilitation so they can fix you and then you&#39;re back to society. People wouldn&#39;t be afraid to commit crimes because they know that they won&#39;t be punished, they&#39;ll just be "treated" and then thrown back into society. Punishment such as imprisonment should be established even if they find a "cure." As for execution, I would still believe in that because if some insane looney murdered and raped 300 women or even 3 women and they "treated" him and he was thrown back into society, you know how many families are going to try to kill this guy?? He should get what he deserves. Actually, you know what, on second thought, I would want them treat this murderer so when he does come back in society, I will have all the pleasure in the world to kill him myself. I wouldn&#39;t just kill him, I will TORTURE him&#33; :angry:


Because, to be honest, it is.

The overwhelming majority of members are communist, or some variant thereof, and most of the views expressed onthis board are communist. Effectively this board is a de facto "COMMUNIST forum".

If there were 100 Christians and 1000 Muslims at a meeting, would the meeting be called "The Islamic Conference"? That&#39;s why this forum is called RevolutionaryLeft.com, not Communist.com


In fact, revolutionary left (which means not only leftism, but revolutionary leftistm) implies revolution. That is, this board advocates revolutionary change not merely reforms to the existing system. From a practical perspective that kind of revolutionary leftist change is indistinguishable from communism.

Revolutionaries are not all communists or support it.


I notice you didn&#39;t answer my question.

What do you have "faith" in?

Are we actually talking about religion here? Are you saying you believe in "Jesus" or "Mohammed" or somesuch, or is this more of a spiritual "faith", like a "creater spirit" type thing.

I don&#39;t like to talk about my religion to ardent atheists such as yourself (I am assuming) but I&#39;ll just tell you that I am a Catholic (not seriously devoted to and I don&#39;t accept some principles taught in The Bible) but I do believe that there is a Supreme Being, some Creator that existed way before the Big Bang and exists now.


I&#39;m not being "offensive", I&#39;m just trying to understand where you&#39;re comming from.

Okay, well, from your last post when you went off like "Faith in ...what? GOD?&#33;?", I found it offensive because it looked like you were shocked and appalled by it and I assumed you found it disturbing for me to hold a "faith" or believe in God. But I am sorry for making those insulting remarks. I just thought you were trying to ridicule my beliefs.

[LSD]

No matter what psychological and medical treatment you perform on somebody like insane cold-blooded killer, you will never find the source behind it. The mind is not physical matter.

Of course it is, it&#39;s called the brain&#33;

If there&#39;s one thing we know it&#39;s that all that the "mind" is is contained within the brain and, accordingly, the "mind" can be changed.


No, you&#39;re the one who thinks that we should let the monster get help and contribute to society rather than punishing him/her. You even think that there will be some type of "cure" that will change these maniacs to productive citizens.

Yes I do, and so far you have not given a reason why this would not be a good idea.

Short of calling me "pathetic" and calling criminals "animals", you have not given a sinlge rational reason why treatment is not preferrable to "punnishment".


Yeah? You think that family is going to "feel better" wholly if the monster is executed? No, of course not. It&#39;s just justice. They want justice. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, but it seems like you don&#39;t believe in that.

Of course I don&#39;t. No civilized person does. You&#39;re talking about a "justice" system from fucking 2500 years ago&#33;&#33;

If we can prevent people from commiting future crimes and treat them for their obvious disorder who gives a fuck if it doesn&#39;t fit some archaic sense of "justice"?&#33;?&#33;

If you acknowledge that incarceration / execution won&#39;t make the family feel better then, again, why do it?

You talk about "justice" as if it were an objective concept. It isn&#39;t. Justice is what we make it and what we define it to be. Certainly history has shown that ideas of justice are constantly changing.

Accordingly, who&#39;s to say that treatment won&#39;t be considered "justice" within an Anarchist society?

If you want to prove that treatment is not a good idea, you need to provide objective reasons why not. Appealing to present moral values is ridiculous since we&#39;re talking about a post-revolutionary society that has cast off the shackles of contemporary culture.


What&#39;s all assertion and assumption is thinking that hardcore criminals will contribute to society once they are treated with future discoveries of criminal pyschology, science, medicine, etc.. You&#39;re assuming and asserting that they will have a "cure" for insane people with no evidence or profound theories of today. You&#39;re not a criminal psychologist, a physcian, a doctor, a scientist,a neurologist, so don&#39;t say that medical treatment upon maniacs is improving and will eventually lead to the source of all its problems.

...except it is constantly improving and we already do have ways to treat many criminals&#33;

The funding isn&#39;t there and there is too much of a "tough on criminals" attitude, but there have been successes, especially with those with emotional disorders.

What has been consistantly shown to not work is prison&#33; Locking people up only angers them and makes them resentful, it seperates them from society and alienates them from other people. It also herds them into a community where their only company is fellow criminals leading to a strengthening of criminal culture.

You really want to stop crime? Well prisons are not the way to do it&#33;


That would be so dumb if you were to perform a bank robbery, get caught, and then go to rehabilitation so they can fix you and then you&#39;re back to society.

No money, no banks, no bank robbers.


People wouldn&#39;t be afraid to commit crimes because they know that they won&#39;t be punished, they&#39;ll just be "treated" and then thrown back into society.

Why do you want to base a society on fear?

People aren&#39;t going to be "treated", they&#39;re going to be treated. In an Anarchicist society after the elimination of the present socio-economic condition, the only "criminals" will be those who arre actually in need of treatment. They will have their disorder rectified and then, and only then, will re-enter society.


Punishment such as imprisonment should be established even if they find a "cure.

So, in the end, the practicalities don&#39;t matter to you.

You honestly don&#39;t care if treatment is possible or not, you&#39;d still support a system that only barely works (when it works) rather than one that would not only stop crime but would actually help society at the same time.

You want to "lock people up" so that they can be tortured and tormented instead of actually having their very realy problem fixed.

...and why?

Why?&#33;?

"justice. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"

...right. <_<


Okay, well, from your last post when you went off like "Faith in ...what? GOD?&#33;?", I found it offensive because it looked like you were shocked and appalled by it

Shocked, not really appalled.

I&#39;m used to meeting religious people, it doesn&#39;t "appall" me anymore.


I assumed you found it disturbing for me to hold a "faith" or believe in God

What I find disturbing are your attitudes regarding criminal justice.

I vehemently disagree with your religious beliefs, but so long as you don&#39;t try and prostletize, I really don&#39;t care.


Revolutionaries are not all communists or support it.

Revolutionary leftists support revolutionary change towards the extreme left, otherwise their aims would be more easily achieved through reforms.

That is, if you want to make small steps, it&#39;s ineffeciant to support a mass workers&#39; revolution. It only makes sense if you intend on radically changing the system so far that the rulling class wouldn&#39;t stand for it at all.

I don&#39;t think socialism is that far. I think, as shown in Western Europe, the rulling class is quite content to allow pretty progressive steps as long as the fundamental capitalist infastructure is present.

Again, in practice, revolutionary leftism is, for all intents and purposes, interchangable with communism, or, at the least, lesser variant thereof.

Regardless, my original point remains.


What opinion polls? Source/statistics, please?

Well a quick search in Google rendered this (http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/millennium10.asp) which has the relevent line "In Latin America and Western Europe the majority do not favour the death penalty".

Although I&#39;m sure there are better sources out there I don&#39;t have the time to find them. The point is that, under representative republicanism, politicians tend to follow the lead of the populace on "hot-button" issues like capital punnishment.

[Donnie]

Its a proven fact in Britain that people who come out of prison are more likely to come back in. They might as well have a turn style door in prisons now.

The same is for juvenile centers. Kids that come out of jouvy are more likely to commit crimes again.

Rehabilitation is a better way of doing things especially at a young age. After all kids who commit a crime just want attention and in an Anarchist/Communist society we adults can give them attention.

I have a cousin who is 22 who is in and out of prison for various stuff like stealing money from cash registers in stores etc.
I asked him once when he came out of prison why he committed these crimes and he said first of all he said that some people in this society have money that is unjustified (far enough I can agree with him stealing stuff). He also replied that he likes the thrill of authority chasing him as well.

If you actually listen to criminals, you will be pleasantly surprised why they commit these crimes.

Also if a 50 year old man has Altzimers and a mental disorder which makes him violent, and he beats a man till he is unconscious because of his mental disorder are you going to lock this man up?

In Britain now we have ASBO’s (Anti-social behavior orders) on kids. If you implement authority on children they are bound to fight against it. Human nature does not want authority it hates it rejects it&#33; It doesn’t work, yet why do we still have it? Authority creates chaos anarchy creates peace and organization. As Prouhdon said “society seeks order in anarchy”


That would be so dumb if you were to perform a bank robbery, get caught, and then go to rehabilitation so they can fix you and then you&#39;re back to society.

I would consider robbery in this society "socialism in action" as its taking money from the hands of the few into the hands of the mass&#39;s"

Also you wouldn&#39;t get robbery in an Anarchist/Communist society because as Lysergic Acid Diethylamide said there will be no banks, money etc. Also everything is collectively owned so eseentially why steal something when in a sence it already yours?

[Parkbench]

[quoteyou&#39;re the one who thinks that we should let the monster get help and contribute to society rather than punishing him/her.[/quote]

The problem is you&#39;re not revolutionary in any way. You&#39;re a capitalist on a communist/anarchist forum trying desperately to find your own philosophy and effectively throwing out decades of anarchist and communist philosophy.

Analyze yourself psychologically for a second. Your entire argument is based on the concept of revenge. There is a movement to abolish the death penalty even among non-revolutionaries. You know why? Because even "everyday" capitalists realise that the "revenge" argument is for irrational mongoloids. Killing the person does nothing to bring back anyone and does nothing for retribution except some animal desire to see some bloodshed. You are not punishing the person because they are not alive and have no consciousness. It is the single most worst way to try and &#39;fix&#39; a crime.

It is a dirty way out. It solves nothing, whether in a capitalistic or anarchist or communist society.

Furthermore, as for prisons, people once again in their subconsciously skewed fashion, fail to realise that murderers and rapists are not the only ones in prison. The law system is an objective system that attempts to make everyone equal for the sake of the better good--that is, equal in punishment. "No exceptions," that sort of thing. Life is subjective. Therefore, law is inherently incompatible with life. And it is. 90% of the law is based on property and possession (a fact that capitalists taught without thinking its implications), and 90% of the law can throw people in jail for things that should not be moral crimes, like drugs. We are once again not solving the problem by just throwing people in the magic prisons. White, suburban home owners in their walled communities feel better about themselves knowing these "monsters" aren&#39;t at large. Jesus, these are the same fucking people who think the poor should just "get jobs." And if they&#39;re not--if they think they&#39;re socially conscious but still support prisons (the less delusional people), they simply need a safety blanket and can&#39;t let go.

point is: anarchists (or communists) who support prisons and the death penalty aren&#39;t bloody anarchists/communists.

[CEWS]

Anarchists are against all authority, including forcing people into prisons.
However, if people are hurting you (impossing authority) then, if and only if, you have no other choice in defending yourself, you may use authority against him/her who is hurting you. The same applies for your community as a whole.

[Dre_Guevara]

Of course it is, it&#39;s called the brain&#33;

If there&#39;s one thing we know it&#39;s that all that the "mind" is is contained within the brain and, accordingly, the "mind" can be changed.

The mind is not your brain. They&#39;re two different entities. Nobody can read anybody&#39;s thoughts. Why does it hurt so much when a love one dies?


Yes I do, and so far you have not given a reason why this would not be a good idea.

Short of calling me "pathetic" and calling criminals "animals", you have not given a sinlge rational reason why treatment is not preferrable to "punnishment".

Did I say all criminals are animals?? No, I did not. I said those who murder and rape for no reason because it is there thrill in life are animals and should be punished. How could you not punish mothers who chop up their kids or husbands who beat up their wives?? That doesn&#39;t make sense. If I were to brutally kill your mother, would you want them to just treat me so I can get better and go back to society??


Of course I don&#39;t. No civilized person does. You&#39;re talking about a "justice" system from fucking 2500 years ago&#33;&#33;

If we can prevent people from commiting future crimes and treat them for their obvious disorder who gives a fuck if it doesn&#39;t fit some archaic sense of "justice"?&#33;?&#33;

If you acknowledge that incarceration / execution won&#39;t make the family feel better then, again, why do it?

You talk about "justice" as if it were an objective concept. It isn&#39;t. Justice is what we make it and what we define it to be. Certainly history has shown that ideas of justice are constantly changing.

Accordingly, who&#39;s to say that treatment won&#39;t be considered "justice" within an Anarchist society?

You&#39;re talking about an Anarchist/Communist society. A society that has never been established. When we see the rise of Anarchism then we can debate but for now you have no arguement.


If you want to prove that treatment is not a good idea, you need to provide objective reasons why not. Appealing to present moral values is ridiculous since we&#39;re talking about a post-revolutionary society that has cast off the shackles of contemporary culture.

Right now it&#39;s not a good idea, obviously. Every society today punishes their criminals. There is not one society today that practices what you preach. Anarchism is an evolutionary process....something I believe is utopian.


...except it is constantly improving and we already do have ways to treat many criminals&#33;

The funding isn&#39;t there and there is too much of a "tough on criminals" attitude, but there have been successes, especially with those with emotional disorders.

Source/statistics, please?


What has been consistantly shown to not work is prison&#33; Locking people up only angers them and makes them resentful, it seperates them from society and alienates them from other people. It also herds them into a community where their only company is fellow criminals leading to a strengthening of criminal culture.

You really want to stop crime? Well prisons are not the way to do it&#33;

Oh yeah, I wouldn&#39;t doubt that prison doesn&#39;t do any good for some prisoners, because a lot end up committing more crimes, but give me statistics that prove that all prisoners or the majority of prisoners end up going back to prison. But all in all, what I am saying is they must do their time and then get treated if there were a "treatment" that can fix them.


No money, no banks, no bank robbers.

You&#39;re right.. in an Anarchist/Communist society that is, but you know what I meant. <_< Shoplifting, stealing goods, etc.


Why do you want to base a society on fear?

People aren&#39;t going to be "treated", they&#39;re going to be treated. In an Anarchicist society after the elimination of the present socio-economic condition, the only "criminals" will be those who arre actually in need of treatment. They will have their disorder rectified and then, and only then, will re-enter society.

Listen, if you don&#39;t have punishment in society then anyone will not think it&#39;s risky to rape a girl or beat their neighbor or rob them, etc.. How could you let a person get away with that? If you treat one criminal, that doesn&#39;t speak for the millions of criminals out there.


So, in the end, the practicalities don&#39;t matter to you.

You honestly don&#39;t care if treatment is possible or not, you&#39;d still support a system that only barely works (when it works) rather than one that would not only stop crime but would actually help society at the same time.

You want to "lock people up" so that they can be tortured and tormented instead of actually having their very realy problem fixed.

...and why?

Why?&#33;?

"justice. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"

...right.

So why do you think that all societies are not practicing your idea?? <_<


Revolutionary leftists support revolutionary change towards the extreme left, otherwise their aims would be more easily achieved through reforms.

Extreme left??? No, not exactly. Revolutionary leftists do not have to support true anarchism or communism. They can support some ideas but not in its entirety. A revolutionary&#39;s task is to support or bring about a political or social revolution. It DOES NOT necessarily mean that he must carry true anarchist or communist principles.


Well a quick search in Google rendered this which has the relevent line "In Latin America and Western Europe the majority do not favour the death penalty"

That doesn&#39;t prove anything.. overrall, most favored the death penalty. And show me where most favor rehabilitation/treatment rather than punishment.


The problem is you&#39;re not revolutionary in any way. You&#39;re a capitalist on a communist/anarchist forum trying desperately to find your own philosophy and effectively throwing out decades of anarchist and communist philosophy.

A capitalist?? Uhh, no. The problem is you think that all revolutionaries are supposed to follow anarchism or communism. :huh:


Analyze yourself psychologically for a second. Your entire argument is based on the concept of revenge. There is a movement to abolish the death penalty even among non-revolutionaries. You know why? Because even "everyday" capitalists realise that the "revenge" argument is for irrational mongoloids. Killing the person does nothing to bring back anyone and does nothing for retribution except some animal desire to see some bloodshed. You are not punishing the person because they are not alive and have no consciousness. It is the single most worst way to try and &#39;fix&#39; a crime.

It&#39;s not about revenge. It&#39;s about discipline. What are you talking about? You should analyze your whole theory because it&#39;s rather utopian.

[LSD]

The mind is not your brain. They&#39;re two different entities.

Bullshit.

Read up on neurology. The "mind" is composed on networks of neurons within the brain. Period.


Nobody can read anybody&#39;s thoughts.

So what?

How is that at all relevent to whether or not the mind is entirely contained within the neuronic connections of the brain?


Why does it hurt so much when a love one dies?

Again irrelevent.

That&#39;s an emotional reaction within the brain. How does the presence of emotion at all prove your ludicrous case that the mind is somehow "outside" of the brain&#33;?

Remember, you&#39;re going up agains the entire accumulated medical knowledge of humanity here. You&#39;d better get something better thn "Why does it hurt so much when a love one dies"&#33;


Did I say all criminals are animals?? No, I did not. I said those who murder and rape for no reason because it is there thrill in life are animals and should be punished. How could you not punish mothers who chop up their kids or husbands who beat up their wives??

Because "punnishment" does not work.

Because "punnishment" is wrong.

Because these people are sick and "punnishing" them only makes it worse for them and the rest of society. Treating them helps everyone.


If I were to brutally kill your mother, would you want them to just treat me so I can get better and go back to society??

YES&#33;

That&#39;s what I&#39;ve been saying for this entire thread&#33;


You&#39;re right.. in an Anarchist/Communist society that is, but you know what I meant. Shoplifting, stealing goods, etc.

Why would you "steal" in an Anarchist society?

You already have everything you need / want&#33;


Listen, if you don&#39;t have punishment in society then anyone will not think it&#39;s risky to rape a girl or beat their neighbor or rob them, etc..

Look, why do you think most people now don&#39;t rape and steal and kill.

I mean they know that most criminals are not caught and that most criminals who are caught aren&#39;t convicted and the most crmiinals who are convicted serve reduced times because the jails are so crowded.

The reason that most people act decently is that most people are decent.

And for the rest, it&#39;s mostly social pressure, not legal, that keeps people from doing horrible things.

God, what would my family think if they ever found out.

Otherwise, crimes are crimes of nescessity and convienience. Gang killings, drug killings, robberies, muggings... all of which will be eliminated in an Anarchist society.

And for the very few who are actually sick, who can&#39;t control themselves, they will be treated and helped.

Again, fear is not the way&#33;


So why do you think that all societies are not practicing your idea??

Because I think it&#39;s impossible within capitalistic societies. There will never be the dedication or propper application of resources as long as the Bouregois are in control.

That is why we must struggle to overthrow the present system&#33;


Extreme left??? No, not exactly. Revolutionary leftists do not have to support true anarchism or communism. They can support some ideas but not in its entirety. A revolutionary&#39;s task is to support or bring about a political or social revolution. It DOES NOT necessarily mean that he must carry true anarchist or communist principles.

It sort of does.

Again, "halfway" revolution would never fly. A Revolution towards socialism is simply unnescessary, because it is quite possible to achieve socialism simply through reforms.

Revolution is only needed if you&#39;re making a big step. And in leftist terms, that means a step towards communism&#33;


You&#39;re talking about an Anarchist/Communist society. A society that has never been established. When we see the rise of Anarchism then we can debate but for now you have no arguement.

:o

WHAT THE FUCK?&#33;?&#33;

Are you actually that thick? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DEBATING&#33;

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I&#39;m going to repost the original post that started this thread:

Now as i see it Anarchists are against prisons? Correct? But what i want to undertsand is if someone was to break a universal moral law e.g. murder or rape? What would happen to that person?
I mean there would be bound to be murder in anarchist society. I mean not everybody is mentally stable if you get me?

Fuck, look at the title of this thread at the top of your browser window:

"A Question about ANARCHISM"&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; (emphasis added)

So of course I&#39;m "taling about an Anarchist/Communist society", that&#39;s what the original question that we&#39;re all answering is all about.

Do try and keep up, next time.

[Dre_Guevara]

Bullshit.

Read up on neurology. The "mind" is composed on networks of neurons within the brain. Period.

Actually, the mind and the brain are two COMPLETELY different entities. The mind is nonphysical...the brain is part of the body which makes it physical. Two seperate entities. There is no tangible evidence that the mind exists, but we all know it does. And let me ask you this...do you think a memory is nothing more than a few thousand brain cells firing in a particular pattern?? In other words, do you think a memory is identical with brain cells firing in a pattern?


So what?

How is that at all relevent to whether or not the mind is entirely contained within the neuronic connections of the brain?

I&#39;m not saying the mind does not coincide with the brain. All I am saying is that they are distinct from each other because the mind is not physical matter. The brain and all it&#39;s chemical reactions are, but not the mind. So answer me can you read my thoughts? If you can read my thoughts, the mind would be physical, but neurologists/scientists cannot read a person&#39;s thoughts even given all the best equipment in the world.


Again irrelevent.

That&#39;s an emotional reaction within the brain. How does the presence of emotion at all prove your ludicrous case that the mind is somehow "outside" of the brain&#33;?

Remember, you&#39;re going up agains the entire accumulated medical knowledge of humanity here. You&#39;d better get something better thn "Why does it hurt so much when a love one dies"&#33;

Did I ever say I was a Buddhist? No, I didn&#39;t. I don&#39;t believe the mind is outside the brain&#33;&#33;

You think scientists can see your thoughts? You think they can see your images? You think they can feel your feelings?? They are simply just watching physical changes in the brain (chemical reactions firing, etc). A feeling is not just a chemical reaction. How do we know? Chemical reactions don&#39;t hurt, but feelings do. Feelings have a quality about them. What could be more obvious? As a matter of fact, it is so obvious that I feel silly even talking about it because you know this as well as I know this. Feelings have a particular texture to them that can&#39;t be captured in a chemical description. But those men and women in white coats want to tell you that you are not having a feeling, you&#39;re having a chemical reaction. If it is just a chemical reaction, I&#39;m going to ask you again, then why does it hurt so much?

"It is disastrous when instead of merely attending to a rose, we are forced to think of ourselves looking at the rose with a certain type of mind and a certain type of eyes. It is disastrous because if you are not careful, the color of the rose gets attributed to our optic nerves and its scent to our noses and in the end, there is no rose left." -- C.S. Lewis in &#39;God in the Dock.&#39; .....Lewis is on to something here because if you follow this article to its logical conclusion, in the end there is no feeling left. There is no love, no pain, no compassion, no comfort, no beauty. There are no roses, no Mona Lisas, no Beethoven sonatas, no teenage puppy love. All that&#39;s left is chemical reactions, light waves and vibrating molecules. You know better than that or do you??

I just think you&#39;re an ardent evolutionist slash materialist. And if you are, save this part of the arguement to yourself.


Remember, you&#39;re going up agains the entire accumulated medical knowledge of humanity here.

Actually, the entire MATERIALIST medical knowledge of humanity. There&#39;s a huge difference.


Because "punnishment" does not work.

Because "punnishment" is wrong.

Because these people are sick and "punnishing" them only makes it worse for them and the rest of society. Treating them helps everyone.

It doesn&#39;t make it worse at all, unless you imprison a murderer for like a year and then release him. Depending on how bad the crime is, will determine how long he will be in prison for. You&#39;re missing my whole point. If some girl is brutally raped and killed, that guy would be sent to prison for the rest of his miserable life, not just for a year or so. That doesn&#39;t do help to society. But it will do help to society when this rapist/killer is imprisoned a lifetime or even EXECUTED. Like I said, it keeps the animals from endangering the citizens.


YES&#33;

That&#39;s what I&#39;ve been saying for this entire thread&#33;

Sorry, I don&#39;t believe that. Try speaking for the other billions of people and see what they say.


Why would you "steal" in an Anarchist society?

You already have everything you need / want&#33;

Again, you&#39;re speaking for yourself based on opinionated views. You don&#39;t speak for the masses. You base your logic on extreme utopian principles. You cannot easily say that in an Anarchist society, there will not be any shoplifters, robbers, rapists, sex offenders, abusers, murderers, kidnappers, etc.


Look, why do you think most people now don&#39;t rape and steal and kill.

I mean they know that most criminals are not caught and that most criminals who are caught aren&#39;t convicted and the most crmiinals who are convicted serve reduced times because the jails are so crowded.

Actually, there are a lot of fuckin rapes, murders, and robberies going on. Where the hell are you getting your "facts??" You sound so opinionated and biased.


Otherwise, crimes are crimes of nescessity and convienience. Gang killings, drug killings, robberies, muggings... all of which will be eliminated in an Anarchist society.

An anarchist society that will never exist or at least not when we&#39;re alive.


Because I think it&#39;s impossible within capitalistic societies. There will never be the dedication or propper application of resources as long as the Bouregois are in control.

What about Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, North Korea, (old) Soviet Union, etc.?? Why didn&#39;t they or don&#39;t they practice it?


That is why we must struggle to overthrow the present system&#33;

And you cannot just overthrow the present system based on utopian logic. It will never work like that. Why don&#39;t you tell me, how can you anarchists overthrow the present system and replace it with your system??


It sort of does.

Again, "halfway" revolution would never fly. A Revolution towards socialism is simply unnescessary, because it is quite possible to achieve socialism simply through reforms.

Revolution is only needed if you&#39;re making a big step. And in leftist terms, that means a step towards communism&#33;

I believe in communism more so than Anarchism. The thing about Communism that I don&#39;t agree on is the religion aspect of it. Revolutionaries do not have to stick to the "old" forms of Communism or Anarchism. Revolutionaries can "change" certain principles/theories of them&#33; Like Karl Marx once said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it"

And about all this smart-ass garbage you said here:


WHAT THE FUCK?&#33;?&#33;

Are you actually that thick? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DEBATING&#33;

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

I&#39;m going to repost the original post that started this thread:
QUOTE
Now as i see it Anarchists are against prisons? Correct? But what i want to undertsand is if someone was to break a universal moral law e.g. murder or rape? What would happen to that person?
I mean there would be bound to be murder in anarchist society. I mean not everybody is mentally stable if you get me?


Fuck, look at the title of this thread at the top of your browser window:

"A Question about ANARCHISM"&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; (emphasis added)

So of course I&#39;m "taling about an Anarchist/Communist society", that&#39;s what the original question that we&#39;re all answering is all about.

Do try and keep up, next time.

Save it. <_< You sound like an Anarchist gone mad&#33; Oops, I forgot, you are one&#33;

[LSD]

Actually, the mind and the brain are two COMPLETELY different entities. The mind is nonphysical...

No it isn&#39;t, and you have offered no evidence that it is.


And let me ask you this...do you think a memory is nothing more than a few thousand brain cells firing in a particular pattern?? In other words, do you think a memory is identical with brain cells firing in a pattern?

Of course&#33;

But maybe that&#39;s because I&#39;ve actually taken courses in psychology....


So answer me can you read my thoughts? If you can read my thoughts, the mind would be physical, but neurologists/scientists cannot read a person&#39;s thoughts even given all the best equipment in the world.

Not yet.

A thousand years ago there weren&#39;t antibiotics, that doesn&#39;t mean that bacterial diseased were "unacurable", it just means that the tools hadn&#39;t been developed yet.

I&#39;m not claiming that we&#39;ve reached the end of scientific discovery, far from it, I think that we have great deal more to learn. In the next few hundred years we probably will be able to fully analyze the neuronic pathways of the brain.

But even if we can&#39;t, that in no way proves your rather ludicrous proposition that the brain and mind are somehow "distinct"&#33;


A feeling is not just a chemical reaction. How do we know? Chemical reactions don&#39;t hurt, but feelings do. Feelings have a quality about them. What could be more obvious? As a matter of fact, it is so obvious that I feel silly even talking about it because you know this as well as I know this. Feelings have a particular texture to them that can&#39;t be captured in a chemical description. But those men and women in white coats want to tell you that you are not having a feeling, you&#39;re having a chemical reaction. If it is just a chemical reaction, I&#39;m going to ask you again, then why does it hurt so much?

It "hurts" because "hurt" is itself a feeling.

The chemical reason of "feeling" causes another chemical reason which we have labled "being hurt", it&#39;s no more complex than that.

This kind of bullshit mysticism is insane. No serious scientist claims this kind of crap anymore. Do some research before you start making claims from the fucking 18th century.

This "particular texture" is subjective. It&#39;s within our brains for God&#39;s sake. Look, if feelings are seperate from our brain then how can drugs (yeah, chemicals) create, stop, modify, and intensify them?

How can MAOIs or SSRIs affect depression by changing seratonin levels?

If feelins are really unconnected to neurotransmitter levels than how does Prozac or Effexor or Paxil work?

For that matter why does Heroin work?

If our "minds" are not out brains than how can endorphin levels affect our mood?

How can psychadelics alter perception and thoughts?

Think about it for a second, you position makes no sense&#33; A hundred years of established science has shown us that our minds are our brains.


"It is disastrous when instead of merely attending to a rose, we are forced to think of ourselves looking at the rose with a certain type of mind and a certain type of eyes. It is disastrous because if you are not careful, the color of the rose gets attributed to our optic nerves and its scent to our noses and in the end, there is no rose left." -- C.S. Lewis in &#39;God in the Dock.&#39; .....Lewis is on to something here because if you follow this article to its logical conclusion, in the end there is no feeling left. There is no love, no pain, no compassion, no comfort, no beauty. There are no roses, no Mona Lisas, no Beethoven sonatas, no teenage puppy love. All that&#39;s left is chemical reactions, light waves and vibrating molecules. You know better than that or do you??

All that there is is chemical reactions.

But only a supernaturalist thinks that that&#39;s bad. If we are chemical reactions, than chemical reactions are not an insult, they are just what is.

Who cares?

Live your life, but don&#39;t try and claim that we have a "soul" or "higher being" when you can&#39;t even begin to prove it&#33;


Actually, the entire MATERIALIST medical knowledge of humanity. There&#39;s a huge difference.

Really?

What else do we have?

Mysticism? Religion?

All we have is materialist medicine and rightly so&#33;

Tell me, if you break your leg, don&#39;t you want your doctor to be thinking materially and not say a prayer over you?


Sorry, I don&#39;t believe that. Try speaking for the other billions of people and see what they say.

Hey, ask a subjective question, get a subjective answer&#33;

You asked "If I were to brutally kill your mother, would you want them to just treat me so I can get better and go back to society??" so I answered what I would want ...that&#39;s what you asked.


You cannot easily say that in an Anarchist society, there will not be any shoplifters, robbers, rapists, sex offenders, abusers, murderers, kidnappers, etc.

I said that there would be no thieves because, in an Anarchist society, everyone would have everything they wanted so there would be no desire to "steal". Stealing wouldn&#39;t even be an applicable concept&#33;


Actually, there are a lot of fuckin rapes, murders, and robberies going on. Where the hell are you getting your "facts??" You sound so opinionated and biased.

Compared with the total population, the number of criminals is negligable. It&#39;s always been the fact that the "criminal" population is a tiny fraction of the overall population. Honestly, I think you know that the police don&#39;t have nearly the manpower to deal with anything else&#33;

The fact that we don&#39;t have utter chaos shows that most people follow the rules society sets before them.


What about Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, North Korea, (old) Soviet Union, etc.?? Why didn&#39;t they or don&#39;t they practice it?

Because they were / are dictatoria; state-capitalist or parasocialist states with stron central governments and limited civli rights.

Excluding Venezuela (why the fuck is it on that list?&#33;) which is just a plain old-fashioned capitalist state with a particularly progressive, but nonetheless capitalist, government.


Save it. You sound like an Anarchist gone mad&#33; Oops, I forgot, you are one&#33;

An anarchist society that will never exist or at least not when we&#39;re alive.

Honestly, what is wrong with you?

This thread is a theoretical discussion on how criminal justice would work in a hypothetical society.

What is the point of reminding us that that society is hypothetical? It&#39;s entirely irrelevent to the thread.

[Dre_Guevara]

"No it isn&#39;t, and you have offered no evidence that it is."

"Of course&#33;

But maybe that&#39;s because I&#39;ve actually taken courses in psychology...."

"Not yet.

A thousand years ago there weren&#39;t antibiotics, that doesn&#39;t mean that bacterial diseased were "unacurable", it just means that the tools hadn&#39;t been developed yet.

I&#39;m not claiming that we&#39;ve reached the end of scientific discovery, far from it, I think that we have great deal more to learn. In the next few hundred years we probably will be able to fully analyze the neuronic pathways of the brain.

But even if we can&#39;t, that in no way proves your rather ludicrous proposition that the brain and mind are somehow "distinct"&#33;"

You&#39;re an ardent materialist. What&#39;s ludicrous is thinking that the mind is our brain when you have no proof it is. Can you read my thoughts?&#33;&#33;??


In the next few hundred years we probably will be able to fully analyze the neuronic pathways of the brain.

:lol: your "scientific" assumptions are hilarious&#33;


It "hurts" because "hurt" is itself a feeling.

The chemical reason of "feeling" causes another chemical reason which we have labled "being hurt", it&#39;s no more complex than that.

What the fuck are you talking about? You&#39;re just pulling random self-theories out of your ass, man.


This kind of bullshit mysticism is insane. No serious scientist claims this kind of crap anymore. Do some research before you start making claims from the fucking 18th century.

Actually I&#39;ve done some research on how a brain works. You haven&#39;t obviously.


This "particular texture" is subjective. It&#39;s within our brains for God&#39;s sake.

You just made my point right there. It&#39;s existing within the mind; illusory&#33; It is NOT EXTERNAL. It does not exist in the outside world - the materialist world; therefore it is not PHYSICAL. And don&#39;t use God&#39;s name in vain. Aren&#39;t you an Atheist??? :huh:


Look, if feelings are seperate from our brain then how can drugs (yeah, chemicals) create, stop, modify, and intensify them?

How can MAOIs or SSRIs affect depression by changing seratonin levels?

If feelins are really unconnected to neurotransmitter levels than how does Prozac or Effexor or Paxil work?

For that matter why does Heroin work?

If our "minds" are not out brains than how can endorphin levels affect our mood?

How can psychadelics alter perception and thoughts?

Did you not read what I said in my previous post? I said that the mind and the brain coincide with each other. I never said the mind is outside the brain. All I am saying is that the mind contains feelings, emotions, thoughts, desires, memories that nobody can observe but the person with the mind itself. The brain is what&#39;s needed to control them. That is all; no more no less. You cannot do experiments on a brain to figure what that person&#39;s innermost desires, secrets, memories are. Those are intangible.


"Think about it for a second, you position makes no sense&#33; A hundred years of established science has shown us that our minds are our brains."

"All that there is is chemical reactions.

But only a supernaturalist thinks that that&#39;s bad. If we are chemical reactions, than chemical reactions are not an insult, they are just what is.

Who cares?

Live your life, but don&#39;t try and claim that we have a "soul" or "higher being" when you can&#39;t even begin to prove it&#33;"

you&#39;re saying that memory has no relation to the the mind state, only the brain. In other words, what you&#39;re saying is the brain is processing and causing our mind or soul to have a memory. That&#39;s all it is. That&#39;s like saying that a movie is nothing more than light shining through a piece of celluloid. A movie requires light shining through a piece of celluloid and then you can see it projected on the screen. But to say that it is nothing more than that, misses something very obvious. Let me explain here:

Did you ever go upstairs in a movie theater and look through the window of the projection room? Well, there is a giant disc spinning; the celluloid goes through an apparatus, and there is hot light. But now, what if I were to tell you that that&#39;s the movie right there? The movie is the physical action that I can see happening. Obviously, you&#39;d think that was ridiculous. A movie is much more than the physical mechanism; it is much more than the machinery with the celluloid passing through it with a sharp bright light behind it. What you or anybody would say is it is rather the image that is being projected on the screen and also, it&#39;s even more than just an image. Correct? I mean, there&#39;s a plot that&#39;s going on, there&#39;s dialogue, and there&#39;s construction of characters... There are all these other things that go beyond just the physical representation, am I right or am I right? So when one tries to limit mental activity to the physical processes that I believe produce the mental activity, but isn&#39;t the mental activity itself, it is the same exact thing as trying to say that a movie is essentially the shining of a light through a celluloid strip. You can&#39;t see the movie at all by looking at light shining through celluloid. This just shows that a physicalistic explanation of what a movie amounts to falls far short of what the movie really is. Again, if you look at the light on the celluloid, you will never ever ever see the movie.

The metaphor I&#39;ve just given is very applicable to the mind of a brain..because of a statement made in an article that I read a while back...and I quote: "using sensitive electrodes inserted deep into the gray matter of test animals, researchers have watched vision as it percolates inward from the eye&#39;s retina to the inner brain." end quotes...did you just see what it said there? It said that the researchers have watched vision. And then they say that..and I quote: "Scientists watch a thought taking place. They can see the red glow of fear erupting from the structure known as the amygdala or note the tell-tale firing of neurons as a long-buried memory is reconstructed." end quotes. So they say they can watch the thought, they can watch vision, but what are they actually seeing when they are watching that physical activity? They are watching the retina and the inner brain respond, but they are not seeing what the test animal sees. So they are NOT watching vision. In other words, they are not watching the movie, they are watching the celluloid go past the light.

When they say they watch a thought taking place because they can see the red glow of fear erupting from a structure known as the "amygdala," you think they are seeing a thought? No, they are seeing a physical part of the brain. When the doctors look at the brain, they can&#39;t see the thoughts, just like looking at the film in the celluloid, you can&#39;t see the movie. The scientists apparently can turn the projector on, but they can&#39;t see your movie no matter how many electrodes they have in your brain. Even in these scientific tests, you must have a viewer to know what the memory is. Can they put electrodes in my brain, stimulate a memory, and tell me what the memory is? No. Why? They cannot see the projection on the screen. Only I can see that on the inside.

If it was all physical, they should be able to see all the physical stuff, including the memory. But they can&#39;t see the memory. They can&#39;t see the projection. They can&#39;t see the movie. Why? The movie is not physical. It&#39;s these physical things that they watch that produces an image that occurs in my mind--an image that no one else can see. Why? All they can see are physical things and your mind is not physical. The article goes on to say that "a key tool of brain research lets scientists watch mental processes as they happen." But what are they really watching?? Bingo&#33; They are JUST watching PHYSICAL CHANGES.

The article was basically an evaluation of the physical capabilities of the brain, which is fine. I think it is great to map out the brain. I think it is great to look at what the brain can do, and I think it is very helpful in many cases to see the correlation between brain activity and mental activity. My deep concern, though, is that this work on the brain by scientists and by science has an additional agenda behind it, much like the agenda that evolutionary science in its birth and subsequent development has had also. It wasn&#39;t just science that it was interested in. There were theological, philosophical, metaphysical aspects to it. Charles Darwin&#39;s attempt was to get God out of the picture with regards to the issues of origins, and I suspect that much of what is going on in neurology is an attempt to get rid of the mind so that all you have left is the brain. That&#39;s why even though all of this evaluation is interesting and I think contributes greatly to our understanding of the relationship of the brain to the mind, there is certainly a tendency from these men and women in white coats that are trying to give you the scientific explanation in order to argue that our belief that we exist as a center of consciousness, as a rational soul, is just simply mistaken. Here&#39;s my final point on this issue:

If the mind is reduced to the brain, pretty soon everything is lost. Feelings become chemical reactions, beautiful objects become light waves, beautiful music is reduced to vibrating molecules. Where did the music go? Where did the beauty go? Where did the feeling go? It&#39;s all gone. This reduction is obviously insane to us&#33; It can&#39;t be made. It isn&#39;t valid. It&#39;s misleading. think you know better than to accept this, but you may be intimidated by scientists in white coats telling you that you aren&#39;t really feeling love, you&#39;re just having a chemical reaction. You&#39;re not really seeing something beautiful, this is just light of various wave lengths. You&#39;re not really hearing something wonderful, it is just vibrating molecules&#33;&#33; ???
But there is a deeper problem. If consciousness is just a property created by the brain, then when you make a decision who or what does the deciding? If consciousness is an effect/process of chemical reactions in the brain, then your conscious act of deciding is not a free will act of your own, it is a result of some physical process that came before it. Your choices are controlled by physical events outside of your will. To put it more bluntly, you have no will at all. Not really. Why not? According to this view, physical states produce particular mental states, which produce particular physical states all following one after another in a determined pattern just like railroad cars following an engine. guess what? You have not only lost the rose and Beethoven and your teenage puppy love, you&#39;ve lost "you," too.

What most Atheists infer is that if you look high and low and cannot find "IT," "IT" does not exist. That&#39;s crazy. It&#39;s like I&#39;m looking for the invisible rabbit and you&#39;re saying you will never find them because they do not exist. If there are invisible rabbits, you are not going to find them anywhere. Why not? They are invisible. That doesn&#39;t prove they do exist, it just simply points out that you can&#39;t disqualify the existence of something by looking for it in a way that won&#39;t turn it up. You don&#39;t look for the mind in the brain, you don&#39;t look for God in the universe, and try to find a location for it because the mind is not something physical by definition; God is not something physical.. you can&#39;t conclude that it doesn&#39;t exist because you haven&#39;t found it after a century of looking. You don&#39;t find it that way. You infer it from other things, and we (non-Atheists) inferred it very directly and very successfully with a couple of very simple arguments.

Lewis put it this way and he really captured it: "I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all other accidents. It&#39;s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

Do you see the price that you have to pay to buy this point of view? Everything gets lost. Even you. Even the scientists that think they&#39;re thinking these conclusions. They&#39;re gone, too. So, why trust the conclusions?

Now, I say to you..think about THAT for a second.


Tell me, if you break your leg, don&#39;t you want your doctor to be thinking materially and not say a prayer over you?

That&#39;s a pretty dumb question to ask me. I would want both the doctor and the priest to treat me. I have a question for you. If you were bitten by a poisonous snake and you had 10 minutes to live and there was nothing the doctor can do to stop the venom from circulating your veins, would you want a prayer?


Hey, ask a subjective question, get a subjective answer&#33;

You asked "If I were to brutally kill your mother, would you want them to just treat me so I can get better and go back to society??" so I answered what I would want ...that&#39;s what you asked.

Which I still don&#39;t believe. <_< So answer me, do you think the other billions of people would accept your theory?


I said that there would be no thieves because, in an Anarchist society, everyone would have everything they wanted so there would be no desire to "steal". Stealing wouldn&#39;t even be an applicable concept&#33;

How do you know? More opinionated and biased views will get you nowhere.


Compared with the total population, the number of criminals is negligable. It&#39;s always been the fact that the "criminal" population is a tiny fraction of the overall population.

Whether it&#39;s a tiny fraction, it is still in the MILLIONS.


The fact that we don&#39;t have utter chaos shows that most people follow the rules society sets before them.

Most people follow rules AUTHORITY and THE STATE set before them, not the community.


Because they were / are dictatoria; state-capitalist or parasocialist states with stron central governments and limited civli rights.

But they did/do advocate leftist principles. Why couldn&#39;t they see the Anarchist ideas of Criminal Justice??


Excluding Venezuela (why the fuck is it on that list?&#33;) which is just a plain old-fashioned capitalist state with a particularly progressive, but nonetheless capitalist, government.

You DO know what&#39;s happening to Venezuela right now, right???


Honestly, what is wrong with you?

This thread is a theoretical discussion on how criminal justice would work in a hypothetical society.

What is the point of reminding us that that society is hypothetical? It&#39;s entirely irrelevent to the thread.

The point is to be realistic&#33; That&#39;s when you CAN bring about revolutionary change.

And by the way, you didn&#39;t answer me these questions:


QUOTE
...except it is constantly improving and we already do have ways to treat many criminals&#33;

The funding isn&#39;t there and there is too much of a "tough on criminals" attitude, but there have been successes, especially with those with emotional disorders.


Source/statistics, please?

and this one


Why don&#39;t you tell me, how can you anarchists overthrow the present system and replace it with your system??

[OleMarxco]

HOLD ON, HOLD ON right THERE&#33;

P.S., Before you two crazy cats high-jack this whole thread, I&#39;d like to add a few things, in a slightly more calm tune than this heated argument...so consider me a "relief force" in all my humbleness;

1. This thread has gotten far off the actual subject. First, please try to decrease the cursings, and ad honimen&#39;s (personal attacks, argument to the man) and focus more on real arguments instead of direct hacking on the other&#39;s argument withouth thinking it trough. The main theme was Anarchism and capital punishment or rehabilitation, me thinkesth?

2. Taking psychology courses DO NOT MAKE YOU AN EXPERT. That is an important thing to learn; What you learn at a "psycho-course" (I like to call it that) is to mimick the limited knowledge psychologists REALLY have, but like to shroud in with a thick haze of complications. Believe me, I&#39;ve seen it..it&#39;s suprisingly how little we know of when it comes to the mind...and how much psychologists ACT as if they knew everything, at the tip of their finger. This is because psychology courses are theory, a "REAL" psychologists learn from experience/practice (THEY may have learnt it from practice and passed the information on, but it&#39;s another thing...you might experience something else, however - Where your "masters" have learned their psychology stuff and from who and what situation may differ from what you may find).

3. The mind is definately NOT the brain, or vice versa, but that&#39;s only because they are seperate, yet still dependant on each other. Perhaps this is not true... For instance, a mind cannot exist withouth a brain because a brain is "the material foundament" for a mind. Therefore, hence the &#39;brainless&#39; are also the &#39;mindless&#39;, but sometimes one can have a brain withouth a mind. For how else can you explain the "braindead" who still have not lost the brain physically, but still is inable to use it? The existance of a mind in the brain and "where" it is, I cannot explain. I am but a, sort of, "leisure"-psychologist on this subject, &#39;tho :P

4. Although a movie is physical i.e. in the sense of it&#39;s material existance, doesn&#39;t necessarily mean the things on the screen are factual, but fictional. I thought this one was pretty obvious, you can perhaps touch an illusion but you can not feel it as it poses itself as. F.eg if the screen (the real thing you can sense) shows someone burning their hand with lye (Fight Club&#33;) you won&#39;t feel the same if you touch the cinema. As for my stance on "capital punishment", it&#39;s very obvious actually. I have a very special one, I would concur: I am for-Punishment, and pro-Treatment. Both&#33; Why haven&#39;t anyone thought of this beFore&#33;? For they think they &#39;get away easilly&#39; with a "luxury stay" at a treatment by acting criminally insane..of course -- that&#39;ll not slip, so we&#39;ll chop a fingah of &#39;em and throw &#39;em in a psychiatry MUAHAHAHAHFASA no, just kiddin&#39;. But a mixture of both may help, &#39;tho.

That&#39;s all fer now :)

[Dre_Guevara]

Thank you for your rather pleasant and charming 2 cents. ;)

And also:


The mind is definately NOT the brain, or vice versa, but that&#39;s only because they are seperate, yet still dependant on each other. Perhaps this is not true... For instance, a mind cannot exist withouth a brain because a brain is "the material foundament" for a mind. Therefore, hence the &#39;brainless&#39; are also the &#39;mindless&#39;, but sometimes one can have a brain withouth a mind. For how else can you explain the "braindead" who still have not lost the brain physically, but still is inable to use it? The existance of a mind in the brain and "where" it is, I cannot explain.

good point, by the way.

[LSD]

Look, Dre_Guevera, it seems to me that our conversation has come down to three basic concepts; the first is the nature of the mind / brain, the second is the practicality of an Anarchist state, and the third, and what this thread is supposed to be about, is whether treatment or punnishment is more desirable in a post-revolutionary Anarchist society.

I&#39;m going to quickly deal with the first two and then get back to the relevent topics at hand.

------

As for the first, neither of us are psychologists or psychiatrists or neurologists, so neither of us is really qualified to make a definitative judgement on the nature of consciesness.

Both of us, of course, are free to make up our minds however we see fit, but I think that the most rational course is to take a look at the existing research, analyze it critically and make the most rational and logical decision.

From all my, albeit limited, research, the prevailing opinion in both psychology and neurology is that the mind is for all practical purposes interchangeable with the brain. That is while linguisticall there are important semantic differences between the word, everything that is the mind is composed of neuronic pathways in the brain.

Memory, feeling, emotion, thought, etc.. are all reactions within the brain.

I&#39;ve gathered that you feel this theory somehow devalues human thought and identity, I disagree. The human mind is an amazing thing, perhaps more so if it just a collection of chemical reactions than if it were somehow supernaturalistc. You expect that the supernatural is ..well, super, but that a collection of cells and neurons evolved from microbes could write Hamlet or paint the Mona Lisa, that&#39;s astounding.

There&#39;s a greater beauty to humanity as a solely biological entity, there&#39;s a nobleness about it. It means that we&#39;ve gotten here on our own, through struggle and progress, that we are nothing but matter and flesh and that that matter and flesh has done the incredible.

Do we really want to believe that our brains are not out minds? That our minds are somehow some sort of intangible "force" that only interacts with our corporeal sense?

Where&#39;s the power in that? Where&#39;s the beauty?

Suddenly we&#39;re all floating energy, disconnected, ascended. That does not appeal to me and it doesn&#39;t speak to our true accomplishment. We are great because we are nothing more than what we are. We are great because all we are is chemicals ...and we have touched the stars.

Anything else denigrates humanity and it denigrates our minds.

I would suggest that you do some reading on current theories on the Mind-Body connection.

The Identity Theory of Mind (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/)

------

The second issue here is the practicality of an Anarchist society and / or achieving said society.

I don&#39;t think that that is at all relevent to the discusion at hand. This thread was started as a hypothetical discussion on how criminal justice would operate wtihin an Anarchist society.

Clearly you are not an Anarchist and so you are comming at this from a non-Anarchist perspective, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s helpful to the original poster.

He, clearly, was curious as to how Anarchists especially, but I suppose anyone else with something releven to contribute, think that such matters will be handled under Anarchism.

If you don&#39; think that you can do that within the confines of the discussion because you see Anarchism to be entirely far-fetched, I understand, but I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s intellectually honest to try and provide an answer to the original question when you&#39;re not willing to actually do so.

------

On to the third, and releven subject, criminal justice in an Anarchist society.

There seem to be three distinct arguments here. One, the practicality of treatment, secondly the efficacy of treatment, thirdly the morality of treatment.

I think the first one is important of course, but rathe rsimple.

If treatment proves to be impossible than I would support alternative means until treatment becomes availble. Perhaps execution in rare instances, perhaps exile, perhaps bannishment, I&#39;m not sure..

I think, however, that since you have state that you would oppose treatment even if it were possible, we can move on to the other two areas.

On the issue of efficacy, I would, again, contend that treatment does not mean a two hour councelling session and a perscription. It means a serious intentive, monitored process until the subject is thoughoughly changed and rehabilitated.

Clearly this would result in a better success rate than locking him up for a few years&#33;

Moreover, it would allow this person to contribute to society therefore enriching everyone.

Finally, I think, is the issue that has been the most contentious here. Namely, whether or not it is moral to allow "criminals" "back on the street" without some sort of obvious punnishment.

You have suggested that Biblical codes of ethics "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye" be, to some degree, a guide on how our justice system would operate. I would contend that that sort of punitive system is both antiquated and dangerous and that the most moral justice system would be one in which everyone involved is helped.

If someone&#39;s sister or mother or daughter is raped, tortured, and killed, will they feel emotionaly satisfied in the perpetrator is treated and then "let out"?

Of course not.

But will they feel emotional satisfied if he sits in jail for the rest of his life?

Propably not, either.

In fact nothing will make them feel emotionaly satisfied. Maybe cutting off his testicles and slowly sufficating him on them.

But we do not base a justice system on emotion, we base it on reason.

You&#39;re largely correct in that Jails are used to house criminals rather than reform them. For the most part, jails do two things. One is try and "scare people straight", so they don&#39;t commit the crime again, and the second is to seperate the dangerous from the rest of society.

As to the latter, the only reason that this is nescessary is that we don&#39;t have a way to actually change them. If we can treat them, seperation and isolation become unnescessary.

As to the first, the issue of punnishment, of revenge to an extent, and of deterrence. Such principles are antithetical to the foundation of Anarchist society. Moreover, they are anachronistic concepts that need not be stuck to. Yes, we want "revenge" and yes we want "punnishment", but that doesn&#39;t mean that it should be delivered.

If people can be treated so that they have no desire to recommite, "scarring" them is unnescessary. And, besides, with the elimination of capitalism and disparity most of the causes of crime today will have vanished. The only realy crimes will be those that are commit by those who truly have a problem. And it is not inconcievable that the time will come in the future when we can help them resolve this problem.

It is in our best interest to help the criminal just as much as it is to help any other member of society. They are as human as the rest of us, and just as needing of our aid. By helping them we help society and we prevent future crimes.

It isn&#39;t as satisfying as execution or even jail but, in the end, it&#39;s right.

------

On a final note, I think we both got out of hand in this discussion and I think OleMarxo was correct in that we&#39;ve gotten a little hot-headed and have strayed from the discussion.

I would like to apoligize for my part in that.

[Donnie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:46 AM
You&#39;re talking about an Anarchist/Communist society. A society that has never been established. When we see the rise of Anarchism then we can debate but for now you have no arguement.

Right now it&#39;s not a good idea, obviously. Every society today punishes their criminals. There is not one society today that practices what you preach. Anarchism is an evolutionary process....something I believe is utopian.


Now I&#39;m no historian but wasn&#39;t some parts of Catalonia run under anarchist principles during the spanish civil war?
And the only reason why it failed was because of the Fascists.

Anarchism utopian? The only reason why its utopian is because everybody has got a negative attitude towards it, if people actually took the time to read what anarchism is about many people would be quiet suprised for what it stands for. I know i was when i first started to understand Anarchism.


I just like to change something i said early about "anarchism being run by universial moral laws". Now that i have read about moral absolutionism and existentialism and nihilism i&#39;ve come to the conclusion that anarchism would not be run by universial moral laws, infact i wouldn&#39;t touch moral values with a 10 ft pole.

Anyway back on track. Would extistentialism be part of the ideas of an anarchist society? Although isn&#39;t existentialism judging people on there actions and choices instead of morals, but wouldn&#39;t judging people in an anarchist society be frowned upon?

[Jazzy]

I think that in an Anarchist Society, the people would have to be the judge and jury. Looking at the world around us, it is more than quite obvious that there&#39;s more than a small amount of mentally unstable people walking this planet....for example, our dear and beloved president Bush ;) and all the people who voted him in......
No matter what type of society you live in, it will always boil down to two groups, the good and the evil(by this I do not mean in referance to any type of religious mind set). Some do not believe in the death penalty from some reason or another, whether it be from a religious view point or associate the death penalty as another way for the goverment to have more control over us. Personally, I think that if a grown man goes out and rapes a 9 year old, he deserves to die. Some criminals can be rehabilitated but some can&#39;t be. I think that it would all have to depend on the crime, let the punishment fit the crime.

[LSD]

I think that in an Anarchist Society, the people would have to be the judge and jury.

Of course&#33;


I think that it would all have to depend on the crime, let the punishment fit the crime.

Of course&#33;


Personally, I think that if a grown man goes out and rapes a 9 year old, he deserves to die. Some criminals can be rehabilitated but some can&#39;t be.

I would advise you read over this thread as we had a lengthy discussion on precisely that topic.

I have, as yet, seen absolutely no evidence that anyone is "born bad" or is "unrehabilitatable".


No matter what type of society you live in, it will always boil down to two groups, the good and the evil

I would say that that is a grosse oversimplification.

People are not "evil", they are either sick, are forced into crimes by socioeconomic circumstances, or have some sort of personality disorder.

Regardless, "evil" is a meaningless concept.


Some do not believe in the death penalty from some reason or another, whether it be from a religious view point or associate the death penalty as another way for the goverment to have more control over us.

Or because it&#39;s irreversable.

The death penalty should only be used if the justice system is infallible, otherwise it is inevitable that innocent people will be killed. I don&#39;t think that that is a justifiable price to pay for the visceral "pleasure" that one might get out of killing "evil-doers".


Personally, I think that if a grown man goes out and rapes a 9 year old, he deserves to die.

Personally, I think that he needs to be treated.

[Jazzy]

How can you treat a pedophile? Is it the same method to treat homosexuality? Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubecent children. Once someone is attracted sexually attracted to someone whether it be a child or a member of the same sex, it is what it is. Not that I am trying to put homosexuals and pedophiles in the same catagory, I am using that as an example. People are born homosexuals, that is something that cannot be "cured"&#33; Pedophiles, they are sexually attracted to CHILDREN, explain to me how you could "cure" that.

[Commie Rat]

Actually, the mind and the brain are two COMPLETELY different entities. The mind is nonphysical...the brain is part of the body which makes it physical. Two seperate entities. There is no tangible evidence that the mind exists, but we all know it does. And let me ask you this...do you think a memory is nothing more than a few thousand brain cells firing in a particular pattern?? In other words, do you think a memory is identical with brain cells firing in a pattern?


just thinking if memoeries are a pattern of brain cells firing then knowing the order of brain cels and the lineing them up you could create memories :o

[CEWS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:30 AM
How can you treat a pedophile? Is it the same method to treat homosexuality? Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubecent children. Once someone is attracted sexually attracted to someone whether it be a child or a member of the same sex, it is what it is. Not that I am trying to put homosexuals and pedophiles in the same catagory, I am using that as an example. People are born homosexuals, that is something that cannot be "cured"&#33; Pedophiles, they are sexually attracted to CHILDREN, explain to me how you could "cure" that.

Pedophiles, they are sexually attracted to CHILDREN, explain to me how you could "cure" that.

You don&#39;t "cure" it. There is no need. If the peds are anarchists than its very unlikely they would be a problem at all.

[Jazzy]

How on earth do you think that a pedophiles political point of views are going to stop him from going around and hurting children?

[LSD]

Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubecent children. Once someone is attracted sexually attracted to someone whether it be a child or a member of the same sex, it is what it is.

That&#39;s complete crap and shows a misunderstanding of psychology and human sexuality.

Pedophilia is a paraphilia. It is a psychological disorder which is rarely exclusive and can be treated.

Granted, we can&#39;t treat all pedophiles today, but that doesn&#39;t mean that we won&#39;t be able to do so in the future.


Not that I am trying to put homosexuals and pedophiles in the same catagory

I should hope not, although that is the impression that one would get from reading your post. I think it was this line specifially: "How can you treat a pedophile? Is it the same method to treat homosexuality?"

[Jazzy]

The reason I said that is because people tend to think that you can "treat" homosexuality, just the way the way you are saying that a man that is attracted to children can be "treated". Both theories are absurd.

[LSD]

The reason I said that is because people tend to think that you can "treat" homosexuality, just the way the way you are saying that a man that is attracted to children can be "treated". Both theories are absurd.

Except, again, you can treat pedophilia... <_<

[CEWS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:43 PM
How on earth do you think that a pedophiles political point of views are going to stop him from going around and hurting children?

How on earth do you think that a pedophiles political point of views are going to stop him from going around and hurting children?

Well, anarchists are against authority, which includes hurting people and rape. So its unlikely that an anarchist would do such a thing.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 3 2005, 01:47 PM

The reason I said that is because people tend to think that you can "treat" homosexuality, just the way the way you are saying that a man that is attracted to children can be "treated". Both theories are absurd.

Except, again, you can treat pedophilia... <_<
Is this a fact? How successful are the treatments? Source?

[Paroxsiticxc]

Anarchists are against violence unless in self defense, and note violence does not include property damage. What i personally think is that some people unfortunately cannot be rehabilitated. It is easy to say "if they commit murder give them treatment they deserve a chance if something might be wrong with them." But i know if say someone were to murder my girlfriend, i would not say let them get help, i&#39;d kill the fucker myself you know? There has to be some form of justice, for people who lost a loved one. Let&#39;s face it as much as we want to believe humans are good, they aren&#39;t perfect. There will always be murderers, rapists, and so on. We would all love to treat each other as equals, and give each other the freedom to control their own life away from restrictions implaced by the state, but there will always be a few nutcases. If someone is gonna disregard the feelings of the people in the commune get rid of them. Besides whomever murders another is taking away that person&#39;s freedom to live, to have a life. We may not like to have to kill people but in cases like this it would have to be done. You can&#39;t just let bastards like that get off scott free. But i think for the most part our comrades will work together fine. With competition gone you have solidarity, in turn eliminating greed. Instead of profits you have a barter system or a gift economy. Agreements shall be made by the community not by one person higher than the other because nobody has a more of a say than anyone else, we&#39;re all equals here, we&#39;re all free to do as we wish.