Communist Legal Theory [Archive]

redstar2000

22nd June 2005, 15:03

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Jun 22 2005, 05:53 AM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Jun 22 2005, 05:53 AM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 01:09 AM
Crime & Punishment--Some Brief Notes on Communist Justice (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083339099&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
releasing everyone? including rapists, murderers and the mentally insane? [/b]
Yes...the usual practice following major revolutions is a general amnesty.

It's too much trouble to review a million records and decide who really belongs in prison and who was imprisoned for reasons that are no longer criminal.

It probably goes back to antiquity...when a new king or emperor ascended the throne, it was a custom to begin his reign with a large-scale amnesty. It was probably considered "good luck" to do that...particularly if the previous monarch was known for his harsh rule.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Snitza

22nd June 2005, 17:56

QUOTE (NewKindOfSoldier @ Jun 22 2005, 05:53 AM)
QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Jun 22 2005, 01:09 AM)
Crime & Punishment--Some Brief Notes on Communist Justice

releasing everyone? including rapists, murderers and the mentally insane?

Yes...the usual practice following major revolutions is a general amnesty.

It's too much trouble to review a million records and decide who really belongs in prison and who was imprisoned for reasons that are no longer criminal.

It probably goes back to antiquity...when a new king or emperor ascended the throne, it was a custom to begin his reign with a large-scale amnesty. It was probably considered "good luck" to do that...particularly if the previous monarch was known for his harsh rule.

"Too much trouble"? Leninists argue that it's "too much trouble" to put a democracy in place, that there's too much arguing and it takes too long to get things "accomplished". Are you taking the same position on this issue?

Sure, it's faster and "easier" to just grant general amnesty, but there are a lot of serious offenders not just to the capitalist system, but to values that communists hold as well. White supremacists, white-power skinheads and other fascists would be unleashed on a fresh new society, not to mention the others that another brought up(rapists, serial-killers).

Other than to preserve "tradition" as you brought up what revolutions traditionally have done, what practical purpose does this serve?

Enragé

22nd June 2005, 20:19

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 22 2005, 02:03 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 22 2005, 02:03 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:53 AM

[email protected] 22 2005, 01:09 AM
Crime & Punishment--Some Brief Notes on Communist Justice (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083339099&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
releasing everyone? including rapists, murderers and the mentally insane?
Yes...the usual practice following major revolutions is a general amnesty.

It's too much trouble to review a million records and decide who really belongs in prison and who was imprisoned for reasons that are no longer criminal.

It probably goes back to antiquity...when a new king or emperor ascended the throne, it was a custom to begin his reign with a large-scale amnesty. It was probably considered "good luck" to do that...particularly if the previous monarch was known for his harsh rule.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
thats a bullshit argument. Just because its been done in the past doesnt mean we should do it

redstar2000

23rd June 2005, 02:31

Originally posted by Snitza
Other than to preserve "tradition" as you brought up what revolutions traditionally have done, what practical purpose does this serve?

A general amnesty empties all the prisons and jails. The jails we may still need for a while; the prisons can be shut down for good.

Afterwards, violent criminals should be either exiled (if possible) or executed (if necessary).

Prisons are pain factories -- their only purpose is to manufacture human suffering. We should not tolerate them in a post-capitalist society.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

The Grapes of Wrath

23rd June 2005, 05:49

A general amnesty empties all the prisons and jails. The jails we may still need for a while; the prisons can be shut down for good.

I agree with NewKindOfSoldier and Snitza ... this is a pretty drastic step. Why isn't there time to look at records and whatnot?

Wouldn't releasing prisoners into the real world cause problems? Prison is a very different place then outside, who knows how individuals will react. They have been living as animals for a years maybe, and suddenly you want to release them back into society? That could be dangerous for the prisoners and the average person out there. A revolution is a very chaotic period, and releasing hardened prisoners into a society may not be a good idea.

Afterwards, violent criminals should be either exiled (if possible) or executed (if necessary).

Is that before or after you release them. If after ... how the hell do you expect to find these violent criminals? After they have had another victim? Or are you refering to violent criminals period?

Execute, huh? Interesting. Who is judge, jury or executioner? Are we to have these institutions known as Law? Police? (I remember you arguing strongly against them) Courts? (I remember you arguing against them as well).

Prisons are pain factories -- their only purpose is to manufacture human suffering. We should not tolerate them in a post-capitalist society.

Yes, I gather they are. But I think that they could be used as places to rehabilitate and reeducation prisoners. If you want political reeducation ... here is a chance for it, although it sounds a bit evil, but it is an option if one were so inclined.

Reeducation in regards to work skills, etc, give prisoners schooling that they didn't have. I mean really give it to them, not this half-assed approach of today.

These are all options, but to dismiss them entirely, we may want them back. Eventually they will be gone. But again, this is the problem with discussing communism because you are in essence describing or attempting to describe on a world we have never experienced and can only imagine, so who knows?

I guess that's all I got.

TGOW

enigma2517

23rd June 2005, 06:15

Prisons are not just factories of pain, they're factories of criminals.

All people can do in there is work out and converse with out criminals. Everybody's an expert and you certainetly pick up some "skills". The psychological damage done by prison is pretty big and its pretty evident that it does little to prevent crime once that person is released.

They're going to get out sooner or later, so why not sooner? Or we can keep using resources to develop super-criminals...meh...either way.

On the other hand though, revolution is a tricky process. Fighting capitalists is hard enough, having criminals ravage through your community just adds to the trouble. Seems like a destablizing effect there.

Lets stop looking at absolutist solutions here. It may be hard to review these things on a case by case basis, at least in depth. But its fairly easy to look at a prison's record and see who's in for what. Those that are in for "crimes" related to drugs and property (80% of inmates basically) would probably get released automatically, and then once there is more time we can examine the more haneous crimes. Murder is indeed a major violation of ones freedom and I don't see why a communist society would condone that any more than a capitalist one.

Generally, releasing convicts won't be a horrible idea. The disenfranchisement they feel can be turned around to fight capitalist despotism. Likewise, reeducation would be a more viable option and most of all things like employment won't be an issue. Ever think about that? Most convicts keep doing illegal shit because *surprise surprise* theres no way they can lead a normal life once they get back on the outside.

A new egalitarian society should help alliviate some of those problems.

Enragé

23rd June 2005, 12:57

those criminals could even destroy the revolution!!

redstar2000

23rd June 2005, 14:51

Originally posted by The Grapes of Wrath+--> (The Grapes of Wrath)Why isn't there time to look at records and whatnot?[/b]

Because we're in a revolution and there is much else to be done.

In a revolution, decisions are made quickly, often by a determined minority. Consider all the families of those imprisoned...they will demand immediate release of all prisoners and, like as not, go to the prisons and personally free the prisoners.

And are you going to free some and not all?

Hah!

A revolution is a very chaotic period, and releasing hardened prisoners into a society may not be a good idea.

Yes, it will be chaotic...which makes it impossible to stop and figure out who "deserves" release and who "doesn't".

Is that before or after you release them?

After. Once the prisons are emptied, those who commit violent crimes will either be exiled or executed.

During the first few years after the revolution, justice is apt to be "quick & dirty"...people won't have time for the elaborate rituals and baroque theater of capitalist "justice".

And the transition will be to "quick & clean"...I don't think we should ever try to restore the bullshit we have now.

But I think that [prisons] could be used as places to rehabilitate and reeducate prisoners.

Has never happened...probably for a variety of reasons.

1. We don't know why a minority of people are violent sociopaths -- thus we have no way of knowing when they are really "rehabilitated" and when they're just faking it.

2. For rehabilitation/re-education to be "workable", prison must be at least a humanly tolerable environment.

3. But if prisons are reasonably pleasant places to live, then people who were the victims of criminals would be pissed off.

4. That's why prisons always end up hellholes...no matter what the "good intentions" of the penal authorities. And why prison guards are always fascist thugs.

Originally posted by [email protected]
On the other hand though, revolution is a tricky process. Fighting capitalists is hard enough, having criminals ravage through your community just adds to the trouble. Seems like a destabilizing effect there.

The evidence is fragmentary. It seems to be the case that "ordinary crime" declines sharply in revolutionary periods...even "hardened criminals" grasp that something entirely new is happening; something that's far more interesting than their "old life".

A lot depends, I think, on the on-going character of the revolution. If people perceive that things are "settling down" into the "old routines", then yes, I would expect a fresh rise of criminal activity. That would be especially true if the Leninists were to "win out" and permit gross economic inequalities to continue to exist (which they say they will do).

On the other hand, if people sense that something new is always about to happen...that makes crime look boring by comparison.

So we'll see.

NewKindofSoldier
Those criminals could even destroy the revolution!!

Been watching too many crime shows on the dummyvision, eh? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

comrade_mufasa

23rd June 2005, 16:06

What about people who are in prison for money crimes? Like CEOs who diverted large sums of money away from the company to thier own accounts.

redstar2000

23rd June 2005, 18:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:06 AM
What about people who are in prison for money crimes? Like CEOs who diverted large sums of money away from the company to thier own accounts.
Yeah, those three guys get released too. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Enragé

23rd June 2005, 22:15

Been watching too many crime shows on the dummyvision, eh?

Think about it, if a bunch of thieving raping murdering scumbags get out they could undermine the revolution with their criminal, greed based agenda (im talking about drug lords though not your ordinary petty thief, those should be released)

Clarksist

23rd June 2005, 22:50

Amnesty is what would have to happen, or else counter revolution would occur. It is just obvious that without amnesty people would cry out that communism isn't changing anything... but if rapists, child molesters, murders, and the like get out on the streets we risk ruing more peoples lives.

I would say exile all rapists, child molestors, hanus murderers, and white collar criminals. The rest get one more chance.

comrade_mufasa

24th June 2005, 16:38

What about, just for example, if Saddam was in prison? does his type get amnesty

codyvo

25th June 2005, 01:19

Someone should start a thread about what is to be done with the prisoners after the revolution, I just want to know about communist legal theory.

redstar2000

25th June 2005, 01:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:19 PM
Someone should start a thread about what is to be done with the prisoners after the revolution, I just want to know about communist legal theory.
In a stateless, classless society there simply isn't that much in the way of "legal theory".

Law in class societies is the nominal attempt to achieve equity among people who are, in physical fact, unequal. Since this could not be done in reality without plunging class society into chaos, what emerges is a kind of theater where it is pretended that the wealthy & powerful are "equal" to the poor & powerless.

"Equality before the Law" is a kind of superstition...not really much different from "our leaders have our best interests at heart" or "everyone has a guardian angel".

Thus in a communist society, where people actually are equal in wealth and power, there's no reason for the baroque rituals that presently exist.

The only form of "crime" that may still be significant is sociopathic...that small number of people who seemingly lack any capacity for empathy for reasons we don't presently know and therefore behave violently to others without reasonable provocation. Such people must be separated from society...and execution or exile are the only practical options.

If we are ever able to develop a reliable "chemical test" (or "genetic test") for sociopathy, then fetuses with positive results would be aborted.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Snitza

25th June 2005, 02:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:38 PM
What about, just for example, if Saddam was in prison? does his type get amnesty
Well, let's not confuse "amnesty" with "protection". If these Saddam-types are released from prison, no Revolutionary in his right mind would give two shits if a Saddam-type were to be consumed by an angry mob.

Understand, that when these assholes get let out of prison, people will be still be pissed at them. Civilians tend to take extreme measures of revenge into their own hands(see Mussolinni).
http://www.gay.hr/slike/opsirno/benito-mussolini.jpg

Enragé

25th June 2005, 15:31

and execution or exile are the only practical options.

technically those people cant really help it..so exile it is then

OleMarxco

25th June 2005, 16:44

Or, there is a third option. What about torture? Mehheheheh, releasing people from prisons with general-amnesty, like RedStar2000 so benevolently suggests and I support, would make people think we're saints...and that lasts, until the fuckin' mobs come down the hills to beat up the badder of'em ;)

But mostly, they'll hopefully join us, in our new society....of 'el toleranc :D

codyvo

25th June 2005, 17:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:58 AM

Law in class societies is the nominal attempt to achieve equity among people who are, in physical fact, unequal. Since this could not be done in reality without plunging class society into chaos, what emerges is a kind of theater where it is pretended that the wealthy & powerful are "equal" to the poor & powerless.

No, law in any society, is intended to bring order to that society, and though I wish that crime would not be an issue it will be even after the revolution. I'll make my question more specific, in a communist, or socialist society, will their be juries, judges, state prosecuters and defenses in courts, all of that, if not how will it be done?

The Grapes of Wrath

25th June 2005, 19:44

No, law in any society, is intended to bring order to that society, and though I wish that crime would not be an issue it will be even after the revolution. I'll make my question more specific, in a communist, or socialist society, will their be juries, judges, state prosecuters and defenses in courts, all of that, if not how will it be done?

YES! THE RIGHT SET OF QUESTIONS!

In my opinion (and I am talking about socialism because of my beliefs) I certainly hope that they exist! If I had my way they would, but this is not about my way of course.

This just seems a necessary evil and I see no way around it. Law needs to exist (at least right away, in the future, who can say?), and with Law comes the above professions ... and maybe even police (GASP!) dedicated to the enforcement of Law. (Oh, the horror that a murder will be investigated by professional police detectives! The horror!)

QUOTE

Is that before or after you release them?

After. Once the prisons are emptied, those who commit violent crimes will either be exiled or executed.

So after they have killed somone, brutally raped them, or beat them to a bloody pulp then we will re-arrest them and do as we wish to them?

You spoke of the families of those in prison who will call for their release, what about the families and neighbors of those who have been harmed by this policy of release?! They will have cries of "why were they released? what could have been done instead of this?" ... that could be very unstabling as well.

As for time to look into the cases of prisoners during the revolution ... you'll have to make time. A revolution is tricky, there are no easy answers, THERE ARE NO QUICK SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS!

So make time and make the best decision, even if it comes with some necessary evils (NOTE: killing thousands of people is not a necessary evil for a policy).

TGOW

Snitza

25th June 2005, 20:14

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 25 2005, 06:44 PM
This just seems a necessary evil and I see no way around it. Law needs to exist (at least right away, in the future, who can say?), and with Law comes the above professions ... and maybe even police (GASP!) dedicated to the enforcement of Law. (Oh, the horror that a murder will be investigated by professional police detectives! The horror!)

There's a big, bold difference between investigators and Law Enforcement Officers.

What you suggest, to have detectives and the such investigate crimes and gather clues and evidence and all of that icky stuff, I see nothing wrong with that. But none of that is an act of law enforcement. It's a search for information and truth, nothing more. In fact, I don't think these investigators should be armed with much more than a flashlight.

These aren't blue-uniformed police thugs patrolling in squad cars. They're plainclothed Sherlock Holmes'.

Sherlock Holmes used a magnifying glass, not a gun. As will these investigators.

redstar2000

26th June 2005, 03:55

Originally posted by codyvo+--> (codyvo)I'll make my question more specific, in a communist, or socialist society, will there be juries, judges, state prosecutors and defenses in courts, all of that, if not, how will it be done?[/b]

Socialist societies are class societies where inequalities still exist...so they will have all the crap that we do now.

My view is that communist societies will be very different.

There certainly will be no "state prosecutors"...there's no state.

Nor will there be any such profession as "judge"...though there might be amateurs who take an interest in such matters and communities might well ask their advice. There will, no doubt, be a data base of "case law" that interested people will consult as necessary.

Juries will be large, perhaps very large, and will vote on guilt or innocence and, if they convict, will vote on a sentence (usually choosing between exile or execution, although they may select probation under extenuating circumstances).

I think it will become customary in all but unusual circumstances for people to "argue their own case" in front of the jury -- we do not need professional actors or their "tricks of the trade"...we need to find out what happened.

There will still be "investigators" of crime...people who are fascinated by forensic science, pathology, etc. And they can give testimony.

But they will have no "powers of arrest" or "imprisonment".

We might not even arrest people at all until after they've been tried and convicted of a crime -- we just tell them "you've been accused of X and the trial will begin day after tomorrow at 10:00 AM...be there to defend yourself or not, at your peril".

The Grapes of Wrath
As for time to look into the cases of prisoners during the revolution ... you'll have to make time.

Well, when the time comes, you can tell people that...but I don't think anyone will listen.

The "Fall of the Bastille" effect is too strong.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

codyvo

26th June 2005, 04:13

The problem with that system is that you said either exile or execution if found guilty, that is a damn shitty way to go about it, no rehabilitaion, that is stupid and it is even worse than the US system where someone at least has a chance at rejoining society. Also, the problem with any jury no matter the size is that in it, the majority will rule and so anybody that is just genuinely disliked may be killed for something they didn't do. This system has no checks and balances, death is a final thing, and it is likely that if we have large juries they will probably rule the same way if their were to be a retrial or appeal of any kind.

redstar2000

26th June 2005, 05:35

Originally posted by codyvo
The problem with that system is that you said either exile or execution if found guilty, that is a damn shitty way to go about it, no rehabilitation, that is stupid and it is even worse than the US system where someone at least has a chance at rejoining society.

And you must have noticed, since the media always make such a fuss about it, the stories about "rehabilitated" people who get their chance to "rejoin society" and promptly do it again! That is, they commit another horrible crime.

The problem is one of ignorance on our part...we can't tell when a violent criminal is "really rehabilitated" and is just faking it.

In capitalist America, the guy facing a long sentence for a violent crime is well advised to "find Jesus"...that's the best ticket to early release.

Do you think that "finding Jesus" changes a brutal killer, rapist, etc. into a nice guy that can be released into society again?

Also, the problem with any jury no matter the size is that in it, the majority will rule and so anybody that is just genuinely disliked may be killed for something they didn't do.

Could happen. But ask yourself this: why is this "innocent guy" so heartily disliked by a majority that they're willing to execute him on "dubious" evidence or even none at all? What did he do to make people hate him that much?

Perhaps he was just a really obnoxious bastard...always giving everybody a hard time. Well, it does seem harsh to execute somebody because they have a really shitty personality...but if it happens, those are the breaks.

Better that than having our fate decided by a bunch of arrogant scoundrels in robes and wigs.

This system has no checks and balances...

We don't have that now..."checks and balances" are just part of the show.

The only real "check" on the power of the state now is the doctrine of "jury nullification" -- if jurors deem a law unjust, they can legally refuse to convict regardless of the evidence and there's nothing the state can do about it.

You will never see this happen in a courtroom drama in a movie or on the dummyvision...it's the best kept secret in American law. Judges never mention this option when giving instructions to a jury at the end of a trial. Even professional law journals rarely discuss it.

It's not something that they want juries to know about.

And mostly, they don't.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

codyvo

27th June 2005, 05:55

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 26 2005, 04:35 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 26 2005, 04:35 AM)
codyvo
The problem with that system is that you said either exile or execution if found guilty, that is a damn shitty way to go about it, no rehabilitation, that is stupid and it is even worse than the US system where someone at least has a chance at rejoining society.

And you must have noticed, since the media always make such a fuss about it, the stories about "rehabilitated" people who get their chance to "rejoin society" and promptly do it again! That is, they commit another horrible crime.

The problem is one of ignorance on our part...we can't tell when a violent criminal is "really rehabilitated" and is just faking it.

In capitalist America, the guy facing a long sentence for a violent crime is well advised to "find Jesus"...that's the best ticket to early release.

Do you think that "finding Jesus" changes a brutal killer, rapist, etc. into a nice guy that can be released into society again?

Also, the problem with any jury no matter the size is that in it, the majority will rule and so anybody that is just genuinely disliked may be killed for something they didn't do.

Could happen. But ask yourself this: why is this "innocent guy" so heartily disliked by a majority that they're willing to execute him on "dubious" evidence or even none at all? What did he do to make people hate him that much?

Perhaps he was just a really obnoxious bastard...always giving everybody a hard time. Well, it does seem harsh to execute somebody because they have a really shitty personality...but if it happens, those are the breaks.

Better that than having our fate decided by a bunch of arrogant scoundrels in robes and wigs.

This system has no checks and balances...

We don't have that now..."checks and balances" are just part of the show.

The only real "check" on the power of the state now is the doctrine of "jury nullification" -- if jurors deem a law unjust, they can legally refuse to convict regardless of the evidence and there's nothing the state can do about it.

You will never see this happen in a courtroom drama in a movie or on the dummyvision...it's the best kept secret in American law. Judges never mention this option when giving instructions to a jury at the end of a trial. Even professional law journals rarely discuss it.

It's not something that they want juries to know about.

And mostly, they don't.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
1) If someone "does it again" then they clearly were not rehabilitated, the most likely reason they were not rehabilitated is that the rehabilitation programs are terrible and need much improvement. And no I don't think that simply saying they have found Jesus means they are better, but giving them no chance to get better isn't the best solution either.

2) Yes it is harsh to execute someone because they are an obnoxious bastard is harsh, no, more than harsh, it is downright evil and hateful, which is why we should strive to END this after the revolution, after the revolution we should make sure their are no "breaks". You are right about one thing, having one man decide is just as bad, thats why I want to know an alternative.

3) I know we don't have checks and balances now, isn't that why after the revolution we should try to make a system that will include a way to check the abuse of power, like the wrongful conviction of someone. Also, that law you mention is very interesting, I think that should be brought to the attention of everyone.

anomaly

27th June 2005, 07:28

I would suggest that the community appoint a legal expert to oversee the trial (he/she will act as 'judge'). I think that lawyers can be done away with entirely, and have the 'trial' consist of the persecutor and defendent giving their account of events before a jury (which I think would consist of the entire-or atleast most of-the commune), followed by witnesses. The legal process can be made much, much simpler. Punishments, too, can be decided by the commune, and will vary depending upon the case.

redstar2000

28th June 2005, 01:59

Originally posted by codyvo
If someone "does it again" then they clearly were not rehabilitated, the most likely reason they were not rehabilitated is that the rehabilitation programs are terrible and need much improvement.

But what consolation is that to the second victim of the sociopath? Had the bastard been shot after his first murder, then he could not have committed his second.

What a "bad break" for the second victim.

Only in science fiction have I seen any genuine alternatives to execution or exile. I read a story once that suggested a kind of brain surgery such that the sociopath about to hurt or kill faints instead. And people are warned of the sociopath's presence because his body chemistry has been altered to generate an extremely offensive odor. In another story, a personal robot is assigned to the sociopath and follows him around at all times -- should he threaten to begin a violent attack, the robot stops him. People who have been assigned such robots are social isolates...no one will have anything to do with them.

Maybe we'll be able to do things like that someday. Until then, execution or exile seem the best options.

Yes it is harsh to execute someone because they are an obnoxious bastard is harsh, no, more than harsh, it is downright evil and hateful...

Well, we can hope it won't happen...but it might.

We are not angels and "moral perfection" is forever unattainable.

We will always make mistakes; the objective is to make far fewer than we do now.

I know we don't have checks and balances now, isn't that why after the revolution we should try to make a system that will include a way to check the abuse of power, like the wrongful conviction of someone.

What could we use for that purpose? A large jury (say 500 people -- like the Athenians used) hears testimony, sees evidence, etc., and votes both to convict and to execute.

On what grounds can an appeal for "wrongful conviction" be made? Remember, there's no state apparatus that's hiding evidence that might be favorable to the accused. There's no bias in jury selection (it's done by lottery). The individual who's chairing the trial was also selected by lottery...s/he's not a member of a professional "judge class". The forensic detectives who gave testimony were not paid for their efforts...they do that kind of work because they enjoy it.

The accusers may have lied their asses off...but the same is true of the accused. It's up to the jury to decide who is telling the truth.

What else is there? Community bias? Why?

I suppose neighboring communes could work out a deal to try each others accused...so that community bias could be avoided. But keep in mind that such a measure would impose a hardship on both the accused and the accusers...who might have to travel to that other community for the trial.

I frankly doubt that there will be any "appeal" process at all. If the verdict is execution, then it would be kinder to carry out the sentence quickly (within an hour or two of the verdict) rather than make someone suffer the anticipation of death for any extended period of time.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

codyvo

28th June 2005, 03:31

RS2K: Their is no consolation and their is nothing we can do once it has happened which is why we need a system that rehabilitates them. Some people can not be rehabilitated, I know, but if we don't even try then our prison system will be even worse than that of america. The idea of tampering with someones brain to choose what they can and cannot think is just absurd and tyrannical.

Also, your idea to have no appeals could lead to the death of many innocent people because you want them dead so soon. If or rather when this happens we would be the murderers, or would it be the jury, then what do you do with them, execute them?

I personally think that the whole practice of execution is savage and hypocritical, think about it, "you killed someone so we're gonna kill you!". That is childish, and like Ghandi said an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind.

redstar2000

28th June 2005, 13:33

Originally posted by codyvo
I personally think that the whole practice of execution is savage and hypocritical, think about it, "you killed someone so we're gonna kill you!".

You are perfectly free to voice your moral objections to execution...but no one is going to take them seriously unless you can offer viable practical alternatives.

The purpose of execution is not retribution...it's to stop him from ever doing it again.

So what will you have? A hell-hole prison system with fascist thugs for guards? Who is likely to be "rehabilitated" in such conditions?

And don't tell me that "your prisons" will be "better". :lol:

Prison is prison! It has always been shit and it will always be shit! It is protracted pain and suffering. It is execution by inches.

It is indefensibly cruel.

A prompt and painless execution is the humane alternative.

Also, your idea to have no appeals could lead to the death of many innocent people because you want them dead so soon.

Why should that be the case? Do you think that ordinary people in communist society are incapable of reaching a correct verdict? Do we need "professionals" to decide these things for us?

I think once we trash the whole legal apparatus of capitalist society that justice is more likely rather than, as you seem to think, "less likely".

...like Gandhi said an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind.

That's not true...most people do not commit violent crimes and thus most people would never have to forfeit their eyes.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

codyvo

28th June 2005, 17:06

I must say redstar, you are taking a very conservative stance on this issue.

I can think of a viable and practical alternative to murdering someone, rehabilitating them.

I will not have prisons with fascist guards, I will have rehabilitation centers like I have been saying. Hopefully, what we can do with the rehab patients is to give them a job in a sort of micro-community where they can slowly get readjusted to what it will be like in the "real" world. If they are unable to live peacefully in this smaller community, then they will be sent back to rehab.

I agree justice will be more likely and crime will be way down, but I assure you that their will never be a totally crime free community. So their will still have to be ways to deal with the criminals. We won't need professionals just regular people, but since crime will likely be down then the people will have little or no experience in dealing with these crimes, so, it is inevitable that they will make some mistakes, and if we don't execute the prisoners, then the mistakes are reversible in a sense and can help bring true justice to a community.

redstar2000

29th June 2005, 01:38

Originally posted by codyvo
I will not have prisons with fascist guards, I will have rehabilitation centers like I have been saying. Hopefully, what we can do with the rehab patients is to give them a job in a sort of micro-community where they can slowly get readjusted to what it will be like in the "real" world. If they are unable to live peacefully in this smaller community, then they will be sent back to rehab.

That might be acceptable to people on an experimental basis...until the first time one of your "rehab patients" kills again.

At that point, the fecal matter makes contact with the air circulating device.

Beyond this, I don't think you grasp the scientific problem here. The fact is that we don't know why a small minority of humans are willing and able to kill "without remorse"...why they completely lack any sense of empathy with other members of their species. We don't understand "crimes of passion" either.

Therefore we cannot say who is "rehabilitated" and who is not...at least not with any reasonable degree of certainty.

How then can we safely release these individuals back into the community? Are you going to be the one who delivers the message to the friends and loved ones of the second victim -- duh, we fucked up, looks like the bastard wasn't rehabilitated after all, er, sorry about that???

They would not only proceed at once to ask the community to shoot your pseudo-rehabilitated sociopath but they might even ask the community to shoot you for criminal stupidity.

It's no use for you to claim that you "meant well" and were just "trying to be humane"...actions have real world consequences.

And should you be so insensitive as to quote that old Hindu faker, that might really get people pissed off with you!

Justifiably.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

codyvo

29th June 2005, 04:30

Okay redstar I'll deliver the message to the family and friends of the second victim if you deliver the message to the child of a man who was executed for any crime as your plan states we should. Or I'll deliver the message, if you tell the parents of some teenage delinquant that their son has been exiled for vandalism or some petty crime like that, thats real humane huh?

redstar2000

29th June 2005, 05:53

Originally posted by codyvo+--> (codyvo)Or I'll deliver the message, if you tell the parents of some teenage delinquent that their son has been exiled for vandalism or some petty crime like that, that's real humane huh?[/b]

Here is a quote from the link to my site that you evidently overlooked...

redstar2000
I've said elsewhere that for minor crimes, I favor jails and brief sentences--the "jail" would have the "look and feel" of an apartment building except that you can't leave, and sentences would be one-three years maximum. Inmates would be treated with dignity and encouraged to rehabilitate themselves.

Teen "vandalism" would, in most cases, fit under the rubric of "minor crimes".

Of course, if a teenager did something that caused serious damage or threatened people's lives, then his ass might indeed be exiled.

What's wrong with that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Ifoughtthelawandiwon

29th June 2005, 14:57

This is just an idea of mine but as everyone is an individual to a huge degree, there shoul be NO laws per se but any questionable acts by someone should be reffered to a jury or similar and the decision made case specific. This would surely eliminate almost all unfair trials and the need for clever lawyers to 'trick' the jury would be hugely reduced, wouldnt it? Law stereotype people and stereotyping is a tool of capitalist repression. all aspects of comunist life should encorporate to a full degree individualism. let me know what you think.

codyvo

29th June 2005, 15:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:53 AM

Of course, if a teenager did something that caused serious damage or threatened people's lives, then his ass might indeed be exiled.

What's wrong with that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Lots of things are wrong with that, first, if a capitalist were to do this I'm pretty sure you'd be outraged. Also, exiling anyne is a bad thing, you have said in the past that you want their to be city-state type things after the revolution, so if we exile someone then we are just shipping them off to another city-state where they will probably commit more crimes.

And I would like to know, if you think that their should be a violent revolution, and you think that all murderers must be executed, what makes the revolutionaries exempt?

redstar2000

29th June 2005, 15:49

Originally posted by Ifoughtthelawandiwon+--> (Ifoughtthelawandiwon) This is just an idea of mine but as everyone is an individual to a huge degree, there should be NO laws per se but any questionable acts by someone should be referred to a jury or similar and the decision made case specific.[/b]

Things might very well work out as you suggest...certainly I can see no reasonable need for the shelves of laws and regulations that currently exist.

codyvo
...first, if a capitalist were to do this, I'm pretty sure you'd be outraged.

You seem to have an "understanding" here that there is some sort of "universal code" (up in the sky?) that "applies to everyone in all circumstances".

That's wrong.

We perform "act X" even though we denounce the capitalists whenever they perform "act X".

Is that "hypocritical"? No, we are biased in favor of our own class and against our class enemy.

We don't recognize any "universals" except those justified by reason and argument.

That's a pretty short list.

...so if we exile someone then we are just shipping them off to another city-state where they will probably commit more crimes.

Well, another polis would have to agree to accept him...otherwise it's curtains for his ass. Maybe they'd accept the teen-ager guilty of life-threatening vandalism; I don't think any will accept the murderer or rapist.

And I would like to know, if you think that there should be a violent revolution, and you think that all murderers must be executed, what makes the revolutionaries exempt?

It's our revolution; we're on the winning side.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

codyvo

29th June 2005, 17:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:49 PM

It's our revolution; we're on the winning side.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
So what you are saying is that because we are fighting for what we think is right we have this new right to just kill anyone and get away with it because it's "our" revolution. I was always under the impression that it is the people's revolution and all the people will decide what is to be done after the revolution, if they want us dead or if they want to make us their god, it should be a collective decision.

redstar2000

29th June 2005, 22:17

Originally posted by codyvo
So what you are saying is that because we are fighting for what we think is right we have this new right to just kill anyone and get away with it because it's "our" revolution.

Yes, a victorious revolution does indeed "have the right" to "just kill anyone" and "get away with it".

Do you think that means that the purpose of proletarian revolution is to go out and kill lots and lots of people "because we can get away with it"?

Do you think that we sit around all day and make up "hit lists"?

Recall that you began this thread with a question about communist legal theory...which has now been discussed at some length.

Now you want to raise the question of "revolutionary violence"...a subject discussed in many threads.

Very well, there is practically certain to be a "red terror" after the revolution...in the course of which a substantial number of prominent members of the old ruling class will be executed, with or without trial.

That is what happens after a revolution...the people who would have killed us if they could have are instead themselves killed by us.

And we would "get away with it" just as they get away with it now.

The struggle between the working class and the capitalist class is very harsh...and we cannot afford any pacifist illusions about that.

It really is them or us!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

codyvo

30th June 2005, 01:54

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 29 2005, 09:17 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 29 2005, 09:17 PM)
codyvo
So what you are saying is that because we are fighting for what we think is right we have this new right to just kill anyone and get away with it because it's "our" revolution.

Yes, a victorious revolution does indeed "have the right" to "just kill anyone" and "get away with it".

Do you think that means that the purpose of proletarian revolution is to go out and kill lots and lots of people "because we can get away with it"?

Do you think that we sit around all day and make up "hit lists"?
[/b]
No I don't think that will be the purpose of a proletariat revolution, that doesn't mean it won't happen.

When you tell people they have the right to kill just anyone and get away with it, they will probably remember every little grudgge they've had in their lives and some people will probably get a little overwhelmed with this power as has happened in the past.

codyvo

30th June 2005, 02:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:17 PM
Recall that you began this thread with a question about communist legal theory...which has now been discussed at some length.

Now you want to raise the question of "revolutionary violence"...a subject discussed in many threads.

Very well, there is practically certain to be a "red terror" after the revolution...in the course of which a substantial number of prominent members of the old ruling class will be executed, with or without trial.

That is what happens after a revolution...the people who would have killed us if they could have are instead themselves killed by us.

And we would "get away with it" just as they get away with it now.

The struggle between the working class and the capitalist class is very harsh...and we cannot afford any pacifist illusions about that.

It really is them or us!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
For us to stoop to their level and do to them as they would do to us is not only very hypocritical but also a very stupid way to do things, it won't get more people on our side, in fact it will get more people against us, and rightfully so.

"It really is them or us"~ RedStar2000 "You're either with us or against us"~ George Dubya Bush
See the similarity?

redstar2000

30th June 2005, 02:22

Originally posted by codyvo
"It really is them or us"~ RedStar2000 "You're either with us or against us"~ George Dubya Bush
See the similarity?

Of course. George W. Bush spoke the truth in public...possibly for the first and only time in his entire life.

And I just told the truth as I always do. :P

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

novemba

30th June 2005, 03:23

Do you think that we sit around all day and make up "hit lists"?

We should. Lemme start.

1. You people, get off youre asses and do something!

OleMarxco

4th July 2005, 00:39

Uh...What you say? Did you just say, oh, I don't know.... we should load up our AK-47's and storm the fuckin' government building in a bold martyr move? Oh yeah, I get it! I'm totally, well, what shall I say, DOWN WITH THE CLOWN that, then, pal - KICKASS IDEA :lol:

Taboo Tongue

6th July 2005, 05:02

I've read all the post in this thread and, I will definently take what may be called a "right winged" stance on this, and I full heartedly agree with Red Star about the revolution and about the future legal penalties. However if in our revolution we release the prisons I would give myself 50-50 chance of leaving the revolution and country a 1/4 chance that I would help fight against the revolution on the side of the unjust Capitalist. I'm by no means the most hardcore Communist, but where there is one, there is one hundred. I personally say clear off the area, and gas the prisons if "we don't have time" to look at their files; if we do (and I hope we do) have time, I would want all violent criminals to be gassed anwyays. A Communist country has no place for criminals, a penalty iron fist may be deemed evil, or unhumane, but it drives down crime rates. I will not let anyone else I know (or don't) get raped becuase of a revolution that I am a part of. I am willing to fight for a better future not for one where men, woman, and children; are all affraid to open their eyes in the morning because thousands of rapist and murderers just got out.

codyvo

7th July 2005, 00:22

What if in the prisons their are a lot of political prisoners and we happen to kill lots of our own comrades, that would suck, huh? Or what about all the homeless people that tried to get into prison so they could have food and shelter, or all the innocent people we lock up because of our fucked up system?

Also, it's no big surprise that you side with redstar he seems to have quite a big cult following, I think everyone needs to learn to think for themselves, kind of like humans.

redstar2000

7th July 2005, 00:46

Naturally I'm always happy when people say they agree with me...but it takes a lot of the fun out of it when they agree with things I didn't say.

Gassing all the people who happen to be in prison in the first days of the revolution is not a very good idea...precisely because then (as now) most of the people in prison shouldn't be there.

They will have been imprisoned for drug "crimes" or property "crimes" or perhaps even political "crimes". Or perhaps bizarre "sex crimes" -- the 20-year-old guy who has consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl is a "sex offender" in the U.S.

The sentiment of the masses will be, if history is any example, to empty the prisons and shut them down for good.

That sounds reasonable to me.

After this has happened, we can then take a "tough line" on violent crime and people will be more likely to agree with us...or even insist that we do that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Taboo Tongue

7th July 2005, 01:19

Originally posted by RedStar+--> (RedStar)but it takes a lot of the fun out of it when they agree with things I didn't say.[/b]
Sorry about any confusion I by no means meant you said everything in my post; because if you did I wouldn't have made the post. It'd have just been spam\repeating what's arleady there if I mean to do that.

Originally posted by RedStar+--> (RedStar)most of the people in prison shouldn't be there.[/b]
I disagree with that; admitedlly Alger Hiss shouldn't have gone to prison; but under our current system people who assit in, and video tape the rape of 14 year old girls only get a month in county jail, even if their record is as dirty as Capitalism.

[email protected]
They will have been imprisoned for drug "crimes" or property "crimes" or perhaps even political "crimes". Or perhaps bizarre "sex crimes" -- the 20-year-old guy who has consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl is a "sex offender" in the U.S.
I've never seen any problem with that law in all honesty, it is to prevent adults from preying on children, do you really think the 15 year old will end up loving the 20 year old for the rest of his\her life? (Also the above example is apx 20). And it's not just five year gaps that law applies to, it's also applies to 40 year gaps, lets say a 13 and 53 year old have sex, is that right? No. Now I beleive state should have no part in personal relationships but when a 53 year old and 13 year old have sex, it's unexceptable, maybe not prison time but they should be in a insane asylum at least. Imagine your daughter having sex with somone that old at that age, it's very unfortunate and I hope becoming even rarer than it is, but some don't have to imagine.

RedStar
After this has happened, we can then take a "tough line" on violent crime and people will be more likely to agree with us...or even insist that we do that.
That is a very good point (I am posting this because the bulk of the post is not restating\agreeing with, what others have said).

codyvo

7th July 2005, 04:17

Since our revolution will be to bring democracy, why don't we put issues like the release of prisoners after the revolution, to a vote amonst everyone, this way the masses will decide what they want rather than us telling them what they want. We can do this on a number of issues and the results will set precedents for how the future of our society will go. Of course we will have to allow a way for change because certain decisions will become outdated and the minds of the masses may change through the years. We could also use the precedents we set as guidelines for our legal system.

redstar2000

7th July 2005, 05:00

Originally posted by Taboo Tongue
I disagree with that; admittedly Alger Hiss shouldn't have gone to prison; but under our current system people who assist in, and video tape the rape of 14 year old girls only get a month in county jail, even if their record is as dirty as Capitalism.

I think there are details here that you're not telling us...because what you're saying doesn't make sense.

For example, video-taping the rape of a 14-year-old female just by itself would probably expose the perpetrator to a child-pornography charge.

Now, if we're talking about a bunch of young teens having sex with each other and video-taping the proceedings for the personal use of the participants only (not selling the tape on the internet)...that's a very different matter indeed and shouldn't involve the legal system at all.

You may personally disapprove of such behavior, but that confers no right to prohibit it.

I've never seen any problem with that law in all honesty, it is to prevent adults from preying on children...

Unless they suffer from mental retardation, 15-year-olds (in the "west") are not children, sexually speaking.

In fact, the age of puberty in the "west" for both sexes is, I believe, around 12. Sexual initiation usually takes place in the 13-16 age range.

...do you really think the 15 year old will end up loving the 20 year old for the rest of his\her life?

Do you really think that "planning" to "love someone" for "the rest of one's life" is the "only reason" to have sex with them?

And it's not just five year gaps that law applies to, it's also applied to 40 year gaps, let's say a 13 and 53 year old have sex, is that right? No.

The funny thing about this "example" -- which I've seen brought up many times -- is that it completely ignores the mind of a 13-year-old female.

Do you think that females of that age group find old guys "really hot"? That if the law did not exist, they would be dragging old guys behind the bushes at every opportunity?

From my observation, 13-year-old females are interested in guys who are 15-18; 14-year-old females are usually interested in guys who are 16-19; and so on. I'd say 99.999% of the time, the age-gap never exceeds 10 years and is usually closer to 5 years.

When I was 25, I had a girlfriend who was 17...but that was pretty unusual as she was very far from a "typical" 17.

But let's say we ran into that "one-in-several-million" cases...a 13-year-old girl is having regular sexual encounters with a guy who is 53.

Under capitalism, we'd assume that he's paying her...the sale and purchase of sex being a normal feature of capitalism. By capitalist logic, this cannot be criticized...no matter how "unhealthy" or "immoral" one might consider it.

If this happened in a commune after the revolution, we'd be very puzzled indeed. Why does she want to have sex with this old fart? Does he look/act considerably younger than his years? Does she like it because he only wants sex once a week or so? (Younger guys tend to want sex two or more times daily...and some young women find that excessive.)

Is he saying/doing things to/with her (other than sex) that make her feel especially good about herself? Does she think that this old guy is "the best she can do"?

I don't think any kind of "crime" is necessarily involved here...just something pretty unusual that ought to be looked into a bit.

Imagine your daughter having sex with someone that old at that age.

Well, why would she want to do that? I would certainly be curious about such a relationship.

After all, just because I am her biological parent does not mean that she is "my property". She is an individual who will choose her sexual partners according to her tastes, not mine.

Of course, if he got her drunk and then had sex with her while she was semi-conscious/unconscious, then that's not consensual sex, it's rape.

And I'd want the predatory bastard executed!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

comrade_mufasa

8th July 2005, 08:13

After all, just because I am her biological parent does not mean that she is "my property". She is an individual who will choose her sexual partners according to her tastes, not mine.
But it is your duty, your job to take care of her. I here to much from leftist that children are not property of thier parents. A parent is a servent to thier children's need to live a healthy, safe, and productive life. Maybe since many leftist, at least from my knowledge, are 18ish they dont know that every parent is a parent first and a leftist second. The revolution is so we can build a better future for our children.

redstar2000

8th July 2005, 14:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:13 AM

After all, just because I am her biological parent does not mean that she is "my property". She is an individual who will choose her sexual partners according to her tastes, not mine.
But it is your duty, your job to take care of her. I hear too much from leftists that children are not property of their parents. A parent is a servant to their children's need to live a healthy, safe, and productive life. Maybe since many leftists, at least from my knowledge, are 18ish they don't know that every parent is a parent first and a leftist second. The revolution is so we can build a better future for our children.
I don't think the idea of "parent as servant to their kids" is such a great idea.

Do you want your kids to think that they "deserve" servants?

That they are "entitled" to have others wait on them as if they were little princes or princesses?

I think it would be much better to raise kids to take care of themselves, physically and emotionally. No one likes a whiny, clingy, dependent individual who always expects others to "clean up their mess".

There's actually something psychologically unhealthy, in my opinion, about parents who "sacrifice everything" for their kids. For one thing, it's often accompanied by emotional blackmail -- "I sacrificed my whole life for you, therefore you must do what I want." And for another thing, it often results in parents trying to live vicariously through their kids...instead of living lives of their own.

Actually, it's a pretty bad idea.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Entrails Konfetti

14th July 2005, 02:42

Undoubtly so, if there is a body of demarchic individuals they will decide how courts and justice will be set-up.

I like the idea of a court-room with a 500 member jury,no lawyers, just accused,accuser and witnesses.

However,I think if the person in question is found guilty,it should be up to the victum to decide the guilty parties fate. But, they should only be granted options and not be alowed to do whatever they wish onto the criminal. I think the jury should grant the options.

Ex;

Graffity/Vandalism:
Pay fine.
Fix the damage.
Community service.
1 swift Kick in ass.

Murder/Rape:
Execution
10 years Rehabilitation
Ect.

Theft:
Pay for stolen article
Give back article
3 yrs Rehabilitation

Though personally, if someone comited a crime against me and it was worse than theft or vandalism,I'd favour rehabilitation.

The options could lessen if the person were a repeat offender,some things should be considered though,for one,if a person is found guilty on assult. Is it their first time assulting someone ? What provoked them ?

Though,depending more on forensic evidence is a better idea than a person in a wig deciding on words,it can have its flaws.In the case of assult and battery,the attacked could fake their own injuries. In vandalism,the accuser could forge the damage.

redstar2000

14th July 2005, 04:00

The illusion of "rehabilitation" is tenacious. :o

How does one tell when a murderer or rapist has been successfully "rehabilitated" and can safely be released into the community?

Until a scientific answer to this question is available, then someone or some group is simply guessing...and "rolling the dice" with regard to public safety. If they guessed wrong, then a new victim is going to be murdered or raped.

I don't see any way to justify that.

If you murder or rape, I don't see any reason why you "deserve" a "second chance" to do it again.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Entrails Konfetti

14th July 2005, 21:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 03:00 AM
The illusion of "rehabilitation" is tenacious. :o

How does one tell when a murderer or rapist has been successfully "rehabilitated" and can safely be released into the community?

Until it can be be scientifically proven,the people will have given the perpetrator to science. I don't think we should give up hope on the possibilty of rehabilitating someone.

If everything that ended violent crime was to be execution,
heres something to consider, a wife has gotten beaten by her husband,for the first time but, she doesn't want to bring attention to it. She is afriad that he will be killed.She still loves him.However,if she doesn't act she could get beaten again.

I think the choice of rehabilitation or other choices,granted by the jury ofcourse,should be decided by the victum.

I like the idea of a random jury but,I don't see why 500 members is necessary,maybe 50 atleast ? I don't see where you'll get 500 members from, will that many people be that interested in serving jury duty ? I mean,500 people could be a whole neighbourhood or even a town.

As for granting amnesty to prisoners during the revolution,I think we should wait till the end of the revolution and retry them.Unless ofcourse they are Mumia Abdul Jamal,then thats a different story.

redstar2000

15th July 2005, 02:58

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
Until it can be be scientifically proven,the people will have given the perpetrator to science.

I don't understand the meaning of that sentence.

I don't think we should give up hope on the possibility of rehabilitating someone.

That's nice. But until you have proven scientifically that you can do it, then you don't have any hope.

And if you do have a proposed method, then you're going to have to convince some community to be your "lab rat"...to take the chance that your method of rehabilitation "really works".

Good luck with that one.

If everything that ended violent crime was to be execution, here's something to consider: a wife has gotten beaten by her husband, for the first time but, she doesn't want to bring attention to it. She is afraid that he will be killed. She still loves him. However, if she doesn't act, she could get beaten again.

And probably will...perhaps fatally.

We cannot legislate against stupidity...if she lacks the basic common sense to accuse her husband, there's not a thing we can do unless he attacks her publicly. Or he kills her and we discover the body.

I think the choice of rehabilitation or other choices, granted by the jury of course, should be decided by the victim.

The victim might be dead.

But look, why pretend that something -- "rehabilitation" -- exists when we have no real evidence that it does.

If the jury really has reason to believe that this particular violent crime was something completely out of character for the accused -- the consequence of a series of unfortunate circumstances -- and that the accused is most unlikely to ever do it again, then the option of probation can be chosen.

Nor do I think punishment should be placed in the hands of the surviving victim or the victim's surviving friends and families...though they may make recommendations if they wish.

Once someone murders, rapes, commits violent and unprovoked assaults, etc., then the matter doesn't just concern the immediate victims -- the whole community become potential victims!

And the whole community or at least a large sampling thereof should make the decision.

I like the idea of a random jury but, I don't see why 500 members is necessary, maybe 50 at least?

A jury of 50 might be ok for a trivial offense; but when someone is on trial for their life, I think a "big jury" is the best safeguard against any "rush to judgment".

Towns that are too small to raise such a jury could ask a neighboring city to take over the case.

As for granting amnesty to prisoners during the revolution, I think we should wait till the end of the revolution and retry them.

Completely impractical. Witnesses are dead; evidence has gone missing; etc. It's just enormously easier to give everyone a "clean slate" and start over.

Happy Bastille Day! :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Entrails Konfetti

15th July 2005, 04:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:58 AM

I don't understand the meaning of that sentence.

What I meant to say, the term "rehabilitation" until scientifically proven,will really mean making the perpetrator into a guinea pig for scientific studies.

That's nice. But until you have proven scientifically that you can do it, then you don't have any hope.

The slow reader, can learn to read faster. The worst math student can become better. A person with parilyzed legs will learn to walk over time. The alcoholic can stop drinking through use of will-power. These things inflict the mind,yet they can be healed. So if these cases can be healed,why not other ones ?

And if you do have a proposed method, then you're going to have to convince some community to be your "lab rat"...to take the chance that your method of rehabilitation "really works".[QUOTE/]

Perpertrators shouldn't be released until it is proven they are rehabilitated.You
have to get some test subjects in order to make a discovery.Especially on the human mind.

[QUOTE]
Nor do I think punishment should be placed in the hands of the surviving victim or the victim's surviving friends and families...though they may make recommendations if they wish.

The victum or the victums surviving party will not have the perpetrator at their own disposal,the jury will grant them options,the victum or the its party will decide from these. Though,I highly doubt there will be no action taken when the suspect is found guilty.

Once someone murders, rapes, commits violent and unprovoked assaults, etc., then the matter doesn't just concern the immediate victims -- the whole community become potential victims!

The community has a voice in this by deciding options from the victum or their party.If the matter was only about the immediate victums,the community couldn't form a jury or cast options if this was so.

Look at it this way, it has been proven consensus can be achieved if the group was randomly selected. Its VERY hard to reach a direct conclusion in consensus, so by having a small list of options,everyone will most likely agree.

Completely impractical. Witnesses are dead; evidence has gone missing; etc. It's just enormously easier to give everyone a "clean slate" and start over.

Alot of the prisoners have elabourate files on what the evidence was,what type of crime was commited,ect. Sure it would be easier for the system to grant amnesty
but, not for the community.The stalkers might end up killing the one they stalk,why risk it ?
Nothing is ever easier,theres always some expense somewhere else.