What is the solution to rape?

[Punk Rocker]

A common argument against communism is that without a state, there will be nothing to stop crime.

We counter this by saying that in communism, there will be nothing to motivate people to commit crimes. Why steal when you can have it all anyway? Why kill when we're all brothers and sisters?

But rape is different. The motivation for rape is a deeply human desire to take pleasure in the domination of someone else. It's a motive that can't be satisfied without the domination of someone else.

Capitalism doesn't motivate people to commit rape. We know this because animals rape each other too, and humans are just another animal.

So in communism, what will the solution to rape be? We'll have to find some way to satisfy that desire in people without oppressing anybody.

[rioters bloc]

you said it yourself, rape is the manifestation of dominance over another person. what we need to do is eradicate all forms of hierarchy, all power structures, and then the need to exert this dominance will effectively disappear as well.

enter: anarchism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

enter: anarchism.

Um, "all forms of hierarchy, all power structures" won't exist under communism.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:01 PM

enter: anarchism.

Um, "all forms of hierarchy, all power structures" won't exist under communism.
didn't say they would.

i was just making it clear that abolishing capitalism wasn't the only goal.

must you always be so sectarian CDL? :P

[black magick hustla]

I don't think many rapists think about "hey if i rape her i will feel powerful". For example, I have seen many hot chicks I would like to fuck, and I am pretty sure many other people have gotten that desire too. Rape is merely trying to accomplish that wish in a forced way.

[Punk Rocker]

Um, "all forms of hierarchy, all power structures" won't exist under communism.

Communism and anarchism both lead to no state, but you're both missing my point.

The desire to steal is driven by the state. The desire to rape is driven by nature. Even when you smash the state, the desire to rape will still be here.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:18 PM
I don't think many rapists think about "hey if i rape her i will feel powerful". For example, I have seen many hot chicks I would like to fuck, and I am pretty sure many other people have gotten that desire too. Rape is merely trying to accomplish that wish in a forced way.
it's one thing to want to fuck someone, and another to feel that you have the authority to force them into sex with you.

rape is much more than sex, it is a very frightening form of powerplay.

[Punk Rocker]

it's one thing to want to fuck someone, and another to feel that you have the authority to force them into sex with you.

rape is much more than sex, it is a very frightening form of powerplay.


Now we're getting somewhere. The desire to rape is only fulfilled with domination, it's not the same as just the desire to fuck.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Punk [email protected] 26 2005, 05:20 PM
Communism and anarchism both lead to no state, but you're both missing my point.

The desire to steal is driven by the state. The desire to rape is driven by nature. Even when you smash the state, the desire to rape will still be here.
human nature?

then why are something like 96% of rape victims womyn or gay men? and 99% of rape perpetrators straight men?

are straight men inherently evil? or maybe it could be attributed to something called a heteropatriarchy?

im sure the first option won't go down to well with many of the members here :P

[Xvall]

Another solution is to ensure that all women have proper self defense so that all would be rapists can be shot or stabbed to death.

[Punk Rocker]

human nature?

then why are something like 96% of rape victims womyn or gay men? and 99% of rape perpetrators straight men?

okay, straight nature. happy now? :P


are straight men inherently evil? or maybe it could be attributed to something called a heteropatriarchy?

There's really no such thing as good and evil, but if you go by the usual morals, then yeah we're pretty fucking evil.


Another solution is to ensure that all women have proper self defense so that all would be rapists can be shot or stabbed to death.

That could work but I'm saying we could satisfy the desire in the first place, without anybody being oppressed, so there won't even be attempted rape.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Nov 26 2005, 06:20 AM--> (rioters bloc @ Nov 26 2005, 06:20 AM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 05:18 PM
I don't think many rapists think about "hey if i rape her i will feel powerful". For example, I have seen many hot chicks I would like to fuck, and I am pretty sure many other people have gotten that desire too. Rape is merely trying to accomplish that wish in a forced way.
[/b]

it's one thing to want to fuck someone, and another to feel that you have the authority to force them into sex with you.

rape is much more than sex, it is a very frightening form of powerplay.

No it isn't a form of "powerplay". Rape is just the disabling of reason in the name of instinct. Most men are more powerful physically than women, therefore, they can "satisfy their desires" using force while women cant.


it's one thing to want to fuck someone, and another to feel that you have the authority to force them into sex with you.

rape is much more than sex, it is a very frightening form of powerplay.

Because men are physically stronger than women?

[warnerraider]

One problem in the theory of the need to dominate being eradicated by removing all socioeconomic hierarchy: Human nature will still exist. As long as humans are around, there will be rape. There will be murder. There will be theft. I saw in the first post under the topic that you had both of these 'solved' by communism, but there is inherent evil in man (every religion will tell you so), and thus there will never be a perfect society. That's Utopia, this is the world. If you want to hope for a society where there is no crime, start believing in an afterlife. And while we're on the subject, it's naive to think that these problems would be solved by Any government, from fascism, dictatorship, capitalist, to anarchist, socialist, communist. It's not a variable, this crime, it is a constant.

[Roses in the Hospital]

With the inevitable liberlisation of sexulality in communism, people would be a lot less sexually repressed, which would account for a certain amount of the motivation behind rape. Also, never underestimate the power of the judgement of the community, which would be a lot stronger as a deterent in communism...

[redstar2000]

The best way to minimize crimes like rape and murder is to promptly execute the guilty.

We don't know why a small minority of humans rape or kill...but we do know that a dead rapist will never rape again and that a dead murderer will never murder again.

So if our goal is not "a perfect society" where "nothing bad ever happens" but instead is one in which the frequency of such bad things is very low...then we must be prepared to take stern measures to stop people from doing it again.

Imagine a society in which everyone is taught as they're growing up that the immediate consequence of rape or murder is your own death.

Given our present knowledge, I think that's the "best we can do".

Perhaps someday we'll be able to tell in advance who is likely to rape or murder and provide some form of chemical therapy to them that will stop them from ever "doing the deed".

That would be even better.

But until then, you all know what has to be done.

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

[Led Zeppelin]

The best way to minimize crimes like rape and murder is to promptly execute the guilty.

We don't know why a small minority of humans rape or kill...but we do know that a dead rapist will never rape again and that a dead murderer will never murder again.


:blink: What the hell? Are you serious?

So a person who rapes or kills once is bound to do it again? Great logic.

[Delirium]

I agree with redstar as long as we have a fair way to determine innocence and guilt. How would you propose to do that in a stateless society?

[Noah]

The best way to minimize crimes like rape and murder is to promptly execute the guilty.

I guess in theory this would work but with execution comes many problems.

Is there solid evidence, that he/she was raped by the accused?

What if they've led a very good past and never committed crime before and did a mistake? Do they really deserve to be shot?

Also, how is 'promptly' defined, shot on the spot if you seem to be guilty? This could very easily be corrupted and lots of people may have to be 'promptly executed' due to a crime they may not have committed.

In my opinion if a rapists commits the crime the severity of their punishment should be based on certain aspects like; depending how they did it, if they murdered the victim and so on. Perhaps forced labour, or even having their genetals cut off would be better than being shot if it was their first time? If they commit again then they should be executed.

I don't know how this would work but would it not be wise to rehabilitate a rapist? I don't know much about rehabilitation so I don't know whether it would work.

Noah

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:35 PM
The best way to minimize crimes like rape and murder is to promptly execute the guilty.

Today it's very hard to get a conviction for rape because it's one persons word against another and it is not usually proven beyond reasonable doubt. Going by your solution a lot of innocent people would be killed.

Perhaps rapists just lack self control and are less evolved? Some of them are inherently evil

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 26 2005, 11:42 AM

The best way to minimize crimes like rape and murder is to promptly execute the guilty.

We don't know why a small minority of humans rape or kill...but we do know that a dead rapist will never rape again and that a dead murderer will never murder again.


What the hell? Are you serious?

So a person who rapes or kills once is bound to do it again? Great logic.
Yes, that is how we learn about the real world.

A person who rapes or murders has demonstrated the capability of doing those things.

Totally "unique" phenomena are quite rare in nature. What happens once will generally happen again under similar conditions.

If someone has already shown that they think that rape or murder is an "appropriate response" to a particular situation, then they are quite likely to reach a similar conclusion under similar circumstances.

Do we wish to allow for that probability?

By and large, I don't think it can be credibly argued that rape or murder are "mistakes" or "errors of judgment".

They seem rather to be behavioral reflections of something "different" about the brains of murderers and rapists.

Consider most or all of us. Do we decline to murder or rape because "there's a law against it"? Or because "we might be punished" if we did those things?

Isn't it rather that we can imagine what it would feel like to have those things done to us...and we would not want to inflict that on others because "we're not the kind of people who do those kinds of things to others".

The murderer or rapist "thinks differently". Other people are "not like him" and "it's ok" to do to others whatever pleases him. He probably can't even imagine that anyone else would dare do to him what he does or might do to others.

This may not seem "logical" to you but it's what we observe taking place in the real world.

Therefore, what must be done must be done.

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

[Redmau5]

No it isn't a form of "powerplay".

Yes it is. You think rapists have to rape people because they aren't getting any? While that may be the case some of the time, rape is ultimately about power and control.


That could work but I'm saying we could satisfy the desire in the first place, without anybody being oppressed, so there won't even be attempted rape.

I hope I'm not being rude, but how the fuck would you satisfy a rapist's desire to rape people?


Today it's very hard to get a conviction for rape because it's one persons word against another and it is not usually proven beyond reasonable doubt

Correct me if I'm wrong, but could we not use DNA testing?

[Invader Zim]

The best way to minimize crimes like rape and murder is to promptly execute the guilty.

Plenty of people kill or rape, do their time come out and never do it again. They feal remorse. While repeat offenders certainly exist, especially with sexually motivated crimes, however I consider that a society, post capitalism, would reduce the risk of repeat offenders.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but could we not use DNA testing?

I believe that this is a refference to the fact that on many occassion a woman claims that intercourse was rape while the man claims it was on mutual agreement.

[YKTMX]

Woah! I can't believe I almost missed this thread! RedStar, that staunch bastion of human liberation and the scourge of the tyrannical, is in favour of executing rapists! When Anarchism and Right-wing Christendom collide - the results are not pretty.


They seem rather to be behavioral reflections of something "different" about the brains of murderers and rapists.


That's about the most reactionery thing I've ever heard.

Let's talk about it in the CC.

[Xvall]

Though I have no problem with killing rapists or murduerers, the problem is that mistakes probably will happen, and if people are promptly executed after being accused of the crime, I have a feeling we'll be shooting a lot of innocent people. Recently all of the people on death row in my state (Illinois) were pardoned because it was discovered that many of them were innocent of their crimes. If a policy such as the ones mentioned were implemented, we would have gassed several people who did nothing wrong whatsoever.

[Punk Rocker]

Let's talk about it in the CC.

What, to important to talk about with the rest of us? Have to take it to your all powerfull, hidden council?


The best way to minimize crimes like rape and murder is to promptly execute the guilty.

We don't know why a small minority of humans rape or kill...but we do know that a dead rapist will never rape again and that a dead murderer will never murder again.

So if our goal is not "a perfect society" where "nothing bad ever happens" but instead is one in which the frequency of such bad things is very low...then we must be prepared to take stern measures to stop people from doing it again.

Imagine a society in which everyone is taught as they're growing up that the immediate consequence of rape or murder is your own death.

That would work, but we have to ask ourselves if it's right.

[Taboo Tongue]

I have to agree with RedStar in everything he said in this thread, and the secon half of warnerraider's post. I will add my opinion though.


Recently all of the people on death row in my state (Illinois) were pardoned because it was discovered that many of them were innocent of their crimes
I'm happy to hear those who were innocent weren't wrongly punished. BUT a general amnesty of all people on death row is foolish; I don't care how long it takes to search for those who really were guilty, general amnesties of convicted fellons should be very rare (there's exceptions to every rule including those who should receive amnesty. Those people who were raped will never be entirley free and nor should the fellons, there time of freedom should be nothing short of or sooner than death. That's not to say we should imprison the rapist, just quickly execute them.


Today it's very hard to get a conviction for rape because it's one persons word against another and it is not usually proven beyond reasonable doubt

Even those that don't have a heeping stack of evidence, still deserve justice, don' they? I see what you mean about how this could be abused and is somthing very real we should struggle with in future societies (and the current one), but for those abused, and don't want to tell others (right away), better late justice (when evidence would be harder to find) than no justice.


I believe that this is a refference to the fact that on many occassion a woman claims that intercourse was rape while the man claims it was on mutual agreement.
Well unless the women is receiving money or there is some other incentive I don't see much reason as to why she would lie? To 'fuck' the guy over? I'm not saying it doesn't happen by any means, but better 8 innocent punished, than 92 guilty unpunished. "Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were unfounded,'..." The FBI's 1996 Uniform Crime Report (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf)


That would work, but we have to ask ourselves if it's right.
What is wrong with punnishing those who do wrongful harm to others?

[Lamanov]

Capital punishment should be abolished - period!

As for the original question: just because state is abolished (communism/anarchism) it does not mean that society is not organized against crime.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Enigma+--> (Enigma)Plenty of people kill or rape, do their time, come out and never do it again.[/b]

Is that your "humane alternative"? A prison complex where murderers and rapists are degraded even worse than animals in a zoo?

Do they deserve decades of suffering and humiliation for their deeds?

To be sure, the broken shells of humanity that are finally released from prison are unlikely to be physically able to rape or murder again...or do anything else either except wander the streets waiting to die.

It's usually not a long wait.

Oh, I know...you're going to build "country club" prisons -- places so nice that people will volunteer to live in them. :lol:

Think that's going to win a broad mandate of popular support???

And there's also this to consider: a prison system requires guards...in other words, fascist thugs.

And what effect will an organized faction of fascist thugs have on the culture of our communist society?

Think it will be a good one?


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)When Anarchism and Right-wing Christendom collide - the results are not pretty.[/b]

:lol: How about Trotskyism as "just another version" of bleeding heart liberalism?


That's about the most reactionary thing I've ever heard.

Live a sheltered life, do you?

Perhaps you should try and get out more.


Let's talk about it in the CC.

No, let's talk about it right here in front of everybody.

I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of the chance to see the complete uselessness of Trotskyism as applied to a specific matter of controversy.


Originally posted by Xvall
Though I have no problem with killing rapists or murderers, the problem is that mistakes probably will happen, and if people are promptly executed after being accused of the crime, I have a feeling we'll be shooting a lot of innocent people.

Well, remember that under communism we have no people with a material incentive to "secure convictions at any cost". No cops, no prisons, no lawyers or judges, no guards...none of those parasitic assholes will be around to plague us.

It will be ordinary people who will accuse, ordinary people who will defend, and ordinary people who will decide.

Will they sometimes make a mistake and execute an innocent person? Sure they will...they are humans, not "gods".

Will they fill up enormous prisons with innocent people like our rulers do now?

No.


Punk [email protected]
That would work, but we have to ask ourselves if it's right.

I think it is right...people have a right to live their lives without fear of rape or murder!

And, for that matter, without fear of grievous bodily assault.

The people who kill, rape, or even just beat the crap out of others "for fun" are no good motherfuckers...and I do not see why a communist society owes those bastards anything more than a bullet in the back of their fucked-up heads.

Communist society is not "required" to tolerate barbarism!


DJ-TC
Capital punishment should be abolished - period!

You are entitled, of course, to make any moral assertion that happens to please you.

But how about some reasons for this? Perhaps even some historical examples.

Was it "wrong" in your eyes to execute a few Nazis after World War II was over?

Me, I don't think they executed nearly enough! I would have had every official in the Nazi Party executed.

Along with all the aristocrats and capitalists who actively supported the Nazis.

Does this make your moral outlook "tremble with indignation"?

If so, I can only say the obvious: my morals are very different from yours.

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

[Punk Rocker]

Do they deserve decades of suffering and humiliation for their deeds?

This is funny coming from a guy who says that all criminals of any kind should be rounded up and massacred.

To live in pain is better than to not live at all.


No, let's talk about it right here in front of everybody.

Cool to see you're not into the whole "this is too important to talk about with the masses, let's take it to our private oligarchy" thing.


If so, I can only say the obvious: my morals are very different from yours.

Moral codes come from religion, they're the idea that some god layed down rules we all have to follow, if we don't want to burn in hell. If you want to be free from religion, you have to be free from the idea of moral codes too.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:55 PM
You are entitled, of course, to make any moral assertion that happens to please you.

But how about some reasons for this? Perhaps even some historical examples.
Honestly, for me, it's not a question of morality or ethics. It might be so personally, but this is not a personal issue.

There are questions of logic:
- will ultra-democratic worker-participant courts/juries/legislation really support it?
- does capital punishment really reduce crime?

I might be wrong - but I think the answer is no.

Then again, I really might be - after all...


Communist society is not "required" to tolerate barbarism!

...this is true.


Was it "wrong" in your eyes to execute a few Nazis after World War II was over?

Me, I don't think they executed nearly enough! I would have had every official in the Nazi Party executed.

No, but we're not talking about organized crime - we're talking about individual crime.


I don't think this is a question of our personal morality - but something that society itself as a whole will eventually decide.

Personally, I think we're losing time with this question.

[Comrade-Z]

Rape is not an absolute desire of human beings. Sure, maybe in nature animals rape each other. But maybe there's inequality of power and hierarchy in those animal populations. In short, rape is a response to hierarchy in society. It is a response to feeling powerless and having a desire to make someone lower than you on the hierarchical ladder of power, just as you are lower than someone else on that same ladder. It is also a response to sexual repression and pent up sexual frustration. If we can rid society of that ladder of hierarchy, of all forms of oppression (capitalism, racism, patriarchy, the State, etc.), then there will be a much lower tendency for individuals to commit rape. However, I won't say that it will never happen in such a society. If it does happen, communities will have to restrain the perpetrator in a considerate and humane manner (not at all like our present humiliating and inhumane prison system) until the community can feel secure that the perpetrator has been rehabilitated. If it seems unlikely that the perpetrator will ever rehabilitate, then the perpetrator can be given several choices: euthanasia, life-imprisonment (although this imprisonment will be many times more humane and the quality of life will be many times better than in our current prision system), etc.

[DisIllusion]

Rape is not an absolute desire of human beings. Sure, maybe in nature animals rape each other. But maybe there's inequality of power and hierarchy in those animal populations. In short, rape is a response to hierarchy in society. It is a response to feeling powerless and having a desire to make someone lower than you on the hierarchical ladder of power, just as you are lower than someone else on that same ladder. It is also a response to sexual repression and pent up sexual frustration. If we can rid society of that ladder of hierarchy, of all forms of oppression (capitalism, racism, patriarchy, the State, etc.), then there will be a much lower tendency for individuals to commit rape. However, I won't say that it will never happen in such a society. If it does happen, communities will have to restrain the perpetrator in a considerate and humane manner (not at all like our present humiliating and inhumane prison system) until the community can feel secure that the perpetrator has been rehabilitated. If it seems unlikely that the perpetrator will ever rehabilitate, then the perpetrator can be given several choices: euthanasia, life-imprisonment (although this imprisonment will be many times more humane and the quality of life will be many times better than in our current prision system), etc.

Yeah that's basically the definition, but some people might just be sadistical and enjoy seeing people suffer. I believe that we should re-educate and rehabilitate them, instead of throwing them in jail or killing them. Incarceration might be necessary if they cannot be re-educated, but the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous, uncurable people.

[ComradeOm]

Well you see Redstar the problem with your entire argument is that you assume that there is a relationship between the number of people executed and the number of crimes committed. In other words the more people you kill, the safer the streets become.

Need I point out that the democratic country where that principle has been most warmly received also happens to have one of the highest crime rates in the world? Is it that the US isn’t killing enough people?

There is no scientific link between the death penalty and a decrease in crime. Certainly not for a crime such as rape where the motives are deep set and the perpetrators unlikely to be deterred.


Is that your "humane alternative"? A prison complex where murderers and rapists are degraded even worse than animals in a zoo?
We know that communism will be different. We assume that the forces of production and technology in a communist society will dwarf those of capitalism. We also assume that they’ll have come up with an entirely new society and way of governing.

Is it too much to assume that they’ll have found a more humane way of reducing crime then killing people? Whether its through genetics, chemicals or plain old electrical implants I doubt it will be necessary to resort to the same barbaric practice that man was using thousands of years ago.

That’s progress for you


Well, remember that under communism we have no people with a material incentive to "secure convictions at any cost". No cops, no prisons, no lawyers or judges, no guards...none of those parasitic assholes will be around to plague us.

It will be ordinary people who will accuse, ordinary people who will defend, and ordinary people who will decide.

Will they sometimes make a mistake and execute an innocent person? Sure they will...they are humans, not "gods".
And that’s what scares me the most about your ideas Redstar.

I admire those who have the will, or the balls if you like, to kill those who need to die. But I know that they are a minority of the population. Even with the death penalty today there is a structure built around it – the lawyers, the judges, the guards – a structure designed to ensure that most people do not have to have a role in killing a man.

I’m not at all sure what the results would be of removing that structure or how the average worker would react to playing either the judge or executioner in such a case. I am sure though that it would be highly detrimental to society as a whole. There’s a reason why governments separate their butchers from their shepherds.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Punk [email protected] 26 2005, 11:32 PM
If you want to be free from religion, you have to be free from the idea of moral codes too.
Are you saying that atheists don't have morals because they don't believe in some superstitious bullshit?

[kurt]

Execution of rapists/murderers is neccessary. These people are different from the majority of people, and they clearly demonstrate it with their deeds.

Executing convicted murderers/rapists is not meant as a deterrent to stop other rapists/murderers from committing such an act. It's simply a damned efficient deterrent for stopping those who have committed such acts from doing it again. After all, a dead rapist can't rape again, can they?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Punk Rocker+--> (Punk Rocker)To live in pain is better than to not live at all.[/b]

In my opinion, only someone fairly young could have that point of view. Pile on the decades of pain and I think you'd probably come to a different conclusion.

Pain does not "ennoble" us and suffering does not "confer wisdom"...those are simply pious myths.

Pain degrades us...makes us less than human.

Do you know how prisoners treat other prisoners? It's much worse than anything you're ever likely to see "on the outside".


Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC)There are questions of logic:
- will ultra-democratic worker-participant courts/juries/legislation really support it?
- does capital punishment really reduce crime?

I might be wrong - but I think the answer is no.[/b]

With good fortune you may live long enough to actually find out.

I think my views will prevail but I could also be wrong.

I don't see how you can question the "logic" of my statement that a dead murderer cannot murder again. Or the same for others who commit violent crimes against people.


Comrade-[email protected]
If it does happen, communities will have to restrain the perpetrator in a considerate and humane manner (not at all like our present humiliating and inhumane prison system) until the community can feel secure that the perpetrator has been rehabilitated.

At this point we do not know if someone has really been "rehabilitated" or not.

The present practice is to release the violent criminal back into society...rolling the dice that he "won't do it again".

In other words, people are being put at risk of being murdered without ever being aware of it...much less consulted.

Is that "right"?

As to your fantasy of "humane prisons", I've already commented.

A "humane prison" is an oxymoron...like calling a concentration camp a "vacation resort".

Prisons by their very nature are either hellholes from the beginning or turn into hellholes.

What you turn into when you try to "run a prison" needs no elaboration.


ComradeOm
Well, you see, Redstar, the problem with your entire argument is that you assume that there is a relationship between the number of people executed and the number of crimes committed. In other words the more people you kill, the safer the streets become.

Yes, I assume that in a healthy society the number of people capable of violent crime is only a small minority...and if that minority is even further reduced, then "the safer the streets become".

You do not "have" to execute violent criminals, of course. You could send them all to live "on Mars".

Or you could do what all countries now do...warehouse them in unspeakably barbaric conditions.


Need I point out that the democratic country where that principle has been most warmly received also happens to have one of the highest crime rates in the world? Is it that the US isn’t killing enough people?

The United States is not "a democratic country"...it is an empire.

Most people convicted of murder here are not executed and a surprising number serve fairly brief prison terms (7 or 8 years, I believe). They return to their violent neighborhoods and take up their old practices. What else could be expected?


There is no scientific link between the death penalty and a decrease in crime.

Perhaps because no one has thought to actually look for the data.

How do you quarrel with the logic of "a dead murderer cannot murder again"? Do you imagine that the "supply" of murderers is "elastic" and "expands" to "fill the gap" left by executed murderers?

Is there some "hidden law" which says that so many murders "must happen" every year...and new murderers will step forward in whatever numbers "required" to "keep the rate steady"?

That simply makes no sense.


Certainly not for a crime such as rape where the motives are deep set and the perpetrators unlikely to be deterred.

My arguments are not based on "deterrence" as such...I don't know if that "works" any more than anyone else.

But I do know that a dead rapist cannot rape again. And I believe it's generally accepted that a "successful" rapist does rape again...over and over until he's finally apprehended.

In fact, he may go on to rape smaller and weaker males in prison.


Is it too much to assume that they’ll have found a more humane way of reducing crime then killing people? Whether it's through genetics, chemicals or plain old electrical implants, I doubt it will be necessary to resort to the same barbaric practice that man was using thousands of years ago.

Of course you could be quite right.

Perhaps the victims of such crimes (the ones that survive the experience) will "no longer seek revenge" upon those who attacked them.

Do you think that communism will "teach people" that revenge is "barbaric"?

That seems "a bit much" to me...but I'm sure that all of us in one way or another are "too conservative" about how people will live two or three centuries from now.

My real concern in this thread is to combat the reactionary vision of prisons under communism. I think execution is the humane alternative.


There’s a reason why governments separate their butchers from their shepherds.

Indeed there is...but it's not a good one.

Communist society is about taking personal responsibility in a sense far deeper than is possible in class society.

Power in the hands of the masses means that we really have to decide and implement policies ourselves...there's no one to "do the dirty stuff" while we go for a swim.

A "separate caste" of "butchers" can always use their "skills" against all of us.

It's happened before and, if we allowed such a caste to emerge, would happen to us too.

So...no professional police force or military, no judges, no lawyers, no prisons or prison guards, none of that crap!

We have to learn to do things ourselves.

Some say that we "can't" and others are terrified by the prospect.

As if what we live under now is not terrifying enough!

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

[violencia.Proletariat]

Plenty of people kill or rape, do their time come out and never do it again. They feal remorse. While repeat offenders certainly exist, especially with sexually motivated crimes I consider that a society, post capitalism, would reduce the risk of repeat offenders.

maybe for fear of going back to prison, but what about when there is no prison?


I believe that this is a refference to the fact that on many occassion a woman claims that intercourse was rape while the man claims it was on mutual agreement.

i agree this is a problem. but in either situation (murder or rape) if its proven that the person is/most likely a repeat offender, then execution doesnt sound so bad.

[Invader Zim]

Is that your "humane alternative"?

Certainly.

A prison complex where murderers and rapists are degraded even worse than animals in a zoo?

I don't think that in a post revolutionary society that these conditions would be an issue.


Do they deserve decades of suffering and humiliation for their deeds?

Yes, but at least after that they can have a second chance, a chance which capital punishment denies.


To be sure, the broken shells of humanity that are finally released from prison are unlikely to be physically able to rape or murder again

I think you are exaggerating the situation, undoubtedly some inmates leave in such a state, but to suggest that they all do, even a large minority is laughable.

Oh, I know...you're going to build "country club" prisons -- places so nice that people will volunteer to live in them.

Well I would not go that far, but I would certainly adopt a much improved model, a good start would be not massively overcrowding our prisons. However on the whole I would adopt a system resembling that of some of the Scandinavian countries penal systems. We in the west seem to take an attitude closer to your own than to our Scandinavian cousins. We treat our prisoners very harshly they do not, and interestingly they have far fewer repeat offenders. I think that you can draw your own conclusions based on that fact.

Lets also delve into the causes of violent crime, I think its is a safe bet to conclude that poverty and below par standards of living are the primary factor in generating violent crime, and filling our prisons and creating the 'hell' you describe. Thus a simple solution to violent crime, rather than overly harsh punishments, would be to address the social problems which create the majority of violent crime.

It is a ridiculous to deal with the symptoms of a problem, rather than address the cause of such problems, something those in power today should take note of.


And there's also this to consider: a prison system requires guards...in other words, fascist thugs.

But even in your system a prison system with guards would have to exist. Even if you were to execute them post-haste, they would still need to be tried to establish their guilt, if you have captured a suspected rapist or murder it would not be wise to keep them at large, even if they have not been convicted at that point. I also assume that you would allow a period for appeal and/or retrial. These people would still need to be imprisoned while prior to an appointment with “Ol’ Sparky”, thus you still have the problem of prison guards, or as you have dubbed them; fascists.


Think it will be a good one?

I doubt it would have any effect.

[Invader Zim]

maybe for fear of going back to prison,

Possibly, but then equally possibly they may not have

but what about when there is no prison?

There will always have to be a prison system of some description, like it or not. Read what I said to Redstar above.

However to expand, what do you do to people who commit numerous acts of petty theft? Or will theft be eliminated in your euphoric society, which lacks prisons?

Chop limbs off, or send them for an appointment with “Ol’ Sparky” as well? I guess that your society will soon be losing its euphoric ambiance.

but in either situation (murder or rape) if its proven that the person is/most likely a repeat offender, then execution doesn’t sound so bad.

You are prepared to endorse capital punishment on the basis that a person is likely to be a repeat offender? Usually when people endorse capital punishment they like to be absolutely sure of the facts not just consider it to be 'most likely'. Have you considered the prospect of being a homicide detective? I think you would fit right in, just like the Cardiff Three (http://innocent.org.uk/cases/cardiff3_1/) can tell you.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

must you always be so sectarian CDL?

No, I "must always be so factual."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Communism and anarchism both lead to no state, but you're both missing my point.

Communism doesn't lead to stateless society -- it is stateless society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't see how you can question the "logic" of my statement that a dead murderer cannot murder again. Or the same for others who commit violent crimes against people. Contine the logic of your statement out and you could say that a dead anyone cannot murder ever.

THe logic is flawed in the assumption that "crime" comes from some permanent "defect" originating withing an induvidual; as if "crime" is the result of a person's body producing too much bile.

Capital punishment is a tool used by ruling classes to enforce their domenance and so it is debateable to argue weather a revolutionary working class should use exaccutions intitially against the ruling class or counter-revolutionaries. THere would be no reason for a ruling working class to repress violent criminals in this way.


The present practice is to release the violent criminal back into society...rolling the dice that he "won't do it again".Again, you seem to suggest the sourse of crime as comeing from within induviduals; if your dad was a murderer, does that make you 1/2 murderer?

Crime is the result of conditions in society and a society by and for workers would already seek to eliminate many of the primary conditions that lead to crime in the first place. Decriminalizing all drugs and setting up treatment centers for additcitive drugs would reduce most drug and gang realated violence. As workers were able to satisfy material needs, violent gangs would not need to rob or deal drugs or even be formed in the first place.


In other words, people are being put at risk of being murdered without ever being aware of it...much less consulted.With this logic, why don't we just brand people who commit rape with a big "R" tatooed to their forehead.


A "humane prison" is an oxymoron...like calling a concentration camp a "vacation resort".

Prisons by their very nature are either hellholes from the beginning or turn into hellholes.I don't think the prisons for executives and politicians who comit white collar crimes are quite the same as the ones they stick the rest of us into. I'm sure many of us have stories of some relative who went into prison a drug addict and came out a member of a prison gang; I've never heard of a politician who was convicted of something and had to join the Norteños to survive on the inside.

If people in a worker's society are truely unable to function safely in society (i.e. they are a danger to others) then workers will have to restrain them somehow. This is true for drug addicts who become unstable ("mean drunks", for example), people with mental problems, seriel rapists and murderers.

All would have to be "imprisioned" in some form, but it dosn't mean locked in a concrete room and left alone. This concept originated with puritans who thought that seculsion would force people who comitted crimes to have to face their consience (or "God" in their terminology). Clearly this model dosn't work. So the only alternative workers would be able to figure out is just getting rid of people who comit violent acts?

As I stated above, workers would already be reducing crime through the same means that they would be using to make life better for themselves; workers would automatically be seeking ways to get rid of poverty and therfore crimes caused because of the stresses of working life and demands of employers: crimes caused because people sell drugs in order to get money; crimes by gangs; marital abuse caused by unhappy coupples that remain together simply because they can not afford to raise kids as single parents; abuse in happy marriages torn apprt because of financil problems; and so on. The remaining crimes would be less numerically and it would be easy for a worker society to devolt enough resorces to helping rehbilitate heroin or meth addicts or people with mental or emotional problems which have caused them to act violently and anti-socially.


How do you quarrel with the logic of "a dead murderer cannot murder again"? Do you imagine that the "supply" of murderers is "elastic" and "expands" to "fill the gap" left by executed murderers?

Is there some "hidden law" which says that so many murders "must happen" every year...and new murderers will step forward in whatever numbers "required" to "keep the rate steady"?

That simply makes no sense.What makes no sense is your belief that murder is like becoming epileptic or a werewolf or something. Yup, once you murder someone, you got the bloodlust and every full moon you must murder again to quench it.


But I do know that a dead rapist cannot rape again. And I believe it's generally accepted that a "successful" rapist does rape again...over and over until he's finally apprehended.It's also generally accepted that "greed" is human nature, but history and marxism show us that it isn't. Only a fraction of murderers and rapists are "serial" in nature and I'm confident that workers would have the resorces and the intrest in trying to treat people with severe disorders rather than simply get rid of them.


My real concern in this thread is to combat the reactionary vision of prisons under communism. I think execution is the humane alternative.Prisons in capitalism are barbaric because they are used to repress, not to "rehabilitate". Ideologically, the ruling class uses "crime" to shift the blame of society's ills onto certain induviduals or small groups of people. Povery and racism arn't the problems, the ruling class tells us through the prisons ond courts and police, the problem is that there is something wrong with this induvidual. So-and-so was greedy, that's why he robbed; "hip-hop culture" glorifies violence and black kids like hip-hop, so that's why there are so many black kids in prison.

Exaccutions are a continuation of this: since the problems in society are because of certain people, get rid of them.

[warnerraider]

I think it is right...people have a right to live their lives without fear of rape or murder!

Oh yeah, that'd be great. But while we're blowing the brains out of anyone who appears at least slightly guilty of rape, do you think there'll be no fear in the countryside of being accused by any woman you cross? Please. Ask Maxamillien Robespierre and the people that lived in late eighteenth century France about the fear of accusal.


Perhaps because no one has thought to actually look for the data.

Freakonomics, a NY Times Besteller. Read it. He explains that there is no correlation between the capital punishment issue and the drop in crime:
Think of it this way, as explained by George Carlin: These people aren't afraid to die, murderers, rapists, and drug dealers. They kill each other every day on the streets. The death penalty only works on those who are afraid to die!


A prison complex where murderers and rapists are degraded even worse than animals in a zoo?

Wait a minute, I'm getting caught in your communist rhetoric. Guards are fascist thugs? I thought they were members of the nation, your neighbors, your 'brothers', people you have no right to hate, people who, under communism, you would have nothing but love for? Going further than that, how come these prisoners would be degraded to animals? I thought They're neighbors as well. You are almost as hypocritical as the US government.



Oh hey, while we're killing these murderers, rapists, and others, should we ignore those of them who are genetically inclined to be crazy and thus have a warped view of reality? If we're ignoring genetic tendencies, why don't we arrest the mentally retarded person (an image of Steinbeck's Lenny from Of Mice and Men floats through my mind) who accidentally kills a person because (s)he doesn't knwo what (s)he is doing? And hey, are we goign to kill the man who murdered as an act of vengeance? Grisham's A Time To Kill delves into this:
Imagine your daughter, 8 years old, is raped, beaten to the point of near-death, pissed on, beer poured on her, etc, all because she is black, and it's done by two white men. The two men are most likely going to walk. The father kills the two men with an M16 and doesn't regret a goddamn minute of it. Now tell me, would you imprison the man? what if he just beat the two rapists?

I'm just looking for consistency.

[Creature]

I don't see how you can question the "logic" of my statement that a dead murderer cannot murder again. Or the same for others who commit violent crimes against people.

And the excutioner isn't a murderer? A soldier is trained to be a murderer. When he does what he is trained to do, he is officialy a murderer. He's just been taught how to kill, and be told it's okay to kill those that his superiors tell him to. An executioner is no different.


Interesting fact: 90% of women who fought against a rapist (on the street) get away without a scratch.


I have a few friends who have been raped, and abused by individuals in their life.
It is extremely sad to see, since those friends in particular are some of the strongest, fun, nicest people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. Unfortunately execution is not going to help in these situations because the majority of the time, if the individual was violated, they were threatened by the purpetraitor. So then they refuse to do anything about it. In these scenarios, there isnt much that can help them, except if some vigilante takes some form of firearm and ends it. But then he is a murderer.

Also what if a muder is justified? If someone tries to hurt you, and you end up killing them in self defence? There is a chance you might do it again? And you ended the attackers life?

What if the murder is in a fit of pasion? That is not motivated out of greed. One lover finds their partner in bed with another person, and muders them both in a fit of pasion. The murder was not motivated out of Greed, or out of Profit. Does it still warrent a execution? Or even punishment for that matter?

[redstar2000]

What a remarkable thread!

Who would have thought that the subject of "crime and punishment" in communist society would attract such passionate responses.

And such...well, strange responses.


Originally posted by Enigma+--> (Enigma)Well I would not go that far, but I would certainly adopt a much improved model, a good start would be not massively overcrowding our prisons. However on the whole I would adopt a system resembling that of some of the Scandinavian countries penal systems. We in the west seem to take an attitude closer to your own than to our Scandinavian cousins. We treat our prisoners very harshly, they do not, and interestingly they have far fewer repeat offenders. I think that you can draw your own conclusions based on that fact.[/b]

I think much of the confusion in this thread derives from trying to use data gathered in the context of class societies and just extrapolating it to classless societies.

We'll do what is done now but we'll be "nicer" about it.

I think that's a totally inadequate approach to these questions.

Perhaps it's an understandable mistake. When one ruling class replaces another, much is preserved...at least in form. Our law codes, for example, are still full of concepts that date from the Justinian Code (c.550CE).

This is because all class societies are concerned with maintaining the wealth and power of its ruling classes "against the rabble".

We will have entirely different priorities...something to which I think people have not paid sufficient attention.


Let's also delve into the causes of violent crime...

A rather difficult proposition under our present circumstances. It can certainly be argued that the various forms of violent physical crime against persons "would" sharply decline in a society that did not force people (in one sense or another) to "live on the edge of the abyss".

But we can't know that until we actually have some experience of a working communist society.

I think we will discover that there will be an intractable minority of "sociopaths"...people with brains that work "differently" from ours.

People who think that violent assault, rape, and murder are "ok" if that's what they feel like doing.

This minority is likely to be, in my opinion, quite small.

But I think we will discover that it exists. Even now we speak of "senseless murders"...meaning murders that have no evident economic motive.

If I am right about this, then we must decide how communist society is to be protected from random violence.

To "do what is done now, only nicer" is not an "answer".


But even in your system a prison system with guards would have to exist.

Nope. We might have a secure location where an accused rapist or murderer might spend a couple of days awaiting trial...but that should be about it.

The interminable delays in the present day legal system do not exist to "protect the rights of the accused"...they exist in order to support an army of parasites that live off the legal system -- off of us in the final analysis.

Since we won't permit such parasites, there is nothing to stand in the way of "justice swift and sure". Within the week, you -- the accused -- will either be acquitted or dead.

The calculated infliction of protracted suffering is incompatible with communist culture.


However to expand, what do you do to people who commit numerous acts of petty theft?

There is no "point" to such a crime in communist society...except with regard to desirable consumer goodies in short supply.

If such a person is discovered, we'll just take back the goodies and put him on the "shit list"...ineligible for any rationed goodies. If they behave themselves for a couple of years, then they can go back on the same list that everyone else is on.

What purpose is served by keeping them locked up?


You are prepared to endorse capital punishment on the basis that a person is likely to be a repeat offender?

Yes. Once someone has shown that they can do it then I think the safest assumption is that they will do it again if we give them the chance.

I see no reason to give them that chance.


Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)Continue the logic of your statement out and you could say that a dead anyone cannot murder ever.[/b]

Well, that's a true statement...so what?

Most of us manage to get through life without physically attacking another person in any way. We consider ourselves civilized.

The question here is what to do to protect the civilized from the random violence of the uncivilized.


The logic is flawed in the assumption that "crime" comes from some permanent "defect" originating withing an individual; as if "crime" is the result of a person's body producing too much bile.

The use of the word "bile" nicely invokes the image of medieval "medicine"...suggesting to the reader that my views are "very archaic".

Once we have a situation in which the economic motive for violent crimes is no longer present, then we must face the problem of violent crime that has some other cause...or causes.

I think the cause is a "defect" in the way the brain of the violent criminal "works".

What do you suggest?


Again, you seem to suggest the source of crime as coming from within individuals; if your dad was a murderer, does that make you 1/2 murderer?

I did not suggest that there is a "genetic basis" for "propensity to commit murder".

More likely, in my opinion, it's an "accident" in the natural development of the brain.

Accidents happen in nature...and some of them are more unfortunate than others.


With this logic, why don't we just brand people who commit rape with a big "R" tattooed to their forehead.

Because they'd cover it with cosmetics, of course. The effort to "stigmatize" violent crime is, I think, mostly futile.

I strongly suspect that rapists are quite proud of their deeds...as a demonstration of their "real manliness".


I don't think the prisons for executives and politicians who commit white collar crimes are quite the same as the ones they stick the rest of us into.

Not as violent...but just as degrading. The guards there take delight in inflicting endless petty humiliations on the inmates.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the guards in such prisons are fascist thugs as well...though perhaps somewhat older and less physically fit.


If people in a worker's society are truly unable to function safely in society (i.e., they are a danger to others), then workers will have to restrain them somehow. This is true for drug addicts who become unstable ("mean drunks", for example), people with mental problems, serial rapists and murderers.

I agree.

So...do you prefer gulags? Because once you start that process, that's where it's going to end up.

Or is my recommendation of a quick and painless execution the more humane alternative?


What makes no sense is your belief that murder is like becoming epileptic or a werewolf or something. Yup, once you murder someone, you got the bloodlust and every full moon you must murder again to quench it.

As a thread lengthens, it sadly becomes necessary to repeat oneself because people generally don't start reading "at the beginning".

What I actually pointed out was this...


Originally posted by redstar2000
If someone has already shown that they think that rape or murder is an "appropriate response" to a particular situation, then they are quite likely to reach a similar conclusion under similar circumstances.

Do we wish to allow for that probability?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291978284 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43222&view=findpost&p=1291978284)

Well, do you?


[email protected]
But while we're blowing the brains out of anyone who appears at least slightly guilty of rape, do you think there'll be no fear in the countryside of being accused by any woman you cross?

Ah yes...that great masculine myth that woman are always ready to "play the rape card".

If that is your real opinion of women, I suggest that you simply avoid their company.


Freakonomics, a NY Times Bestseller. Read it.

I have. I found it "mildly interesting" but not "a work of genius".

As I noted earlier, very few murderers are actually executed in the U.S. -- and this often after delays of up to ten years or more.

No, I don't think this "deters murder" in any way.


Guards are fascist thugs? I thought they were members of the nation, your neighbors, your 'brothers', people you have no right to hate, people who, under communism, you would have nothing but love for? Going further than that, how come these prisoners would be degraded to animals? I thought they're neighbors as well.

I can see you've yet to encounter the ideas of one Karl Marx -- though you may have heard of him.

A basic discovery made by Marx is: you are what you do.

If your job is to treat people like sub-human pieces of shit, then your attitudes will evolve to justify that.

Why would the job of prison guard involve treating people like shit in the first place?

Well, what's your opinion of murderers and rapists? Aren't they pieces of shit?


Oh hey, while we're killing these murderers, rapists, and others, should we ignore those of them who are genetically inclined to be crazy and thus have a warped view of reality?

No.


Why don't we arrest the mentally retarded person who accidentally kills a person because (s)he doesn't know what (s)he is doing?

The concepts of "accidental death" and "diminished capacity" are present day innovations in the legal system. Presumably they would be considered by a jury in a communist society.

The accused would be, after all, speaking for himself. If he was clearly retarded or manifestly incompetent, presumably he would be acquitted of the charge of murder.

But that would hardly be an "unmixed blessing"...I think it unlikely that anyone would "want him around".


Imagine your daughter, 8 years old, is raped, beaten to the point of near-death, pissed on, beer poured on her, etc, all because she is black, and it's done by two white men. The two men are most likely going to walk. The father kills the two men with an M16 and doesn't regret a goddamn minute of it. Now tell me, would you imprison the man?

As you may conclude from my previous remarks, I think there should be no prisons in a communist society.

Nor can I envision a crime of this nature even taking place in a non-racist society.

So your "example" is irrelevant.

If someone were to kill as an act of vengeance, he would have to get up in front of the people and explain why he thought it was "justifiable homicide". And the people would accept his argument or reject it.


Creature
If someone tries to hurt you, and you end up killing them in self defense?

I can't imagine a popular court failing to recognize a clear-cut case of self-defense as justifiable homicide.


What if the murder is in a fit of passion? One lover finds their partner in bed with another person, and murders them both in a fit of passion. Does it still warrant an execution? Or even punishment for that matter?

Yes.

As I have had occasion to point out in the past: people are not property!

You do not "own" the people you have sex with.

There's no such thing as a "right" to "exclusive sexual access" to someone else.

I would vote to execute the "jealous lover"...maybe even publicly. I don't want a society where crazy motherfuckers like that are allowed to walk the streets.

Given my own past, I could have been the target of some asshole like that. :o

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

[ComradeOm]

The United States is not "a democratic country"...it is an empire.

Most people convicted of murder here are not executed and a surprising number serve fairly brief prison terms (7 or 8 years, I believe). They return to their violent neighborhoods and take up their old practices. What else could be expected?
I used the term “democratic” to distinguish from China where they do regularly stick people up against the wall. Who knew that they could do something right?

But we’re not talking about petty criminals here are we. We can assume that cutting out the economic motives will cut out crime for gain.


Perhaps because no one has thought to actually look for the data.

How do you quarrel with the logic of "a dead murderer cannot murder again"? Do you imagine that the "supply" of murderers is "elastic" and "expands" to "fill the gap" left by executed murderers?

Is there some "hidden law" which says that so many murders "must happen" every year...and new murderers will step forward in whatever numbers "required" to "keep the rate steady"?

That simply makes no sense.
What I do think is that killing criminals has had no demonstrable effect on crime rate. Executions go up and the number of crimes committed… remains the same.

With rape we’re talking about a number of complex factors some of which stem from society but some are simply down to the individual. Now if we discount deterrence as a motive behind executions, then you’re talking about just killing off a certain percentage of the population. You’ll excuse if I hope that there’s a better way.


My real concern in this thread is to combat the reactionary vision of prisons under communism. I think execution is the humane alternative.
Oh I fully agree with the absence of prisons. If only because its hard to have a prison underclass in a classless society

What I don’t accept is the notion that death is in any way humane.


Indeed there is...but it's not a good one.

Communist society is about taking personal responsibility in a sense far deeper than is possible in class society.

Power in the hands of the masses means that we really have to decide and implement policies ourselves...there's no one to "do the dirty stuff" while we go for a swim.

A "separate caste" of "butchers" can always use their "skills" against all of us.

It's happened before and, if we allowed such a caste to emerge, would happen to us too.

So...no professional police force or military, no judges, no lawyers, no prisons or prison guards, none of that crap!

We have to learn to do things ourselves.

Some say that we "can't" and others are terrified by the prospect.

As if what we live under now is not terrifying enough!
Maybe that’s true. Maybe I’m more in thrall to my Christian upbringing than I thought… or hoped. But I cannot consider it a “good thing” that more of the population is exposed to murder. Human progress to date has composed of escaping from such an environment.

[warnerraider]

I can't see how your argument, RedStar, makes sense. There are too many assumptions, right from the get-go.

A communist society would have no racism? So by merely changing the name of the form of government and redistributing power, you're going to wipe out a complete human trait without the blink of an eye? There will be absolutely no racism, even though it has survived thousands of years, in every society from the Ancient Egyptians to the United States? Damn, I'd love to see it, I've got to tell you, but I'm a skeptic. Maybe I'm too, I don't know, 'in touch with reality' than you are. You also assume things such as the elimination of greed, hatred and class struggle and thus murder, etc. etc. How is that possible? There are a million and one reasons for someone to be greedy, a million and one for someone to kill. To boil it down to an assumption that greed is the evil byproduct of capitalism is too simplistic. How come, way back in our neanderthal (excuse the spelling, I've never seen it in text) days, men stole meat from one another, men stole food, weapons, and other goods, from men? There were no classes then, and yet there is theft. Oh wait! I know! It's a human characteristic, it's in our genes! DING DING DING! Murder: why do we do it? Self-defense, moment of passion, shits and giggles, to advance ones interests, greed, protection from something such as them revealing a crime you committed, etc. There are too many, but you like to forget 90% of them so as to say it'd be eliminated in communism. Again, while communism defeat all of these emotions just by changing a few minor things about the government? The resounding answer:

No.

Now, let's look at your prison argument. You said there 'might' be a few safe places for them to stay for a couple of days before trial. Well, who's going to feed them? Maintain the area? Stop them from escaping? Watch over the equipment designed to stop them from escaping? Stop them from killing themselves? A fuckin' guard is by any other name a guard. And to say that they'd be eliminated by having this building as a safe haven is again simplistic and naive. Furthermore, who's going to go retrieve these men and bring them there? Or will they waltz in, jubilant to be there? Please.

I thought of something interesting: Another reason for murder is the murder of jury members/judges who are deciding in a case for your loved one. Now all of a sudden, this sad portion of the murder total is eradicated? Again, I'd like to know how. RedStar, I'm offering myself up for conversion, you've just got to explain where you're getting this shit from.

You argued with Karl Marx as your big gun, which, by the way, to say I have only heard of Marx would be an understatement. Problem: There would be an executioner. His job demands he turn his brain off from killing his comrades, so what is going to happen? He will, as Marx and yourself argue, believe that prisoners are pieces of shit. However, what will his family and friends think? He'll be looked down upon, scorned. So do we give this unhappy task to one family with a system of primogeniture? Well, by golly, one family would be goddamn outcasts! How about if you're an animal rights activist, a vegetarian, and all that jazz. What will you think of someone who works at a Tyson Chicken factory or something of the nature? Will there not be strife and conflict within the country? There will. And who is to settle this conflict? The government and its leaders. Shit, this is sounding like a capitalist society.

Oh by the way, I have a very high opinion of women, infinitely higher than mine of men. However, to say that it would not happen at all is, and I hate to sound too repetitive, simplistic and ignorant.

I'll tell you what. You fix the human race, eliminate greed, murder, hatred, racism, etc etc, and any government would work. The difference? You've ignored 3/4 of the manifestations of these traits and explained the 1/4 away as products of capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by warnerraider
I'll tell you what. You fix the human race, eliminate greed, murder, hatred, racism, etc etc, and any government would work.

I'll tell you what. You can take your sorry ass off to the Opposing Ideologies forum and repeat your capitalist superstitions in a more appropriate forum than this one.

Bye.

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

[YKTMX]

How about Trotskyism as "just another version" of bleeding heart liberalism?

I'm not certain that having a 'bleeding heart' is an insult, even though you obviously intended it as such. I mean, it's preferrable to a swinging brick, is it not?


Live a sheltered life, do you?

Perhaps you should try and get out more.


Well, of course one expects to hear views like yours from tabloids and the Neo-Nazi right, but when they come from supposed socialists, it does take one back a little.


No, let's talk about it right here in front of everybody.


That's fine. I wanted to take the discussion of your Admin status to the CC - not the issue itself.


I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of the chance to see the complete uselessness of Trotskyism as applied to a specific matter of controversy

As counterposed to the cold hearted ruthlessness of Stalinism, I see. Still got a penchant for a bit of state terror after all these years, eh Red?

[Purple]

I believe that rape is mostly the result of the objectification of women! meaning; men see the women for the vagina, not for the individual person, making it easier to abuse this person, having the same train of thought as when you use any other material item to achieve individual pleasure!
this is also closely related to domestic abuse, men who beat their wives/partners!

sexism has always existed amongst the western society, and television, magazines, and the global media is not helping very much either! rape will decrease as the society's role for males and females become more equal!

untill that time(which is far away) i support harsh punishments for rapists! fill them up with female hormones, is my opinion!

[drain.you]

I agree with comrade Purple on this issue. though perhaps not the idea of filling them with female hormones :P, they should be removed from society until they are deemed fit to be put back into it.
I think sexuality should be embraced and not suppressed as much as it is in western society..


"Among those primitive peoples who lead satisfactory, unimpaired sexual lives, there is no sexual crime, no sexual perversion, no sexual brutality between man and woman; rape is unthinkable because it is unnecessary in their society. Their sexual activity flows in normal, well-ordered channels which would fill any cleric with indignation and fear, because the pale, ascetic youth and the gossiping, child-beating woman do not exist in these primitive societies. They love the human body and take pleasure in their sexuality. They do not understand why young men and women should not enjoy their sexuality. But when their lives are invaded by the ascetic, hypocritical morass and by the Church, which bring them 'culture' along with exploitation, alcohol, and syphilis, they begin to suffer the same wretchedness as ourselves. They begin to lead 'moral' lives, i.e. to suppress their sexuality, and from then on they decline more and more into a state of sexual distress, which is the result of sexual suppression. At the same time, they become sexually dangerous; murders of spouses, sexual diseases, and crimes of all sorts start to appear."

J.6.5 But how can children learn ethics if they are not given punishments, prohibitions, and religious instruction?
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secJ6.html

I totally disagree with people suggesting captial punishment and as I have said many times before, I'm sure this will become a soundbite lol:
No one should have the power to kill another. No matter what.

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

I just wanted to address a few random points being made here.

The idea of executing rapists is way off. You can't repress away something like that. Communism is not first and foremost about violence (although it includes violence). Communism is about subversion. In order to get rid of rape, society will have to be changed. Men don't rape simply because they want to have sex. But neither is rape simply about enforcing a power relation. There are complex, neurotic, impoverish relations between men and women under capitalism. This will have to be attacked, to get rid of rape.

Animals do not rape. When we talk about "rape", we're assuming all sorts concepts such as "free will", "consent", "sexism" etc.. that don't exist in the animal world. Further, the whole discussion makes no sense without reference to 19th century inventions such as "sexuality" and "feminism".

I am disagreeing with the original poster who said that most crime is motivated by social ills, and won't exist under communism, but rape is different. I think it also has it's roots in society, and has it's solution there too.

[drain.you]

Animals do not rape.
How can you justify this statement. Animals have free will and can give their consent to things. If I call my dog to me, she consents to doing so otherwise she just sits there and ignores me.
How many times have you seen an animal getting randy with another and being rejected. If animals can reject sex then surely they can also force it upon others. We are only animals you know.

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

You're just projecting your understanding onto the animal. Rape has a whole history in human culture, with all sorts of implications and boundaries that just don't exist for animals.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Wilhelm Reich+--> (Wilhelm Reich)Among those primitive peoples who lead satisfactory, unimpaired sexual lives, there is no sexual crime, no sexual perversion, no sexual brutality between man and woman; rape is unthinkable because it is unnecessary in their society.[/b]

You know it was intellectually fashionable during the 19th and early 20th centuries to celebrate (or deplore) the "sexual freedom" of "primitive peoples" -- in particular, those who lived on islands in the Pacific.

I suspect this myth had its origins in the practical availability of Pacific Island women to "western" men. European male representatives of western imperialism were not only "exotic" and thus appealing to some Pacific Island women...they also had novel material resources to dispose of that would have perhaps appealed to many Pacific Island women.

Consider mirrors for example.

I don't like the "subtext" of this myth. It seems to suggest that if women were just "more willing" to have more sex with more men, then "rape would disappear".

Thus rape is really "women's fault" because they insist on choosing who they're willing to have sex with instead of just being immediately available to any man who wants them.

That's a reactionary idea!


Originally posted by [email protected]
No one should have the power to kill another. No matter what.

Maybe they "shouldn't", but they do.

I don't think it's very constructive to offer a "moral imperative" when discussing a practical situation.

What should we do in a communist society if one person murders, rapes, or violently assaults another?

Nothing?


I'd Rather Be Drinking
The idea of executing rapists is way off. You can't repress away something like that.

No, but you can reduce its frequency.

Most men do not rape. Executing the ones who do rape must necessarily result in the overall reduction of the frequency of rape.

I don't ever expect rape to entirely disappear...but I think my proposal would drastically lower the rate from its present levels in patriarchal society.

I desire to see a communist culture in which physical violence directed against another is regarded as unspeakably barbaric and detestable.

That means, in one fashion or another, we have to get rid of those people who do that sort of thing.

Several people have suggested that future technology will permit solutions that remove the need for execution. That's fine with me...when such technology emerges, I have no problem with "putting it to work".

But until that happens, I think we should shoot the bastards who violently terrorize people.

We have a right to defend ourselves.

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

[YKTMX]

Quite apart from RedStar's executioner fantasies, the question of what to do with 'criminals' in the classless society is an important one.

I think we can quickly dispense with the notion that violent behaviour is determined at all by a person's genetic makeup. Any appeal to even the most superficial facts about crime or levels of violence across the world will show that crime is determined by envioromental factors - culture, economics, education etc.

I think therefore we, as Marxists, can posit that the vast majority of what we consider 'crime' (from robbery to rape) is a product of our own historical epoch, rather than flaws inherent in individuals or humanity in general - or 'human nature'.

That is, when someone commits a crime against the person in any society, be it capitalist or classless, then society itself is to blame. This applies in particular to crimes which are 'widespread' - such as rape. When 1 in 4 women say they have been raped, that is not proof of widespread imbalance in the male brain, it's proof that our attitude to rape, as a society, is flawed i.e we accept it. We accept it because power and domination is a central aspect of the capitalist narrative. We hear endlessly about how 'some people' have 'rights' to dominate others. Your boss has 'power' over you, the state has 'power' over you, the family has 'power' over you. The rapist in capitalist society asks himself, 'whom can I have power over'? That is why rapists are usually, though not always, the most marginalized, exploited members of society - they are victims, too. They externalize the routine violence of everday existence in bourgeois society in 'the moment' of domination over another human being.

So, how would 'we' go about changing this in the classless society?

RedStar2000 has offered you one version, what we might call the 'coercive approach' - rape and you'll die. Now, quite seperate from the fact that death penalty is not a deterrent - that is, it's a stupid idea - what does the death penalty, especially in the wider context of RS's views about crime, say about a society?

RedStar has basically told you that rape occurs because some men simply can't help themselves (he never specifies the nature, quantity, characteristics of these devils). These men are a 'tiny minority', of course (we'll all be well aware of the bourgeois media's obsession with the 'tiny minority of trouble makers'). Therefore, the only response required is a physical one - violence. If we kill them before they procreate, their 'faulty genes' will die out - leaving 'the rest of us' free from their vioence. I question the ethics of this, for a start. If some men 'can't help' raping women, how can it be ethically just to kill them for it? How can you execute someone for behaviour they have no control over?

I suggest a quite diffirent approach. Firstly, I'd say something I think others have been reluctant to say and suggest that under Communism, rape and murder will dissapear completely. We may be left with the odd case of 'passion killings', but pre-meditation will be a thing of the past. 'Power' will have gone through the most radical re-distribution. Every human being will be individually free and collectively liberated from the violence of everyday society.

For the few who do transgress, they will not be 'punished' in the traditional sense. They will be re-intergrated back into the community in a spirit of reconciliation. Remorse will be encouraged, but venegeance will not be sought.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Punk [email protected] 25 2005, 11:58 PM
Capitalism doesn't motivate people to commit rape. We know this because animals rape each other too, and humans are just another animal.
This is crap science. "Sociobiology" or "evolutionary psychology" which is nothing but Just So Stories and simplistic biological determinism in the service of prevailing social prejudices.

Some species of animals commit "rape", OK. Others don't. Which category were the ancestors of Homo sapiens in? We don't know, 'cause they're extinct. We do know that humans have less sexual dimorphism than other primates, which may suggest we're more towards the bonobo than the gorilla end of the spectrum of "natural" relations between the sexes.

One of the many reasons sociobiology is crap science: they take an observation of male ducks committing rape and apply that to humans. It'd be a leap to apply it to geese, let alone mammals!

And humans are not "just another animal." Besides our biology, we also have society and culture. In some cultures, rape is much more common than in others. Even among capitalist countries, rape is much more common in South Africa than in Japan. It's not because the punishments are more draconian than in Japan!

Whether some cultures produce the impulse to rape and others don't, or some cultures suppress a "natural" impulse to rape and others don't...either way culture and society make a tremendous difference in the psychology of their members.

***

And as DJ-TC points out, whether a society is state-ized or state-less, all societies have rules, taboos, or norms, and punishments for those who break them. The difference is, whether you have specialized, full-time law enforcers, aka "special bodies of armed men" as Engels put it.

A classless society will not need them because crime will be less common. This implies we'll need less draconian punishments.

[redstar2000]

Well, it took a while, but at last we have my Trotskyist critic's substantive "contribution" to this thread.

Although he is quick enough to accuse me of "fantasies", he shows that he is not without a few of his own.

Consider...


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Firstly, I'd say something I think others have been reluctant to say and suggest that under Communism, rape and murder will disappear completely.

This is "communism as heaven" where everything is "perfect".

Not being a theologian, I can't really respond to this revelation.

It reminds me of an old song though...

On a summer day
in the month of May
a burly bum came hiking
Down a shady lane
through the sugar cane,
he was looking for his liking.
As he roamed along
he sang a song
of the land of milk and honey
Where a bum can stay
for many a day,
and he won't need any money

Oh the buzzin' of the bees
in the cigarette trees
near the soda water fountain,
At the lemonade springs
where the bluebird sings
on the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

Yeah, I'd like to live there too. But I hope I may be forgiven my skepticism.


I think we can quickly dispense with the notion that violent behaviour is determined at all by a person's genetic makeup.

No, you can't "dispose of it"...to be precise, no genes that "determine" human behavior have ever been discovered.

At this time, scientists are still in the process of discovering what each gene actually does.

It will be many decades before we can say with any reasonable certainty that "gene X" results in "behavior Y".

And it may well be that such a direct link will never be discovered...because there's no such thing.

Right now, we just don't know.


I think therefore we, as Marxists, can posit that the vast majority of what we consider 'crime' (from robbery to rape) is a product of our own historical epoch, rather than flaws inherent in individuals or humanity in general - or 'human nature'.

No Marxist would contest the view that economically-motivated crimes would disappear in a communist society.

The matter is murkier with regard to non-economic crimes. We need some actual experience of a working communist society to see if those other kinds of crimes decline slowly or rapidly or even remain just as prevalent as they are now.

I don't think this is something that can be reliably "predicted" -- not even with "dialectics". :lol:


That is, when someone commits a crime against the person in any society, be it capitalist or classless, then society itself is to blame.

The ghost of Jean-Jacques Rousseau has risen in our midst. You know...that "noble savage" who is "inevitably corrupted" by association with other humans in a society.

This charming 18th century myth has rested undisturbed for quite a while...because we never found any humans who didn't live in a society.

It was not, therefore, an empirically testable hypothesis.

That someone who claims to be a "Marxist" would raise it in the first decade of the 21st century would certainly delight old Jean-Jacques...but I just find it incomprehensible.


When 1 in 4 women say they have been raped, that is not proof of widespread imbalance in the male brain, it's proof that our attitude to rape, as a society, is flawed, i.e., we accept it.

Well, attitudes towards rape under patriarchy vary widely. It was traditionally seen as a crime against another male's property.

Only in our own time has it come to be seen as a crime against another person.

For a variety of reasons, the real incidence of rape is presently unknown -- all we can really talk about are the numbers of men arrested and convicted of "forcible rape"...involving the threat or use of violence.

Even now, I don't think those numbers are very large...but we have no way of discovering the number of forcible rapes that go unreported.

And even now, the "tolerance" for rape is clearly declining...it's increasingly seen as an especially heinous crime. This is a consequence, of course, of the rise of feminism in our society.

The anger of women is becoming more visible...and not without effect.

I think that the time will come, even before proletarian revolution, when the large majority of men will come to regard rape as inexcusable.

Which it is!


That is why rapists are usually, though not always, the most marginalized, exploited members of society - they are victims, too.

I suspect this is another "media myth"...that it's "mostly underclass men" who roam the streets looking for women to rape.

It probably is true that the poor man who rapes is most likely to be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned.

The upper class man who rapes is often able to "buy out" his victim with a large cash settlement. And we know the traditional reluctance of the authorities to prosecute the wealthy for any crime...not to mention the ability of the wealthy to hire a battery of "celebrity lawyers" to defend themselves.

Thus it "looks like" poor men are the ones who rape...but I don't think that's the "whole story".

Or even close.


RedStar has basically told you that rape occurs because some men simply can't help themselves (he never specifies the nature, quantity, characteristics of these devils).

Actually, I did suggest a hypothesis to explain violent behavior: an accident in brain development.

We know that brain development is a very complicated process...and that, sometimes, "things go wrong" in that process.

The consequence is that such unfortunates literally "don't think like the rest of us do".

To them, the people around them are "not really people" but rather objects to be used and then disposed of as they see fit.

They think no more of murder or rape than we would be remorseful in throwing out an old computer that no longer worked properly.

I am not "making this stuff up"...there's actually been some research on this. The quality of that research can be disputed, of course, but I find it quite plausible.

It "makes sense" out of "senseless crimes".


If we kill them before they procreate, their 'faulty genes' will die out - leaving 'the rest of us' free from their violence.

A nice "eugenic" twist...does it matter if I never said that?

Not to a Trotskyist.


If some men 'can't help' raping women, how can it be ethically just to kill them for it? How can you execute someone for behaviour they have no control over?

Because it is ethically unjust to compel women to submit to the risk of rape! By executing the known rapist, we prevent him from ever raping again...thus reducing the risk of rape.


For the few who do transgress, they will not be 'punished' in the traditional sense. They will be re-integrated back into the community in a spirit of reconciliation. Remorse will be encouraged, but vengeance will not be sought.

Are you qualified to make that judgment? Is it not possible that the victim of rape might have an entirely different opinion?

Far from being "reconciled" with her rapist, perhaps she might prefer to see the bastard executed!

That's what Inez Garcia thought. She tracked down one of the two men who raped her and blew the asshole's head off.

You can read a little about her here...

http://www.womenprisoners.org/fire/000127.html

Speaking personally, I regard her as a comrade and I hope that after the revolution people will put up a few statues of her and name some parks and streets after her.

She did the right thing!

And you?

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

[Jimmie Higgins]

I totally agree with "YouKnowTheyMurderedX". People who comit violent acts should be removed from society if they are a danger to others. But uinlike in capitalist society where people are simply "thrown away", a worker's society should attempt to really rehabilitate. Since, as others have suggested, the majrity of crime would be drastically eliminated through changes in material condistions in society, the remaining violent crimes could be treated like a violent mentally ill induvidual.

A schizophrenic really is a schizophrenic for their entire life so it is more humane to exaccute them once they have a violent schizophrenic episode? Or is the more humane thing to treat them in the hopes that they can be rehabilitated. A worker's society should seek to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to fufil their potential and exaccutions deney this.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
Since, as others have suggested, the majority of crime would be drastically eliminated through changes in material conditions in society, the remaining violent crimes could be treated like a violent mentally ill individual.

A schizophrenic really is a schizophrenic for their entire life, so is it more humane to execute them once they have a violent schizophrenic episode?

As I understand it, present medical treatment of violent schizophrenic patients involves not only imprisonment but stuffing them with enough tranquilizers to turn them into walking zombies.

I would not (and did not!) "rule out" the idea of future advances in medical technology that would make executions unnecessary.

It's already becoming customary to abort fetuses that can be clearly shown to be seriously defective...and perhaps a test could be developed to detect the propensity to become schizophrenic in utero.

If that were the case, then abortions would replace executions.

That's ok with me. My objective is to protect communist society from the randomly violent as much as possible.

I am not interested in or concerned with "punishment" in the abstract...but rather in prevention.

And I frankly don't believe in "rehabilitation"...at this point, I think that's liberal mythology.

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:10 PM
And even now, the "tolerance" for rape is clearly declining...it's increasingly seen as an especially heinous crime. This is a consequence, of course, of the rise of feminism in our society.
Why, yes. But few if any feminists have advocated the death penalty for rape. In Susan Brownmiller's classic "Against Our Will" she specifically comes out against the death penalty for anything but murder...that's in the context of discussing lynch-law executions for alleged rape.

Which does kinda highlight that all your predecessors in advocating execution for rape are kinda right-wing. Islamic law also comes to mind.


The consequence is that such unfortunates literally "don't think like the rest of us do".

To them, the people around them are "not really people" but rather objects to be used and then disposed of as they see fit.

They think no more of murder or rape than we would be remorseful in throwing out an old computer that no longer worked properly.

These people are called sociopaths. Genetic factors or brain disorders may play some role in sociopathy, but so do childhood experiences. Not all people with sociopathic inclinations become violent criminals....and in any case sociopathy is not the explanation for most violent crime.


I am not "making this stuff up"...there's actually been some research on this. The quality of that research can be disputed, of course, but I find it quite plausible.

Redstar's ultimate argument for everything: he finds it plausible. This tells us something about Redstar, but nothing about the causes of crime.

It's really the only form of logic Redstar knows: to cite his own prejudices as evidence.



If we kill them before they procreate, their 'faulty genes' will die out - leaving 'the rest of us' free from their violence.

A nice "eugenic" twist...does it matter if I never said that?

Sure it matters...but it also matters that you're citing the eugenicists' favorite explanation for crime, and the eugenicists' "research".

And...here we go! (from a more recent Redstar post):


It's already becoming customary to abort fetuses that can be clearly shown to be seriously defective...and perhaps a test could be developed to detect the propensity to become schizophrenic in utero.

If that were the case, then abortions would replace executions.

The political evolution in the direction of eugenics is pretty apparent. And logical, from the positions Redstar's already taken.

Though reactionary as fuck, and today mostly associated with the racist far right, eugenics does have a certain history on the left as well.

[Ouroboros]

No executions. Execution of the rapist or murdererd is as crueal and meaningless as execution of the tiger because he killed someone. In fact, just like tiger is not guilty at all for killing people, neither human murderer or rapist is guilty - all of them are products of their genes and their education, and noone of them is responsible for that. Mostly.

Saying that, murderers and rapists will always exist. People are not perfect, and those are some kinds of "imperfections." The best bet is I think, prevention. We need lot of cameras and lot of police everywhere. We need to catch every criminal. And then, we need to make as good conditions in jail as we can - remember, everyone according to their needs; needs of criminals did not disappeared even after the worst criminal acts.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Firstly, I'd say something I think others have been reluctant to say and suggest that under Communism, rape and murder will disappear completely.

This is "communism as heaven" where everything is "perfect".

Not being a theologian, I can't really respond to this revelation.[/quote]Not communism as heaven, just communism as a society that has elimanated many of the root social causes for murder and rape. "YouKnow" also went on to say that there would be the "odd crime od passion" and I think it is not conjecture, but a logical assumption to make. With the materail reasons for murder and rape gone, these acts will become much more rare and isolated.

Your conjecture on the other hand is that a rapist will rape again so the solution is exaccution. We do not know for sure if someone who comits any violent act will or will not repeat this act but you want to have them done in based on a conjecture of future actions?

In prisons in capitalism, prisoners, despite the prison system, rehabilitate themselves. With murder and rape reduced, it would be easy for a worker society to attempt to treat people who have done some violent act.


Because it is ethically unjust to compel women to submit to the risk of rape! By executing the known rapist, we prevent him from ever raping again...thus reducing the risk of rape.

As radicals we want to get rid of the root-causes of problems in society. Exaccuting people therefore suggests to me that you think that induviduals are the cause and that some "brain defect" that caused them to do this is inherent and unchangeable.

If it's brain defects that cause rape and murder in a worker's society, then it would be in the intrests of potential victims to have thoes causes removed before they had a chance to lead to rape or murder in the first place. Logically this would mean tring to find a way to treat this brain disffunction; allowing people to have acess to medical treatment and emotional therapy and so on, finding cures or treatments for severe mental disorders like schizophrenia or manic-depression. In your logic, when followed through, we should exaccute people, based on the assumption that they will do it again, so why not exaccute anyone who shows any sign of anti-social behavior before they have a chance to murder or rape?

Exaccutions do not get rid of whatever underlying cuase there might be for anti-social behavior it is much like treating cancer by cutting of the arm the tumor is on; maybe you got all the cancer, maybe you didn't and it exists in other limbs as well. In a sociaty based on human need rather than needs of business, the humane alternative is trying to treat and prevent murders and rapists rahter than waiting around for an act to be comited and then chopping off their head.

By your logic, if there was a plague in a worker's society, we should simply kill all infected imediately to cure the outbreak.

You are a very well-read comrade, so it is suprising when you make such impressionistic arguments like these. One marxist idea which really resonates with me is that induvidual consiousness and people change. Your aguments seem to deney this: people are religious because that is what they were taught and will always be religious; people who rape will always be rapists. Workers aren't revolutionary, I guess they will never be revolutionary.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:59 PM
I don't see how you can question the "logic" of my statement that a dead murderer cannot murder again. Or the same for others who commit violent crimes against people.
True! But since we can't know for sure who will commit a crime, it would be even more logical to say: "A dead person will never commit a crime."

Wipe out humanity, and you'll have your world without crime. Otherwise, no. There's a recent movie, "Serenity" which does a good job of showing the logical consequence of this kind of utopian thinking.

And yes, it is utopian to speculate about what kind of punishments a communist society will use. Tomorrow does not belong to us.

Far more useful to ask: what should be the policy during the inital phases of the transition?

IMO the death penalty should be abolished as rapidly as possible. An immediate period of "Red Terror" has usually been necessary, but after that, it's possible and desirable to end executions. The death penalty is widely recognized as a barbaric means of state terror, and has been abolished in much of the world. Proletarian revolution should not mean a step backwards.

Draconian punishments for crime are always associated with a generally repressive atmosphere, and a low level of democratic rights. They are characteristic of Stalinism, as well as repressive capitalist regimes. And of utopians seeking to impose their blueprints on society by brute force (e.g. Cambodia.)

During the revolutionary transformation of society, the task is to greatly expand democracy in practice....it points in the opposite direction from lots of executions or jails.

That kind of long-term, large-scale repression is a bigger problem than the crime it seeks to suppress. There is no way to ensure it only affects "bad people" and does not intimidate or even directly target anyone else. Even

Crime-fighting cannot be our be-all or end-all. Even in the U.S. today, where street crime is unusually common, it's far from our biggest problem. Far more people are killed by work accidents, and by other consequences of the system, than by individual violence.

If you start asking "what is the answer to crime" in isolation from everything else, treat it as a unique and overriding problem....then yes, draconian punishments do make sense. Whether advocated by Rush Limbaugh, Redstar, or some other reactionary blowhard.

But that approach makes no sense. It can only prevail if its assumptions are unquestioned, and by relying on an irrationally intense fear and loathing of crime. (Whipped up by the "if it bleeds, it leads" big-business media.)

Cuba's shown in practice that it's possible to virtually dispense with the death penalty. After the initial period, Cuba's carried out few executions; for a number of years it observed a de facto moratorium on executions.

And Cuba's crime rate is low, due to a prevailing social value of solidarity.

It does have an excessively large prison population, which reflects the social problems in Cuba, including bureaucracy, due to the difficult objective conditions and international situation facing the revolution.

Certainly a revolution in the U.S. can do better...that is, use less draconian punishments for crime.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:47 PM
And I frankly don't believe in "rehabilitation"...at this point, I think that's liberal mythology.
Liberal mythology? It is capitalist mythology to believe in inherent personality traits that are inchangeable; oh, they're poor because they're lazy.

Liberal mythology? You've never heard of a person who's been violent and turned their life around? Ever read "The autobiography of Malcom X"? People change all the time in both their ideas and actions.

People rehabilitate all the time under the worst conditions of prison life which tend to make people gravitate more towards joining a gang and becoming more violent. The only mythology I see here is the idea that past actions predict future actions.

[YKTMX]

This is "communism as heaven" where everything is "perfect".

Not being a theologian, I can't really respond to this revelation.


We know for a fact that some societies now have higher instances of rape than others. What I'm saying is that 'our' societies will be 'the next stage' from even the most progressive capitalist state - that is, bereft of violent crime. We might get the odd case, but it will be nothing like the scale we know now. If you can't 'imagine' such a society, then that reflects badly on you.


Right now, we just don't know.


OK, then I wait for the 'revelation' with baited breath.


No Marxist would contest the view that economically-motivated crimes would disappear in a communist society.


Rape is 'economically motivated' because, as I outlined, it's a product of our particular historical epoch. There's no distinction between property crime and rape.


And even now, the "tolerance" for rape is clearly declining...it's increasingly seen as an especially heinous crime. This is a consequence, of course, of the rise of feminism in our society.

Third of Brits think raped women 'ask for it'. (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16618.shtml)

That's a recently released Amnesty report which shows how fantastical that statement is. Totally ridiculous.


It "makes sense" out of "senseless crimes".


They're not 'senseless'. We call them senseless so we can deny our own complicity in them. To some, suicide bombing is 'senseless' - 'we' know better.


By executing the known rapist, we prevent him from ever raping again...thus reducing the risk of rape.


Delaying the risk of rape is more like it - until we get the next generation of mental defectives just desperate to rape some poor women. Perhaps we could find some way of screening the 'rape gene' and just kill them in the womb?


Is it not possible that the victim of rape might have an entirely different opinion?


Quite possibly, but that has nothing to do with it. Any civilized notion of justice has to rely on an impartial, emotion free system of 'punishment'.


She did the right thing!

And you?


No. I don't support murder.

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

It's depressing how little imagination some people on this thread have. When talking about a communist society, people speak about it as if it would be like a softer or more radical version of this society. Some people want to execute rapists. Others want to imitate miserable capitalist models like Cuba. Communism is not a management program for present day society. Communism is the movement that destroys it.

In this society there is a dichotomy in the way people talk about rape. There is the reactionary "she had it coming dressed like that", women are basically just property. On the other side there is the spectacle of the serial rapist attacking innocent young girls (common to some feminists and conservatives). No one on a "revolutionary left" board would dream of supporting the first. But I would argue that the second scenario doesn't reflect reality either.

Rape is a product of a society that treats women (and men for that matter) as either innocents or victims. Communism would not do that. Men and women daily reproduce the kinds of relationships they have between each other. These relationships are terribly alienated, and the source of a lot of misery in our daily lives. In this alienated state we look outside our actual relationships for a moral code to justify and explain our relationships, to guarantee them and to divide people into good and bad. It is in this code that most of what people talk about when they say "rape" exists. (And this is why we can't talk about rape among animals.)

In a communist world, our social relationships would be direct and human. This would mean that a lot of the misery and harm that we do to each other an a daily basis would be eliminated. This doesn't mean that we would all be saints, or that communism would be heaven. People would still harm each other and even be cruel to each other. But we would have no need to look outside our relationships for an ethical code to justify them. There would be no need for the human sigh of an inhuman world. There would be no ideological guarantee of our social relationships. We would view our social relationships with open eyes.

With that perspective, I would say that the (afore mentioned) woman who killed her rapist is a model communist. The people who want to execute (guilty) rapists, or rehabilitate (guilty) rapists (so they're "good" again if not "innocent") are not.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)But few if any feminists have advocated the death penalty for rape.[/b]

So? How is this relevant to the arguments I have raised?


These people are called sociopaths. Genetic factors or brain disorders may play some role in sociopathy, but so do childhood experiences. Not all people with sociopathic inclinations become violent criminals....and in any case sociopathy is not the explanation for most violent crime.

That's something that can't be known until we actually have a functioning communist society with real experience to draw upon.


Redstar's ultimate argument for everything: he finds it plausible.

Yes...not being a genius, that's the best I can do.

I will concede that plausibility sets the bar "too high" for some of the folks on the board...who've already demonstrated their preference for various and sundry mythologies.

Too bad! :(


...but it also matters that you're citing the eugenicists' favorite explanation for crime, and the eugenicists' "research".

Since I haven't actually specifically cited any research papers as such -- much less expressed any support for any "genetic" theories of crime -- how can you draw such a conclusion?

Another example of Trotskyist "reasoning"?


The political evolution in the direction of eugenics is pretty apparent. And logical, from the positions Redstar's already taken.

Though reactionary as fuck, and today mostly associated with the racist far right, eugenics does have a certain history on the left as well.

Ah yes, I have been "dialectically transformed" into an early 20th century supporter of "left eugenics".

Or perhaps I am just "moving in that direction".

Or perhaps this is all just another Trotskyist fantasy.

You decide.


Far more useful to ask: what should be the policy during the initial phases of the transition?

I expect revolutionary justice to be "rough and ready" with executions taking place in considerable numbers as people see the need for them.

It's practically certain that some injustices will take place...the "wrong guy" will be hanged or shot, here and there.

And there will be people who will use the opportunity to "settle old scores" of a personal nature "under the revolutionary flag".

These things are bound to happen in the course of a massive proletarian uprising...and all we can do, I think, is try to make sure that the bastards who really need to be hanged meet their appropriate end.

What happens afterwards depend on one's view of how the revolution will develop.

Leninists (if there still are any around) will argue on behalf of a centralized state apparatus with pretty much what we have now: cops, judges, lawyers, prisons, prison guards, professional soldiers, etc.

Things would start to look pretty familiar within a few years.

If real communists (and anarchists) prevail, which I expect to be the case, then entirely new social forms will emerge...forms of direct mass administration of all public functions, including crime and punishment.

This will probably result in many "common sense" notions of justice being put into place...which some people will find very uncomfortable.

Like, for example, executing murderers and rapists.


Crime-fighting cannot be our be-all or end-all.

No one suggested that it should be. But it is interesting that the subject seems to arouse considerable and even passionate interest on this board.


Originally posted by Ouroboros+--> (Ouroboros)We need lots of cameras and lots of police everywhere.[/b]

Try Leninism. Their beloved "transitional state" will suit your preferences perfectly. They love cops and prisons...the more the better!


[email protected]
Not communism as heaven, just communism as a society that has eliminated many of the root social causes for murder and rape.

Communism will eliminate the root causes of economically-motivated murders.

I have never seen anyone suggest that rape is "economically" motivated.

Now it may be argued that within a society which has a strong "cultural bias" against sexism of any kind, the number of rapes will decline impressively.

Perhaps that will be true...but what still remains is what to do about the rapes that still take place?


Your conjecture on the other hand is that a rapist will rape again so the solution is execution.

Yes...that is what we generally observe in real world phenomena. Once someone has shown that they will rape, the reasonable conclusion is that under similar circumstances they will rape again.

This "common sense" observation seems to be "uncomfortable" for many of the posters to this thread. But I think that they should be aware of the fact that they conduct their own lives according to the same principle.

If "B" has been shown once to follow "A", the most reasonable expectation is that the next time "A" shows up, start looking for "B".

If you discover that someone you trusted has lied to you, do you still believe whatever they tell you?

If you find out that someone has stolen something from you, do you still think of them as a "friend?"

We humans learn from experience. In fact, that's our best learning tool.

Why some people don't want to apply this to rapists or murderers is something I don't understand.


The only mythology I see here is the idea that past actions predict future actions.

:lol:

Just what do you think science does?


In prisons in capitalism, prisoners, despite the prison system, rehabilitate themselves.

Well, we could have a lengthy dispute on how often that happens. In my view, most people emerge from prison as simply broken shells of humanity capable of little more than waiting to die. Their sense of personal autonomy is shattered beyond repair.

Not to mention those who emerge even more violent than when they went in.

Or those who cope with prison by plunging into reactionary superstitions like Christianity or Islam. You may call that "rehabilitation" if you like...I think some more odious word would be appropriate.


Executing people therefore suggests to me that you think that individuals are the cause and that some "brain defect" that caused them to do this is inherent and unchangeable.

Yeah, I do think that. That is, I think that even under communism (with all those "root causes" removed) there will still remain a small minority of people who will readily resort to violence to attain their goals because "that's the way they think".

If I'm wrong, fine. No executions are required if that doesn't happen.

But what if I'm right and those things do happen?


If it's brain defects that cause rape and murder in a worker's society, then it would be in the interests of potential victims to have those causes removed before they had a chance to lead to rape or murder in the first place.

I completely agree, of course. Our present day knowledge does not permit us to follow this course. But if it becomes possible someday to accurately predict "who will kill or rape or both", then, by all means, stop them before they have a chance at even one victim.


Logically this would mean trying to find a way to treat this brain dysfunction; allowing people to have access to medical treatment and emotional therapy and so on, finding cures or treatments for severe mental disorders like schizophrenia or manic-depression.

Sure! Go for it! And good luck to you!

But you can't expect us to rely on cures that have yet to be discovered.

This is our personal safety from violence that's at stake.


In your logic, when followed through, we should execute people, based on the assumption that they will do it again, so why not execute anyone who shows any sign of anti-social behavior before they have a chance to murder or rape?

Well, what do you mean "anti-social"?

If you're speaking of some kid who already shows some "alarming signs" of a willingness to resort to violence -- perhaps a "neighborhood bully" -- then we'd face a pretty serious dilemma.

What do we do with this little piece of shit? Do we "wait" until he cripples some old man or rapes some girl in the neighborhood or even kills someone?

Do you want to try drugs or psychological therapy or whatever and "hope it works"?

And how are you going to feel about yourself if it doesn't work?

I'm not sure what I'd do myself...but I don't think I'd want the weight on my shoulders of being indirectly responsible for someone being beaten or raped or killed.

How about you?


By your logic, if there was a plague in a workers' society, we should simply kill all infected [persons] immediately to cure the outbreak.

The practice of isolating plague victims goes back, I think, to 15th century Italy...if not even earlier.

Was this "cruel" -- just allowing people to die in complete isolation from all uninfected people?

Well, the 15th century Italians didn't have a cure for the plague.

Would our workers' society move quickly to find a cure? Presumably so.

What would happen to the infected while we were searching for that cure? Should they be "allowed" to infect the entire society?

You tell me.


One Marxist idea which really resonates with me is that individual consciousness and people change.

Indeed they do...and sometimes with astonishing speed. In revolutionary periods, people change in a single year more than they would "normally" have been able to manage in a century.

But that "general principle" is not "universal" and does not necessarily apply to everyone.

Even after the utter ruin of the Confederacy, there were still a substantial number of former slave-holders who were never "re-constructed".

Even after the Reich was a pile of rubble, there were still some numbers of Germans who mourned its defeat and defended what it "stood for".

I am deeply skeptical of the notion that we have now or will someday have "techniques" to change murderers and rapists into "good communists".

But of course I could certainly be wrong about that.


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Any civilized notion of justice has to rely on an impartial, emotion free system of 'punishment'.

Everyone quit laughing! He's being serious.

He accepts the bourgeois myth of "impartial justice" as if it were something "real".

Or "ought to be real".

There's no room for humans in his system...perhaps he intends to hand over the job to super-computers.

Trotskyism is very strange.

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

[YKTMX]

Everyone quit laughing! He's being serious.

He accepts the bourgeois myth of "impartial justice" as if it were something "real".



Nonsense. I don't believe that bourgeois justice is 'impartial', of course I don't. I believe that a radical, impartial, socialist justice is possible.

[Punk Rocker]

What a remarkable thread!

You're welcome man.

[Severian]

Originally posted by I'd Rather Be [email protected] 29 2005, 03:25 AM
With that perspective, I would say that the (afore mentioned) woman who killed her rapist is a model communist. The people who want to execute (guilty) rapists, or rehabilitate (guilty) rapists (so they're "good" again if not "innocent") are not.
Utopianism aside, in the real world of today, vigilantism and support for vigiliantism tend to lead toward the ultraright.

Really, anything that starts with looking for a solution to crime is going to head rightward. In the course of fighting against the exploiters, working people often end up confronting crime and criminals as well. But there's no progressive way to start with a fight against crime.

[Creature]

Question. Why is execution always looked at as the most serious punishment for any crime?

To elaborate, if ther was a revolution and society was reformed, wouldn't that mean that societies values can be changed. Couldn't more emphasis be placed on alternative punishments like exile?

Rather then introduce the problem of morality, guards etc that comes with execution, couldn't we just simply cast out any murderers or rapists into the wilderness to fend for themselves? Or to a further extent, out of the country?

In a way it solves the problem, you have no right to take the life of any other human, but you dont have to live with them in your society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Creature+--> (Creature)...couldn't we just simply cast out any murderers or rapists into the wilderness to fend for themselves? Or to a further extent, out of the country?

In a way it solves the problem, you have no right to take the life of any other human, but you don't have to live with them in your society.[/b]

Exile is indeed the obvious humane alternative to execution of those who commit violent crimes against people.

The logistical difficulties are formidable. There are no more large areas of the earth's surface where life is possible that are not already inhabited. If you "send them to Antarctica" to "fend for themselves", they'll simply freeze to death in an hour or two.

Even with a whole lot of global warming, Antarctica is still going to be a very nasty place to live.

Thus food supplies, building supplies, and heating oil would have to be supplied in large amounts.

The males would have to be sterilized before sending them to "Barbarian Land"...we want no children born into such an environment.

It is unlikely that any country will welcome an influx of known violent criminals.

Don't forget that in the long run we are talking about a planet with many billions of inhabitants. Right now, we are talking about communism in countries with perhaps a billion or so people total. But, say five or so centuries in the future, we'd be talking about the whole world.

And "new communists" in Kabul have just as much right to live their lives without fear of violence as "old communists" in Paris.

So we'd have to consider the rate of violent crimes on a world scale...and even the most optimistic projection that you can imagine is still likely to suggest some fairly substantial absolute numbers.

Suppose that the "intractable" rate of violent crime is one in ten million per year. That's 800 violent criminals per year for the whole world. In 10 years, that's 8,000. In 50 years, that's 40,000. (Assuming a global population of 8 billion.)

That's an optimistic projection; look at the more pessimistic view. Suppose that the "intractable" rate of violent crime is one in 500,000 per year.

That would generate 16,000 violent criminals per year for the whole world.

The rightest "anti-crime" ideologues of our own era would regard even my "pessimistic" projection as "wildly optimistic", of course. They think humans are inherently violent...and would murder and rape more or less constantly were they not severely repressed by a large state apparatus.

As should be obvious by now, I do not share their view of "human nature".


...you have no right to take the life of any other human...

Yes I do. We all have the right to take the life of another human who directly threatens our own.

On the other hand, the calculated and deliberate infliction of protracted pain and suffering on another human does seem to me to be a reprehensible act. I cannot see any reasonable justification for torture...which is why I am so adamantly opposed to prisons.


Severian
Utopianism aside, in the real world of today, vigilantism and support for vigilantism tend to lead toward the ultraright.

Severian "sets aside" what is exactly the point of this thread: how should communist society deal with those who commit violent physical attacks on people?

Having observed that it is the predominately reactionary elements of the population that presently resort to violence, he assumes that this is a "law of history".

Thus he must "find refuge" in a large and repressive state apparatus with professional police, massive prisons, and all the rest that goes with "the rule of law".

The idea that the people themselves might legitimately resort to violence against those who attack them is "outside" of his view of the world. Presumably, we are instead supposed to "call the police" and "file a complaint".

That's not how things work in a period of popular insurrection...and I don't think it's how things should work in a communist society.

We are not lambs who will permit ourselves to be sacrificed on the "holy altar" of "the law".

If a woman kills her rapist "on the spot" in a communist society, I think she should be publicly honored for her deed.

At least with a big parade! :)

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

[Don't Change Your Name]

What if the rapist wasn't a rapist at all? What if there's no evidence of there being a rape and she just killed him because they had some argument? How can you tell? Will we just say "oh, he was a rapist, it was in self defense" without investigating the case? Do you propose there to be a group of people who investigate what really happened just in case she made it up or will we assume she's telling the whole truth out of "ideological correctness"?

Just wondering

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 3 2005, 11:19 AM
What if the rapist wasn't a rapist at all? What if there's no evidence of there being a rape and she just killed him because they had some argument? How can you tell? Will we just say "oh, he was a rapist, it was in self defense" without investigating the case? Do you propose there to be a group of people who investigate what really happened just in case she made it up or will we assume she's telling the whole truth out of "ideological correctness"?

Just wondering
I do not know what people "will assume" in the future, of course.

I know what I assume in the present.

The idea that women are ever ready to "play the rape card" is a masculine myth.

I have already noted elsewhere that communist society would certainly contain specialists in forensic investigations...to give objective evidence about "what really happened" and "what could not possibly have happened" in the course of a violent crime.

A man who attempts to violently remove a woman's clothing, for example, will leave traces of his DNA on that clothing...that can be easily detected and identified.

Especially within an hour or two.

So if she says "the bastard tried to rape me", there will be evidence to prove that happened...or at least make attempted rape the most probable explanation.

Given your defense of sexist "humor" in another thread, I also "assume" that I know "where you're coming from".

Just another guy whining about the erosion of your traditional and "rightful" male privileges.

Find some other shoulder to cry on! :angry:

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

[Revolution67]

Instead of executing the rapist after his offense has been proved beyond "reasonable doubt", I think the best punishment would be surgical castration of guilty's genitelia.

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:24 PM
Instead of executing the rapist after his offense has been proved beyond "reasonable doubt", I think the best punishment would be surgical castration of guilty's genitelia.
In that case I think having them drawn and qurterd is more humanie.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:24 PM
Instead of executing the rapist after his offense has been proved beyond "reasonable doubt", I think the best punishment would be surgical castration of guilty's genitalia.
Possibly because you imagine that rape is a "purely sexual" crime.

It's not.

What rape is really about is the "thrill" of terrorizing another human being...something which castration will not "solve".

A castrated rapist is nevertheless perfectly capable of beating the living crap out of some woman "just for the fun of it".

Now...it has been suggested that elevated testosterone ("male" hormone) levels are associated with the elevated risk of committing crimes of violence against people.

And "no balls Mike" will necessarily have a sharply reduced testosterone level in his bloodstream.

Still...would you really want a guy walking the streets possibly seeking vengeance for the loss of his testicles?

That doesn't sound like a "good option" to me.

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

[Creature]

Exile is indeed the obvious humane alternative to execution of those who commit violent crimes against people.

The logistical difficulties are formidable. There are no more large areas of the earth's surface where life is possible that are not already inhabited. If you "send them to Antarctica" to "fend for themselves", they'll simply freeze to death in an hour or two.

Even with a whole lot of global warming, Antarctica is still going to be a very nasty place to live.

Thus food supplies, building supplies, and heating oil would have to be supplied in large amounts.

The males would have to be sterilized before sending them to "Barbarian Land"...we want no children born into such an environment.

It is unlikely that any country will welcome an influx of known violent criminals.

Don't forget that in the long run we are talking about a planet with many billions of inhabitants. Right now, we are talking about communism in countries with perhaps a billion or so people total. But, say five or so centuries in the future, we'd be talking about the whole world.

And "new communists" in Kabul have just as much right to live their lives without fear of violence as "old communists" in Paris.

So we'd have to consider the rate of violent crimes on a world scale...and even the most optimistic projection that you can imagine is still likely to suggest some fairly substantial absolute numbers.

Suppose that the "intractable" rate of violent crime is one in ten million per year. That's 800 violent criminals per year for the whole world. In 10 years, that's 8,000. In 50 years, that's 40,000. (Assuming a global population of 8 billion.)

That's an optimistic projection; look at the more pessimistic view. Suppose that the "intractable" rate of violent crime is one in 500,000 per year.

That would generate 16,000 violent criminals per year for the whole world.

The rightest "anti-crime" ideologues of our own era would regard even my "pessimistic" projection as "wildly optimistic", of course. They think humans are inherently violent...and would murder and rape more or less constantly were they not severely repressed by a large state apparatus.

As should be obvious by now, I do not share their view of "human nature".


The rightest "anti-crime" ideologues of our own era would regard even my "pessimistic" projection as "wildly optimistic", of course. They think humans are inherently violent...and would murder and rape more or less constantly were they not severely repressed by a large state apparatus.

I agree. One of the reasons why I am an Anarchist.

Why would we need to provide supplies? They commited criminal acts against our society, we don't need to support them. If they die in the wilderness of country a, then so be it.

Also, other then the logistics as a problem with exile, if we did create 'Badlands' where criminals would preside, wouldn't they eventually take over the country side, assuming they survived. Or, using Australia as an example, if a group of women were travelling on some road in the middle of no where and had to pull over for whatever reason, what's to say the rapist won't seek revenge then.

So far the best punishment is the injecting of female hormones into the criminals body.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Creature
So far the best punishment is the injecting of female hormones into the criminal's body.

Well, this overlooks the occasional violent female criminal.

But there are other problems with this approach. You realize, I trust, that "one injection" does not "do the job". You will need periodic injections for the rest of his life.

Now consider: it's a common practice presently to treat severe mental illness with a "cocktail" of drugs that must be taken at regular and frequent intervals.

Such patients are not always willing to co-operate in this practice.

You are asking the violent criminal to "co-operate" in his "female-ization". To show up every day or two at a clinic to receive his "shots".

Or, possibly, to show up every week or two at a clinic to have a new "internal patch" installed.

Men who have chosen to convert themselves into biological females will certainly do what's expected of them...it's something they want to happen.

Is the violent male criminal likely to be so co-operative?

What you suggest "might work"...but it depends on the violent male criminal being willing to "go along with the idea". Even if he initially preferred this option to execution, he might well change his mind as he observed the changes taking place in his own body.

And how would that "play out"?

Not very well, I think.

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

[Vanguard1917]

Death penalty for rapists?! How is that justice? Do you, Redstar2000, propose capital punishment for someone who has, for example, paralysed an innocent person from waist down? I'm thinking that you'd probably say no... because that isn't just. So why is it just to kill a man that has committed rape? Is the rape victim more damaged than the person that cannot walk for the rest of his or her life?

Rape is a terrible crime, and it should be punished accordingly. But it's not as terrible as murder - or indeed many other crimes that inflict physical harm on others.

It should also be pointed out that in a communist society women are empowered. They become, in relation to men, political, economic and social equals. They are no longer submissive creatures that bow down to the demands of men. They become capable of defending themselves against rapists by themselves. In this society, the rapist does not only have physical (i.e. physical strength) advantage over his female victim; he is often advantaged in every sphere of life. Rapists commonly rape women who they regard as inferiors. While it was common for slave-owners in the US to rape the daughters and wives of their black slaves, those same men would not attempt to do the same thing to white women. While it was common for bourgeois factory-owners in Britain to impose themselves on their proletarian women, they could not do the same to the women of their own class.

The point is that things will be radically different in a communist society. Women will no longer be seen as easy prey for the minority (a very tiny minority) of men who have rapist "impulses".

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Do you, Redstar2000, propose capital punishment for someone who has, for example, paralysed an innocent person from waist down? I'm thinking that you'd probably say no...

Well, then think again.

Violent attacks against people, even if they do not result in death, are nevertheless symptomatic of the willingness to use lethal force.

So I don't think that we "have to wait" until the asshole actually kills somebody...we can finish the motherfucker off as soon as it's clear that he might.

I do not know if this conforms to your abstract notion of "justice"...but it fits mine!

To repeat: people in communist society have an absolute right to live their lives without fear of physical violence directed against them!

Among other things, that's what communist civilization means.

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

[Vanguard1917]

Violent attacks against people, even if they do not result in death, are nevertheless symptomatic of the willingness to use lethal force.

A violent attack on another person is not necessarily guided by a 'willingness to use lethal force'. A rapist violently attacks a woman, but most rapists are not willing to kill that woman. That's not their intent. A man that shoots another man in the knee wants to badly injure that person, but not to the extent that the injury is fatal.


So I don't think that we "have to wait" until the asshole actually kills somebody...we can finish the motherfucker off as soon as it's clear that he might.

...people in communist society have an absolute right to live their lives without fear of physical violence directed against them!

So we should punish people on what they might do? Is that how justice should really work in the society that we want to create? If a person breaks a man's nose they should be put to death because tomorrow they may break a man's skull? If a person is caught reading Mein Kampf dressed in a Nazi uniform they should be arrested because tomorrow they may start a counter-revolution and slaughter millions of Jews?


I do not know if this conforms to your abstract notion of "justice"...but it fits mine!

It is not an abstract notion of justice. It is justice that is based on rationality. Your's seems to be based on emotionalism.

[redstar2000]

The previous post by Vanguard1917 should be carefully noted by the interested historian.

It's the first public example of what will probably come to be known as bleeding-heart Leninism.

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

[Xvall]

If a person is caught reading Mein Kampf dressed in a Nazi uniform they should be arrested because tomorrow they may start a counter-revolution and slaughter millions of Jews?

No, but I do think that if they are a fascist they ought to be shot.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:03 AM

If a person is caught reading Mein Kampf dressed in a Nazi uniform they should be arrested because tomorrow they may start a counter-revolution and slaughter millions of Jews?

No, but I do think that if they are a fascist they ought to be shot.
I likewise "have no problem" with summary execution of overt Nazis upon apprehension.

It's not the reading of Mein Kampf that bothers me -- I've read it myself.

It's the wearing of the Nazi uniform that clearly shows where that bastard's sympathies really lie.

So I see no reason not to shoot him. :angry:

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

[Vanguard1917]

No, but I do think that if they are a fascist they ought to be shot.


It's the wearing of the Nazi uniform that clearly shows where that bastard's sympathies really lie.

So I see no reason not to shoot him.

So in a communist epoch, where all counter-revolutionary social elements have been eliminated, we would shoot an individual because he chooses to spend his free time sympathetically reading obscure texts from the past? The man is obviously an oddball eccentric - but is he a threat to our society? Is the epoch of communism so fragile that one weirdo can be considered a threat?

What if we catch a man dressed as an Ancient Greek military general, reading the anti-democratic political writings of Plato? Should we kill him in case he destroys our society and brings back the epoch of slavery?

Communism is not about wiping out individuals that we consider 'threatening'. Communism is not so vulnerable and humans are not so 'perfect'.

There will still be drunken brawls outside pubs and bars. There will still be heated personal arguments between a man and a woman - where one might even hit the other. And we will still have our fair share of weirdoes with bad taste in clothes.

But these things cannot threaten communism. They are individual, personal issues - not threatening social forces that challenge the dynamism of communist society. And that's precisely why a communist society does not require a repressive state - in whatever form.

[KGB5097]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:24 PM
Instead of executing the rapist after his offense has been proved beyond "reasonable doubt", I think the best punishment would be surgical castration of guilty's genitelia.
Maybe women can just carry knives? I've been doing that for years )i'm not a woman, but I live in a lousy naighborhood) and i've only been robbed once.

Once you pull a 2ft Machete on a guy you don't get bothered anymore....

[STI]

So in a communist epoch, where all counter-revolutionary social elements have been eliminated, we would shoot an individual because he chooses to spend his free time sympathetically reading obscure texts from the past?

No, but if he's sitting on a park bench, reading Mein Kampf, wearing a Nazi uniform, then, odds are, he's up to something. Hell, only the Prince of England can get away with it now, why would we be more lenient on reactionaries in a communist society?


The man is obviously an oddball eccentric - but is he a threat to our society?

Yes. When somebody is out there promoting that kind of reaction, no good can come from it. He should be very sternly told to quit it, or risk execution. We can't have any tolerance for counter-revolutinaries.


What if we catch a man dressed as an Ancient Greek military general, reading the anti-democratic political writings of Plato? Should we kill him in case he destroys our society and brings back the epoch of slavery?

If he was serious about bringing back slavery, then yes.



Communism is not about wiping out individuals that we consider 'threatening'.

It's definately part of it... if you want the revolution to last, at least. What do you propose we do with people who run around spreading reaction like that? Leave them alone and hope nothing comes of it? Have a good laugh about it over a beer? For everyone's sake, I hope you never encounter reactionaries in a communist society - I'm not sure how well you'd handle it.


There will still be heated personal arguments between a man and a woman - where one might even hit the other.

You're right, there probably will. Does that mean we should tolerate it? Hell no! We should do everything in our power to make sure it happens as infrequently as possible.


And we will still have our fair share of weirdoes with bad taste in clothes.

Do you really think people don't wear nazi uniforms because they "aren't fashionable"? Or is it because they are so opposed to the idea that the last thing they want to do is promote it by using their bodies as a billboard?

People don't wear Nazi uniforms in public "just because". It happens for a reason, and that reason is a very anti-communist one.


But these things cannot threaten communism.

Yes they can. Counter-revolution is a serious possibility (maybe even an inevitability). We should do whatever we can to make sure it's as weak as we can make it.

Or they decrease the quality of life in a communist society, also something we should avoid.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 05:10 AM
The previous post by Vanguard1917 should be carefully noted by the interested historian.

It's the first public example of what will probably come to be known as bleeding-heart Leninism.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Probably? I doubt many other people will make that judgement apart from yourself and your merry little bunch of anti-leninists. Your movement was born dead. If opposing your bourgeois sense of "justice" is "bleeding-heart", then by all means, count me as a bleeding heart.

[Vanguard1917]

No, but if he's sitting on a park bench, reading Mein Kampf, wearing a Nazi uniform, then, odds are, he's up to something.

Up to what? He's just a weird man on a park bench. Sure, warn your kids not to accept sweets from 'that man'. But a threat to communist society? Let's be just a bit rational now.

This is not an example of rationality:



What if we catch a man dressed as an Ancient Greek military general, reading the anti-democratic political writings of Plato? Should we kill him in case he destroys our society and brings back the epoch of slavery?


If he was serious about bringing back slavery, then yes.

You can be as serious as you like about 'bringing back' an Ancient slave society... but it still isn't going to happen.


When somebody is out there promoting that kind of reaction, no good can come from it.

Assuming that the man on the park bench was promoting his eccentric ideas (because that's all that such ideas can be in a commnunist society)...

So what? Who the hell is going to listen to him? Does communist society create the conditions on which Nazi ideas can thrive? Of course not.

The best that he can do is round-up a few other like-minded weirdoes. But weirdoes no not pose a threat to dynamic societies.


What do you propose we do with people who run around spreading reaction like that? Leave them alone and hope nothing comes of it? Have a good laugh about it over a beer?

Yes, people in a communist society would ignore such people. Because, in communist society, such 'reactionary ideas' do not have the scope to be 'spread'. They would be dismissed as lunacy by everyone except other lunatics.


Counter-revolution is a serious possibility (maybe even an inevitability). We should do whatever we can to make sure it's as weak as we can make it.

Counter-revolution in a communist society is not an inevitability. Far from it. Communism is 'the riddle of history solved'. In a classless society, the conditions for 'counter-revolution' no longer exist.


Or they decrease the quality of life in a communist society, also something we should avoid.

A nut-case on a park bench is not going to 'decrease the quality of life in a communist society' for anyone except for himself and, momentarily, for those without a sense of humour walking past him.

[Ownthink]

Gah, we'd kill him, get over it.

[FidelCastro]

The way you stop rape and murder and all crimes that aren't capitalist driven (crimes like stealing since in a communist society there would be not point to them) is to publically torture and execute the guilty, the middle ages had a lower crime rate but people were afraid, INSTILL FEAR into all so they don't commit crimes like that because they're afraid.

[Wanted Man]

A "communist" advocating medieval(feudal) ways of "justice"? A shining example for the lovers of capital punishment here.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)There will still be drunken brawls outside pubs and bars. There will still be heated personal arguments between a man and a woman - where one might even hit the other.[/b]

Are "drunken brawls" and men hitting women "in our genes"? :lol:

Perhaps we should establish a theme park -- "Asshole Land" -- where folks who like to do that sort of thing (including women who "like" to be hit by men) can go and freely engage in their preferred behavior without consequence.

Act like that in such a way as to endanger ordinary civilized people...and you may anticipate the worst! :angry:


Matthijs
If opposing your bourgeois sense of "justice" is "bleeding-heart", then by all means, count me as a bleeding heart.

Done. :)

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:31 PM
The way you stop rape and murder and all crimes that aren't capitalist driven (crimes like stealing since in a communist society there would be no point to them) is to publically torture and execute the guilty; the middle ages had a lower crime rate but people were afraid, INSTILL FEAR into all so they don't commit crimes like that because they're afraid.
Your post is based on a gross historical misunderstanding.

Violent crime against people was actually far more common in medieval cities than it is now. Portions of the countryside were often terrorized by gangs of robbers.

Public torture and painful execution were commonplace...to no avail whatsoever. Economic conditions were so primitive that people were driven to behavior that we today would consider quasi-barbaric.

Beyond this, your whole approach defeats our purpose. We want a society where people do not have to live in fear...at all!

Not to mention the effects on us of using torture or deliberately painful forms of execution.

What would that sort of thing turn us into?

It may turn out to be "difficult enough" to convince people that performing a quick and painless execution is "best for everyone". You can see from some of the posts in this thread how "squeamish" some folks are even about the option of justified execution for violent crimes against people.

What you suggest is "a non-starter".

Sorry.

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

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:40 PM
A "communist" advocating medieval(feudal) ways of "justice"? A shining example for the lovers of capital punishment here.
I'm pro death penalty but I don't advocate torture, so you can take that back.

[Vanguard1917]

Are "drunken brawls" and men hitting women "in our genes"?

No, it's not 'in our genes'. But then again our genes do not determine our actions... on which you probably agree.

But my point is that personal human 'conflict' is fundamentally diferent to social conflict. Two drunks fighting each other in the street is a personal 'conflict' between the two drunks. A class exploiting another class is a social conflict between two social forces (classes). Our interest should be in the latter type of conflict - not in the former.

A man that hits his female partner is, in communist society, a personal issue that should concern no one but the man and the woman. In communist society, where women are equal to men in all spheres of life, where a woman is no longer tied to 'her man' for economic reasons (or for whatever reason women are subordinated in capitalist society), violence in the home can no longer be a social issue. When two equal people who love each other fight, they do so because of a wide range of complex personal reasons. That is part of being human.

You talk of wanting a civilised society. But it appears to me that you want a sanitised society that is cleansed of forms of human behaviour that you deem undesirable - which, for you, means executing 'undesirables'.

That's not civilised.

[TC]

As has been pointed out, the desire to rape isn't principly about wanting sex with someone, its about wanting ultimate power over them, to be able to punish someone in a horrifying and forceful way, to dominate them...

The desire to put someone to death is the same way! Its also about applying ultimate power over another, being able to punish them in a horrifying and forceful way and dominate them.

Maybe Redstar2000 has a little bit of a rapist in him? A little more in common with rapist mentality then he'd like to admit? Seems like he gets a bit of a thrill out of the idea of dominating and punishing people himself, eh?



In any case, i think any system that wants to claim any type of justice through punishment can't have punishment greater then the crime...and clearly murder is a greater crime then rape...they're both horrifying crimes but surely everyone would rather be raped then murdered, and i assume the guys would rather be raped then castrated, which is in of itself a type of violent sexual humiliation even more severe then rape. The desire to castrate rapists really, is a desire to rape them back.

[Eoin Dubh]

I have not read this whole thread, yet when pondering the question of what the solution to rape would be, I recalled a fancy device called the Gibbet.

The Gibbet was used in England as a form of execution with the side benefit of being a rather grisly warning-deterent to those who may consider similiar crime. It was saved for only the worst criminals. It consisted of an iron cage which fit snug around the living offenders body and could be hung on display as an example.
The offender does'nt come out until their bones fall out.

Of course a hammer-drill to the kneecaps may be easier and more humane.
Why stick them in prison to rape other prisoners, stare at cable TV and choke back hot dogs?

This is really a question for the female members to answer, as outside of prison male-male rape is very uncommon.

[farleft]

The solution to rape is kill the rapist, this should be done in a humane way and by using the least amount of resources as possible.

Therefore I give the guillotine my recommendation.

The guillotine uses very little resources and kills the guilty party very quickly.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:22 PM
The solution to rape is kill the rapist, this should be done in a humane way and by using the least amount of resources as possible.

Therefore I give the guillotine my recommendation.

The guillotine uses very little resources and kills the guilty party very quickly.
Actually, in medieval France, the Guillotine sometimes would not behead its victims the first time, and they would have to keep at it until the head was finally lopped off.

[farleft]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Dec 5 2005, 12:29 AM--> (Ownthink @ Dec 5 2005, 12:29 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 07:22 PM
The solution to rape is kill the rapist, this should be done in a humane way and by using the least amount of resources as possible.

Therefore I give the guillotine my recommendation.

The guillotine uses very little resources and kills the guilty party very quickly.
Actually, in medieval France, the Guillotine sometimes would not behead its victims the first time, and they would have to keep at it until the head was finally lopped off. [/b]
I know that having your head chopped off by an axe can take about 10 attempts to get the head off.

However with the guillotine, if you have them very sharp (unlike their medieval cousins) increase the height and the weight then it will come off in one go.

[Comrade Martin]

Starting with the original post, I'd like to make clear that there will be enforcement of laws against crimes which are not created by social conditions. In Communism, there will be no political state, but as Engels reassured us in some work of his (Which I do not recall at this time, sadly), there will be an administrative state, if you can call it such, which will deal with directing the flow of goods around the world. Obviously, we can't just do that without some sort of central guidance, but it won't have authority, it will just transport these goods. Local citizens will most likely work together to solve a crime and to place under arrest any person who commits a socially unacceptable act. In Primitive Communism (I.E. Tribes), the solution was to eject those persons from the tribe. In Communism, they might be banished or placed in a jail of some kind, which will be guarded by a civilian crime force in its administrative state-like form. That's my thought on it anyway.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 04:19 PM
A man that hits his female partner is, in communist society, a personal issue that should concern no one but the man and the woman.
That's an odd conclusion. In a communist society, why would there be some separate sphere, "the home", where a fight between two people is not of interest to the rest of society?

You're right that it wouldn't reflect the social oppression of women as it does today. But all societies have some means of enforcing their social norms, even if that means is not a state. And I don't see any special reason a comunist society would exempt this kind of fight from that enforcement. It might not even have a separate category for "domestic dispute." Or any special recognition of monogamy, for all we know.

So I think this is not such a great example for your point.


But it appears to me that you want a sanitised society that is cleansed of forms of human behaviour that you deem undesirable - which, for you, means executing 'undesirables'.

Right. This is a usual part of utopianism, and a reason why utopian blueprints, when somebody actually gets the power to enforce them, turn out to be real horror shows. Regardless of which kind of utopianism it is....people just don't fit neatly into blueprints, and have to be lopped off.

You're also right about the lone crackpot not being a threat. During the initial phase of the transition, of course, fascist groups would represent an actual threat that must be suppressed. As I'm sure you realize.

Maybe some of those calling for the execution of this crackpot haven't realized your talking about communism, not the period right after the revolution....

[FidelCastro]

to the person who made the comment, "we want to live in a society where we don't have to live in fear", it is not about making society as a whole live in fear, it is making the rapists live in fear so others do not. If you do not have the desire to rape or murder then you have no reason to be afraid. If all else fails though, institutions along the lines of Sanitariums would be a good idea. Give them all lobotomys and keep them there until they die. Don't let a select few, ruin the rest of society

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)But it appears to me that you want a sanitised society that is cleansed of forms of human behaviour that you deem undesirable - which, for you, means executing 'undesirables'.[/b]

Yes, I deem murder, rape, and violent physical attacks on people as "undesirable" and I think a communist society should be "cleansed" of that behavior insofar as practical...by killing the assholes who do that shit.

What else do you suggest?

"Tolerance" perhaps?


TragicClown
The desire to put someone to death is...also about applying ultimate power over another, being able to punish them in a horrifying and forceful way and dominate them.

It would be refreshing if my critics would attempt to reply to what I actually say instead of building up elaborate fantasies about what they "think I mean".

Executions of violent criminals, in my view, should be prompt and painless.

It's not something to relish or celebrate...but rather a painful necessity. We'd much prefer not to have to do it at all...ever.

Indeed, I suspect that we'd probably come up with an almost entirely "automated" process that would involve minimal direct human participation in the process.

You get convicted and, within a couple of hours, someone "presses a button" and you painlessly die...that's it.

The details would depend on the advanced technology of that future era...so speculating about "the best way" is rather pointless.

But the elaborate (and sometimes sadistic) rituals that presently surround executions would certainly not exist.


Maybe Redstar2000 has a little bit of a rapist in him? A little more in common with rapist mentality than he'd like to admit? Seems like he gets a bit of a thrill out of the idea of dominating and punishing people himself, eh?

Ah...a fresh accusation from my critics. And what a "principled" objection to my views!

I guess all my criticisms of Leninism "show" that I must "have a little bit of Lenin in me".

:lol:

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

[Vanguard1917]

In a communist society, why would there be some separate sphere, "the home", where a fight between two people is not of interest to the rest of society?

What about the people's right to privacy? Do you think that personal privacy would or should be abolished in communist society? Shouldn't men and women have the freedom to conduct their personal relationships free from nosey neighbours spying on them for some organisation enforcing the 'social norms of communist society'?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:07 AM

In a communist society, why would there be some separate sphere, "the home", where a fight between two people is not of interest to the rest of society?

What about the people's right to privacy? Do you think that personal privacy would or should be abolished in communist society? Shouldn't men and women have the freedom to conduct their personal relationships free from nosey neighbours spying on them for some organisation enforcing the 'social norms of communist society'?
That's a different question. How information on behavior can be gathered, rather than what behavior is acceptable. I don't know how people in a communist society will answer that question, or how much value they will place on privacy.

But when you hear your neighbors fighting with no special effort on your part....no right to privacy protects anybody's right to hit his wife or girlfriend.

[Vanguard1917]

But when you hear your neighbors fighting with no special effort on your part....no right to privacy protects anybody's right to hit his wife or girlfriend.

So you should be encouraged to inform on your neighbours if you hear them fighting?

And why do you look at relationships between men and women in communist society as being on the same level as they are in this society?

Why do assume that it's the man hitting the woman, for example? Does a husband beat his wife in capitalist society merely because he is physically stronger than her?

Doesn't it go a lot deeper than that? Isn't the society in which women are subordinated the first and foremost precondition for domestic violence against women? If women are empowered in communist society as equals to men, why do you still label the woman with the victim status?

Isn't it also the case that women would no longer put up with violent men in communist society in the way that they are often forced to (due largely to economic circumstances) in this society? Under communist conditions, a man hitting a woman (or vice-versa) is not someone displaying his social superiority to the woman; rather, it's a man hitting another socially equal human being. The woman can end the relationship or she can choose to forgive. Either way it is a decision based on complex personal, human feeling, not a decision based on social and economic pressure. And it's not a sphere of human life that anyone has a right to interfere in.

(btw i'll get back to your post in the immigration thread a bit later when i have more time)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 03:19 AM

But when you hear your neighbors fighting with no special effort on your part....no right to privacy protects anybody's right to hit his wife or girlfriend.

So you should be encouraged to inform on your neighbours if you hear them fighting?

Might depend on circumstances. I'm not inclined to call the cops on anyone if I can help it.

But I'm certainly not going to proclaim that it's a "private matter".


Why do assume that it's the man hitting the woman, for example? Does a husband beat his wife in capitalist society merely because he is physically stronger than her?

No, but it's a factor. And certainly a factor in who gets hurt more. Something often overlooked by those who use statistics to try to prove that domestic violence against men is just as common.


Under communist conditions, a man hitting a woman (or vice-versa) is not someone displaying his social superiority to the woman; rather, it's a man hitting another socially equal human being. The woman can end the relationship or she can choose to forgive. Either way it is a decision based on complex personal, human feeling, not a decision based on social and economic pressure.

True. But that could mean that it's treated the same as any other assault, not that it's a matter of indifference.

It'd might be a step forward today, for that matter, if "domestic violence" was legally treated the same as any other assault.


And it's not a sphere of human life that anyone has a right to interfere in.

The relationship isn't, even today. The physical assault is.

[farleft]

I would like to bring a particular case to peoples attention which is in the news today.

After reading it I would like to know what those people who say we shouldnt kill fucked up wankers who are a danger to society would suggest we do with this individual.


Last Updated: Monday, 5 December 2005, 11:50 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Eminem fanatic is jailed for life

Duncan pleaded guilty last week to the murder
Eminem fanatic Christopher Duncan has been jailed for life at the Old Bailey for the murder of a 26-year-old woman.
Judge David Paget said Duncan, 21, had an "unhealthy interest in violence" in particular towards women and should serve a minimum of 25 years.

Duncan, of Bethnal Green, east London, pleaded guilty last week to murdering student Jagdip Najran in May 2004 and stuffing her in a suitcase.

He had been performing the rap star's songs on the night of the murder.

Sadistic tendencies

"You have an abnormal and unhealthy interest in violence and in particular, sexual violence towards women," said Judge Paget.

"It may be that you posed such a danger to women that it will never be safe to release you."


Jagdip Najran hoped to become a singer

Law student Ms Najran, who hoped to become a professional singer, had met Duncan at a karaoke night weeks before the murder.

On the night of the murder, the pair had met at a karaoke bar in London where Duncan was said to have been performing Eminem's songs "aggressively".

They left the bar and stopped off for a drink at another pub before heading back to Duncan's flat, where various weapons and violent videos were found.

But at some stage he battered her over the head with an iron baseball bat and stuffed her in a suitcase, where she remained alive for another hour.

The court had heard that Duncan, who had the same tattoos as Eminem, was a petty criminal who drank and took drugs, and was said by doctors to have a personality disorder.

One psychiatrist told the court that Duncan was pre-occupied with a fantasy life filled with violence and sex.

He said he had an exaggerated opinion of himself, a high sexual drive and treated women as sexual objects.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Dec 5 2005, 01:29 AM--> (Ownthink @ Dec 5 2005, 01:29 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 07:22 PM
The solution to rape is kill the rapist, this should be done in a humane way and by using the least amount of resources as possible.

Therefore I give the guillotine my recommendation.

The guillotine uses very little resources and kills the guilty party very quickly.
Actually, in medieval France, the Guillotine sometimes would not behead its victims the first time, and they would have to keep at it until the head was finally lopped off. [/b]
The Guillotine is not a medieval device.

It is an 18th century device.

[farleft]

Originally posted by Enigma+Dec 5 2005, 03:09 PM--> (Enigma @ Dec 5 2005, 03:09 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:29 AM

[email protected] 4 2005, 07:22 PM
The solution to rape is kill the rapist, this should be done in a humane way and by using the least amount of resources as possible.

Therefore I give the guillotine my recommendation.

The guillotine uses very little resources and kills the guilty party very quickly.
Actually, in medieval France, the Guillotine sometimes would not behead its victims the first time, and they would have to keep at it until the head was finally lopped off.
The Guillotine is not a medieval device.

It is an 18th century device. [/b]
Your history may be better than Ownthink's but I don't see how your post is relevant to the solution of rape.

[YKTMX]

You get convicted and, within a couple of hours, someone "presses a button" and you painlessly die...that's it.


I was intending to stay out of this thread, but amongst RS's exhaustive posts on the subject, this line jumped out at me.

A COUPLE OF HOURS?

I'm starting to get a clearer and clearer picture of the RS criminal justice system.

A raped woman accuses some man. He is arrested, convicted on some, one would hope, 'DNA' evidence and then sent to chamber and a needle is stuck in his arm.

Now, for socialists, justice should be an important philisophical concept. We want, after all, a 'just' society.

Instead, what RS is suggesting is execution without appeal?

What does anyone have to gain from someone being killed two hours after they're 'convicted' - I don't know why RS is even using this term, since he called me a 'bourgeois liberal' when I suggested there could be an impartial justice.


Workers of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose except you're right to appeal against a death Sentence! You have a button to push!

That'll stir the masses.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
What does anyone have to gain from someone being killed two hours after they're 'convicted' - I don't know why RS is even using this term, since he called me a 'bourgeois liberal' when I suggested there could be an impartial justice.

Well, you are a bourgeois liberal if you believe in the fantasy of "impartial justice".

Ain't never happened and is most unlikely to ever happen. Because people are not impartial...ever.

But there is, nevertheless, a real question submerged in your rhetoric...and it's one that has a real answer.

The present practice is to sentence someone to be executed and then put them on "death row" in a prison...where conditions are reportedly almost humane and certainly much better than those suffered by the general prison population.

Here, they "twist in the wind" for years and even decades while "appeal" after "appeal" is filed and processed.

How would you like to wake up every morning wondering if today your fate "will be sealed" or not? Every day your life "hangs in the balance". :o

I find it difficult to imagine a more subtle form of psychological torture.

So "who benefits" from a "prompt and painless" execution?

The convicted violent criminal!

As I said earlier, the deliberate and conscious infliction of protracted pain and suffering on another human is contrary to the ethos of a communist society.

Therefore, the more humane alternative is the prompt implementation of the death penalty at the conclusion of the trial.

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

[YKTMX]

Well, you are a bourgeois liberal if you believe in the fantasy of "impartial justice".


Nonsense.

Justice can't be impartial in bourgeois society, for obvious reasons. But, it's completely anti-humanist reactionary nonsense to suggest that human beings are incapable of hearing two sides of an argument and coming to an objective conclusion.


Ain't never happened and is most unlikely to ever happen. Because people are not impartial...ever.


Rubbish. 'People' are what society makes of them. Nothing more, nothing less.


Therefore, the more humane alternative is the prompt implementation of the death penalty at the conclusion of the trial.


Once again, you're using the language of the bourgeois legal system you call 'fantasy'. How do these 'trials' decide who's innocent or guilty?

And, of course, executing the innocent is not 'humane'. Neither is executing the guilty, but that's another matter.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

Rapists need to be reformed, not shot. I mean some of my best friends have been rapists. Well, not really.
Still, all humans make mistakes or have mental disorders, or some combination of the two.

By the way farleft, when you said something about killing in a humane way, you should have thought that through a little bit before you posted.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen
Rapists need to be reformed, not shot.

And how do you propose to "do that" with 100% certainty that your plan will "work"?

It helps to read the thread before posting...as others have raised the same "idea" and I have responded to them.

What do you do if you release a "reformed rapist" back into the population who promptly proceeds to rape again?

At this time, there are no known techniques that guarantee that your "reformed rapist" will stay reformed.

Instead, what you have done is "roll the dice" on the fates of future potential rape victims...without them even being aware that you have done so, much less actually being consulted.

You have put women at risk of being raped without their consent.

Even under present-day capitalist society, it's becoming "untenable" to subject people to risks without informing them that this is being done.

That is likely to be far more the case in a communist society.

It is, of course, possible that techniques may someday be discovered that really will prevent the known rapist from ever raping again.

That's all well and good.

But for the moment, the only way we know how to prevent a rapist from ever raping again is execution.

It works 100% of the time. :)

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

[Vanguard1917]

No, but it's a factor. And certainly a factor in who gets hurt more. Something often overlooked by those who use statistics to try to prove that domestic violence against men is just as common.

That's still taking the view that women will not be capable of defending themselves against violent men and therefore need other people to interfere in their personal lives. Most women, even today, will find that patronising.


It'd might be a step forward today, for that matter, if "domestic violence" was legally treated the same as any other assault.

I don't support any policy that legitimises the further interference of the state in the lives of working class people. In my opinion, the left should be opposing such measure, not promoting them. The left should be fighting against 'social workers', not inviting them into working class homes.


The relationship isn't, even today. The physical assault is.

The empowered woman can decide for herself whether or not she wants to be in a relationship where 'physical assualt' exists.

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 05:07 AM
Rapists need to be reformed, not shot. I mean some of my best friends have been rapists. Well, not really.
Still, all humans make mistakes or have mental disorders, or some combination of the two.

By the way farleft, when you said something about killing in a humane way, you should have thought that through a little bit before you posted.
Can you elaborate?
Maybe give a reason WHY you think that virtual instant death is not humane?

For me when someone rapes someone else, they forfeit their lives. They should be killed and killed in a way that uses up the least amount of resources, doesn’t have to be the guillotine specifically.



FarLeft
:blink:

[TC]

Eh...about the reforming rapists and 'if we let them live what if they just rape again' stuff, you need to consider that all rape and rapists aren't identical...i think for instance that the average date rapist is probably much more 'reformable' then a serial rapist or a serial murderer (who, presumably kills his victims for sexual reasons).

I assume that since the majority of people posting here are guys, that they probably have fewer first hand accounts of their friends getting raped...useually in situations where you know both the victim and the rapist given that everyones in the same social circle.

Any type of rape is horrible, violating and tramatic but when it comes to punishing/and/or/rehabilitating the rapists, its not all equal i think, so to speak. There is a big difference between a guy who one time forced himself on girl he was dating, whose sexual experiance and interests otherwise involve consensual sex, who is integrated into society and comes off as being non-pathological, and a serial rapist who has raped multiple, random women or children that he didn't know, who is a sexual sadists whose only interaction with society is a preditory one. Also though, no one i know has told me they've been raped by a stranger, i'd imagine it would be even more tramatic and devistating, both because it would be with someone they weren't attracted to and because it would be in a scenario where they had no reason to feel vulnerable, maybe makin them a lot more fearful and tramatized then otherwise.

I think that, a college boy who takes advantage of his very drunk girlfriend at a frat party once, but is otherwise a productive normal member of society, especially if issues of consent aren't entirely unambigious (the type of situation where, a couple is fooling around heavily on a bed, consensually, but the boy wants to go further and the girl doesn't, and they're both under the influence), is a very different type of sex criminal then a man who waits in dark allys to grab random girls off the street, beat them senseless and rape them and then move onto his next victim. These are just different levels of violence and pathology, and i think the latter type is both much rarer, dangerious and unreformable then the former type...I could see exicuting serial rapists but not one time date rapists. They should just be given jail sentinces and made to pay compensation to their victims.

To compare these different type of rapists to different types of murderers, it would be like date rapists are comperable to guys who, once provoked, beat someone in an unplanned bar fight resulting in their death, and serial rapists would be more like professional hit men who commit premeditated murder of strangers for money or the thrill of it. Likewise, i could see exicuting hit men and serial murderers but not people involved in unplanned volentary manslauter.


On a related topic, this is one of a stream of threads started by and principly posted on by males, on "female issues" (yes of course men are rape victims too but not in close to the same numbers outside of the prison system) that to me shows a lot of sexism by way of co-opting women for political reasons. This thread in particular, the majority calling for far more extreme penalities for rape then those that exist in most western and socialist governments, including the United States (yes, i realize that some are also arguing that life imprisonment is a *more* severe penality then death, but that is rather absurd considering that a felon in jail has the option of suicide so they would choose which penality is more severe, and moreover, in that both death and life w/o the possibility of parole are more severe penalities then normally given to rapists)...

...well it seems like maybe this thread might be a form of sexism itself. Treating violence against women as being more greivence then violence of equal injury (both physical and psychological) against people in general, has somewhat the attitude of "Women and children first, we big strong men will protect you!" patriarchal chauvenism.

[farleft]

Thats very true TagicClown and I agree that each case will have it's differant aspects.
The death penalty should be for those cases where the rapist is clearly a danger to society. If he pleads guilty then it's easy, kill the fucker.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by TragicClown
Eh...about the reforming rapists and 'if we let them live what if they just rape again' stuff, you need to consider that all rape and rapists aren't identical...I think for instance that the average date rapist is probably much more 'reformable' then a serial rapist or a serial murderer (who, presumably kills his victims for sexual reasons).

How would you know this? Is it not equally probable that the "date rapist" may well "graduate" to stranger-rape?

My argument is that a demonstrated propensity to use violence against women is a reliable predictor of future activity of the same type.

Or, as historians put it, what has happened can happen.

It may not turn out that way at all, of course. The "date rapist" may have discovered that he "didn't like this kind of sex" and may never do it again. Indeed, he may feel such remorse that even a harsh word directed towards a woman will be something he "can't do".

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Do you want to gamble with the outcome? :o

I don't see why we should...because the stakes are too high. Women in a communist society should never have to think "I mustn't do that because if I do, I might get raped".

Indeed, I anticipate that the time will come when a rape trial is as rare then as a trial for someone accused of cannibalism is now.

Perhaps in two or three centuries at most... :)


I assume that since the majority of people posting here are guys, that they probably have fewer first hand accounts of their friends getting raped...usually in situations where you know both the victim and the rapist given that everyones in the same social circle.

This may well be true of students attending the same university...or even high school.

But I have seen "close up" the effects of "stranger rape" on a young woman...and to all intents and purposes, it was murder.

That is, she remained physically alive and recovered from her physical injuries.

But it crushed her feminist rebelliousness...in fact she ended up going back to the Catholic superstition that she was raised to believe.

It was the worst tragedy that I've ever seen happen to anyone around me.

Perhaps this lies at the root of my "intolerance" on this subject.


They ["date rapists"] should just be given jail sentences and made to pay compensation to their victims.

There is no money in a communist society so the issue of "financial compensation" will not arise.

In my view, there will be few "jails" in a communist society. They will exist for non-violent criminals. They will have the "look and feel" of an apartment building...except that the prisoner can't leave. Prisoners will be treated with dignity and encouraged to rehabilitate themselves. Sentences will be short...certainly no more than two or three years.

Perhaps a "date rapist" might rehabilitate himself in such a setting.

But only if you want to gamble with the fate of potential future rape victims.

I don't.


Likewise, I could see executing hit men and serial murderers but not people involved in unplanned voluntary manslaughter.

So an old guy like me who enters a bar to enjoy a drink must be prepared to risk his life at the hands of some belligerent asshole who's "had a few too many".

Nope. Men also have the right to live without fear of violent physical assault.

All of us have the right to live our lives as we see fit without fear of physical violence directed against us.

There's really only two ways to do that. Either all of us must go about heavily armed or we must permanently remove the violent from our society.

The first of those options would not be a good one. It would make communist society into a replica of America's "wild west" and death by violence would be a daily occurrence...including those hit by stray bullets. I've been in "inner city" apartments where people pointed out the bullet holes in their ceilings...the "stray shots" came through the open window from the street and impacted the ceiling on their upward trajectory.

So I favor the second option: execution of the violent criminal.


On a related topic, this is one of a stream of threads started by and principally posted on by males, on "female issues" (yes, of course, men are rape victims too but not in close to the same numbers outside of the prison system) that to me shows a lot of sexism by way of co-opting women for political reasons.

It is unfortunately the case that all of the threads on this board are "started by and principally posted on by males".

Surveys of our board membership indicate that about 90% of the active members are male.

At this time, political women who are active on the internet apparently mostly post at feminist message boards...possibly because they find the "dick swinging" rhetoric that sometimes takes place on "male" boards to be distasteful or even repugnant.

It's true that the title of this thread is "what is the solution to rape?". But I think if you look at my posts (and a fair number of other posts as well), you will see that the real topic is what should we do about violent crime in a communist society?

Women are far more likely to be victims of rape, true. But men are far more likely to be murdered.

Thus the issue of violent crime is just as pressing for us guys.


This thread in particular, the majority calling for far more extreme penalties for rape then those that exist in most western and socialist governments, including the United States (yes, I realize that some are also arguing that life imprisonment is a *more* severe penalty then death, but that is rather absurd considering that a felon in jail has the option of suicide so they would choose which penalty is more severe, and moreover, in that both death and life w/o the possibility of parole are more severe penalties then normally given to rapists)...

People do commit suicide in prison...but I imagine it's "not easy" -- that is, neither quick nor painless. People are also beaten, raped, tortured, and murdered in prison.

Sound like fun?

As to the penalties imposed for violent crimes in various countries today, I don't really think that's a relevant consideration for us.

Communist society should not be bound by the limits of bourgeois "justice"...any more than capitalism is bound by the limits of feudal "justice".

Things will be different.

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

[Vanguard1917]

Treating violence against women as being more greivence then violence of equal injury (both physical and psychological) against people in general, has somewhat the attitude of "Women and children first, we big strong men will protect you!" patriarchal chauvenism.

Good point. It's based on the assumption that empowered women are nonetheless vulnerable and helpless - a bit like children - rather than adults that are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.

[Vanguard1917]

But I have seen "close up" the effects of "stranger rape" on a young woman...and to all intents and purposes, it was murder.

That is, she remained physically alive and recovered from her physical injuries.

But it crushed her feminist rebelliousness...in fact she ended up going back to the Catholic superstition that she was raised to believe.

This implies that women are inherently, naturally fragile, when they obviously aren't.

I'm not for a second trying to minimise or trivialise rape. But human beings have historically survived far greater adversity and managed to persevere. Such as famine, torture, war, prison camps, seeing loved-ones murdered, seeing comrades murdered.

Human beings have a great ability to persevere. That's the key issue here: whether we see women as vulnerable victims or strong human beings.


It was the worst tragedy that I've ever seen happen to anyone around me.

Perhaps this lies at the root of my "intolerance" on this subject.

It is a terrible thing, and must be very upsetting for friends and family. But you shouldn't let it cloud your ability to be rational.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

Is it not contradictory to say "Don't harm anyone." and then harm someone?

Also, I never said release all rapists after some kind of reformation program. I mentioned mental disabilites.

Its not like I have a plan for this either, I don't really want to make one. I'm just saying there are a lot of psychological reasons for rape. Its not always a thing you do when you're completely lucid/sane. Rape is often caused by a mistake or some deep psychological problem (being raped as a child for instance). Its like executing people with epilepsy for having a seizure in a car and causing a fatal accident.

I don't think there is a solution to rape. I think it should be prevented, and rapists should either be reformed or contained, like human beings.

Any one who has a humane solution, please share it.

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:39 PM

No, but if he's sitting on a park bench, reading Mein Kampf, wearing a Nazi uniform, then, odds are, he's up to something.

Up to what? He's just a weird man on a park bench. Sure, warn your kids not to accept sweets from 'that man'. But a threat to communist society? Let's be just a bit rational now.

This is not an example of rationality:



What if we catch a man dressed as an Ancient Greek military general, reading the anti-democratic political writings of Plato? Should we kill him in case he destroys our society and brings back the epoch of slavery?


If he was serious about bringing back slavery, then yes.

You can be as serious as you like about 'bringing back' an Ancient slave society... but it still isn't going to happen.


When somebody is out there promoting that kind of reaction, no good can come from it.

Assuming that the man on the park bench was promoting his eccentric ideas (because that's all that such ideas can be in a commnunist society)...

So what? Who the hell is going to listen to him? Does communist society create the conditions on which Nazi ideas can thrive? Of course not.

The best that he can do is round-up a few other like-minded weirdoes. But weirdoes no not pose a threat to dynamic societies.


What do you propose we do with people who run around spreading reaction like that? Leave them alone and hope nothing comes of it? Have a good laugh about it over a beer?

Yes, people in a communist society would ignore such people. Because, in communist society, such 'reactionary ideas' do not have the scope to be 'spread'. They would be dismissed as lunacy by everyone except other lunatics.


Counter-revolution is a serious possibility (maybe even an inevitability). We should do whatever we can to make sure it's as weak as we can make it.

Counter-revolution in a communist society is not an inevitability. Far from it. Communism is 'the riddle of history solved'. In a classless society, the conditions for 'counter-revolution' no longer exist.


Or they decrease the quality of life in a communist society, also something we should avoid.

A nut-case on a park bench is not going to 'decrease the quality of life in a communist society' for anyone except for himself and, momentarily, for those without a sense of humour walking past him.
Walking around in public in a Nazi uniform, unless it's for an obviously satirical purpose, should probably raise some eyebrows. People don't do that stuff for no reason.

Sure, if the person is clinically insane, that's a different issue, but this thread isn't dealing with insane people - it's dealing with people who are a threat to our society.

You don't seem to think that people promoting nazism (or any other counter-revolutionary ideology) in a communist society is anything to be worried about. It logically follows that you don't expect counter-revolution to be a serious threat for us to have to deal with.

Coming from a Leninist, this is very surprising. Most pro-state socialists are quick to bring up the possibility (or even inevitability) of a counter-revolution as grounds for having a state, but you don't seem to think it's even worth considering.

As though everyone will be "happy" with the revolution.

We have to accept the fact that we're going to piss a lot of people off, including nazis. Some will not die during our seizure of power, they'll live in our society - and work against it! We can expect them to team up with any remaining bourgeois elements to try and restore capitalism.

We can't run a society if they take back all their old stuff!'

It's because of this that we have to work to surpress and eliminate counter-revolutionaries, and if that means some guy won't be able to wear his uniform in public, too bad.

I won't lose any sleep.

[Vanguard1917]

You don't seem to think that people promoting nazism (or any other counter-revolutionary ideology) in a communist society is anything to be worried about. It logically follows that you don't expect counter-revolution to be a serious threat for us to have to deal with.

Counter-revolution is a very serious issue for us to consider in a society where the conditions for counter-revolution still exist: i.e. in the transitional stage between capitalism and communism, when elements of the old society are still among us as social forces to be supressed by a workers' state.

I think this is why you might be confused by my argument, as Severian pointed out. When i say communist society i'm refering to the classless society that comes about after the transitional period of workers' dictatorship.

In communist society all elements of capitalism have been eliminated and therefore the scope for counter-revolution no longer exists.

If there are a few individuals that have Nazi fantasies in their heads, they are mere eccentrics and do not need to be supressed, because they pose no threat to communist society.

If someone walks around today dressed as a feudal lord, bourgeois society would dismiss this as mere eccentricity. Because the counditions for a feudalist counter-revolution have long disappeared in bourgeois society. If people showed sympathy for feudalism in 1789 France, they probably would have lost their heads.

Do you see what i'm getting at?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)This implies that women are inherently, naturally fragile, when they obviously aren't.[/b]

I have some bad news for you.

When it comes to physical violence, all humans are fragile.

No matter how "tough" or "macho" you imagine yourself to be, a few minutes of torture will reduce you to an animal capable only of howling in pain.

And after it's all over, do not imagine for a second that you will be "the same person".

You will, most likely, never be able to consider any proposed activity without asking yourself that darkest of questions: could I be tortured again if I do this?

Fear will shadow the rest of your life.

I am well aware of the common masculine delusion that "I'm a real man and I can handle anything", blah, blah, blah. I grew up in a time when that's what young boys were taught.

But it's bullshit.

And it always was bullshit.

That mythology came from a savage era when men "had to fight" in order to survive at all.

If we think it no longer necessary to live like savages, then why maintain a savage ideology?


But human beings have historically survived far greater adversity and managed to persevere. Such as famine, torture, war, prison camps, seeing loved-ones murdered, seeing comrades murdered.

What do you mean by "persevere" in this context?

Do you mean "remain alive in an animal sense"...still capable of breathing, eating, etc.???

Sure, that happens.

But what remains of the human personality that existed prior to that "adversity"?

The tone of your post suggests the attitude of a 19th century English colonialist: "Keep a stiff upper lip, old chap".


It is a terrible thing, and must be very upsetting for friends and family. But you shouldn't let it cloud your ability to be rational.

It seems to me that I am far more "rational" on this subject than my critics.

All of which seem to have some mystical attachment to the "sacredness" of human life...even that which directly threatens their own well-being.

None of them, including yourself, have offered any practical alternatives to what I have proposed except one or another version of "do what we do now only be nicer about it".

Prisons and prison guards, professional police, judges, lawyers, etc., etc., etc. -- the whole corrupt and brutal panoply of "justice" in class society.

Labor camps too, no doubt.

Do you imagine for a moment that your "vision" of a post-revolutionary society would inspire confidence...or even interest on the part of the working class?

It will sound to people like the same old shit...which is what it would be.


HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen
Is it not contradictory to say "Don't harm anyone" and then harm someone?

As a verbal abstraction, yes, the statement contradicts itself.

But this thread is not about the rules of English grammar.

It's about how do we reduce the possibility of becoming a victim of violent crime to its lowest practical level?

How do we establish a society where no one must live in fear of violence?

Where women need not ever fear men? Where the weak need not ever fear the strong? Where the old need not ever fear the young? Where children need not ever fear adults?

Where fear of other humans has utterly vanished from human society...and would be regarded as something as atavistic as "fear of damnation".

That's my goal...and while it may not be "absolutely" attainable, I want something as close to that as is humanly possible.

And I'm quite prepared to advocate any measure that will rationally contribute to the achievement of that goal.

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

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:01 PM

You don't seem to think that people promoting nazism (or any other counter-revolutionary ideology) in a communist society is anything to be worried about. It logically follows that you don't expect counter-revolution to be a serious threat for us to have to deal with.

Counter-revolution is a very serious issue for us to consider in a society where the conditions for counter-revolution still exist: i.e. in the transitional stage between capitalism and communism, when elements of the old society are still among us as social forces to be supressed by a workers' state.

I think this is why you might be confused by my argument, as Severian pointed out. When i say communist society i'm refering to the classless society that comes about after the transitional period of workers' dictatorship.

In communist society all elements of capitalism have been eliminated and therefore the scope for counter-revolution no longer exists.

If there are a few individuals that have Nazi fantasies in their heads, they are mere eccentrics and do not need to be supressed, because they pose no threat to communist society.

If someone walks around today dressed as a feudal lord, bourgeois society would dismiss this as mere eccentricity. Because the counditions for a feudalist counter-revolution have long disappeared in bourgeois society. If people showed sympathy for feudalism in 1789 France, they probably would have lost their heads.

Do you see what i'm getting at?
You're right. If there's a long socialist transition between capitalism and communism, it'll be dealt with then. I got hasty in conflating my views of a transitional state with your own.

My statement was applicable to a young communist society where there was no socialist transition. If, 200 years after such a society had been established, and some dude was wearing a Nazi uniform, it'd probably be reasonable to wonder if this guy was completely bonkers. In a case like that, I'd probably want to know a lot more about the guy - if he had any actual plans for action, if he had any crazy Nazi buddies, if psychological therapy or medication would help at all, stuff like that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:04 PM
It seems to me that I am far more "rational" on this subject than my critics.

All of which seem to have some mystical attachment to the "sacredness" of human life...even that which directly threatens their own well-being.

None of them, including yourself, have offered any practical alternatives to what I have proposed except one or another version of "do what we do now only be nicer about it".

Prisons and prison guards, professional police, judges, lawyers, etc., etc., etc. -- the whole corrupt and brutal panoply of "justice" in class society.

Labor camps too, no doubt.

Do you imagine for a moment that your "vision" of a post-revolutionary society would inspire confidence...or even interest on the part of the working class?

It will sound to people like the same old shit...which is what it would be.


And exaccutions arn't part of capitalist opression? Exaccutions arn't the "same old shit"?

Maybe where you live but I'm in California right now trying to stop the exaccution of "Tookie Williams" who founded the Crips gang and has since been nominated for several nobel prizes and has dedicated his life in prison to discouraging kids from joining street gangs.

Exaccution and prison and cops are all tools of opression in capitalism and must be abolished by workers. You offer the same solution that we have now... throw them away, they committed a crime, so get rid of them.

I think workers will set up places to put violent people for treatment, but they would have a real material intrest in seeing people reformed whereas the capitalist system could give a shit and only needs them to be able to scapegoat all of societies ills onto certain incarcerated induviduals.

You are setting up a false set of options here: 1) keep violent people locked up or 2) exaccute them. Cases such as Tookie's shows that despite the current neglect and basically just being thrown into a locked room, people can reform. In a worker society where crime would undoubtedly be less because of the lack of material reasons to commit crimes in the first place, the handful of rapists or murderers can be held for public safty while being treated to see what the root cause of the violent act was and if that can be changed.

I find your formulation disgusting and anti-marxist. If a future worker society listened to you, some kid who got too drunk too much and became violent would be exaccuted, what a waste that would be when it would be much more humane to treat the person's problem rather than treat the person as a problem.

TO take a position such as this is to basically affirm the most reactionary arguments of apologists of the current system. If radicals in California were to take your position why try and abolish the death penalty under capitalism? Why fight to stop Arnold from killing Tookie Williams in a coalition and try and win people to socialist ideas by saying, "oh, well workers would kill him anyway"?

[Vanguard1917]

When it comes to physical violence, all humans are fragile.

No matter how "tough" or "macho" you imagine yourself to be, a few minutes of torture will reduce you to an animal capable only of howling in pain.

And after it's all over, do not imagine for a second that you will be "the same person".

You will, most likely, never be able to consider any proposed activity without asking yourself that darkest of questions: could I be tortured again if I do this?

Fear will shadow the rest of your life.

Is that really true though? Or is it just part of a culture that encourages us to see ourselves as fragile victims, forming our identities based around victimhood?

I have some human stories of my own. I know some immigrants in Britain who were active communists in their native countries in the Middle East during the Cold War. They spent time in prison and were tortured (hung by their limbs, whipped, beaten, etc.) until they would inform on their communist party leaders. They never did. When they were released they got back into highly illegal revolutionary activity. Today they have families in Britain, but they still contribute to British socialist politics.

These people could easily have gone to some mainstream newspaper and sold their story. They could have gone to the BBC, cried on screen in some documentary about 'human suffering' in the Arab world. But they didn't, because they refused to be branded as victims. These were once strong-willed, dynamic revolutionary men and women who had accepted the possible consequences of the lives that they had chosen. Why should they suddenly embrace the identity of victimhood that has become so fashionable in Western societies today?


The tone of your post suggests the attitude of a 19th century English colonialist: "Keep a stiff upper lip, old chap".

In the face of adversity, i think i'd rather have a stiff upper lip than a quivering one.


All of which seem to have some mystical attachment to the "sacredness" of human life...even that which directly threatens their own well-being.

None of them, including yourself, have offered any practical alternatives to what I have proposed except one or another version of "do what we do now only be nicer about it".

Prisons and prison guards, professional police, judges, lawyers, etc., etc., etc. -- the whole corrupt and brutal panoply of "justice" in class society.

Labor camps too, no doubt.

Do you imagine for a moment that your "vision" of a post-revolutionary society would inspire confidence...or even interest on the part of the working class?

In a revolutionary society, i think that revolutionary people will want a revolutionary form of justice... not a reactionary one.

[HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen]

"How do we establish a society where no one must live in fear of violence?"

violence: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

I believe killing qualifies as damage.

Unless you're using a different definition, in which case, I'm sorry for the conclusion.

"As a verbal abstraction, yes, the statement contradicts itself."

I don't think its abstract at all, nor do I think it is some grammar lesson. Think about this for a second if you will.

Someone kills someone
Killing someone is punishable by execution
Therefore that person is killed
The person who kills the first killer has now killed someone

Feel free to replace kill with harm.

So if the law applies to everyone, wouldn't anyone involved in the decision to kill someone have to die? Or else maybe are society should be lead by a select few who can distribute punishment but cannot recieve it?

I don't see how killing all rapists is rational, though you seem to think so.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)And executions aren't part of capitalist oppression? Executions aren't the "same old shit"?

Maybe where you live, but I'm in California right now trying to stop the execution of "Tookie Williams" who founded the Crips gang and has since been nominated for several Nobel prizes and has dedicated his life in prison to discouraging kids from joining street gangs.[/b]

Yes, people are killed by capitalist "justice". But they don't have to start "street gangs" to qualify for that fate. It's quite sufficient to be an unarmed civilian with a heavily pigmented skin to be summarily gunned down by police...and it happens all the time.

As to "discouraging kids from joining street gangs", what kind of liberal bullshit is that?

Kids join street gangs in certain neighborhoods because that's what they have to do in order to survive.

Or, at least, that's what they think they have to do.

And who of us is in any position to argue otherwise?

Does Mr. Williams rightfully deserve execution? How the hell would I know? You evidently think that "life in prison" would be "better".

Up to you.

But instead of "saving one guy", why not put your energies into exposing the inhumanity of prisons?

Most of the people in prison are not there for violent crimes -- they are there for "crimes against property" or "crimes against official morality" (drugs).

In a communist society, those "crimes" would not exist.


I think workers will set up places to put violent people for treatment, but they would have a real material interest in seeing people reformed...

In other words, prisons.

Perhaps they would express a "real material interest" in "seeing people reformed".

The question is: can that be done with 100% reliability?

As soon as you discover "how to do that", then we'll have something to talk about.


Cases such as Tookie's shows that despite the current neglect and basically just being thrown into a locked room, people can reform.

No, it shows that people can say that they've reformed in order to escape what they perceive as an unpleasant situation.

The violent criminal has a powerful incentive to say whatever it takes to be released.

Indeed, any of us held captive by another would say whatever our guards wanted to hear in order to escape captivity.

It doesn't "have" to be true.


If a future worker society listened to you, some kid who got too drunk too much and became violent would be executed; what a waste that would be when it would be much more humane to treat the person's problem rather than treat the person as a problem.

How about the waste of the people this asshole attacked?

That doesn't count? :o


Why fight to stop Arnold from killing Tookie Williams in a coalition and try and win people to socialist ideas by saying, "oh, well workers would kill him anyway"?

Well, that's your choice, not mine. I'd rather work "in a coalition" to stop police murder of innocent people then lift a finger on behalf of Mr. Williams.

You know, priorities.


Vanguard1917
I know some immigrants in Britain who were active communists in their native countries in the Middle East during the Cold War. They spent time in prison and were tortured (hung by their limbs, whipped, beaten, etc.) until they would inform on their communist party leaders. They never did. When they were released they got back into highly illegal revolutionary activity. Today they have families in Britain, but they still contribute to British socialist politics.

Yes, I think there are cultural factors that affect resilience in the face of torture. If you grow up in a society where torture is routine, then some will "toughen up" to the point where it seems to "have no affect" on them.

Of course, should such people ever find themselves with the authority to inflict torture on others, they'll do it.

It's "part of their culture".

Just as in our own culture, if you "survive" a violently abusive childhood, guess what you're most likely to do to your own kids?


Why should they suddenly embrace the identity of victimhood that has become so fashionable in Western societies today?

Perhaps they would consider it "unmanly"?

You seem to have a curious indifference to the fact that people are victims of the atrocities of capitalist society. As if "admitting victimhood" was a "badge of shame" or something.

It seems to me that there are two possible responses to our objective status as victims of class society and all its horrors.

The first is to "curl up" and "beg" for someone to "help us" or "protect us".

The second is outrage...a fixed determination to ruthlessly overthrow and crush our tormentors.

There "is" a third "option" that we hear a lot about these days...generally under the label "reconciliation". We are supposed to "forgive" the bastards who've fucked over us and "achieve closure" and "move on".

I think that's a load of liberal crap myself.

How about you?

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 03:07 AM

No, but it's a factor. And certainly a factor in who gets hurt more. Something often overlooked by those who use statistics to try to prove that domestic violence against men is just as common.

That's still taking the view that women will not be capable of defending themselves against violent men and therefore need other people to interfere in their personal lives. Most women, even today, will find that patronising.
What is this crap? Human beings live in society to be protected from violent attack, among other reasons. Nobody is capable of "taking care of themselves" without society.

Nor is the relation between attacker and attacked a "private matter."


I don't support any policy that legitimises the further interference of the state in the lives of working class people. In my opinion, the left should be opposing such measure, not promoting them. The left should be fighting against 'social workers', not inviting them into working class homes.

Who said anything about social workers? I'm for cops arresting anyone who beats his wife. Are you saying they shouldn't, because it's a "private matter" and because of the sanctity of the home and suchlike family values BS?

Why should physicall assault be a private matter? Why should it matter what other relationship the criminal and victim may have?


The empowered woman can decide for herself whether or not she wants to be in a relationship where 'physical assualt' exists.

Sure. She can visit him in jail if she wants.

[peaccenicked]

The death penalty is a highly authoritarian act which implies the need for a State a ie an armed body of men. Any anarchist proposing it is simply betraying their principles and has joined the Leninist camp. Sold out any notion of mercy or 'bleeding heart' humanism. Let no blood be spilled. Flesh and blood are what we are, flesh and blood are who we are.
The question of taking chances on rapists could easily come from the mouth of a fascist.
We take chances on no one. There is no such thing as 100% safety. Everyone is a potential psychotic. If we killed for every power tripping psychotic episode.

We would have bloodbath.


What is worse we would make victims out of the victimisers! This thread should be moved to the opposing ideologies forum.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by peaccenicked
The death penalty is a highly authoritarian act which implies the need for a State, i.e., an armed body of men.

It "implies" no such thing, of course. I have said explicitly (and repeatedly!) that justice in a communist society -- like everything else -- will be directly administered by the people through popular organs of their own creation.

To repeat again: NO cops, judges, lawyers, prisons, etc., etc., etc.


There is no such thing as 100% safety.

I agree that there is "no such thing as 100% safety". The question is how close can we come to that?

If you think present standards are "acceptable", fine.

I think they are completely unacceptable.


Everyone is a potential psychotic.

I do not know -- nor do you or anyone else -- if "everyone is a potential psychotic" or not.

I do know what I observe...that most people manage to get through life without launching any violent physical attacks on another human.

The proposition that all humans are "inherently violent" is at least as dubious as the "idea" that they are all "inherently greedy".


If we killed for every power tripping psychotic episode, we would have a bloodbath.

Ahem. In case you haven't noticed, that's what we have now.

The difference is that now most of the victims don't have it coming to them.

They were simply "in the wrong place" and "at the wrong time".

They had the misfortune common to us all...being born into a class society where personal safety is a class privilege.

That's obviously unacceptable in a communist society.

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

[Vanguard1917]

What is this crap? Human beings live in society to be protected from violent attack, among other reasons. Nobody is capable of "taking care of themselves" without society.

Nor is the relation between attacker and attacked a "private matter."

Look, people in relationships sometimes fight. Sometimes they argue, sometimes they swear at one another, scream, shout, smash plates, slam doors, etc. Sometimes, in extreme cases, they may even hit one another. Then they calm down, either resolve their differences or decide to end the relationship. In an equal setting, it is only those two people that can ultimately decide what is best for them.

What about two friends having a fight? If one goes a bit far and gives the other a bleeding nose should we put that person on trial because 'we don't accept violence in our society'? Of course, if we see it happening in front of us we'd pull them apart so that they can calm down. That's only human. But that's not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about systematically interfering into personal matters - deciding for others what is right and what is wrong for them. People are perfectly capable of making such decisions for themselves.


Who said anything about social workers? I'm for cops arresting anyone who beats his wife. Are you saying they shouldn't, because it's a "private matter" and because of the sanctity of the home and suchlike family values BS?

If a woman wants help, she should get help. If a woman feels incapable of getting out of a violent relationship then there should be people there to help her. My point is, it should ultimately be the woman's choice. Wasn't that once a key feminist demand? The right to choose: that women don't need men to decide what's best for them.



The empowered woman can decide for herself whether or not she wants to be in a relationship where 'physical assualt' exists.

Sure. She can visit him in jail if she wants.

So you're taking away the woman's right to decide what sort of relationship she wants to be in? Women should have to conform to what you find acceptable? We all have things that we find acceptable for ourselves. For example, i wouldn't want to be in a relationship where an argument risks physical violence or even plates being smashed on walls. I find that personally unacceptable. But i would never knock on my neighbour's door and impose my personal norms on them. When did a man and a woman fighting in a relationship become contary to the social norms of communist society?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
And executions aren't part of capitalist oppression? Executions aren't the "same old shit"?

Maybe where you live, but I'm in California right now trying to stop the execution of "Tookie Williams" who founded the Crips gang and has since been nominated for several Nobel prizes and has dedicated his life in prison to discouraging kids from joining street gangs.

Yes, people are killed by capitalist "justice". But they don't have to start "street gangs" to qualify for that fate. It's quite sufficient to be an unarmed civilian with a heavily pigmented skin to be summarily gunned down by police...and it happens all the time.Don't have to tell me that. What's your point here? Police butality, bad. Pigs are bad, I didn't need a refreasher corse.


As to "discouraging kids from joining street gangs", what kind of liberal bullshit is that?

Kids join street gangs in certain neighborhoods because that's what they have to do in order to survive.Yes I know. Once again you miss the point. He's writing books and negotiating gang trueces and that is evidence of his personal transformation. Therefore your arguments that a person who has killed someone will always be a killer is shown not to be true and your whole argument (based on the "logic" of a murderer, if killed will never murder again, is faulty since a someone who murdered at one time may not murder again if he is killed or not).


Does Mr. Williams rightfully deserve execution? How the hell would I know? You evidently think that "life in prison" would be "better".No I am against the entire criminal justiuce system, but currently anti-death penalty and anti-police brutality movements are the only movements that adress the justice system. And since I am not a reformist I'm not going to spend all of my activist energies creating a reformist movement that at this point dosn't exist. I will however, help existing reformist causes and try to bring revolutionary politics into it so that other people who are radicalizing by doing anti-death penalty work will be exposed to this arguments and politics.


But instead of "saving one guy", why not put your energies into exposing the inhumanity of prisons?See above. Why not fight for a new civil rights movement. Undoubtedly one is needed, but I do not have the resorces alone to build such a movement out of thin air.



I think workers will set up places to put violent people for treatment, but they would have a real material interest in seeing people reformed...

In other words, prisons.Yeah, but I doubt that "prisons" in a worker society would resemble thoes of a capitalist society.


Perhaps they would express a "real material interest" in "seeing people reformed".

The question is: can that be done with 100% reliability?

As soon as you discover "how to do that", then we'll have something to talk about.Well there would probably be as many different reasons as there are people who murder. Do you think workers would exaccute violent drug addicts in the future? What would they do with people like that? I think they would have to contain violent drunks (at least for the night) and so on and so it wouldn't be much of a streatch to treat other violent people in the same way.



Cases such as Tookie's shows that despite the current neglect and basically just being thrown into a locked room, people can reform.

No, it shows that people can say that they've reformed in order to escape what they perceive as an unpleasant situation.Yeah, that's exactly the argument that the prison warden makes.


The violent criminal has a powerful incentive to say whatever it takes to be released.Unfortunately he won't be released even if he isn't exaccuted. Again, thanks for repeating the arguments of the most reactionary people in the same "justice system" you claim to despise.



If a future worker society listened to you, some kid who got too drunk too much and became violent would be executed; what a waste that would be when it would be much more humane to treat the person's problem rather than treat the person as a problem.

How about the waste of the people this asshole attacked?

That doesn't count? :o It happened and that's terrible. Now you've shifted you argument to one of vengence. Which is it? Logical "humane" way to deal with people who at one point could not control an impulse, or irrational revenge for the dead?



Why fight to stop Arnold from killing Tookie Williams in a coalition and try and win people to socialist ideas by saying, "oh, well workers would kill him anyway"?

Well, that's your choice, not mine. I'd rather work "in a coalition" to stop police murder of innocent people then lift a finger on behalf of Mr. Williams.Yeah I do that sort of work too. But apologiseing for the death penalty helps the cops case and makes it harder ideologically to tell people that the cops are wrong. THe death penalty is the ideological crown jewell for the justice system because it says the problems in society are certain people (mostly the poor) and the best thing to solve societies problems is to simply get rid of them (which is essentially your argument as well). THe cops also use the same reasoning to defend themselves against brutality charges. Rodney King was high on PCP, he was one of thoes "bad people" and so the cops had to do what they did. THe cops thought that that kid was a member of a violent street-gand when they shot him 37 times in his bathroom.

I am fighting against a system and breaking down the death penalty puts the whole system into question. In many of the death penalty cases I have worked on key factors which lead to the death sentance were the result of forced confessions by the cops, racism in jury selection and so on. If they can exaccute someone it make their whole system stronger. If we can force a moretorium, it puts the whole system into doubt.

So what anti-police violence coalitions or rallies have you been organizing lately?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
So what anti-police violence coalitions or rallies have you been organizing lately?

Let's take this one first.

I'm an old man now and I don't do anything any more except write posts on this message board.

Happy? Think that "discredits" everything I say?

Well, better think again. :angry:

I do not wish to be perceived as "boasting" about "what I did" over the course of a lifetime in radical political struggles...so I will confine myself to suggesting that it was a good deal more than you have had time to do.

It is admirable that you are engaged in struggle against police brutality.

Your involvement in the bourgeois liberal "movement" against capital punishment is considerably more dubious.


I will however, help existing reformist causes and try to bring revolutionary politics into it so that other people who are radicalized by doing anti-death penalty work will be exposed to this argument and politics.

The arguments against police brutality can be rather easily extended into an argument against the very existence of class society.

You can try to make that same connection with the death penalty as applied in class society with some plausibility.

But if you are telling people that "there will be no executions after the revolution", then you are simply lying your ass off.

Or, possibly, you really "believe that" and are, in fact, a bourgeois liberal "with socialist sympathies". There've always been a few people like that around...no reason why you couldn't be one of them.

I frankly wonder what you really say to people about police brutality. Is it something like "under socialism, the police will be really nice and friendly"??? :lol:

I suspect you of that because of this...


Yeah, but I doubt that "prisons" in a worker society would resemble those of a capitalist society.

Oh no, of course not. They'd be like a modern vacation resort with a fence around it. :lol:

Same old bullshit: we "should do what is done now only be nicer about it".

The readers of this thread must, by now, be literally buried under the weight of irony supplied by all of my critics.

They dredge up every possible "parallel" between my views and those of contemporary reactionaries while at the same time proposing nothing more novel than a "kinder and gentler" version of what we already have now!

It boggles the mind! :lol:


He's writing books and negotiating gang truces and that is evidence of his personal transformation.

He's writing books for kids who can't read?

Good grief!

What he should really do is "find Jesus". Parole boards really like prisoners who "find Jesus" and often release them well "ahead of schedule".

How's that for "personal transformation"? :lol:


Do you think workers would execute violent drug addicts in the future?

Probably. The excuse that "I was drunk" and "didn't know what I was doing" is probably not going to "fly".

You see I've been drunk myself and nevertheless did not kill or rape or even physically attack anyone. So have most people!

So why should we put up with the presence of assholes who cannot drink or get high without taking a violent shit on others?


Now you've shifted your argument to one of vengeance. Which is it? Logical "humane" way to deal with people who at one point could not control an impulse, or irrational revenge for the dead?

Why not both? Do you think that the desire for vengeance will "wither away" under communism?

I don't know...maybe it will.

People do seem to have a "built-in" sense of "fairness" -- in fact, it may be a characteristic trait of all primates. There've been some experiments that suggest that conclusion.

If one is violently attacked by another, is it "wrong" or "irrational" to desire vengeance...as a matter of simple fairness?

Whatever your response, it has no effect on my rational arguments, of course. You may think that the desire for vengeance is "morally reprehensible" or even "irrational" if you wish. But I don't see anything "wrong" or particularly "irrational" about it at all.

Where is it written that we must "turn the other cheek" and "forgive those who trespass against us"?

You know where! :lol:


The death penalty is the ideological crown jewel for the justice system because it says the problems in society are certain people (mostly the poor) and the best thing to solve society's problems is to simply get rid of them (which is essentially your argument as well).

Yes, there is an obvious parallel. But you overlook (deliberately) the equally obvious differences.

The purpose of a "criminal justice system" in a class society is to keep the "rabble" terrorized into submission. So of course it is the poorest who are disproportionately arrested, imprisoned, and executed. In class society, the "rabble" are the problem...and "getting rid of some them" keeps the rest "in line".

The situation in a communist society would be an entirely different one...starting with the fact that there would be no "criminal justice system" at all.

The massive legal texts that exist today would be found only in the "basement stacks" of university libraries.

Or perhaps carefully preserved in the "rare old books" collections. :lol:

When a crime of violence was committed, people in the immediate vicinity would be collectively responsible for finding out "who did it" and would take the responsibility for apprehending the guilty, putting them on trial, convicting them, and executing them.

If the guilty person fled, they would go to the "wanted" website and post a picture of the wanted person and a description of what they were wanted for.

A newcomer to your area might well prompt a check of the "wanted site" -- if you are sensible -- and the guilty might be apprehended and returned to stand trial.

On the other hand, the guilty might travel a very long distance and "keep his head down"...or, as you might put it, "rehabilitate himself" and commit no more violent crimes.

That might prove extremely difficult to do...but may not be impossible. If it happens, it happens...what we can be sure of is that no one in the vicinity of where he did commit a violent crime will ever have to worry that "he's still around" and "might do it again".

Isn't that easy?

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

[YKTMX]

putting them on trial, convicting them, and executing them.


I assume you've missed my repeated questions on this matter.

You've summarily dismissed the idea of an impartial justice as 'bourgeois'. You've now said we don't all the 'legal' texts that exist.

Yet, you continually slip the words 'trial' and 'conviction' into your sentences on the subject. As I said before, how can you possibly have a trial, and by assumption a conviction or acquital, without some sort of impartial, adverserial procedure whereby evidence is examined and objectively analysed. How can you have 'both sides' of an argument being interrogated with the purpose of seeking the truth of a matter with 'impartial' justice.

You're so eager to sanction murder, you haven't even given the slightest thought to any of this, apart from vague musing about 'popular organs'.

I think it's quite clear that RedStar is not arguing for a just society, but mob rule - a tyranny of the genetically superior 'normal' people over the minority of 'born rapists'.

Communism? More like a fascist hellhole.

The British National Party (http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manf6.htm) - Tough on the causes of crime - Criminals!

Sound familiar?

I think you should apply for membership RS, I don't think they're Leninist. :lol:

[against all authority]

going on the comment of " a dead murderer wont kill again".. is the executer killed after he has executed in order to make it fair? but then wouldnt the executer of the other executer have to be capped aswell? does executing the murderer not make the executer a murderer too? in my opinion, absolutely NO-ONE has the right to take anyones life.. marshall law might be an option.. but exuters are murders with protection from a law in my eyes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How about you answer his points instead of slinging mud? Comparing him to a british nationalist isn't doing anything for your credibility.

[YKTMX]

The similarity between the views isn't doing anything for his either.

[Vanguard1917]

The similarity between the views isn't doing anything for his either.

And the similarity between Redstar's position (on rapists) and that of the far-right is that they are both based, essentially, on populism.

If there's one thing that everyone in society can agree on, it's that rapists (along with other perverted sex criminals: nonces, etc.) are "bad". What a great issue around which to rally the masses! We mustn't miss this opportunity! :P

[Raisa]

If you rape someone you should spend a long time in a labor camp where you have the option to starve yourself if you want to die. Or we should just shoot you in the head cause we dont want to waste the time.

IM biased cuase im a woman.

[YKTMX]

IM biased cuase im a woman.

That's no excuse.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:55 AM
The similarity between the views isn't doing anything for his either.
I suppose the spanish anarchists were closet nazis as well :rolleyes:

Honestly, you&#39;re so desperate to discredit Redstar it&#39;s pathetic <_<

[Raisa]

"QUOTE
IM biased cuase im a woman.



That&#39;s no excuse. "

So :huh:

Who said I needed to be excused.


<There are my debate tactics. End of story>

[polemi-super-cised]

Wow, violent debate...
(Yes, I did read it all&#33;)

My contribution: much of the focus in this discussion has been on "what is to be done" after the incident has taken place. This is important, to be sure. But how about the idea that a future Communist society may be able to avoid the problem - by "opening up" and relaxing all the taboos associated with sex.

I think that our current (class-based) society is poorly equipped to deal with the issue, because people are so unwilling to discuss it. Bourgeois-puritan morality infects the minds of policy-makers and the public alike; one would hope that this reactionary nonsense will have been ousted before (and certainly after) the revolution.

Still, our cultural inheritance, certainly in the UK, tends to regard sex itself as a "dirty" (or, in religious terminology, "sinful") act; something to be ashamed of, perhaps. I&#39;m sure most people on this board disagree. However, where we might make some progress is in acknowledging that this sort of a judgment plays havoc with psychological processes - so in removing the "stigma" attached to sex (and sexuality), we establish a community in which one needn&#39;t repress emotions, fears or thoughts on the matter. Consequently, extreme forms of action (i.e. rape, and summary execution - or punishment - afterwards) may be avoided; this is in the interests of everyone.

I don&#39;t believe that this alone will solve the problem. But I think it might form part of the solution: drastically reducing the potential numbers of rapists.

As to the whole "sanctity of life" thing - harden your hearts, people; the revolution will (likely) involve slaughter on a scale never before seen. That, or it&#39;ll fail.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)As I said before, how can you possibly have a trial, and by assumption a conviction or acquittal, without some sort of impartial, adversarial procedure whereby evidence is examined and objectively analysed.[/b]

I&#39;m rather partial to the ancient Athenian system and I think it could be suitably modified for use in a communist society.

Juries were large (500 people) and chosen by lottery...so they were a reasonably accurate sampling of the general public.

The "judge" was really just another ordinary citizen (also chosen by lottery)...and simply presided over the trial.

The accuser was the victim himself or, if he had been murdered, his friends and family. The defendant actually defended himself...with the help of his friends and family.

In communist society, we would introduce whatever forensic evidence existed...collected by people who engage in that sort of work because they find it fascinating and enjoyable.

At the conclusion of argument, the jury votes.

And that&#39;s it.


I think it&#39;s quite clear that RedStar is not arguing for a just society, but mob rule...

Thus have conservatives always characterized any real power in the hands of the people.

YKTMX is appalled...not least because his beloved "Vanguard Party" would have no role in "ruling the mob"...for its "own good", of course. :lol:

Considering his own ambitions to join the "circles of power", I suspect he is entirely sincere in his fear of the "mob".

With good reason.


Vanguard1917
And the similarity between Redstar&#39;s position (on rapists) and that of the far-right is that they are both based, essentially, on populism.

Horrors&#33; :o

That power to decide these matters should be in the hands of ordinary people -- including the surviving victims -- why...that&#39;s populism.

We can&#39;t have that, can we??? :o

Ahem...yes, we can have that if that&#39;s what we want.

Real communists and serious anarchists do want that.

Bourgeois socialists (including the serious Leninists) don&#39;t want that. What they want is to replace the existing despotism with one of their own.

What really lies beneath the righteous indignation of my critics?

Are they really concerned with "human life"?

Or is it the populist implications of my proposals that have aroused them from their torpor.

That bastard redstar2000 really wants all power in the hands of the masses, can you believe that outrageous bullshit???&#33;&#33;&#33;

Yes, believe it. :)

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

[Vanguard1917]

That power to decide these matters should be in the hands of ordinary people -- including the surviving victims -- why...that&#39;s populism.

... Or is it the populist implications of my proposals that have aroused them from their torpor.


So, for you, communism is a populist movement?&#33;

The typical approach of the tailist - though most would not dare admit it as explicitly.

If communist are populists, why not base our politics on some key &#39;popular demands&#39; in society today?

1) &#39;Controlled immigration&#39;: cos there&#39;s just way too many of &#39;em taking all our jobs.

2) More prisons: lock &#39;em up and throw away the key.

3) More police: cos the criminals are taking over.

4) More cameras on the streets: cos if you&#39;ve got nothing to hide, you&#39;ve got nothing to worry about.

5) And, saving the best till last, capital punishment for sex criminals - especially peadophiles (which should really get the masses going).


That bastard redstar2000 really wants all power in the hands of the masses, can you believe that outrageous bullshit???&#33;&#33;&#33;

Yes, believe it.

Communist want all power (for as long as political power exists in society) to be in the hands of the working class.

They believe they can achieve this by organising the most class conscious and advanced sections of the working class into a revolutionary party to lead the whole working class.

They don&#39;t bow down to every popular demand, because they realise that such &#39;popular demands&#39; are, in fact, products of capitalist social, economic, political and ideological hegemony - which must be challenged.

Communists recognise that &#39;It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment, regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do.&#39; (Marx and Engels, The Holy Family, emphases their&#39;s)

Communists are not populists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
So what anti-police violence coalitions or rallies have you been organizing lately?

Let&#39;s take this one first.

I&#39;m an old man now and I don&#39;t do anything any more except write posts on this message board.

Happy? Think that "discredits" everything I say?

Well, better think again. :angry:

I do not wish to be perceived as "boasting" about "what I did" over the course of a lifetime in radical political struggles...so I will confine myself to suggesting that it was a good deal more than you have had time to do.
My point was not that I thought you sit around and do nothing, my point (probably unclear) was that you don&#39;t seem to want to work with anyone who isn&#39;t as politically devloped as yourself.

At least in the US, we do not have the luxury of only working with other revolutionaries. Most of the movement I have to engage in are overrun with bourgeois liberals. Saying that it is a liberal cause is true, but so is trying to end the Iraq war. You and I know that we can never ultimately end imperialist wars without defeating imperialism, but defeating this imperialist war will give confidence to our side as well as radicalize and make millions of people question the nature and priorities of imperilaist governments.

Exposing the death penalty under capitalism in single cases will help rip the facade off the entire justice system in the US because you can not talk about these cases without also adressing police misconduct, racism and anti-worker nature of "criminal justice" and so on.


But if you are telling people that "there will be no executions after the revolution", then you are simply lying your ass off.Exaccutions are a tool of class opression. In capitalism it is the opression of workers, if it is utilized by workers, it will be used against counter-revolutionaries. However, I totally reject exaccution as a solution to crime&#33;

[Vanguard1917]

You seem to have a curious indifference to the fact that people are victims of the atrocities of capitalist society. As if "admitting victimhood" was a "badge of shame" or something.

The key revolutionary aspect of Marxism is that it sees in the working class an enormous amount of revolutionary potential that is unparalled in the history of class society.

Marxism does not see the working class as vulnerable victims of capitalist society, but rather as a mighty class that will lead its overthrow. That&#39;s what differentiates us from bourgeois &#39;philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity... hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind&#39; - who see in the working class a bunch of pathetic charity cases.

The important thing for us is not that the working class suffers, but that it is capable of providing a dynamic revolutionary solution to its suffering. As revolutionaries, we should always emphasise the latter truth. Emphasising that working class people are victims does not help instill a sense of self-confidence in the working class. Instead, it helps foster a sense of defeatism - a sense that working class people are fragile victims of their circumstances rather than people who are capable of radically transforming their circumstances.

That&#39;s why we say: The working class has nothing to lose but its chains; it has a world to win.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;[email protected] 8 2005, 04:10 AM
Still, our cultural inheritance, certainly in the UK, tends to regard sex itself as a "dirty" (or, in religious terminology, "sinful") act; something to be ashamed of, perhaps. I&#39;m sure most people on this board disagree. However, where we might make some progress is in acknowledging that this sort of a judgment plays havoc with psychological processes - so in removing the "stigma" attached to sex (and sexuality), we establish a community in which one needn&#39;t repress emotions, fears or thoughts on the matter. Consequently, extreme forms of action (i.e. rape, and summary execution - or punishment - afterwards) may be avoided; this is in the interests of everyone.
I can&#39;t believe you read all of our rants&#33; :D

I agree that sex would probably be seen much differently than it is today, but from the little I have read on the subject of rape, it seems to be motivated more from a desire for power and domination rather than sexual gratification.

I could be wrong, but I think that it is more the comodification of sex and women&#39;s bodies that has more to do with rape than repressed lust. Rape is stealing sex from someone and this could only be possible in a society where men "own" their wives sexually and sex is sold in pornography and so on.

Other violent crimes may also be the result of people "stealing" power from someone elese by humiliating them. People are involved with "sensless" violence all the time that has to do with one person disrespecting another; i.e. stealin power or respect from others.

Frnkly in some of my darker moments I have fanticized about wringing the neck of a bank-teller or my landlord or creditors because of situations where I was broke and felt I had no control over my own life.

So I think that a society where all people had power over their lives and there wasn&#39;t the chaos of the day-to-day economic survival, a lot of violence would disappear.

[eyedrop]

Vanguard1917


If communist are populists, why not base our politics on some key &#39;popular demands&#39; in society today?

Why not base them on the popular demands in the communists society?


Communist want all power (for as long as political power exists in society) to be in the hands of the working class.

And as we need a industrialised society ( at least marx thought so) before we can get a communists society the working class would be the majority. So the mob you fear so much would be the working class.
You can&#39;t both be afraid of mob rule in a communists society and want the working class, which is the majority to rule.

You want the working class to rule and you don&#39;t want them to rule. Big contradiction there.


They don&#39;t bow down to every popular demand, because they realise that such &#39;popular demands&#39; are, in fact, products of capitalist social, economic, political and ideological hegemony - which must be challenged.

But the problem is that a proletariat ready for a revolution would be growing free from the capitalists intelectual hegemony

And certainly in a communistic society which is what this tread is discussing there would be no capitalistic hegemeny which would twist the popular demands.


BTW.

They believe they can achieve this by organising the most class conscious and advanced sections of the working class into a revolutionary party to lead the whole working class.

How would you find out who the most advanced sections of the working class is.

1. Those who join your party?

2. Those who hold similar views to you? I know I have a tendency to think that people that agree with me on issues are more intelectually advanced than those that disagree with me.

3.Have tests on political knowledge where the ones with the best score are the most advanced?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think I finally figured out how to work to quotes on Redstar&#39;s posts...


Originally posted by Redstar
Same old bullshit: we "should do what is done now only be nicer about it".

They dredge up every possible "parallel" between my views and those of contemporary reactionaries while at the same time proposing nothing more novel than a "kinder and gentler" version of what we already have now&#33;

It boggles the mind&#33;
It boggles my mind that you think that workers couldn&#39;t figure out how to actually rehabiltate someone better than rehabilitation in modern class societies where "rehabilitation" means throwing a kid into a stone room for 15-20 years.

I&#39;m not advocating a kinder version of what we have now, thoes prisons should be blown up within the first week of the revolution. I&#39;m advocating real attempts to rehabilitate people. If someone is violent because of bi-polar disorders or substance abuse or whatever, thoes problems can be overcome by people.


What he should really do is "find Jesus". Parole boards really like prisoners who "find Jesus" and often release them well "ahead of schedule".

How&#39;s that for "personal transformation"? Should we exaccute some religious nut too? According to your other posts, you don&#39;t seem to think that religious people can change either.



Do you think workers would execute violent drug addicts in the future?

Probably. The excuse that "I was drunk" and "didn&#39;t know what I was doing" is probably not going to "fly".

You see I&#39;ve been drunk myself and nevertheless did not kill or rape or even physically attack anyone. So have most people&#33;

So why should we put up with the presence of assholes who cannot drink or get high without taking a violent shit on others?Well if someone gets violent while drunk, is the problem somehow inherent to that induvidual or is the problem that that person can&#39;t control themselves while intoxicated?



The death penalty is the ideological crown jewel for the justice system because it says the problems in society are certain people (mostly the poor) and the best thing to solve society&#39;s problems is to simply get rid of them (which is essentially your argument as well).

Yes, there is an obvious parallel. But you overlook (deliberately) the equally obvious differences.

The purpose of a "criminal justice system" in a class society is to keep the "rabble" terrorized into submission. So of course it is the poorest who are disproportionately arrested, imprisoned, and executed. In class society, the "rabble" are the problem...and "getting rid of some them" keeps the rest "in line".

The situation in a communist society would be an entirely different one...starting with the fact that there would be no "criminal justice system" at all.

When a crime of violence was committed, people in the immediate vicinity would be collectively responsible for finding out "who did it" and would take the responsibility for apprehending the guilty, putting them on trial, convicting them, and executing them.Aside from jumping to the conclusion that workers should or would want to exaccute them, this is all perfectly reasonable and probable.

Wouldn&#39;t workers have hospitals for physical and mental health? If so they would already have places to house violent or self-destructive people with disorders while these patients are treated.

My assertion is that any violence which still existed would probably be about as common as schizophrenia or other rare mental disorders and so it would be realivly easy to treat other violent induviduals in a similar manner.

If a rape or murder occoured in one location the person who did this act would have to be detained by volunteers or people selected randomly. THe suspect could be put in a padded room for their own safty as well as others while workers organized whatever legal proceedings were necissary. If they were found to be a danger to others, then they would have to be treated.

This dosn&#39;t require cops or professional judges or wardens or specific places to house "criminals".

I could be wrong because this is based on the assumption that violent crime would be a fraction of what it is in capitalist society. Violent individuals would be such an anomoly that they would be treated like other "sick" people; in other words workers would want, if possible, to cure them.

If treatment dosn&#39;t work, like people with fatal illnesses they would have the option to stay confined (bed for thoes too ill to move around and so on, or under supervision for the violent) and if this was too "inhumane" for them to take, they would always have the option of killing themselves.


The massive legal texts that exist today would be found only in the "basement stacks" of university libraries.

Or perhaps carefully preserved in the "rare old books" collections. I look forward to that day brother :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
If communist are populists, why not base our politics on some key &#39;popular demands&#39; in society today?

Well, it all depends, doesn&#39;t it?

Is this particular demand genuinely popular or is it something manufactured by the bourgeois media?

Does this particular demand "go in the direction we want to go" or does it go in a reactionary direction?

The "direction we want to go" is, of course, the deepening and strengthening of resistance to the despotism of capital...not simply the enactment of this or that modification of despotism.

For example: in patriarchal society, it would be far more radical to advocate women&#39;s armed self-defense than to bother with "harsher penalties for rape".

Why? Because self-defense is genuinely "empowering"...while capitalist law will only be applied against poor and working class males with little or no regard to actual guilt or innocence.

The real communist view is that the working class should "take matters into its own hands" and not rely on bourgeois legality to satisfy its needs.

Or, as one of my critics so charmingly put it, "mob rule".

It is not uncommon in large cities for apartment building owners to "hire a torch" (a professional arsonist) to set fire to a "money-losing" apartment building and collect a large settlement from their insurance company.

In my old neighborhood in San Francisco, some "street people" actually caught such a "torch" in the act of setting such a fire. While some of them called the fire department, others chased the "torch" down the street, grabbed him, and beat the living shit out of him.

Considering that this bastard endangered the lives of hundreds of people (apartment buildings in San Francisco are large), I would have felt perfectly ok if they had "strung him up" on the spot.

"Mob rule". :)


They [Leninists] believe they can achieve this by organising the most class conscious and advanced sections of the working class into a revolutionary party to lead the whole working class.

"Lead"?

You mean rule the "mob" for "its own good"?

Piss off&#33; :angry:


The important thing for us is not that the working class suffers, but that it is capable of providing a dynamic revolutionary solution to its suffering. As revolutionaries, we should always emphasise the latter truth.

Capable? Sure, in the long run.

Right now? No...because if it were, then it would do it.

Indeed, I think the rhetoric you advocate is actually counter-productive...because it has an "air of unreality" about it.

In addition to which it ignores the "outrage" factor. Working people are victimized in countless ways by the despotism of capital.

Capitalist ideologues argue that "it&#39;s the victim&#39;s own fault"...just as patriarchal ideologues argue that rape is "the woman&#39;s own fault".

We should say the exact opposite -- the truth, in other words -- and encourage our class to become outraged by capitalist atrocities.

Where else is the furious anger that is required for proletarian revolution to come from?

But that may not be what you really want at all. An angry proletarian "mob" might well be disinclined to listen to its would-be "leaders" like yourself.

And you wouldn&#39;t want that, would you? :lol:

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

[YKTMX]

Is this particular demand genuinely popular or is it something manufactured by the bourgeois media?


Here, in Britain, we don&#39;t have the death penalty even though a large majority of the public, and one or two far right tabloids, support it. Therefore, in Britain, pro-Death penalty is the &#39;populist&#39; opinion - &#39;we the people&#39; desire it, but &#39;them, our &#39;out of touch&#39; rulers don&#39;t listen to us.

Notice the proto-fascism in that formulation. The juxtaposition of the amorphous &#39;the people&#39; with the corrupt double dealing liberal &#39;rulers&#39;. If only we had leaders who would &#39;do what&#39;s needed&#39;, then that&#39;ll be fine - a &#39;strong man&#39;, perhaps



The real communist view is that the working class should "take matters into its own hands" and not rely on bourgeois legality to satisfy its needs.

Or, as one of my critics so charmingly put it, "mob rule".


I&#39;m not concerned with bourgeois legality, but I am concerned with the creation of a just, free society based on mutual respect, solidarity and tolerance. We should come up with a justice system based on these working class principles rather than the fascist wet dream of &#39;the people&#39; punishing the &#39;inferior few&#39;.

As for RS&#39;s notion of random judges and jury selection - sure. The &#39;volunteer&#39; CSI&#39;s, doing it &#39;as a hobby&#39; is probably ridiculous. It&#39;s like saying we should let people do brain surgery &#39;as a hobby&#39;.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
It boggles my mind that you think that workers couldn&#39;t figure out how to actually rehabilitate someone better than rehabilitation in modern class societies where "rehabilitation" means throwing a kid into a stone room for 15-20 years.

I can only say that your optimism (and my pessimism) have yet to meet the test of objective reality.

Until we have actual experience of a working communist society, we do not know what is "possible" or "impossible" with regard to "rehabilitation".

Just as we do not know if the human desire for vengeance will "wither away" or perhaps become even stronger than it is now.

Don&#39;t forget, when you grow up in a society that deeply and profoundly respects your sense of personal autonomy and integrity, how much more outraged will you be if it is violated?


Should we execute some religious nut too?

Why not? Do you think "God told me to do it" is a "valid excuse" for murder?


Well, if someone gets violent while drunk, is the problem somehow inherent to that individual or is the problem that that person can&#39;t control themselves while intoxicated?

Who cares? Unless you&#39;re proposing that someone follow this shithead around and "make sure" that he never has a drink, the sensible option is execution.

And who the hell would want the job of "personal guardian" to a violent drunk?

Would you want to do that kind of "work"? Would anyone?


If someone is violent because of bi-polar disorders or substance abuse or whatever, those problems can be overcome by people....

Wouldn&#39;t workers have hospitals for physical and mental health? If so, they would already have places to house violent or self-destructive people with disorders while these patients are treated.

This raises some fairly complex problems that we haven&#39;t discussed up to now.

Consider...

1. A hospital for the treatment of curable conditions. I can imagine a lot of people wanting to do this kind of work...for the enormous self-satisfaction involved.

2. A "hospice" for people with terminal illnesses for which no cures are known. At least we can provide a "death with dignity" for those we cannot save...but care for the dying is pretty depressing work and I don&#39;t think a lot of people will want to do this -- at least not for very long.

In fact, I expect euthanasia will become routine.

3. Some kind of "institution" for those who are physically healthy enough but who have chronic and perhaps incurable mental disorders that make it impossible for them to function in normal human society.

Work in such a facility would likely be incredibly demoralizing...unless genuine cures had been discovered.

Maybe some people will be motivated to do this kind of work from a very strong "humanitarian impulse"...but I expect their numbers will be extremely limited.

It is such a literally hopeless situation.

In principle, we could, as you propose, put violent criminals into such an institution...with the understanding that you&#39;re now exposing the people who work there to the threat of injury or even death.

I would imagine that such a step would reduce even further the "pool" of people who would want to do that kind of work.

And unlike class society, there is no "economic whip" to "make" people do this kind of work. In capitalist society, all of our "hopeless cases" are cared for by people who have no decent shot at any better kind of work.

Indeed, I used to know a young woman who, after considerable effort, managed to get a job as a hotel housekeeper...which she regarded as a real "step up" from working in a "nursing home".

As she said to me, "At least now I don&#39;t have to spend my whole day smelling piss and watching people die&#33;"

So there you are. We have to take into consideration not only what is possible "in principle" but, more importantly, what kinds of work are people going to be willing to do in communist society.

And what they are actually prepared to "tolerate" and what they will find "absolutely intolerable".

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

[polemi-super-cised]

I can&#39;t believe you read all of our rants&#33; :D


Oh yes. It took a while... :P



So I think that a society where all people had power over their lives and there wasn&#39;t the chaos of the day-to-day economic survival, a lot of violence would disappear.


I agree&#33; But I also think that a large part of "having power over your own life", is the freedom offered in a classless society - release from the bourgeois judgments and ex-christian morality of the present day.

The desire for power or domination over another, with sometimes tragic consequences, is probably spawned in conditions similar to those we must all face on a daily basis: exploitation in so many forms, and a repressive atmosphere that refuses to discuss issues such as these in an open manner.



So there you are. We have to take into consideration not only what is possible "in principle" but, more importantly, what kinds of work are people going to be willing to do in communist society.

And what they are actually prepared to "tolerate" and what they will find "absolutely intolerable".


Well, yes. But couldn&#39;t you apply this logic to your own argument in favour of executions for rapists? I mean, are "the people" going to be willing to order, and then to carry out, the execution of a "fellow human"? Perhaps they will - after all, how should I know...

The point I&#39;m making is this: it&#39;s all very well to advocate revolutionary justice, by the people and for the people... Indeed, I&#39;m wholly in favour. External influences on the process of "justice" (i.e. class interests, or religious moral judgments etc.) must be eliminated.

But what do you do, as the victim of rape - or any crime - if the jury of 500 (or whatever) decides "against" you? I don&#39;t think anyone is going to suggest that there will be uniformity of thought on the matter. So how do you mediate between the two "opposing" groups here? Take the case you mentioned earlier, redstar2000: the woman you knew personally who was raped. Presumably (then as now), you argue for the execution of the rapist. But the jury, for whatever reason, decide otherwise - and they impose a minimal "sentence". Do you consider this unfair?

If so, without a legal system in place to deal with "appeals", what action can you take? Demand another trial, perhaps: but that calls into question the judgment of the previous jury... You&#39;re effectively asking that the considered opinions of some be held above the considered opinions of others.

Or you could take matters into your own hands - hunt down the bastard and "make him (or her) pay". Is that really a wise option? I imagine that you&#39;d find yourself standing in front of a revolutionary court before long. And who wins then?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;cised
But what do you do, as the victim of rape - or any crime - if the jury of 500 (or whatever) decides "against" you? I don&#39;t think anyone is going to suggest that there will be uniformity of thought on the matter. So how do you mediate between the two "opposing" groups here? Take the case you mentioned earlier, redstar2000: the woman you knew personally who was raped. Presumably (then as now), you argue for the execution of the rapist. But the jury, for whatever reason, decide otherwise - and they impose a minimal "sentence". Do you consider this unfair?

Of course I do&#33; In fact, I would undoubtedly be so bitter about this brazen injustice that not only would I widely publicize it over the internet but I would also move away from the place where that happened and tell people on the internet not to ever go there.

I would have no interest in "mediation" of any kind.

Ok, that&#39;s me. :angry:

Maybe others would just shrug their shoulders and say "sometimes you&#39;re the windshield and sometimes you&#39;re the bug" or whatever.


Or you could take matters into your own hands - hunt down the bastard and "make him (or her) pay". Is that really a wise option? I imagine that you&#39;d find yourself standing in front of a revolutionary court before long. And who wins then?

Even if I don&#39;t "hunt the bastard down", the rape victim might well do so herself&#33;

And she would face that big jury and would have to convince them that this really was a case of "justifiable homicide".

And would she win her case?

I think she would...but no one knows until it actually happens.

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

[YKTMX]

I think RS has just seen I Spit On Your Grave and Last House on the Left too many times. Yes, that&#39;s what it is.

http://www.dvdmaniacs.net/Captures/CapturesJ-P/Last_House/last_house_chainsaw.jpg

Justice in a Communist society. :lol:

[Vanguard1917]

And as we need a industrialised society ( at least marx thought so) before we can get a communists society the working class would be the majority. So the mob you fear so much would be the working class.
You can&#39;t both be afraid of mob rule in a communists society and want the working class, which is the majority to rule.

The working class is not a "mob". I think this term degrades what the working class essentially is: i.e. a revolutionary class. "Mob" is the name given to ruled people by their rulers, and it has connotations of chaos, confusion, terror, animalism, etc.


How would you find out who the most advanced sections of the working class is.

The most advanced sections of the working class are the ones that are militant and class conscious. Workers on picket lines, organisers of industrial protests, organisers of political protests, etc. We need to organise such workers under one organisation: a revolutionary party.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Redstar
I can only say that your optimism (and my pessimism) have yet to meet the test of objective reality.

Until we have actual experience of a working communist society, we do not know what is "possible" or "impossible" with regard to "rehabilitation".

Just as we do not know if the human desire for vengeance will "wither away" or perhaps become even stronger than it is now.

Don&#39;t forget, when you grow up in a society that deeply and profoundly respects your sense of personal autonomy and integrity, how much more outraged will you be if it is violated?

Agreed.

oop, really late for work. Damn these interesting debates&#33;

[Vanguard1917]

Indeed, I think the rhetoric you advocate is actually counter-productive...because it has an "air of unreality" about it.

Like the great Irish republican socialist, James Connolly, once said:

&#39;Some men faint-hearted ever seek,
Our programme to retouch,
And will insist where&#39;ere they speak
That we demand too much
&#39;Tis passing strange, yet i declare
Such statements give me mirth.
For our demands most modest are,
We only want the earth.&#39;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
The &#39;volunteer&#39; CSI&#39;s, doing it &#39;as a hobby&#39; is probably ridiculous. It&#39;s like saying we should let people do brain surgery &#39;as a hobby&#39;.

You really don&#39;t understand anything about work in a communist society, do you?

Crime scene investigations, brain surgery, and everything else will be done "as a hobby"...there&#39;s no way to compel people to do anything.

Does that mean that such people will be incompetent? That they won&#39;t be held to professional standards? That any dumbass can "call himself a doctor" and people will "go to him"?

There is quite certain to be an ongoing collective of people who have chosen to perform any particular professional task and have been trained and even more importantly trained themselves to perform that task in a competent fashion.

And, yes indeed, they do it because they enjoy it.

That&#39;s the only reason people will do anything as their "life&#39;s work".


I am concerned with the creation of a just, free society based on mutual respect, solidarity and tolerance. We should come up with a justice system based on these working class principles.

Yeah...bet you can&#39;t wait to be "Minister of Justice", can you? :o

Or at least a judge. :lol:


I think RS has just seen I Spit On Your Grave and Last House on the Left too many times. Yes, that&#39;s what it is.

I take it these are the names of recent movies that you&#39;ve watched. I haven&#39;t seen either one...in fact, modern movies strike me as boring.

Once again, I hope the reader notices your wretched failure to address my arguments and your continuous retreat into caricature and slander.

A fine example of "Trotskyism in Action".

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

[polemi-super-cised]

... I would undoubtedly be so bitter about this brazen injustice that not only would I widely publicize it over the internet but I would also move away from the place where that happened and tell people on the internet not to ever go there.


You see, I imagine that relatives or friends of the rapist, if he or she were to be executed for the crime, would feel a similar sense of injustice (and take similar drastic action): the trouble is, in all these cases, there are no winners.

Obviously, personal experience of a crime like this is going to be traumatic - that goes without saying. There is likely to be a strong desire for revenge. But simple (brutal) vengeance is unlikely to satisfy the victim. I believe that the majority of people might also seek some sort of reconciliation - realisation by the offender that their crime was in fact a "crime" (i.e. "wrong"). People can change; people can feel remorse for "crimes" committed in the past. Execution removes any possibility that an individual will rape (or murder, etc.) again, but it also removes the potential for them to contribute to society in a positive fashion.

I expect we&#39;ve all suffered at the hands of others - whatever the scale of this suffering might be. For my part, and in my mind, I&#39;d rather hear a genuine apology on the part of the wrongdoer than see them punished. In a sense, punishment absolves the guilty party of responsibilty to their victim.

So rather than "writing off" these men and women, and hoping to control the problem that way, why not deal with the causes and the effects of this violence in more of a "civilised" way?

Next... A legal system acknowledges that there may be different interpretations of events. A legal system mediates between opposing views, and opposing desires - for "punishment", "rehabilitation" or a combination of the two. In the past, it has also upheld the interests of certain classes over others; it has maintained an institutional bias towards certain groups... Why need this be the case in the future?

I see no principled reason why a basic framework for criminal trial cannot be established "from the bottom up", with the conscious input of everyone.

[YKTMX]

Crime scene investigations, brain surgery, and everything else will be done "as a hobby"...there&#39;s no way to compel people to do anything.


Fine, but &#39;hobby&#39; is a stupid word. It implies non-professionalism. It takes years of dedicated learning and studying to become a forensic scientist or a brain surgeon. I don&#39;t presume anyone so committed as to submit to this training would wish not to utilise it.


Yeah...bet you can&#39;t wait to be "Minister of Justice", can you?

If I&#39;m elected to that position, I&#39;d love to do it.


"I take it these are the names of recent movies that you&#39;ve watched.

Actually, I think they&#39;re both from the seventies.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;cised
You see, I imagine that relatives or friends of the rapist, if he or she were to be executed for the crime, would feel a similar sense of injustice (and take similar drastic action): the trouble is, in all these cases, there are no winners.

The "winners" are the women who will never be raped by the dead rapist...and who need not live in fear that they "might be raped".

I surmise, moreover, that rape will be considered so reprehensible that any friends or family that the convicted rapist may have had will "melt away" like a springtime snowfall. Families may well change their names...that&#39;s how "bad" it will be.


Obviously, personal experience of a crime like this is going to be traumatic - that goes without saying. There is likely to be a strong desire for revenge. But simple (brutal) vengeance is unlikely to satisfy the victim.

If you say so...this sounds entirely speculative to me.


I believe that the majority of people might also seek some sort of reconciliation - realisation by the offender that their crime was in fact a "crime" (i.e. "wrong").

Again, you may be right...I don&#39;t see how we could possibly know that 50 or 100 years ahead of time.


People can change; people can feel remorse for "crimes" committed in the past.

And people can say anything that they think might get them out of a "tight spot".

How do we distinguish between "genuine remorse" and "fake remorse"?

And anyway, what good does remorse do? Does it really "make everything ok"?


Execution removes any possibility that an individual will rape (or murder, etc.) again, but it also removes the potential for them to contribute to society in a positive fashion.

I believe communist society can get along just fine without the "positive contributions" of rapists, murderers, etc.


I expect we&#39;ve all suffered at the hands of others - whatever the scale of this suffering might be. For my part, and in my mind, I&#39;d rather hear a genuine apology on the part of the wrongdoer than see them punished.

Such noble sentiments do you credit...though you still have the difficulty in distinguishing between a "genuine apology" and a fake one.

My own interest is more utilitarian: how can we stop this from happening again?

Apologies, genuine or otherwise, are of no measurable use in this regard.


So rather than "writing off" these men and women, and hoping to control the problem that way, why not deal with the causes and the effects of this violence in more of a "civilised" way?

Because I know of none.

Throughout this lengthy thread, my critics have offered nothing but rosy promises: really "humane" prisons, new technological "fixes", rehabilitation techniques that "really work", blah, blah, blah.

This allows them to cling tightly to their conviction that the taking of any human life is "immoral" or "uncivilized"...because we simply don&#39;t know "what the future will bring".

I think people in a communist society would regard any kind of forced confinement as far more uncivilized than executions.

But we&#39;ll see.


Next... A legal system acknowledges that there may be different interpretations of events....In the past, it has also upheld the interests of certain classes over others....Why need this be the case in the future?

Much depends on what you mean by "a legal system" in this context. The swarms of parasites that presently live off of our "legal system" are obviously unacceptable.

Indeed, I would surmise that the general attitude in communist society would be that justice is far too important to be left to "specialists". And even if this would not be true in a literal sense -- crime scene investigators would be "specialists" -- it would be perceived to be true as long as the final decisions were actually made by a large representative sampling of ordinary people.

The institutionalization of such procedures could be called a "criminal justice system"...but it would be misleading to use that term now.

It would imply a duplication of what actually exists now...something which I think the people would find both "uncivilized" and totally unacceptable.

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

[Nathe]

the way i see it... rape is the inability to supress sexual desire, so by that, i dont think we can keep the freedoms we hold high, as well as eliminate rape

[against all authority]

i dont know if anyone else has said this, but isnt having laws and punishment etc using fear and violence to try and prevent fear and violence? as HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen said, i believe that if a person has the desire to kill or rape (in some minor way or another) they must not be completely mentally stable, therefore they need to be given help not killed.

another point which rather puzzles me is that, if the assumption that once someone has killed or raped they will always be a killer or rapist. by that rational, how can we expect people to change their views and make the transition from capitalist to communist?? everyone makes mistakes..some people learn, some dont. (im not saying that all murderers and rapists are insane, just not completely there lol)

plus, there will always be counter revolutionaries who wont agree to a communist society. so how will they be approached? mental manipulation to force them to agree to communist ideals? execute them? arent they all incroaching on freedom and human rights? ive yet to find a good solution to this problem too so all opinions and views are welcomed...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by against all [email protected] 9 2005, 10:14 AM
another point which rather puzzles me is that, if the assumption that once someone has killed or raped they will always be a killer or rapist. by that rational, how can we expect people to change their views and make the transition from capitalist to communist?? everyone makes mistakes..some people learn, some dont. (im not saying that all murderers and rapists are insane, just not completely there lol)
We have made this point. Redstar seems to think it&#39;s a "liberal myth" that people can change. To me it seems rather like common sense: me ten years ago and me today are hardly the same person.

As you pointed out the transformation of society would mean a massive transformation in consiousness and people seeing themselves as the makers rather than the victims of history and circumstance. I think exaccutions would seem to negate this idea.

As for repression against counter-revolutionaries or the remanents of the old ruling class, it is possible that exaccutions wouldn&#39;t be used against them, but it would probably depend on the circumstances of the revolution and the percieved threat to worker&#39;s power. As exaccutions and locking people up are tools of class dominence, workers may find it necissary to use these tools to repress our former masters and jailers.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by against all authority+--> (against all authority)I believe that if a person has the desire to kill or rape (in some minor way or another) they must not be completely mentally stable, therefore they need to be given help, not killed.[/b]

No one has suggested that someone who has the "desire to kill or rape" should be executed. Someone has to actually do or actually attempt to do one of those things before execution becomes necessary.


Another point which rather puzzles me is that, if the assumption that once someone has killed or raped they will always be a killer or rapist. By that rationale, how can we expect people to change their views and make the transition from capitalist to communist [society]??

Because there is a rather obvious difference between someone&#39;s political and economic views and their demonstrated propensity to commit crimes of violence against people.

I&#39;m sure you realize that it is a bourgeois media myth that "only poor people" commit crimes of violence.

Unlike politics, violent crime (murder, rape, violent bodily assault) cuts across class lines.

This suggests that there are other causes at work...and that the abolition of class society "all by itself" is not going to eliminate violent crime -- though it may substantially reduce it.


Everyone makes mistakes..some people learn, some don&#39;t.

Violent attacks on people are not a "mistake".

The calculated intent to do physical harm to another person followed by "the deed itself" is purposeful action by any reasonable definition.


There will always be counter revolutionaries who won&#39;t agree to a communist society. So how will they be approached?

How does capitalist society now treat those nostalgic cranks who want to restore feudalism?

We laugh.

With the passing of time, so it is likely to be for those nostalgic cranks who want to restore capitalism.


Gravedigger
Redstar seems to think it&#39;s a "liberal myth" that people can change. To me it seems rather like common sense: me ten years ago and me today are hardly the same person.

Have you stopped killing people or are you planning to start? :lol:

Obviously we change with time in many ways. I am not arguing against the observed phenomenon of change.

I am making a much more specific argument: an individual that has demonstrated a propensity to violently attack people will keep doing that until he is no longer physically capable of successfully engaging in that behavior.

If nothing else happens to halt his behavior, old age will do it.

Want to wait for that? :o

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

[polemi-super-cised]

The "winners" are the women who will never be raped by the dead rapist...and who need not live in fear that they "might be raped".


That isn&#39;t "winning", comrade. The suffering has already been felt, by the victim of rape - the "victory" for society occurs only when the possibilty of rape is utterly eliminated. And the way to achieve this goal is not a policy of executions&#33;



And anyway, what good does remorse do? Does it really "make everything ok"?


Hang on a second, redstar2000... Is the concept of "remorse" really that alien to you? You suggest that my thought on the matter is somehow "noble" - but I&#39;d contend that the vast majority of people feel the same way. (Please feel free to comment&#33;) The very notion of "punishment" derives from the fact that society (class-based or otherwise) realises that a "wrong" has been committed. Surely the "criminal" is capable of accepting that he or she has transgressed; surely there is the potential for reform?



I believe communist society can get along just fine without the "positive contributions" of rapists, murderers, etc.


Are you going to exclude just violent criminals? Or all those who fall short of the "purity" you seem to reserve exclusively for yourself? :P

Anyway, seriously, I&#39;d suggest that every attempt be made to transform the guilty party before any additional punishment is considered... Of course, when an individual accepts their guilt, they are far more likely to accept the associated punishment. You might wonder why this is necessary. I&#39;d say that in "civilised" society, one must constantly justify any action involving the wielding of power by one group over another - and this justification on everyone&#39;s terms.

So even if the jury decides that such and such a criminal must forfeit his or her life: an effort ought to be made to convince the criminal why this is so. Here enters the process of rehabilitation. Our current system tends towards "writing off" convicted criminals - abandoning them in prisons where conditions are, as you say, despicable; then offering little incentive to "reform" afterwards, as most "opportunities" are denied them.

I would support a system that offered little or no "material incentive" to apologise for a crime, but a strong "moral", or "social incentive". (The morals, of course, being decided on by the people...) A revolutionary, constantly evolving "social conscience", would form the basis for a legalistic framework within which cases would still be considered according to their own peculiarities.

I do agree that "legal specialists" can have no place in this system - this would only result in certain individuals with too much power imposing their own codes of law on everyone else.



Throughout this lengthy thread, my critics have offered nothing but rosy promises: really "humane" prisons, new technological "fixes", rehabilitation techniques that "really work", blah, blah, blah.

This allows them to cling tightly to their conviction that the taking of any human life is "immoral" or "uncivilized"...because we simply don&#39;t know "what the future will bring".


Ok, so none of us can predict the future. But I&#39;d argue that falling back on executing those who cross certain chalk-drawn lines on the playground of morality is a little... Barbaric? I&#39;m not claiming that killing is inherently wrong; it&#39;s evidently the best solution in certain cases. But I think the solution to rape, and indeed the wider concept of criminality, needs to be rethought in a Communist society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;cised
Hang on a second, redstar2000... Is the concept of "remorse" really that alien to you?

I guess it must be...as I&#39;ve never done anything to anyone for which I&#39;ve had reason to feel "remorse".

To be sure, I&#39;ve undoubtedly "hurt someone&#39;s feelings" (intentionally or unintentionally) at one time or another.

But, thinking back, I can remember only two violent confrontations that I was ever involved in...where I sincerely wanted to physically hurt my adversaries...and that covering a period of nearly 50 years&#33;

In both cases, I was the victim of physical aggression and acted entirely in self-defense.

I feel no remorse for those actions whatsoever. Indeed, I wish I had hurt them substantially more than I did. :lol:


Surely the "criminal" is capable of accepting that he or she has transgressed; surely there is the potential for reform?

Surely I have no idea what you are even talking about.

How do you objectively measure such a phenomenon? Do you have a "remorse-meter"? Or do you anticipate that one will be invented in the foreseeable future?


Are you going to exclude just violent criminals?

Who else? :)


So even if the jury decides that such and such a criminal must forfeit his or her life, an effort ought to be made to convince the criminal why this is so.

To what purpose? Will execution be "easier" on you if the violent criminal says, "Yeah, you&#39;re right to kill me...I&#39;m an asshole who really deserves to die"?

I frankly find this to be one of the most bizarre suggestions yet made in this thread.


But I&#39;d argue that falling back on executing those who cross certain chalk-drawn lines on the playground of morality is a little...barbaric?

We are not making a "moral judgment" here. We&#39;re not telling a violent criminal that "you have sinned and therefore you must die".

We are acting in self-defense...we collectively have an over-riding right to live in a society free from the fear of violent crime.

If there is any message to the violent criminal implied, it is: "you have attacked us and therefore you must die so that you cannot ever do that to us again".

In communist society, that old IWW slogan takes on a far deeper meaning.

An Injury to One is an Injury to All&#33;

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

[polemi-super-cised]

I guess it must be...as I&#39;ve never done anything to anyone for which I&#39;ve had reason to feel "remorse".


redstar2000, modern day saint... :P



How do you objectively measure such a phenomenon? Do you have a "remorse-meter"?


No, sadly I lack a remorse-meter. How do you objectively measure "love" or "compassion" - or are these to be abolished under Communism? Just because we can&#39;t measure it, we shouldn&#39;t deny it&#39;s existence. "Remorse", or "guilt", is clearly visible in all sorts of social interactions: quantifying such a phenomena may prove tricky, but we can at least attempt to impose a binary "1 or 0" value here.

And it makes all the difference. If a "criminal" is genuinely convinced that he or she has done wrong in the past, this individual will undoubtedly exercise restraint when contemplating such a course of action in the future.



[polemi-super-cised]
Are you going to exclude just violent criminals?

[redstar2000]
Who else? :)


The point I was making, is that this rule could legitimately be extended to any "criminal", defined in any way. It&#39;s a point of principle. Deny some humans the opportunity to contribute positively to society, for whatever reason; then you can "take things a step further" and deny this right, conceivably, to anyone.



To what purpose? Will execution be "easier" on you if the violent criminal says, "Yeah, you&#39;re right to kill me...I&#39;m an asshole who really deserves to die"?

I frankly find this to be one of the most bizarre suggestions yet made in this thread.


You can find it as bizarre as you wish. Again, this is a point of principle. Consider the tyranny of the feudal lord who executes a peasant - we can only speculate as to the reasons for his action. He need not justify himself to anyone, as it is he who holds "authority" over others. He holds the power, and he makes the rules.

Of course, in a future Communist society, the people collectively hold all the power... But just as the "criminal" here is not free to rape his "victim", the people entrusted with the life of the "criminal" are not free to end it without explaining why they are doing so. And in this process of rationalising action, begins the process of rehabilitating the criminal.



We are not making a "moral judgment" here.


Yes you are&#33; All means and ends, all causes and effects, are connected with issues of morality. You seem to be going down the "self-preservation" route - the idea that humans have the "right" to defend themselves against unwarranted aggression. Which is fine: but you&#39;ve already established opposites in the "aggressor" and the "defender", the "legitimate" and "illegitimate" use of force. The "end" is self-preservation; the "means" is use of physical force. Your "morality" regulates this system.



An Injury to One is an Injury to All&#33;


Don&#39;t you see the contradiction here? The execution of one, is... Is what? Either you&#39;re excluding the "criminal" from human society permanently, presumably facilitating the "safe" execution of this "non-human" (not a route you want to go down&#33;), or, more likely, you&#39;re not - in which case this most extreme penalty will surely hurt other people. As I mentioned earlier, the relatives and family of the recently-deceased will surely not be so easily reconciled to the death of their friend / father / brother / son etc.

This is why rehabilitation is so important. Rather than causing new injuries, and further harm to "society", it seeks to heal wounds that have been already created. This is a brave, and positive action - it needn&#39;t be characterised, as you seem to insist upon, as emotionally "weak".

[against all authority]

when i said "the desire to kill or rape" i meant after an incident. if someone is killed or raped then the killer or rapist has obviously had the desire to do so. also i am no making a direct link between peoples political beliefs and their moral beliefs. however i do believe in some cases a transition can be made, however if that person is killed.. it cant reli can it? also.. when i said ppl make mistakes i was merely pointing out that people can feel regret and remorse... its a human feeling. not every killer or rapist is cold hearted, but in some cases misguided. im not condoning it in the slightest but i do think that they should be allowed time to think and re-evaluate where they are and what they want to do.

[redstar2000]

I must apologize, polemi-super-cised, but I cannot respond to your most recent post at all.

It simply fails to meet my "minimum requirements" of critical discourse. You no doubt sincerely believe that you are "saying something"...but it frankly strikes me as "noise".

I&#39;m not equipped with either the "skills" or the patience to try and "make sense" of what your foggy sentences are "trying to say". In fact, your remarks remind me very much of 19th century European romanticism...people I could never understand either.

Perhaps you would like to contribute to the thread on the death penalty in the Philosophy forum...where the real world is irrelevant.

Your mystical doctrine of remorse and transfiguration and reconciliation may well be warmly received in such circles.

You are not making any sense to me at all.

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

[polemi-super-cised]

redstar2000, mindless automaton... <_<

Seriously, what the fuck is your problem? You&#39;re actually going to sit there and declare to the world that "remorse" is a mystical illusion, are you? It&#39;s a fabrication in every single instance; it masks callous self-interest and that&#39;s the end of it? "Reconciliation", presumably, you also feel has no significance whatsoever?

My post is entirely comprehensible to anyone capable of "feeling" - I wonder, have you any idea what "feeling" is? You mentioned, earlier, the tragedy that befell your friend: well now I ask you, why was it a tragedy? The spitting, acid-tone of your posts suggests that you get rather worked up about the issue - is this anger you feel, or what? Personal emotions, because you care for her? WHY? If you&#39;re going to mutter something about "physical violence", and how no-one should be subjected to it, how the fuck can you openly contemplate execution of "criminals"? I&#39;ll tell you why: because you have a sense of morality.

It is wrong to commit rape. It is ok (i.e. "right") to execute rapists. Self-preservation, the "ends", justifies the "means". And once you have socially defined "right" and "wrong" actions, how can you claim that "criminals" are utterly unable to comprehend this? Perceptions of "right" and "wrong" change, based on material conditions and surroundings. Remorse, for a past transgression is not only possible, but probable. It is not "mystical", but based firmly in an understanding of individual responses to external stimuli.

Of course these can be "faked". But equally, they can be "real", or "honest". Engage with the debate, don&#39;t dismiss it - this isn&#39;t base romanticism; it&#39;s alive&#33;



also.. when i said ppl make mistakes i was merely pointing out that people can feel regret and remorse... its a human feeling.


Well, Goddam&#33; I suppose this is all reactionary nonsense as well?



Perhaps you would like to contribute to the thread on the death penalty in the Philosophy forum...where the real world is irrelevant.


The real world is ALWAYS relevant&#33; Where exactly is it that ideas come from, redstar2000? Be a good Marxist and regurgitate some doctrine for us&#33;

If you&#39;re content to "refute" arguments based on your 10,000 post-power, or whatever: fine. But you&#39;ll only confirm my worst fears - you&#39;re a "bad" man&#33; (I assume you&#39;re a guy...) :D

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by polemi&#045;super&#045;cised
redstar2000, mindless automaton...you&#39;re a "bad" man&#33;

You, on the other hand, oscillate between personal abuse and mysticism.

The reader is invited to draw the appropriate conclusions. :)

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

[Led Zeppelin]

The solution to (most) rape is simple, change the economic system which causes them, either directly or indirectly.

Is it strange that the "rape rate" in the USSR was extremely low?

And it wasn&#39;t even Socialist&#33;

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 10 2005, 04:45 PM
The solution to (most) rape is simple, change the economic system which causes them, either directly or indirectly.

Is it strange that the "rape rate" in the USSR was extremely low?

And it wasn&#39;t even Socialist&#33;
Would it be unreasonable of me to ask about the rape of Berlin?

[polemi-super-cised]

redstar2000, incapable of intelligent debate... :angry:

One wonders whether this is your usual tactic.

[Led Zeppelin]

Would it be unreasonable of me to ask about the rape of Berlin?


What are you talking about? Do you mean the invasion of the city during WW2?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 10 2005, 06:13 PM

Would it be unreasonable of me to ask about the rape of Berlin?


What are you talking about? Do you mean the invasion of the city during WW2?
Noxion is referring, of course, to the well-documented fact that the peasant conscripts of the "Red" Army went on a raping spree when they occupied eastern Europe, especially eastern Germany, for a period of a month or two after the end of World War II.

American troops, by contrast, were "real gentlemen". They paid for their sex with packs of cigarettes and cans of food purchased at discount prices from the "Army PX".

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

[YKTMX]

They paid for their sex with packs of cigarettes and cans of food purchased at discount prices from the "Army PX".



Hearts and minds

:lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

Noxion is referring, of course, to the well-documented fact that the peasant conscripts of the "Red" Army went on a raping spree when they occupied eastern Europe, especially eastern Germany, for a period of a month or two after the end of World War II.


That doesn&#39;t matter, I was referring to the USSR in general, not during a specific time period, especially not during war.

[peaccenicked]

Rape is to force sex. This implies personal power.

This implies an approach towards personal power.

This implies class war.

Class war does not imply execution but the execution of the executioners, and even that is all about the manifest intervention into the cycles involved in a criminal lifestyle. Those who say rehabilitation is a no-no, are basically right wing fascist assholes masquerading as leftists or abstainent leftists, with personal axes burning their brains out.

We can gain nothing by personal vendetta.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Class war does not imply execution but the execution of the executioners, and even that is all about the manifest intervention into the cycles involved in a criminal lifestyle. Those who say rehabilitation is a no-no, are basically right wing fascist assholes masquerading as leftists or abstainent leftists, with personal axes burning their brains out.

Right, because you say so :rolleyes: I&#39;m getting mighty sick of you calling everyone who doesn&#39;t agree with you a right-winger.


We can gain nothing by personal vendetta.

It&#39;s not about "personal vendettas" it&#39;s about making damn sure rapists don&#39;t rape again.

[rioters bloc]

yeah, rape victims have a personal vendetta against their rapist.

...it&#39;s cos, they raped them&#33;&#33;&#33;

i don&#39;t advocate the death penalty but i hardly think you (or anyone) is in a position to trivialise the experiences and reactions of rape victims <_<

[rebelworker]

I didnt have the patience to read all the posts, so forgive me if someone has already brought this up, but a major point the "human nature" arguers are missing(obviously havnt done any research on the subject) is that overproportionally rapes are commited by poor/working class people, and the overwealming majority(I think its like 90%) are committed by people who have been raped or sexually abused themselves.

Like spousal violence, with similar statistics, its about power or lack of. Once we can start to build a society where all individuals have controll of their own lives, not just those with money and power, we can start to treat the societal problems that lead to rape and violence.

Its not human nature, its controll, read up on it, any sexual assault center or feminist group will tell you this is the case.

The Boss shits on the worker all day, the tired frustrated worker comes home and beats his wife, the overworked/underrespected woman takes it out on her kid, who grows up to be an abusive/abused person. Its a cyle of opression as old as hierarchy.

Thats why we need a system of economic, political and personal equality.

Anarchism and Communism seem to be the best option.

[STI]

Originally posted by rebelworker
overproportionally rapes are commited by poor/working class people, and the overwealming majority(I think its like 90%)

There are a few fairly simple explainations for this:

-The overwhelming majority of people are working class, so it follows that, for almost every group, the members of that group (in this case, "rapists") will be working class.
-Rich people can afford high-priced lawyers who can manipulate the legal system to get them acquitted.
-Rich people may, in some cases, be able to "pay off" their victims should they threaten to go to the cops.


are committed by people who have been raped or sexually abused themselves.


I&#39;d believe that a disproportionate number of rapists would fit into that category, but i&#39;d need to see some actual statistical evidence to convince me that it&#39;s "90%"


Once we can start to build a society where all individuals have controll of their own lives, not just those with money and power, we can start to treat the societal problems that lead to rape and violence.

I don&#39;t doubt that a classless society would significantly reduce violent crimes including rape, assault, and domestic violence... but it wouldn&#39;t get rid of it entirely. Simple reason: if nothing else, there would still be sociopaths. People with Anti-social Personality Disorder (ASP).

...So, the question is, how do we deal with people who do commit rape?

"Solve the problem" permanently, I say.

[Body Count]

I think we need to be careful on what we see as the root of crime.

The general idea amongst most westerners is that of a biological determinist, aka "Its in his genes to be this way"....this line of thinking not only denies environmental and social aspects to crime....but in America, it also tends to lean towards a racist, eugenic view as well (Think Charles Murray).

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:15 AM
There are a few fairly simple explainations for this:

-The overwhelming majority of people are working class, so it follows that, for almost every group, the members of that group (in this case, "rapists") will be working class.
-Rich people can afford high-priced lawyers who can manipulate the legal system to get them acquitted.
-Rich people may, in some cases, be able to "pay off" their victims should they threaten to go to the cops.

Does it really just come down to who has the money to pay who?

While we all know that the richest people just seem to be lucky when it comes to the law (:lol:), do you really think that this can account for the high majority of crimes being committed by the poor (And usually, minority)?

[SocialistGenius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:14 AM
I don&#39;t think many rapists think about "hey if i rape her i will feel powerful". For example, I have seen many hot chicks I would like to fuck, and I am pretty sure many other people have gotten that desire too. Rape is merely trying to accomplish that wish in a forced way.
Actually, rape isn&#39;t sexual in any way. It&#39;s all about force and dominance. Yes, I&#39;ve "seen many chicks that I would like to fuck" as well, but the difference is we simply don&#39;t do it.

And, most people who commit sexual crimes such as rape, molestation, etc., were the victims of sexual abuse in their childhood. In order for them to not commit such crimes in the future, there must be some form of rehabilitation.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by marmot
I don&#39;t think many rapists think about "hey if i rape her i will feel powerful". For example, I have seen many hot chicks I would like to fuck, and I am pretty sure many other people have gotten that desire too. Rape is merely trying to accomplish that wish in a forced way.

i feel the same way as socialistgenius. it&#39;s not necessarily about &#39;feeling powerful&#39;. it&#39;s about thinking that you have some kind of inherent right to have sex with someone who is unwilling to have sex with you. much of the time, that &#39;right&#39; is a result of patriarchal society which places the &#39;needs&#39; of men, especially their sexual &#39;needs&#39;, above wom*n&#39;s rights. thus in the case of heterosexual rape which is overwhelmingly committed by men, it&#39;s almost always a case of a man thinking that he is justified in forcing a wom*n to have sex with him due to his gender. and that&#39;s where power structures are revealed.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Jun 13 2006, 02:53 AM--> (rioters bloc @ Jun 13 2006, 02:53 AM)
marmot
I don&#39;t think many rapists think about "hey if i rape her i will feel powerful". For example, I have seen many hot chicks I would like to fuck, and I am pretty sure many other people have gotten that desire too. Rape is merely trying to accomplish that wish in a forced way.

i feel the same way as socialistgenius. it&#39;s not necessarily about &#39;feeling powerful&#39;. it&#39;s about thinking that you have some kind of inherent right to have sex with someone who is unwilling to have sex with you. much of the time, that &#39;right&#39; is a result of patriarchal society which places the &#39;needs&#39; of men, especially their sexual &#39;needs&#39;, above wom*n&#39;s rights. thus in the case of heterosexual rape which is overwhelmingly committed by men, it&#39;s almost always a case of a man thinking that he is justified in forcing a wom*n to have sex with him due to his gender. and that&#39;s where power structures are revealed. [/b]
I agree.

It&#39;s also often about how women are/have been seen as property. For example, in conflict situations the victorious side may rape women from the other side. This isn&#39;t done to demonstrate power over the women at all, but to humiliate the men of the other side, by violating something that&#39;s "theirs."

[STI]

Originally posted by Body Count+Jun 5 2006, 06:06 AM--> (Body Count @ Jun 5 2006, 06:06 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 04:15 AM
There are a few fairly simple explainations for this:

-The overwhelming majority of people are working class, so it follows that, for almost every group, the members of that group (in this case, "rapists") will be working class.
-Rich people can afford high-priced lawyers who can manipulate the legal system to get them acquitted.
-Rich people may, in some cases, be able to "pay off" their victims should they threaten to go to the cops.

Does it really just come down to who has the money to pay who?

While we all know that the richest people just seem to be lucky when it comes to the law (:lol:), do you really think that this can account for the high majority of crimes being committed by the poor (And usually, minority)? [/b]
Well, it hasn&#39;t even been established that rapists are disproportionately working class, so it&#39;s all really a moot point until then...

But just to go with it for a second... let&#39;s say my explainations don&#39;t adequately account for the difference between the amount of working class rapists and ruling class rapists... does it then follow that, in a classless society that rape would cease to exist?

I doubt it.

So then, even if there&#39;s only one rapist every hundred years, we&#39;ll still need to decide what we&#39;re going to do with him&#33;

So the issue can&#39;t simply be avoided by saying "class society breeds crime".

[rioters bloc]

i&#39;m studying sexual assault for my exam on friday (criminal law), some interesting points are brought up (which i would have already seen before had i bothered to attend any classes this semester <_<). but i&#39;m gonna read more and post what i get out of it up.

[Vinny Rafarino]

RS makes some very good points here but most importantly, he addresses one key issue that for some mind-boggling reason folks here can&#39;t grasp: individuals that rape, murder, etc. suffer from a severe neurological disorder.

Responses such as: "rape is the manifestation of dominance over another person. what we need to do is eradicate all forms of hierarchy, all power structures, and then the need to exert this dominance will effectively disappear as well" fail to address that the neurological disorder that caused the individual to rape, murder, etc. simply will not "vanish" once class society dissolves.

The individual will still suffer from a incurable and horrible neurological disorder and will still have irrational urges that will most definitely manifest in a horrific manner, regardless of what type of social system we live under.

So until we can address and correct the genetic cause of such neurological disorders, execution of the individuals in question is the only rational and practical response.

[Ol' Dirty]

:lol: Kill all the men.

Oh shit...
I&#39;m a guy. :o :lol:

Either that, or women have to start raping men more. :lol:

Seriously (if one can be serious after that mess) there are a lot of things that could be done to cub rape, but it&#39;s still going to be around as long as men dominate women. I think that educational programs, sexual abuse centers in all major cites and some towns, and lot of work by women to resist male domination would help tremendously.

There&#39;s a great radio announment on my local college station: What we treated everyone like rape victims?" It talks about getting serious about rape, and I like it.

[Rawthentic]

I believe that it has also do with this "cool" culture, that its OK for men to be "pimps", but dirty for women to be "whores". So this causes that mentality that men are superior to women, and that they have the sexual right and dominance over them. Im in high school, and Im sickened by these guys that think theyre all "cool" because they get all kinds of sex from girls, but when girls do the same, they are frowned upon and cast away. sexism from capitalism