The Death Penalty

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by redstar2000 @ Nov 30 2005+ 04:28 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 30 2005 @ 04:28 AM)
The Anarchist Tension
There is little known study, if any, about the reasons for rape and murder. What causes someone to rape? What causes someone to murder?

Quite true. But the implication of this is that "if we knew the causes" then what?

Would there turn out to be "techniques" that we could use to "stop murder or rape" before it happened?

That would be nice.

But until that happens, what are we to do?[/b]

I don't have the answer for that. Just like I don't have the answer for how do we stop economic crimes right now, and it's right now you're talking about isn't it? Or at least that's the implication.

Otherwise if we're talking about some hypothetical situation sometime in the future then I think what I have already stated is a far better way at aiming to get rid of rape etc.


Would anyone suggest that having discovered "the real causes" of murder or rape, we "should" therefore permit people to do that?

I doubt it. At least not verbally anyway.



What if rapists are a victim of society?

What if "Hitler's willing executioners" were "victims" of traditional German child-raising practices?

What if Hitler himself was a "victim" of a violently abusive childhood?

You know that French saying: To understand all is to forgive all.

I disagree. :angry:

You're comparison is a fallacy. You cannot compare rape to Nazism or Hitler. The comparison doesn't fit because they're two different examples of sociopathy.

Hitler was the creation of specific social, political and economic needs and the fact that he may or may not have had an abusive childhood were not the reasons the Nazi regime existed or perpetuated their psychotic hate.

Rape however, is a direct social/human phenomenon. The causes of it or unknown and drawing this comparison in and attempt to validate and justify your reasons for executing people is false.

I've noticed that when people have such right-wing ideas, they attempt to prove how they're not as right wing as other people, or, like here, they attempt to emote some highly sensitive and potentially contentious issue, such as the holocaust in order to justify their position.

It's not working.



But surely being progressive is discovering the answer and dealing with it in a way that all human beings can have, at least, the potential to belong to a communist society? Even if they're not true, surely rehabilitation is a far better way of dealing the problem.

There are presently no known "rehabilitation" techniques that are 100% successful.

There are also no known "rehabilitation techniques" that 100% work for burglars or shop lifters, I don't see what relevance this fact has in showing that rehabilitation is or is not preferable than executing someone.


But remember, they have to work 100% of the time.

No technique is going to work "100%" of the time. Not even execution. The root-contributing factor to crime is not punishment. Executing someone, just like throwing people in prison, does not stop the crime from existing.


Otherwise, you're "rolling the dice" on the fate of potential future victims of rape or murder.

Only when rape and unjustified killing doesn't exist anymore, will there be no "potential future victims."



Simply putting a bullet in the back of a head of someone may bring down virtual statistics in ridding the world of these actions, but it isn't dealing with the problem.

It seems to me that steadily lowering the frequency of those horrible acts is "dealing with the problem".

In fact, outside of what I have proposed, there is "no other known way" of "dealing with the problem" except prisons.

So you have a choice and one that is essentially unavoidable: do you envision a communist society with prisons OR with capital punishment for violent crimes against persons?

Its not at all as binary as that, and your attempt to make it seems so is most likely through an inability to move beyond convention. It's quite a normal trait in reactionaries.

Prison is a place of punishment. Punishment is an act of vengeance, vengeance is irrational.

Securing people in hospitals in an attempt to find a cure/rehabilitate, to study and to learn from these people is the middle ground, and far more productive and time/resource effective.



Many older people are stuck with prejudicial ways of dealing with situations.

Don't I know it! In fact, I've said the same thing about some of the defenders of "dialectics" on this board.

Advancing age is indeed a common liability in political thought -- look at Castro's servile fawning over Catholicism!

Nevertheless, age does involve the accumulation of experience...and sometimes "us old guys" get it right.

It takes an inveterate youth and unique ability to maintain vitality in thought, process, dissent and emotion. I know of no human being who has managed to achieve it.

I thought maybe you had.


The merits of the arguments remain decisive...not the age of the person who makes them.

Possibly, but I'm yet to see this be the case. In fact, most people who have this "accumulation of experience" are fogged by it and end up making statements and asserting opinions which reek of the past.

Noam Chomsky being yet another example.



I wouldn’t want an admin to have the opinion that drug addicts should be locked away.

My long-standing opposition to "left" neo-puritanism is a matter of public record on this board.

And?



There will always be another rapist, to take the place of the person you executed.

In other words, the "supply" of rapists is "elastic"...it "expands" in accordance with "a hidden law" that says "there must be" X number of rapes every year.

If we execute a rapist, a "new one" will automatically "emerge" to "take his place"

What should we call this hitherto overlooked sociological phenomenon?

TAT's Law?

You could call it that?

But, If we look around the world at countries like Iran who exist on Sharia law, Liberia and other African countries or even the US, who I also think have the death penalty for certain cases of rape and murder we can clearly see that executing people does not negate the problem or even mildly protect us from it.

I mean, each country has laws against rape that will land you in prison if caught, and, if as you say prison is worse than death, why is it that people still rape. Why is it that these deterrants have never worked?

Rape still exists in these countries as does murder, and there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it could or would be any different. In fact it isn't any different.

Unless you have the "hidden law" to proving history wrong.


But does it really matter? That is, suppose we accumulated a body of verified scientific knowledge about "why murderers murder" and "why rapists rape", how would that help?

Once we know why it happens we can attack the root cause of it.


Do you think there's a "cure" awaiting discovery?

Yes, be it medical or social.


You might be right...at this point no one knows.

Precisely, and if we execute everyone, we'll never find out.


But it's going to cost a lot more (in time, energy, and resources) than a bullet in the back of the head...and being a "lab rat" may turn out to be just as unpleasant as being a prisoner.

Not necessarily. We [humans] have the ability to be humane. At least I think we do.

In terms of time and resources, I don't see what the problem is there. It may take time, energy and resources, but we'll just have to get them.



I mean, prison is shit, but it's probably more preferable to most people than death.

They "choose life" even under the most horrible conditions...whereas I think degradation below a certain level is indeed worse than death.

I think that this is a "gut difference"...not subject to rational argument in the usual sense.

I think you can make an objective study on how people would answer if you said: "death" or "prison." Maybe that's even a way of justifying your desire to execute people.

"Well, people want to be executed." :rolleyes:


I do recall reading once that some Spanish anarchists shared my outlook.

Yes in 1936, when the death penalty was a societal norm, just like the slave trade was the norm in the 18th century.


They thought that imprisoning another human -- taking away their autonomy -- was a truly abominable thing to do...compared to which execution was a humanitarian act.

Sure, but the person has to submit to the authority of the execution and state clearly that it is their wish to be executed in order for the "anarchism" to be validated.


Those of you who think that prison is "better" than death may want to reconsider the matter.

Beside the point.



If we are going to talk about consciously taking the life of someone else for consciously taking the life of someone else, how do you justify this obvious contradiction?

To defend our personal safety, of course.

I've heard this justification many times and never really understood how it's justifiable? So, presumably I could use the same reasoning to say, bomb an oil rich country.

Can you actually prove that it's defending our "personal safety"?


Why do you think that all human societies prohibit murder and punish those who get caught at it?

Irrationality.


Because a society that permitted random murders could not function. Everyone would live in constant fear of being murdered...and would accordingly devote a wildly disproportionate share of their resources and productivity to self-protection.

I never claimed that random murders should be permitted or that anyone who commits a murder or a rape should be left to their own devices.

[RevolverNo9]

I haven't enough time to read the entire original thread, but I've got a good portion of it under me.

Thanks TAT for a strong argument.

It strikes me that the 'RedStar theory of justice' is built from remarkable assumptions and impositions, with a dose of reaction just to blend a more bitter brew.

The sentence (and I paraphrase), those sick fucks deserve nothing from us but a bullet in their head, seems indicative of this. I have no idea quite how old RedStar is, but at a guess he still can't quite shake off that queezy nostalgia for the 1920... ah yes; when women could walk safe at night and any fuck-up big enough to endanger that was hanged at dawn. Sure, it may be hard for people from by-gone eras to rid themselves of such primitive, undeveloped and anti-libertarian (man even 'quanit') concepts of justive. But you woulda thought now in the communist movement they'd give it a good go.

And the irony of accusing others of not working outside the current statist paradigm!

The other thing that distrubs me is the uncomprimising nature of imposition on the will of other indivisuals! Death's 'far more human than prison.' Yeah? Says who? Oh... you say so, well shit man then it must be true; that must be how everyone else feels!

You're not one of these dialecticians are you? :lol:

I can see the scene now: the noble man of the people explaining to the poor confused individual up for murder why he shall die.


Sick Fuck: Um, 'scuse me, feeling a bit full. Don't think you could wrap this meal up for later do you?

Philanthropist: Well, sorry kid, but not really. Well I lie, I could, but you see there wouldn't really be much point... 'cos we're about to murder you in a mo'. Yeah, I know. Well I feel for you really (again I lie, you're sick) but it's in your interests. No really! You see, this is the more humane alternative. What do you mean you don't think it is? What is, this another individual's opinion? Fuck man, stateless society is really facing a social decline... people keeping on having their own wills, and executing them. Man, it was so much easier in the 18th Century.


The 'humane method' is so bankrupt it's not true. If a member of society feels that death is a more attractive proposition than their current situation, by all means they have that option open to them. Quite the contrary is true with an organised form of murder.

Since RedStar himself seems to admit (inconsistantly to the whole sick fuck line, sure) that these few individuals are ill, would it not be far more rational to treat them as such? The dramatic reduction of criminals in stateless soceity would certainly render this feasable. The assumption to be only able to conceive of an alternative to capital punishment as the current form of imprisonment indeed does betray an inability to think beyond the current ideological confines of the day.

When the communist vanguard begins to talk like those if-only-it-weren't-ture rednecks, the party's over.

But, hey, what does our generation know?

[redstar2000]

In case the reader is interested, here is the full text of my post that TAT is replying to...


May I begin by thanking all the comrades who voted "for me"...I am very gratified that you "saw through" this rather transparent scheme to "punish me" simply for my position on capital punishment in communist society.

My critics are remarkably reticent in the public threads where matters of political controversy are "out in front for everyone to see"...preferring instead to raise these matters "inside the CC".

So be it. I can't "make people" defend their ideas in a public forum...but I can certainly suggest that it is the weaknesses in their own positions that contribute to their reluctance.
--------------------------------------------------

Everyone "knows" that the "left" is "against capital punishment". That seems to be a common refrain among my critics.

It has no historical basis at all, of course. The revolutionary left -- anarchist, Leninist, or just spontaneous popular rebellions -- has always "resorted" to capital punishment when they thought it was appropriate (rightly or wrongly is a matter of historical controversy).

I heard a Maoist back in the 60s say "The problem with Stalin is that he killed a lot of people that he shouldn't have and didn't kill a lot of people that he should have!"

In modern class society, the people who are most likely to face execution are either "people like us" or people "even worse off than we are"...and the conclusion that is currently fashionable is that "therefore" capital punishment is "just plain wrong".

Rightists relish the execution of "people like us" and "people even worse off than we are"...and constantly pound the drums for more executions of the "rabble"...as they always have.

Nor are they particularly concerned with actual guilt or innocence...as has been recently demonstrated by the use of DNA technology. Their main concern is, as it has always been, to "teach the rabble a lesson".

But how does it help the rational discussion of the use (or non-use) of capital punishment in communist society to be diverted by the irrelevant fulminations of reactionaries?

Who gives a shit what they "think"?

Instead of approaching this question from the standpoint of the safety and well-being of the people living in a communist society, all of my critics instead rely on the so-called "parallels" between my views and the views of present-day reactionaries in the context of existing class society.

Not to mention the fact that if they can't "find a parallel", they just make one up and hope that "no one will notice".

Although I have never suggested (much less "supported") any "genetic theories" of the origins of violent crimes, I have already been called a "eugenicist" by more than one person.

Not to mention "a reactionary blowhard".

Ok...that's what happens on political message boards. "Cheap shots" are as common as spelling mistakes.

I have a "thick skin" and I can "take it". But I hope that readers of these discussions will see clearly what is taking place. It's not really a "rational discussion" at all, but rather an effort to "make me look bad" -- and, by inference, make my harsh criticisms of 20th century Leninism also "look bad".

I think most people on this board are sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable to see through that.


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)There is little known study, if any, about the reasons for rape and murder. What causes someone to rape? What causes someone to murder?[/b]

Quite true. But the implication of this is that "if we knew the causes" then what?

Would there turn out to be "techniques" that we could use to "stop murder or rape" before it happened?

That would be nice.

But until that happens, what are we to do?

Would anyone suggest that having discovered "the real causes" of murder or rape, we "should" therefore permit people to do that?


What if rapists are a victim of society?

What if "Hitler's willing executioners" were "victims" of traditional German child-raising practices?

What if Hitler himself was a "victim" of a violently abusive childhood?

You know that French saying: To understand all is to forgive all.

I disagree. :angry:


But surely being progressive is discovering the answer and dealing with it in a way that all human beings can have, at least, the potential to belong to a communist society? Even if they're not true, surely rehabilitation is a far better way of dealing the problem.

There are presently no known "rehabilitation" techniques that are 100% successful.

If some are discovered in the future, then that's ok with me...as I've said before. (!)

But remember, they have to work 100% of the time.

Otherwise, you're "rolling the dice" on the fate of potential future victims of rape or murder.


Simply putting a bullet in the back of a head of someone may bring down virtual statistics in ridding the world of these actions, but it isn't dealing with the problem.

It seems to me that steadily lowering the frequency of those horrible acts is "dealing with the problem".

In fact, outside of what I have proposed, there is "no other known way" of "dealing with the problem" except prisons.

So you have a choice and one that is essentially unavoidable: do you envision a communist society with prisons OR with capital punishment for violent crimes against persons?


Also, if a communist society employed the death penalty for murderers and rapists, who would enforce it? Who would decide whether or not the person was guilty? Presumably you would attempt to resolve that matter before taking away someone’s life? How would that process operate? Would we have a judge, a jury, lawyers etc?

I've already discussed those matters here...

Crime & Punishment--Some Brief Notes on Communist Justice (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083339099&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Crime and Punishment -- Part 2 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1121179164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Many older people are stuck with prejudicial ways of dealing with situations.

Don't I know it! In fact, I've said the same thing about some of the defenders of "dialectics" on this board.

Advancing age is indeed a common liability in political thought -- look at Castro's servile fawning over Catholicism!

Nevertheless, age does involve the accumulation of experience...and sometimes "us old guys" get it right.

The merits of the arguments remain decisive...not the age of the person who makes them.


I wouldn’t want an admin to have the opinion that drug addicts should be locked away.

My long-standing opposition to "left" neo-puritanism is a matter of public record on this board.

"Left" Drug Wars (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1116694321&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

"Left" Prohibitionism -- Dreams of Redemption (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1087696652&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Or, if you'd like something more recent, look at this thread...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43224

I was the one who edited the subtitle of this thread...much to the distress of its author.


There will always be another rapist, to take the place of the person you executed.

In other words, the "supply" of rapists is "elastic"...it "expands" in accordance with "a hidden law" that says "there must be" X number of rapes every year.

If we execute a rapist, a "new one" will automatically "emerge" to "take his place".

What should we call this hitherto overlooked sociological phenomenon?

TAT's Law?


How about the community maintaining a secured hospital unit where the rapist or murderer undergoes scientific examinations, psychological counseling and education. Why don't we try and understand why the rapists rape?

Well, it's an "interesting" (if "resource intensive") scientific problem. And as long as it really was "secure", I see no problem with your proposal.

But does it really matter? That is, suppose we accumulated a body of verified scientific knowledge about "why murderers murder" and "why rapists rape", how would that help?

Do you think there's a "cure" awaiting discovery?

You might be right...at this point no one knows.

But it's going to cost a lot more (in time, energy, and resources) than a bullet in the back of the head...and being a "lab rat" may turn out to be just as unpleasant as being a prisoner.

So...


I mean, prison is shit, but it's probably more preferable to most people than death.

This seems to be a fundamental difference between myself and my critics.

They "choose life" even under the most horrible conditions...whereas I think degradation below a certain level is indeed worse than death.

I think that this is a "gut difference"...not subject to rational argument in the usual sense.

I do recall reading once that some Spanish anarchists shared my outlook. They thought that imprisoning another human -- taking away their autonomy -- was a truly abominable thing to do...compared to which execution was a humanitarian act.

Those of you who think that prison is "better" than death may want to reconsider the matter.


If we are going to talk about consciously taking the life of someone else for consciously taking the life of someone else, how do you justify this obvious contradiction?

To defend our personal safety, of course.

Why do you think that all human societies prohibit murder and punish those who get caught at it?

Because a society that permitted random murders could not function. Everyone would live in constant fear of being murdered...and would accordingly devote a wildly disproportionate share of their resources and productivity to self-protection.

Indeed, very little productive labor would probably take place at all!

Thus all the invented "gods" proclaim: Thou shalt not kill! -- understanding that this injunction applies to members of one's own society, of course. Killing people in neighboring societies is "ok" with the "gods".


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
RedStar's position is that in communist society we should be executing rapists. He holds this position because he thinks 'rape' is a natural aspect of some men, like blue eyes or big feet.

The genes for "blue eyes" or "big feet" are inherited from one's parents.

No one has demonstrated (to my knowledge) that the "propensity to rape or murder" "runs in families".

So your "summary" of what I "think" is totally wrong...as it has been since this controversy began.

You are the only one who knows your real motives for this deliberate and on-going distortion of my views.

But "old cynic" that I "am", I assume the worst. :angry:

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

[YKTMX]

Did you mean to repeat that slur against me (which I have already rebutted), or was it simply an accident?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)...and it's right now you're talking about isn't it? Or at least that's the implication.[/b]

The attentive reader will note one of the problems I have with my critics...they simply will not read what I actually write.

I say that communist society should execute all persons who commit crimes of violence against people.

They find this such an "outrageous" thing to say that they immediately move my recommendation "back to the present".

And suddenly I am "converted" into a "disciple" of Rush Limbaugh or some other semi-fascist defender of property against the "rabble".

And consequently they can rise up in righteous indignation and denounce this "reactionary" in their midst. :lol:

So I must repeat for the Nth time: the on-going debate among the supporters of capitalism about the merits of capital punishment is not relevant to this discussion.

We have "no role to play" in that debate and certainly no "seat at their table" where they make their decisions.

Those who think that at the present time the death penalty is simply "unjustifiable under any circumstances" are free to "campaign" for that point of view.

For my part, I will be neutral...though I may express occasional skepticism that a lifetime spent in a capitalist gulag is the "humane alternative" to the death penalty.

It seems to me self-evident that people in prison suffer far more than people who are quickly and painlessly executed. The accounts of prison life -- actually written by ex-prisoners -- that I have read make it clear that contemporary prisons are truly hellish to a degree that would likely horrify anyone who's never been in one.

And yes, if I were faced with the prospect of imminent imprisonment right now, I would certainly prefer death. Which I would suffer soon enough anyway...since I am an old man who would physically be unable to survive the rigors of prison "life".

Indeed, my critics have continually failed to grasp the obvious: prison is execution by centimeters.

You are still "taking life"...only you're executing the prisoner "one day at a time".

You think this is "humane"...even now at this moment in capitalist gulags.

Astonishing! :o


You cannot compare rape to Nazism or Hitler. The comparison doesn't fit because they're two different examples of sociopathy.

They are two different examples of the same thing -- a sociopathic attitude towards other humans.

Of course the phenomenon of Nazism is indeed complex and involves a host of "big questions", complex economic, political, and ideological factors, etc., etc., etc.

But what is the difference, really, between the Nazi stormtrooper who enjoys driving his fist into the face of a helpless old Jew and your average rapist who enjoys the fear and terror of his victim?

I think my comparison was most appropriate and that the readers of this thread will find it difficult to disagree.


I don't see what relevance this fact has in showing that rehabilitation is or is not preferable than executing someone.

Is it not obvious? If your "rehabilitation technique" does not work 100% of the time, then, sooner or later, you will release a murderer or rapist into the community who will murder or rape again!

And that blood is on your head.

Would you want that???


Executing someone, just like throwing people in prison, does not stop the crime from existing.

I did not suggest anything so absurd...nor has anyone else to my knowledge.

It stretches credibility to suggest that any human society will ever exist that will be "100% free" of violent crime.

What I am concerned with, as I have repeatedly stated, is reducing the frequency of violent crime in communist society.

A dead murderer or rapist cannot "do it again". The frequency of violent crime must therefore decline.

Unless you still want to argue that the falling numbers of violent crimes will "provoke" an unanticipated response in civilized people...

Hey, the numbers are dropping too low, I'd better get out there and kill or rape someone this weekend and help get those numbers back up to where they ought to be.


It's not at all as binary as that, and your attempt to make it seems so is most likely through an inability to move beyond convention. It's quite a normal trait in reactionaries.

One of the responses of my critics lately has been the attempt to pin the "reactionary" tag on me...as if by repeating it often enough, people "will believe it".

You'd imagine that if there were any substance to this slander, they'd forthwith start a poll in the Commie Club to restrict me to Opposing Ideologies. :lol:

Well, they tried to get me recalled from being an administrator of this board...and lost by a 3-1 margin! :)

Most people on this board do not and will not think of me as a "reactionary"...no matter how many times you "say it".

As to your assertion that "it's not at all as binary as that" (executions or prisons), I disagree.


Securing people in hospitals in an attempt to find a cure/rehabilitate, to study and to learn from these people is the middle ground, and far more productive and time/resource effective.

Possibly.

Nevertheless, I caution you to remember that "names" are not "things". In capitalist societies, plenty of places were called "hospitals" that were just as hellish as prisons.

Only a half-century or so ago, "mental patients" were routinely tortured with what was called electro-shock "therapy".

I don't think that it was all that long ago (and might even still be happening!) that Christian "doctors" were trying to "cure homosexuality" by giving painful electric shocks to gay men each time they became sexually aroused by looking at gay porn.

I think the masses in communist society would be well advised to keep a very close eye on your "hospital".

You may begin with "good intentions"...but the people should know "how things are working out".


But, if we look around the world at countries like Iran who exist on Sharia law, Liberia and other African countries or even the U.S., who I also think have the death penalty for certain cases of rape and murder, we can clearly see that executing people does not negate the problem or even mildly protect us from it.

The data from class societies is irrelevant to this discussion.

Violent crime in class societies is, to an unknown degree, caused by the very existence of classes. Whether a class society executes murderers, puts them in hellhole prisons until they're just too old and broken to be able to murder again, or both is unlikely to make much difference because, at the same time, class society in its normal functioning is creating new murderers in substantial numbers.

In fact, the historical rule seems to be that the more primitive a class society is, the more violent it is.

As much as modern rightists like to piss and moan about violent crime, the fact seems to be that 19th century America was more violent than 20th century America, and 18th century America was more violent than 19th century America, and so on.

Nor do I think this is an "American exception". From what I've read about London, 19th century violent crime there was far more common than in the 20th century, and 18th more than 19th, 17th more than 18th, etc., etc.

The countries that currently suffer the rigors of "Islamic Law" are, of course, far more primitive forms of class society than the ones we live under...and accordingly far more violent.


I mean, each country has laws against rape that will land you in prison if caught, and, if as you say prison is worse than death, why is it that people still rape. Why is it that these deterrents have never worked?

Well, you might ask yourself how many more rapes would take place if rape were perfectly legal? :o

"Deterrence", however, does not form part of my argument. I have no idea (nor does anyone else!) if "deterrence" actually works in reducing crimes of violence.

And even if it does "work", what "kind" of "deterrence" works "best"?

For example, I think that as long as we live in class society still heavily influenced by many patriarchal attitudes, it would be an excellent "deterrence" to rape if every woman was armed.

If every man contemplating the "rape option" knew that "his life was on the line"...I think there'd be far fewer rapes, attempted or successful.

Of course, we don't want a society in which everyone must go around armed and "ready to kill"...in fact, we want the exact opposite of such a society.

We want to live in a society in which any kind of violent physical attack on the autonomy of another person is "unthinkable"...perhaps regarded in the same way that we now regard "human sacrifice" or cannibalism.

But while we live in class society, our "choices" are very limited indeed. I think it is "better" if women kill their rapists "on the spot" than to await the dubious outcome of a bloated and sclerotic "criminal justice" system.

I think that would "deter" more rapes than any number of "laws" or "official punishments".


Once we know why it happens we can attack the root cause of it.

Yes, be it medical or social.

Precisely, and if we execute everyone, we'll never find out.

Very well, then how about this modification to my proposal?

Comrades of the jury, do you demand execution or do you remand this asshole to the TAT Memorial Hospital for the study of the causes of rape?

And the people will decide.

You do understand that the rape victim herself will be in front of that jury, possibly demanding execution "as a matter of simple justice".

So you (or someone with your views) will have to be there and explain why "learning the causes" is "more important" than vengeance.

I don't envy you that task.


I think you can make an objective study on how people would answer if you said: "death" or "prison."

Yes, but I don't want a society with prisons or the whole apparatus (fascist guards, etc.) required to carry that out.

Nor do the expressed preferences of convicted murderers and rapists "carry any weight" with me.


I've heard this justification many times and never really understood how it's justifiable?

Would you prefer to live in fear? To be afraid all the time?

I don't know...perhaps you are a large and intimidating fellow that "no one wants to fuck with". You can "go anywhere" and "do anything" in the confidence that anyone who tries to fuck with you is going to end up as a greasy smear on the sidewalk.

Most of us don't have that advantage...and half of us are female.

Are we not entitled to live our lives without fear of violent attacks on our personal autonomy?

I think we are...and if it is necessary to kill those who have failed to respect our personal autonomy and integrity, then I say we have every right to do so.


Can you actually prove that it's defending our "personal safety"?

Only by inference, obviously. You yourself admitted that my proposals would reduce the amount of violent crime in a communist society...thus increasing our personal safety.

If someone else someday comes up with a technology that would completely eliminate violent crimes, that would be wonderful.

We wouldn't have to kill anyone because no one would ever do those things.

But suggesting that this is an "inevitable" accomplishment that will "necessarily" happen is not credible to me at this time.

If my skepticism makes me a "reactionary" in your eyes or the eyes of all my other critics, then so be it!


RevolverNo9
I have no idea quite how old RedStar is, but at a guess, he still can't quite shake off that queezy nostalgia for the 1920s...

Most amusing. :lol:

Well, my very young friend, as I was not born until 1942, I have no first-hand knowledge of the "roaring 20s"...though you are the first person I have ever heard suggest that it was a time "when women could walk safe at night".

It was the "era" of prohibition...and thus featured the "gang wars" characteristic of our own era right now.

Working class women (especially women of color) were probably less safe than they are now.

I don't deny that I am guilty of "nostalgia"...it's something that all but the very youngest of humans experience. But what I remember "with rose-colored glasses" is the 1960s -- a period which, in many ways, was much more "rebellious" than the present day.

But, believe it or not, I am not nor do I wish to "play the age card" in this or any discussion. It was raised by TAT...and I think quite unjustifiably so.

I repeat: what counts are the merits of an argument...not the age of the person who raises it.

I don't see how anyone could seriously dispute this.


The other thing that disturbs me is the uncompromising nature of imposition on the will of other individuals!

Well, you have to remember that the violent criminal imposed his will on his victim in a most uncompromising fashion.

Once you do that, then what right do you have to take refuge in the shelter of "your individual will"?

You've already demonstrated in practice that you don't give a rat's ass about the autonomy or integrity of others.

Having done so, you forfeit any "right" to have your own "individual will" taken into consideration.

What the non-violent overwhelming majority will consider is how best to protect themselves from "your individual will".

And I will cheerfully advocate that they should shoot your sorry ass at once. It's cheap, quick, and humane.

No doubt you would prefer a short sentence in a reasonably comfortable prison where, with luck, you could find a smaller, weaker prisoner to rape or murder as your "individual will" might dictate.

Tough shit! :angry:


Since RedStar himself seems to admit... that these few individuals are ill, would it not be far more rational to treat them as such?

It would...if we had a cure and, moreover, one that always worked.

We don't have that now. So what will you do?

Lock them up "for life" in a prison? With a sign on the prison gate that says "hospital"?

"Treat" them with the "cures" that you think "might work" and then release them?

And what will you say to people when one of your "cured" patients rapes or murders again?

Whoops! I guess we messed up on that one. Well, nobody's perfect. *shrugs*

Perhaps you imagine that the victim, the victim's family and friends, will all take great consolation from your sincere expressions of remorse.

Or maybe they'll just grab a rope and come looking for you! :angry:

And if they catch you and give you a fatal dose of revolutionary justice, I will not be slow to vote "justifiable homicide" at their trial.

So consider your options carefully. :)

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

[coda]

Hey, That's a pretty good idea! If there's a volunteer pool of people sympatico and forgiving of the murderers inclination to murder and of their disregard of human life-- than that pool of people can offer themselves up as willing victims, --and the murderers, when the urge comes on, can simply be directed their way for butchering! That way, .. the people who are outraged and offended by the murderers taking the life of innocent unwilling participants can be alleviated of the transgression and the suffereing that would ensue from it happening to them and their family.

Thus.. everyone will be satisfied. The murderer will be satisfied in his urge for bloodletting; the pool of willing volunteers, lenient lambs to the slaughter, will be helping them out, (think community service) and the people who are outraged and offended by the murderer taking innocent life will be eliminated for consideration and continue on their merry way in life.

good all settled then.

[DaCuBaN]

The death penalty is not inhumane - the principle of punishment is the problem - until we can offer succesful rehabilitation of course, people (myself included) simply cannot think of an alternative to the problem of crime, most notably in the form of violence.


If your "rehabilitation technique" does not work 100% of the time, then, sooner or later, you will release a murderer or rapist into the community who will murder or rape again!

This is undoubtably true, yet we cannot summarily execute each and every violent criminal we "bust" - else we'll never succeed in developing rehabilitation techniques. You're right - to do so we're taking a gamble on the security of our abode. To be honest, can we do it any other way?

I have a friend who stabbed someone with a screwdriver in a dark alley at 3am - should he have been summarily executed for this in a communist society? There were mitigating circumstances - ecstacy, cocaine, alcohol and weed to name just a few - but nevertheless he was conscious enough to understand what he was doing and compassionate enough to regret enourmously his actions and turn himself in once sobered up.

As you say, encarceration is execution by inches - torture even - and as such cannot be deemed a humane alternative (the guillotine is very humane, for example, as is a lethal injection or a bullet to the head whereas I have been informed by the aforementioned friend to avoid prison at all costs) to execution, but to take their life is to also put their blood on your hands - and to remove any possibility that they could become a fruitful member of society.

We're all human, we all make mistakes and execution, whilst more humane, is a final punishment. Whilst it is evidently necessary for cases of serial rape or murder we must "risk it" in at least the first instance or else our emancipation would be pointless.

[redstar2000]

I am at a complete loss to explain how this portion of a thread has "reappeared" out of "nowhere".

In any event, here is pretty much "everything" I have to say on the subject...

Crime and Punishment -- Part 3 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1135171298&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Originally posted by DaCuBaN
I have a friend who stabbed someone with a screwdriver in a dark alley at 3am - should he have been summarily executed for this in a communist society? There were mitigating circumstances - ecstacy, cocaine, alcohol and weed to name just a few - but nevertheless he was conscious enough to understand what he was doing and compassionate enough to regret enourmously his actions and turn himself in once sobered up.

Yes, I think he would be executed.

No one wants to have the task of following this guy around and "making sure" that he doesn't do any drugs and "therefore" won't be stabbing any more people.

Therefore, communist society is just better off without his sorry ass.

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

[DaCuBaN]

Thanks for the link, that's running through the printer now and will be my "bed-time reading" tonight. For your info, you linked this thread from another on the subject talked about more recently. This discussion was far more interesting. :)


No one wants to have the task of following this guy around and "making sure" that he doesn't do any drugs and "therefore" won't be stabbing any more people.

I can't help but think of the famous line He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
I'd drop everything, and I'm sure I'm not alone, to try and help someone who fully understood and showed remorse for their actions - as in the case of this individual - and would be willing to risk my own life to do so.

I'd do it for you and for anyone else I met - I feel you sorely underestimate the strength of compassion.