Please Reply!

[STN]

Hey Everyone,
If you read this, please reply.

In a communist society with no police. How would crime be handled? Is there Jail?

[hamperleft]

uhhhh, who said there wouldn't be police, or at least someone to keep order, even in an ideal socioty their are still going to be those who will take unfair advantage of everyone else.

[Lamanov]

There will be no police, for police is a state institution.

There will probably be a militia, people, in turns armed by community who's task is to take care of safety of the people, and to handle violent or damaging behavior unaccepted by the same community.

[hamperleft]

but who controls the militia if it gets out of hand? with a militia, some members of society would wield more power than the others, thus establishing their own class.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:15 PM
but who controls the militia if it gets out of hand? with a militia, some members of society would wield more power than the others, thus establishing their own class.
Anyone would be free to leave or join the militia as they pleased.

[hamperleft]

well, ideally, but, within the militia, who controls it. What if the militia become corrupt?

If other malitias form to combat the first corrupt malitia, street violance erupts, who will come to stop it? more malitias? in the end it will just turn into basicly a gang war. Each seperate malitia battiling eachother, for their ideals. An overall authority needs to be established, one wich people will respect.

[Social Greenman]

I believe there would have to be a universal code of conduct for a voluntary melita. Also, would there not be some form of universal justice say for assault or murder?

[hamperleft]

who would enforce that code of conduct?!!!


would there not be some form of universal justice say for assault or murder? What?!! universal justice? every one just decided this guy is guilty and beats him to death, every one needs the right to a fair trial, not just every one in his neighbor hood, you might be innocent, but your neighbors are prejuduced against you(for borowing their tools and not returning them) so, instead of listing to your side of the story, they just beat you to death? Sound like fun?

[Social Greenman]

hamperleft wrote:


who would enforce that code of conduct?!!!

I wrote>>would there not be some form of universal justice say for assault or murder?<<

What?&#33;&#33; universal justice? every one just decided this guy is guilty and beats him to death, every one needs the right to a fair trial, not just every one in his neighbor hood, you might be innocent, but your neighbors are prejuduced against you(for borowing their tools and not returning them) so, instead of listing to your side of the story, they just beat you to death? Sound like fun?

Pretty extreme sernerio don&#39;t you think? So, are you saying that a state rule is needed? People need to follow the rules of a heiarchy to enforce laws, say, like under capitalism? So in effect, rulers are needed but rulers need the state to enforce their laws which are written in their favor and whatever justice the masses recieve are secondary. You are thinking of norms that are experienced today rather than what the norms could be in a future cooperative society. We just can&#39;t assume your senerio will be the norm. On the other hand, we don&#39;t know what the future society will look like or what the social norms would be.

[C_Rasmussen]

Erm I could see having a militia for stuff like going around smashing people up with baseball bats and mass vandalism but how would the everyday run of the mill fight between a couple teens be handled because I highly doubt a militia would be needed for that?

[hamperleft]

yea, it is pretty extreme, but possible, absolute communism, i don&#39;t think is entirely possible, there needs to be some sort of higher-archy, other wise the people will simply do what they want and take advantage of the situation. However, that control needs to be limited, and very little, just enough to keep order without forcing, ideals, or taking away from the populace.


how would the everyday run of the mill fight between a couple teens be handled because I highly doubt a militia would be needed for that? Exactly, need some sort of judicial system, other wise some guy just goes around dealing street justice with a bat. Although, that might work, but then he would wield more power than others, bla bla bla

[LSD]

there needs to be some sort of higher-archy

No there does not&#33;

"Higher-archy" is entirely incompatible with communism.

A classless stateless society is just that, classless. Once you begin assigning "special powers" on a perminent or semi-permiment basis, you undermine the foundations of the society.

It is, unfortunately, inevitable that certain responsibilities will require special skills and hence nescessitate the granting of local authorities, but these cases must be reduced to an absolute minimum.

Certainly, in the first few years of post-revolutionary society, there will be a lot of formative and redistributive work to be done and it is unlikely that such tasks will be able to be accomplished without a, temporary, bureacratic establishment.

But we must labour to eliminate this establishment at the first possible chance.

Certainly, we should not endeavour to integrate it into long-term societal planning. That is, our model for post-revolutionary society cannot include distinct classes or "higher ups".

That road leads to only one destination: failure.


Exactly, need some sort of judicial system

Absolutely, but a judicial system does not imply hierarchy.

Criminal trials can be conducted without the need for a professional class of lawyers, judges, and bureaucrats.

Large civilian juries can be impaneled, their size and composition dependent on the specific case and decided based on communal rules approved by the society. These juries can then be presented by all available evidence relevent to the situation, collected by interested parties and experts in the particular field.

The specific details will have to be worked out, of course, but the basic idea is quite practical. Despite republican rhetoric, there is no need for "leaders" to "protect us from ourselves" and the absence of a government will not reduce us to "chaos".

We are more than capable of ruling ourselves&#33;

[L-DePiazza]

Revenge is a very natural human response to all types of wrong doings comitted against us. There must always be some form of system and higher authority to deal with crimes, otherwise chaos would erupt. I don&#39;t think any of us is naiive enough to imagine we can create a society void of negative behaviour. Nor could we imagine eliminating such behaviour without an official body governing it.

[STABD]

Crime for the most part is caused my hierarchal society. I wont get into this to deep but take for example theft and rape. Theft only happens when needs are not met and there are people that have and people that don’t, rape is used to feel power, this need for power wont exist out side hierarchal society. Of course every now and then some one might do something mean to some one or drive recklessly, then he will be one guy with 2000 people wanting him brought to justice. Then of course knowing that he will not be harmed most likely will go willingly and be rehabilitated appropriately. Thus, no need for master to protect us from are self’s.

[LSD]

Revenge is a very natural human response to all types of wrong doings comitted against us.

True enough and yet, even in this, very imperfect, society we manage to restrain that impulse.

The reason that we do not seek personal retribution and allow the "justice" system to operate is not that we are "afraid" to go out and do it ourselves, but rather that we recognize that we shouldn&#39;t do it ourselves.

I mean, really, are you honestly telling me that the only reason that you aren&#39;t out on the street "seeing revenge" right now is because of fear of the police?

Well, if so, I&#39;ve got good news&#33; :)

Realistically, if you&#39;re careful, your chance of being successfuly caught and convicted is somewhere around 17%&#33; So have a ball and go kick some retributive ass&#33;

...or if, on the other hand, you are restrained by your basic human decency and not a fear of handguns, you can stay where you are and we can continue this conversation.

Obviously, I can&#39;t speak into which of the above categories you fall, but statistically speaking, you&#39;re much more likely to fall into the latter.

If you log in again and respond to this post, I will take that as a confirmation of this. After all, if your sole deterrent from vigilante justice was the fear of prison, I&#39;m sure you&#39;d be too busy watching taped episodes of CSI and refining your criminal mind to post here.


There must always be some form of system and higher authority to deal with crimes, otherwise chaos would erupt.

System, yes, but "higher authority"?

A judicial system does not need a hierarchy to function. On the contrary, no system can be "just" if it exists within a socioeconomic paradigm predicated on inequality and power disparity.

As long as some group, be it political, economic, or bureaucratic, exerts more authority than others, no system of justice can possible compensate for the inherent unequal dynamic.

A "judge" will never be as subject to "the law" as a civilian is, nor would any honest one claim that they would be. Professional classes are just as elite as economic ones, albeit often a whole lot more subtle about it.

You want to "deal with" criminal behaviour, which is a perfectly reasonable and laudable goal, but your means of doing so is to create "hierarchy", an implicitly criminal entity all in itself.

After all, crime is not just about "the law", it&#39;s about reason. The "laws" of the PRC, for instance, are objectively and rationaly wrong, regardless of whether they&#39;re written in the lawbooks or not.

And to state that the CCP is incapable of criminal behavious by virtue of it being the law-writing body is political naivity at its worst.

Criminal behaviour is that behaviour which harms other people, no matter what the "official" position on such behaviour is. Accordingly, hierarchy in and of itself is a form of criminality, and purposefuly creating in order to "fight crime" is not only counter-productive, but ultimately self-defeating.

It is hypocrisy of the highest order to advocate that which one is attempting to "fight".


I don&#39;t think any of us is naiive enough to imagine we can create a society void of negative behaviour.

No, but we can certainly minimize it.

The vast majority of crimes today are crimes against property or crimes due to property.

Eliminating oppression will certainly go a long way in making crime much, much less likely to occur.

That&#39;s a start.


Nor could we imagine eliminating such behaviour without an official body governing it.

The only "governing body" required is society.

A group that is, again, quite capable of regulating itself without any aid from our "betters".

[LSD]

It refers to Canada, and I don&#39;t quite remember where the number comes from, I think it might have been the Frasier Institute or some other conservative think tank.

The exact number doesn&#39;t matter though. The point is that, although the fear of being caught is certainly a factor in detering crime, most intelligent people realize that it&#39;s quite easy to get away with petty crimes.

Despite this, though, most people are generally respectful of eachother and do not engage in antisocial behaviour.

In other words, it&#39;s not about the police, it&#39;s about people.

[Zak]

LSD you talk about the basic human tendency towards justice, but don&#39;t you also think there is a basic human tendancy towards leadership? People like to have someone to look up to, someone for guidance, and either intentionaly or unintentionaly, these people become leaders. Look at the respect Che gets here. Look at the respect and authority this board lends to Marx. People like this would emerge in a comunist society and would naturual draw a seperate and distinct attitude from other people and would thus be in a different class. How can this tendency be overcome?

[loveme4whoiam]

I would .say that that is a learned behaviour; we grow up looking to other people for guidance, it&#39;s only natural that we would continue to do so later on in life. If you are taught, from a young age, that what you desire matters and that you can make it happen, looking for leadership would be less of an instinctive reaction.

Of course, I&#39;d look for guidance and information from everywhere in a Communist socety, but in the end I would make up my own mind. For example, to use the crime example, as a jurer I would hear evidence from forensic people saying that "X" is guilty of whatever. Is this leadership? Nope ^_^.

The tendancy towards leaders would decline as people realise that they can influence every part of their lives,
and do not need someone above them to tell them what to do.

[JKP]

Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct -- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one&#39;s happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own."

Continued:
http://infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:34 AM
Hey Everyone,
If you read this, please reply.

In a communist society with no police. How would crime be handled? Is there Jail?
"In a communist society with no police. How would crime be handled?"

First of all. The police have never solved crime ever. There is no police solutions to crime at all. The police is just a huge waste of resources.


"Is there Jail?"

No, jail is proved useless. There is no rational arguments for keeping jail.
The norweigian professor Thomas Mathiesen concluded this in 1988 in his book "Prison on trial".