Dealing with criminals and oppressors...

[Cheung Mo]

(Reposted from the "Socialism and Pronography" topic.)

In my opinion, pedophilia is a dangerous enough mental illness to society that those who suffer from it severely enough to act upon it need institutionalisation until they recover. (Understand that this is not a life sentence: Approaching pedophilia as a mental illness will allow us to assess it rationally rather than emotionally, thus facilitating research on psychiatric treatments and drugs that can cure or completely suppress it.)

That being said, I oppose any sort of castration (A punishment suggested by many law-and-order types for pedophiles.): Humans are too falliable for irreversible punishments to be just. So when I say things like "I support the mass execution of the Royal Nepal Army," I am acting out of anger and frustration. Strictly speaking, I do not have a problem with the fact that execution kills (When it comes to things like the RNA, Nazi war criminals, or those Jamaican mobs who lynch homosexuals because Pastor Fundiefucktard or some worthless reggae star told them to, I certainly believe that the fuckers don't deserve to be among the living wasting oxygen and contributing to the overpopulation crisis. Those who inflict that level of oppression among the innocent have been stripped -- in my mind -- of their humanity and all of the rights and privileges that go along. To put it more succintly, I believe these "people" and those like them deserve to die, but I do not support actually killing them on the off chance that they may be innocent.): I merely have a problem with irreversibly punishing innocent women and men no matter how evil or how well-proven their alleged crimes may be.

[FinnMacCool]

People who are mentally deranged cannot be reformed, they need to be treated. Killing them is no good and I don't believe in the death penalty anyways because its reactionary and sadistic.

[DecemberOfMe]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 26 2006, 01:46 AM
In my opinion, pedophilia is a dangerous enough mental illness to society that those who suffer from it severely enough to act upon it need institutionalisation until they recover. (Understand that this is not a life sentence: Approaching pedophilia as a mental illness will allow us to assess it rationally rather than emotionally, thus facilitating research on psychiatric treatments and drugs that can cure or completely suppress it.)
Pedophilia is indeed a dangerous mental illnes to society. And those who suffer from it should be locked up for the rest of their lives. Or even killed.

[Taboo Tongue]

Originally posted by Chueng Mo+--> (Chueng Mo)pedophilia is a dangerous enough mental illness to society that those who suffer from it severely enough to act upon it need institutionalisation until they recover.[/b]
I'd be in favor of that BEFORE they acted upon it (on a voluntary basis).


Originally posted by Chueng Mo+--> (Chueng Mo) 'I support the mass execution of the Royal Nepal Army,' I am acting out of anger and frustration. Strictly speaking, I do not have a problem with the fact that execution kills[/b]
Do you think that the (unconsentual) victims of sexual abuse and the victims friends\family aren't acting out of "anger" and "frustration" when they want the abuser shot?


Chueng [email protected]
I believe these "people" and those like them deserve to die, but I do not support actually killing them on the off chance that they may be innocent.
You're right under the current 'Justice' system man people are given very poor sentences, and many cases are unfair, making the death penalty kinda if-y. But that's here and now, not neccesarly in the future.


Chueng Mo
I merely have a problem with irreversibly punishing innocent women and men no matter how evil or how well-proven their alleged crimes may be.
(Assuming Justice System X (the one the abuser is under) is well... just)
They're not innocent They've been prooven guilty. I say death to all rapist, and most murderers.

I do agree with you that casteration is 'not' a good answer, and that Nazi etc. should be shot.

[redstar2000]

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

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

[Cult of Reason]

Redstar2000, I have not read all of your link, but should I assume that the swift action you advocate does not apply to "crimes of passion"? I would hope that that assumption would be correct.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Moved to theory: I thought that this is where threads like this normally went..unless of course it is about ethics around certain punishments.

Anyway, on to the topic. I would definitely suggest reading the pedophillia thread in discrimination, I will edit a link in a bit.

I agree that in most cases permanant punishment is neither justified, nor is it the most effective. I would opt for prevention to the nth term, and treating the remaining cases medically, which is possibly how they should be considered under such a circumstance.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 09:30 AM
Redstar2000, I have not read all of your link, but should I assume that the swift action you advocate does not apply to "crimes of passion"? I would hope that that assumption would be correct.
Why should it not?

I'm assuming you're using the "French" definition of "crimes of passion"; murder of someone with whom you've been sexually intimate.

Sexual intercourse is not a "license to murder"...although it was for many years under French law.

People are not property...you cannot "own them" or the "right" to "exclusive sexual access" to them.

Nor will you be permitted to murder them because your feelings are hurt.

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

[Cult of Reason]

By "crime of passion" I mean: getting incensed enough that you kill someone when it is against your nature. Granted, it would probably happen less often than now (as things like wife-beating or similar would be rarer also), but it would probably happen every once in a while. There is a big difference between someone who commits a crime of passion and someone who kills multiple people in succession. Similarly, murdering someone while drunk is completely different from serial killing, as similarly to a crime of passion, your logical reasoning is compromised.

[piet11111]

a crime of passion ?

isn't that acting on impulse due to the shock of something the victim did ?

say a drunk pukes all over you and you hit him hard in the face (he falls and is fataly wounded)
or one of your children come home and are injured by someone (on accident or purpose) and you beat that person to death in your rage.

[PRC-UTE]

In a post revolutionary society where everyone's pretty much equal, what would compel someone to murder? They'd have to be a nutter right.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:04 AM
In a post revolutionary society where everyone's pretty much equal, what would compel someone to murder? They'd have to be a nutter right.
That's my opinion...though there are many who disagree.

Present-day law recognizes the concept of "manslaughter"...killing someone when it was not your intent to do so.

But I think we would severely limit that "defense" in communist society. If you launch a physical attack on someone and that person dies as a consequence, you are already in "deep shit".

You must convince a skeptical jury that your physical attack was "justified" in some fashion...and the argument that "I was drunk" or "I was high" ain't going to fly.

Communist society cannot spare the resources to appoint someone to follow you around the rest of your life to make sure you never get drunk or high again and then murder again...even by "accident".

Self-defense is the only really valid reason to kill another...and you'd better be able to support that line of argument.

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

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:34 AM
I don't believe in the death penalty anyways because its reactionary and sadistic.
what makes it reactionary anyway ?

and yes current methods of execution are indeed sadistic i prefer a clean shot to the back of the head.

i dont oppose the death penalty only the methods used.
also i dont feel the need to "rehabilitate" nazi's facists and the most vile elements of capitalism (politicians and the rich also military officers and royalty and religious leadership)

during the revolution there is no other way to deal with them.
but the mentally ill should indeed not be executed instead they should be used to further our understanding of their afflictions.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

If a murder or rape did happen, wouldn’t there be a certain amount of factionalism. Especially with an issue of killing due to self defense.

For example close relationships of the killer and the deceased would both be able to gain influence with the surrounding community or jury.

The result of punishment, for the guilty would be death, wouldn’t that lead to fierce conflict to the two groups?

Also, unpopular members of society might be at a disadvantage and even if they have done nothing wrong they will be screwed.

Also, with sexual crimes, personal reprisals might be common, again leaving a potentially innocent person at their wrath.

Its things like this that could tear a society apart.

I’m not disagreeing with the ideas of swift execution, but I would be very concerned about factions being created.

[redstar2000]

My sense of "life" in a communist society is that people would be extremely embarrassed by known association with a murderer or rapist...it would be as if you were known to be a coprophiliac.

If anything, you would be inclined to be "especially tough" on someone that you were known to be associated with who was accused of murder or rape...so as not to be thought "soft" on murder/rape yourself.

If one of your relatives did it, you might well change your name.

The possibility of "factionalism" over such crimes cannot ever be completely ruled out...but I think that having large Athenian-style juries (500 jurors) would deliver a substantial "sense of the community" position.

As to "unpopular members of society" -- at least as an identifiable "group" -- I don't see why they should even exist.

Except for those still identified as religious believers. Juries might be "quicker to convict" because people might feel that "there's nothing too low that a godsucker wouldn't do".

We've certainly seen plenty of that in our own time. :lol:

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

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:41 AM
My sense of "life" in a communist society is that people would be extremely embarrassed by known association with a murderer or rapist...it would be as if you were known to be a coprophiliac.
Especially if they were narcissists. I can't imagine, because I do not worry about such things.

But seriously, I'd like to take people's pulse in this forum of what sorts of laws there would be against acts which did not involve the imposition of will with violence or the threat of violence.

I for one enjoy lewdly pornographic artwork, mild organic intoxicants, witchcraft, and most of all: trespassing (to enjoy Nature mostly). This is also what I bring to the table as a contributor to society.

Peace!
David Bright Morning

[Nicky Scarfo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:11 PM
Crime and Punishment -- Part 3 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1135171298&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
This essay is based on the flawed belief that murderers are likely to murder again. In fact, murderers have the lowest recidivism rate of any category of criminal. Now certainly, there are certain types of murderers prone to recidivism (psychopaths, mass murderers, serial killers, rapists who kill their victims), but to assert that most murderers are likely to kill again is patently incorrect.

[piet11111]

This essay is based on the flawed belief that murderers are likely to murder again. In fact, murderers have the lowest recidivism rate of any category of criminal

nothing personal but can you back that up ?
its a subject im interested in and i would like to read the entire article.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Jesus Christ man, why you gonna make me do all the work? You can use google as well as I can.

1994 National BJS report: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rpr94pr.htm, and here http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

(apparently rapists have a low rate of recidvism as well according to that report, so I'll have to edit my post above accordingly)

2001 Report from Illinois DOC: http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/re...001/part2.shtml (http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/reports/statistical_presentation_2001/part2.shtml)

2004 Report from California DOC: http://www.cya.ca.gov/ReportsResearch/Offe...RECID2d2003.pdf (http://www.cya.ca.gov/ReportsResearch/OffenderInfoServices/Annual/RECID2/RECID2d2003.pdf)

Fuck around on the BJS website and you'll find more stuff.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
This essay is based on the flawed belief that murderers are likely to murder again.

No, that's not the premise.

The premise is that once one has murdered (or raped), one has demonstrated the capability of responding to circumstances in that fashion.

No matter how small the risk that you'll "do it again", it's a risk we have no legitimate reason to ask people to run.

The life of a murderer or rapist is not as valuable as the life of their potential new victim(s).

The view frequently expressed by my critics in that collection of posts -- "all life is equally precious" -- is, in my view, just "bleeding heart" liberalism.

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

[kurt]

This essay is based on the flawed belief that murderers are likely to murder again.

I don't think that's what it's based on at all. It seems to be based on the idea that a murderer has committed an abhorrible act, and by doing so has demonstrated the capability to do so again. It doesn't matter if there's only a 10% chance that they will commit murder again; what matters is the fact that you are putting people at an unnecessary risk.

What's more valuable, the life of a murderer, or the life of a non-murderer?

[Nicky Scarfo]

The premise is that once one has murdered (or raped), one has demonstrated the capability of responding to circumstances in that fashion.


Anybody has that capability. All the times you THOUGHT about bashing someone's head in, you may have been just a hair away from actually doing it. You didn't, but maybe had objective circumstances been just a tad different, you might have actually snapped and done it.


The life of a murderer or rapist is not as valuable as the life of their potential new victim(s).

Not necessarily. I've met some real pieces of shit in my time on this planet that never murdered or raped anyone. And I'm sure there are people out there that have murdered someone in a momentary fit of rage or in the commision of another crime who's lives are worth more than many of the scumbags I've met (law-abiding and otherwise) that never killed anyone.


The view frequently expressed by my critics in that collection of posts -- "all life is equally precious" -- is, in my view, just "bleeding heart" liberalism.

You'll notice I'm not arguing that at all. I'm not opposed to killing under any circumstances, nor do I regard all life as "equally precious" (as I think should be clear from reading the above paragraph), but I still think your beliefs on this subject are flawed.


What's more valuable, the life of a murderer, or the life of a non-murderer?

I dunno. Depends on the people and circumstances. All things being equal, I'd say the non-murderer, but all things are not equal. See my response to redstar two paragraphs above.

[Taboo Tongue]

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo+--> (Nicky Scarfo)
Originally posted by RedStar+--> (RedStar)The premise is that once one has murdered (or raped), one has demonstrated the capability of responding to circumstances in that fashion.[/b]
Anybody has that capability. All the times you THOUGHT about bashing someone's head in, you may have been just a hair away from actually doing it. You didn't, but maybe had objective circumstances been just a tad different, you might have actually snapped and done it.[/b]

Well I could walk in the other room and kill somone, but I don't, I'm not guilty of a wrong I didn't commit.

And yes I have thought about bashing somones head in and killing them, but I'm not guilty of a wrong I've only thought of.

I can come within just a hair away from killing somone, that that hair quite literally means the difference between life and death.

I currently don't posses the mental capability to kill somone, even if I posses the physical. And from what RedStar I have read he seems to use 'capability' in the sense of mental capability, and not just physical as it seems you do.



[email protected]

RedStar
The life of a murderer or rapist is not as valuable as the life of their potential new victim(s).

I've met some real pieces of shit in my time on this planet that never murdered or raped anyone. And I'm sure there are people out there that have murdered someone in a momentary fit of rage or in the commision of another crime who's lives are worth more than many of the scumbags I've met (law-abiding and otherwise) that never killed anyone.

Well hell law-abiding in this society means stealing millions from millions of workers.
But even Capitalist lives are worth more than a Rapist life to me. They're worth 0 opposed to -1.

[kurt]

Originally posted by Nicky [email protected] 27 2006, 06:59 PM



Anybody has that capability. All the times you THOUGHT about bashing someone's head in, you may have been just a hair away from actually doing it. You didn't, but maybe had objective circumstances been just a tad different, you might have actually snapped and done it.

In the sense that anybody could probably exercise enough force in order to kill someone, then yes anyone has the "capability". However, this is not the sort of capability that was mentioned. Murderers have demonstrated that they have the capability to let their violent thoughts manifest into physical force. There's a difference between being angry and actually killing someone.


Not necessarily. I've met some real pieces of shit in my time on this planet that never murdered or raped anyone. And I'm sure there are people out there that have murdered someone in a momentary fit of rage or in the commision of another crime who's lives are worth more than many of the scumbags I've met (law-abiding and otherwise) that never killed anyone.

I can't imagine the life of any non-murderer/rapist in a communist society being less valuable than an actual murderer. A "momentary" lapse in judgement which results in murder is a very serious thing, one not to be taken lightly. The moment someone has such a massive lapse in reason, they become less valuable.


I dunno. Depends on the people and circumstances. All things being equal, I'd say the non-murderer, but all things are not equal. See my response to redstar two paragraphs above.
People may be "assholes", but they are still more valuable than a demonstrated murderer.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Well I could walk in the other room and kill somone, but I don't, I'm not guilty of a wrong I didn't commit.

And yes I have thought about bashing somones head in and killing them, but I'm not guilty of a wrong I've only thought of.

I can come within just a hair away from killing somone, that that hair quite literally means the difference between life and death.

I currently don't posses the mental capability to kill somone, even if I posses the physical. And from what RedStar I have read he seems to use 'capability' in the sense of mental capability, and not just physical as it seems you do.



In the sense that anybody could probably exercise enough force in order to kill someone, then yes anyone has the "capability". However, this is not the sort of capability that was mentioned. Murderers have demonstrated that they have the capability to let their violent thoughts manifest into physical force. There's a difference between being angry and actually killing someone.

Youse guys are both missing the point. Anyone, and I mean anyone, is mentally capable of taking a life. I'm sure there are plenty of murderers out there that didn't really believe they'd ever cross that line. And I'm saying that all those times you thought about it, one or two little things different could have pushed you over that line whether you care to admit it or not. How psychologically different were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (or any other school shooters) from the millions of bullied school kids who fantasized about the same thing? I'd be willing to bet not much. I don't know what your experience has been but I've seen "ordinary" people snap before with violent consequences.


I can't imagine the life of any non-murderer/rapist in a communist society being less valuable than an actual murderer

You think communist society is gonna elminate total scumbags and assholes? Forget it-- a communist society can minimize those people's influence over the lives of others, but it cannot stop people from being shitbags.


People may be "assholes", but they are still more valuable than a demonstrated murderer.

No, not necessarily. I knew a guy who was on life parole for murder (just the one he'd been caught for, it was rumored he'd killed more under contract). Basically a decent guy except for the whole killing people for money thing. We'll call him Donny. Then let's compare him with a narcissistic, utterly selfish, misogynistic, verbally and emotionally abusive, racist, junkie thief we'll call Steve I once knew who made everyone around him miserable. A borderline sociopath at best, but he never killed or raped anyone.

If Donny was about to get hit by a car, I'd push him outta the way. If Steve was, I'd stand and watch and crack open a bottle of champagne afterwards. And that's comparing "Steve" to a reputed contract killer! To say nothing of the comparison to some guy who killed someone after hitting him over the head with a liquor bottle cause of a drunken argument over whatthefuckever.

Believe it or not there are people out there who aren't capitalists or their agents who do cause plenty more suffering and misery to those lives they touch than even some guy who murdered someone else in a fit of rage or while robbing a store. These law-abiding scumbags exist, as well as people who are basically decent human beings but one day crossed the line and iced someone.

And again, I feel compelled to state the contract killer or serial murderer compose a very small portion of murderers, who, out of all categories of criminals, are the ones least likely to re-offend.

So I assert that someone's "worth" as a human being is completely relative to the totality of their existence, and cannot be judged by one act alone, especially without giving consideration to the context. Again, anyone out there has the potential to cross that line at any time and whack someone. Even you.

[red team]

Self-defense is the only really valid reason to kill another...and you'd better be able to support that line of argument.

Not really, any person can get angry enough to be physical, but not be violent enough to murder.

Suppose some manipulative killer (criminal psychopath) intent on murdering you does it cooly so as to make it "seem" like self-defense. He doesn't like you and he wants you "rubbed out" so he provokes you and provokes you and believe me some people have a knack for pushing just the right buttons to get you all worked up. Finally, you shove him hard to blow off some steam and he falls over or fakes a dive. Now, he gets up and beats you to death. He's just got away with murder by claiming "self-defence". Not that there are genuine cases of self-defense when someone is intent on murdering you and you killed them before they got the chance.

In court: "Your honor, this violent person shoved me and I fell hard on the floor and broke my nose. I was seriously in fear of my life, so I killed him in self-defense".

[kurt]

Youse guys are both missing the point. Anyone, and I mean anyone, is mentally capable of taking a life. I'm sure there are plenty of murderers out there that didn't really believe they'd ever cross that line. And I'm saying that all those times you thought about it, one or two little things different could have pushed you over that line whether you care to admit it or not. How psychologically different were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (or any other school shooters) from the millions of bullied school kids who fantasized about the same thing?

I understand your point, but it is grossly mistaken. Regardless of the murderers not thinking they would ever cross the line, the fact remains: they did! Now, I'm not a psychologist, and I don't suspect you are one either, so it would be hard for us to know the "difference" in these two particular murderers and other "millions who fantasize". However, the only difference that actually matters is that these two individuals committed murder, whilst the others did no such thing.


You think communist society is gonna elminate total scumbags and assholes? Forget it-- a communist society can minimize those people's influence over the lives of others, but it cannot stop people from being shitbags.
Being an "asshole" or "scumbag" doesn't instantly make one worthy of death. But being a murderer does lower your value, significantly, to the point of being lower than any scumbag or asshole conceivable in communist society.


No, not necessarily. I knew a guy who was on life parole for murder (just the one he'd been caught for, it was rumored he'd killed more under contract). Basically a decent guy except for the whole killing people for money thing. We'll call him Donny. Then let's compare him with a narcissistic, utterly selfish, misogynistic, verbally and emotionally abusive, racist, junkie thief we'll call Steve I once knew who made everyone around him miserable. A borderline sociopath at best, but he never killed or raped anyone.
First off, the incentive for money is a capitalist incentive, not a communist one, and this is why I put the emphasis on "assholes in communism" in my earlier post. Also, a mysognistic, abusive, racist would also need to be "disposed of". The threat of violence, or act of violence is not tolerable in communism. PERIOD!



So I assert that someone's "worth" as a human being is completely relative to the totality of their existence, and cannot be judged by one act alone, especially without giving consideration to the context. Again, anyone out there has the potential to cross that line at any time and whack someone. Even you.
If I "cross the line" and "whack someone" in a way that was clearly unnecessary (i.e, not self-defence), then yes I would be worthy of death. Don't try to appeal to my emotions with "even you". Maybe your argument comes from the fear of you "crossing the line"? Don't think you can handle not killing someone?

[red team]

Umm, this statement:


Being an "asshole" or "scumbag" doesn't instantly make one worthy of death.

Directly contradicts this one:


Also, a mysognistic, abusive, racist would also need to be "disposed of".

Unless you want a subjective kangaroo court in which various cases of "crime" is judged differently according to the whims of the presiding judge which allows a wide-open door for abuse because now each case is subject to "interpretation", you better have something more objective in judging intent of criminal action and guilt.

[kurt]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 27 2006, 09:26 PM
Umm, this statement:


Being an "asshole" or "scumbag" doesn't instantly make one worthy of death.

Directly contradicts this one:


Also, a mysognistic, abusive, racist would also need to be "disposed of".

Unless you want a subjective kangaroo court in which various cases of "crime" is judged differently according to the whims of the presiding judge which allows a wide-open door for abuse because now each case is subject to "interpretation", you better have something more objective in judging intent of criminal action and guilt.
It's not a direct contradiction. An abusive racist is a violent person, and more than a scumbag or asshole.

[red team]

It's not a direct contradiction. An abusive racist is a violent person, and more than a scumbag or asshole.

In other words, someone with a quick temper who yells and insults people a lot, but never got beyond a bit of minor pushing and shoving (nothing which causes serious injury) should be judged the same as a professional assassin who kills people with premeditated intent? That sounds so subjective as to be wide-open for abuse by capricious "authorities".

Furthermore, why is it that racism is on the decline with more educated people? Ideas can only be combatted with other ideas. It's only when ideas is realized in action that you get violence and even then it's subjected to political value judgements. I think any justice system worthy of the name should render judgement only from objective codes of punishment based on objective evidence.

"Disposing of" someone simply because he's an scumbag is simply not objective. Who's to say who's an scumbag and who's not? The political leadership? So what happens if the leadership wants to get rid of you because they disagree with your ideas, but you never actually did anything causing death? Oh, of course, the political leadership (anarchist commune committee, party central committee) is infallible. :lol: There are no careerists pursuing political leadership? :lol:

Whether you want to admit it or not the weakness of subjective value judgements on somebody's ideas is that it is open to interpretation? Alright, then who's interpretation is "correct"? Your's or the accuser's?

[kurt]

Good job injecting your own words into my statements. I did not say "assholes" or "scumbags" should be disposed of.


In other words, someone with a quick temper who yells and insults people a lot, but never got beyond a bit of minor pushing and shoving (nothing which causes serious injury) should be judged the same as a professional assassin who kills people with premeditated intent? That sounds so subjective as to be wide-open for abuse by capricious "authorities".

Did I say that a little pushing and shoving constituted an abusive personality? No. Still, however, do you find the threat of violence, or the usage of it for coercion to be acceptable in a communist society? That's what we're asking here isn't it? What is acceptable, and what isn't?

[redstar2000]

Just as on the previous three occasions when this subject has come up, an astonishing number of people start trying to invent "excuses" for murder...for what reason I simply cannot imagine.

I mean, if capital punishment makes you "feel bad", don't volunteer for "execution duty".

No one is going to "make" you do it. :lol:


Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo+--> (Nicky Scarfo)You think communist society is gonna eliminate total scumbags and assholes? Forget it-- a communist society can minimize those people's influence over the lives of others, but it cannot stop people from being shitbags.[/b]

I made the same point during the previous discussion. Communism is not "heaven".

What we can do is eliminate "scumbags and assholes" when they attack other people.

We can reduce sharply the frequency of "asshole behavior"...even if it may never be entirely eliminated.

That seems to me like a reasonable and worthwhile goal.


So I assert that someone's "worth" as a human being is completely relative to the totality of their existence, and cannot be judged by one act alone, especially without giving consideration to the context.

Depends on what that "one act" is. Context is certainly relevant...but it's pretty narrow.

There's NO "legitimate context" for forcible rape, for example.

And a "self-defense" plea to a murder charge will be subject to very close scrutiny.


red team
Not really, any person can get angry enough to be physical, but not be violent enough to murder.

Caution is advised. I don't see why communist society should tolerate bullies...even if they "haven't killed anyone yet".

We have a right to live in a civilized society without fear of random violence on our persons.

Over time, we will do whatever it takes to secure that right.


Unless you want a subjective kangaroo court in which various cases of "crime" is judged differently according to the whims of the presiding judge...

No professional judges in communist society; just some ordinary person chosen by lottery.


Ideas can only be combated with other ideas.

No, not necessarily. The Japanese, for example, rather effectively snuffed out Christianity back in the 17th (or 18th) century by force. They simply killed everyone who professed Christianity until they couldn't find any more.

That was that.

Of course, there weren't that many to begin with. :D


I think any justice system worthy of the name should render judgment only from objective codes of punishment based on objective evidence.

That plan hasn't worked out very well up to now...producing far more injustice than justice.

My preference is to put the question in the hands of the masses...sometimes they may do worse but most of the time I think they'll do better!

Just my bias, of course. :D

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

[piet11111]

well the recidivism is indeed lower then expected but i do feel that the statistics are flawed.
for instance the most violent murderers never get out of prison at all so only the "softies" get out in a physical shape where they are still able to overpower someone and actually kill them.

to me there are only 2 verdicts possible for murder and that is not guilty (in the case of accident or self defence) or guilty followed by the execution.

the execution can imo be avoided by offering the bastard to participate in high risk medical experiments (mechanical heart tests for instance)
the murderer would be subject to such experiments untill death.
ofcourse humane treatment would be required for these to prevent that the murderers living environment contaminates the results of the medical experiment.

[Macchendra]

New cops same as the old cops.


The only difference I see here is that many feel more justified in "helping" people, and don't think the police have gone far enough.

Long live anarchy!
Death to all systems of oppression!

[patrickbeverley]

Redstar, you state in the paper you have cited here:


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

Do you think that's an excuse? You think you can dismiss an innocent death as easily as saying "they're only human" about the people in your courts? Any system involving the death penalty is wide open to abuse, as well as to simple mistakes.


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

I don't know what your definition of "promptly" is, but I'd bet it's not enough time to be sure if someone's guilty. Putting people in prison is partially reversible in that, if you find out someone's innocent, you can let them out. You can't resurrect the wrongfully executed.

Every year, people are let out of prison here in the UK because of new evidence that shows they didn't do the crimes they were accused of. This would have been impossible if they were dead.

NO IRREVERSIBLE PUNISHMENTS!

[piet11111]

Every year, people are let out of prison here in the UK because of new evidence that shows they didn't do the crimes they were accused of. This would have been impossible if they were dead

that is due to the inefficiency of the police and justice system.
the police does not really care is someone is guilty aslong as they can go back to their coffee and donuts and pretending to work.

under communism most incentives for crime are gone leaving only the hardest criminals
still active.

most of the time there will be very little doubt if someone is guilty in these cases when they are caught.
also the jury's will be enormous say 500 poeple or more (expect the entire community)
this would mean that a whole lot of poeple would be wrong if they condemn an innocent person.

well in my opinion the chances of wrongfull execution will be much much lower then today as crimes will be investigated much more then today.
the police as always just picks out 1 or more poeple and do everything in their power to build a case to get these poeple jailed.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley
You think you can dismiss an innocent death as easily as saying "they're only human" about the people in your courts?

Do you imagine a world where there are "no innocent deaths"?

Or perhaps a world without death at all???

Perhaps you can explain how that is to be achieved.


Putting people in prison is partially reversible in that, if you find out someone's innocent, you can let them out.

Oh yeah...nothing like a little stretch in some hellhole prison to raise up a human to his/her highest potential.

Reversible?

And just where, by the way, are you going to find a reliable supply of fascist thugs to fill the ranks of your prison guards?

Oh, I know, you can use those people who've already been in prison and then released.

They'll know from experience just what to do!

NO PRISONS IN COMMUNIST SOCIETY!

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

[Leo]

I read what was posted under this thread and also Redstar's writings on the subject. I think this is a very important and interesting topic. How will the communist society deal with crime? First of all, we will be fighting crime as an idea and I believe this is the key. Prisons are most obviously NOT THE WAY to do this. The biggest example is the world today, it is full of prisons, are prisons are full of criminals (and full of innocents as well) but crime is out there, it can't be imprisoned. We can imprison crime in our sane minds. With the communist society, most of the crimes will vanish because most of the crimes are caused by greed or hunger and both will vanish. As for rape, I believe it will be a very uncommon event, because we can't imagine a communist society without free love, and under such situation things will very rarely come up to rape. Yet if it does it would prove that the person who commits this action is literally sick. If we are against killing people with other permanent sicknesses, disabilities etc. then we should not kill rapists too. Yes I know that they are harmful where the others I mentioned are harmless, but I don't think this changes anything, because if we caught the guy, now he is harmless.
As for murder, I would expect murder to be more common than rape, because the society we will live will enable individuals to please themselves as long as the opposite side wants the relationship but it won't be able to satisfy things such has personal anger, hatred and rage between individuals. Therefore, we will still have rage murders and also vendetta murders. Even if the person who committed the crime was completely healthy before the crime, he will be sick afterwards. What we will also have is serial killers, but I expect that to be a very rare case as well, because serial killings are actually an expression of the unhealthy nature of the system. Crime itself is actually an expression of the unhealthy nature of the system.
So criminals of the communist society will be literally sick, then, I think we will have to treat them as sick people. I think they will be rare, so the society will be able to try to provide them with rehabilitation and treatment in Asylums.
As for justice, well, it depends on the definition. I don't think justice is taking and eye for an eye. Justice is hard to describe, harder to understand, impossible to achieve completely; it is a true ideal. How can we obtain justice? Justice is replacing the eye taken with another eye, replacing the life taken with another life. It can never completely happen, but we can get close. After all, the victim is dead, but we must not forget that we have another life, the life of the murderer in our hands, and the process he follows, with the aid of the state or the society can get close to justice. I believe there are several steps to be followed to get close to justice.

1. The murderer is treated, the reasons why he committed the crime are understood by experts, and his psychological problems from the past are solved. Shortly he should be rehabilitated.
2. Murderer should understand what he had done, what is wrong with it, why it is wrong and he should take full responsibility with his full conciseness, and not he should do that not for his interests but because it is right.
3. Murderer should suffer for what he has done. This must be a voluntary sufferance caused by regretting the past actions; however it shouldn’t drive his psychology away from sanity. Shortly, he should suffer concisely and he shouldn’t go crazy. This sufferance should never end until the end of murderer’s life.
4. Murderer should work in the society to make people understand what is wrong with killing. He should work for the good of the society; try to convince others not to commit crimes, to live honest lives. Shortly, he should serve the society. At this point he can also work with level 2 murderers.
5. Murderer should associate and have dialogue with the victim’s families, talk with them about the event, and most importantly apologize and ask for forgiveness.
6. Murderer should be forgiven by the victim’s family. This is of course not an obligation for the victim’s family; they don’t have to forgive, but the situation cannot get more just if they don’t forgive.
7. After being forgiven, the murderer must be a part of victim’s family’s lives. He should become someone they love. He can never replace the lost victim nor he can bring the victim back to life; therefore true justice can never be achieved, but getting close to victim’s family is the closest we can get to criminal justice.

I know it would be very hard for all those steps to be taken. In most cases, if the person is truly sick, they won't even pass the first step. But we must try, we must take the hard way instead of easily chopping heads of people who are sick. Secondly, criminals won't have any communication with any social life in the first steps and later they will be watched until they reach the last step.

Finally, a healthy society reflects on the people, but what makes a society healthy is its practice. Killing, no matter what, is not a good practice, and if executions were to be practiced in the communist society, it would be the society itself that would perform the execution. Every killer has loved ones, and for each killers we kill, those loved ones become potential enemies of the society, and quite contrary to the state which doesn't have anything humane, or any weak points for one individual to damage, an individual can actually damage the society he or she lives in, because of his or her own part in that society. We can't expect a mother for example not to hate the society who killed her son, no matter how sick her son was, because it will be expecting an individual to go contrary to her most natural instincts. It is not to imagine the growth this chain started because of the execution of a sick killer. I believe that performing executions, in the long term, can bring the ultimate collapse of the communist society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
So criminals of the communist society will be literally sick, then, I think we will have to treat them as sick people.

"Care of the sick" is an extremely labor-intensive endeavor...will there be people who want to spend their lives doing that?

Caring for someone who is going to recover is one thing...and I think many people will want to do that. Caring for the "hopelessly ill" is another...and volunteers may be quite scarce.

You can see that today; the only people who work in "nursing homes" are people who can't get any other job. We have no cure for old age and they "never get better".

I expect that physician-assisted suicide will be common-place in communist society. One should not be compelled to live -- and suffer -- when all hope is gone.

Meanwhile, what of those who've committed violent crimes against others?

"Asylums" or "hospitals" for such people are simply prisions by another name. The "patients" cannot leave because they are dangerous to others.


Shortly he should be rehabilitated.

We have no reliable means of objectively determining when someone has been "rehabilatated".

Without that, you dare not turn anyone loose!

Because if they rape or murder again, it's on your head! :o


I believe that performing executions, in the long term, can bring the ultimate collapse of the communist society.

Why? It's known and widely accepted that people who are violent against others need to be disposed of if people are not to live in fear of their own safety.

If someone is resentful because that resulted in the death of a close relative, well, tough shit!

And even that presumes that "family relationships" will be "as strong" as they are now...which probably won't be the case. Everything we see points to the gradual end of the "family" as traditionally understood. The "family feuds" of the past are almost incomprehensible to the modern mind.

I think what would happen is that if a close relative of yours were convicted of violent aggression against another, you'd be so ashamed that you'd change your name...so as not to be even remotely associated with such a barbaric act.

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

[patrickbeverley]

Caring for someone who is going to recover is one thing...and I think many people will want to do that. Caring for the "hopelessly ill" is another...and volunteers may be quite scarce.

The ideas expressed in your post are so reactionary as to be almost indistinguishable from fascism. The same justifications you have used for the death penalty could also be used for state-sanctioned murder of the mentally handicapped! Which, as Leo Uillean has pointed out, is a description of many criminals.

If someone is not well enough in their mind to be responsible for their actions, they need help, not punishment. To think otherwise is sheer barbarism.

[piet11111]

The ideas expressed in your post are so reactionary as to be almost indistinguishable from fascism

you qouted a part of redstar2000's post that not many poeple are capable or willing to take the hard work caring for the elderly and you think someone would be willing to deal with confirmed criminals ?


The same justifications you have used for the death penalty could also be used for state-sanctioned murder of the mentally handicapped!

now that is going very very low and its obvious redstar2000 never even suggests such a thing.
but it does leave me with a simple qestion what do you think of abortion of a fetus that will develop into a child with down syndrome or something else that will criple the child's live ?
and how do you feel about abortion in general (and euthanasia ? )


If someone is not well enough in their mind to be responsible for their actions, they need help, not punishment.

agreed but someone who is capable of living in society (and in such a position that he/she is capable of killing someone instead of being locked away in an asylum because poeple know he/she is insane) needs a certain level of understanding what is proper behaviour and what is not.
so the fact the criminal was able to hide his/her mental problems shows his mental problems are not in control of his behaviour.
as such this person is perfectly capable of understanding his actions and is in my opinion perfectly capable of dealing with the results of his actions aswell even if that means an execution.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley
The ideas expressed in your post are so reactionary as to be almost indistinguishable from fascism.

Old story on this board. Once people learn how to spell the word "fascism", they have the itch to use it.


The same justifications you have used for the death penalty could also be used for state-sanctioned murder of the mentally handicapped!

There is no "state" in a communist society.

Try to remember that, please. :lol:

You might also want to remember that there is no "economic whip" to make people labor to help "the hopeless cases".


If someone is not well enough in their mind to be responsible for their actions, they need help...

What "help" do you have to offer? Armed "nurses" in a "hospital" (that is, prison)?


...not punishment.

The purpose of executing the violent criminal is not "punishment"...executions should be quick, painless, and effective.

The purpose is to protect the physical safety of the nonviolent majority.

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

[Xian]

To me it seems like there would be hospitals that would take care of those who commit these crimes. I believe this because by the time we have a communist society, chances are that morally speaking there will be a very large shift in how we see other people. Prison and execution are actions that give up hope for the subjects and I think that in order to get to a communist society, people would need to have hope for everyone and regard each life as something precious. The critical thing is that the mass psyche will be very different from our own. Also psychology will be muched more advanced, and if there are, as I infer, and as RedStar inferred, chemical/therapeutic or other technological healing methods, those will surely be used over any type of hostile reaction.

[Leo]

"Care of the sick" is an extremely labor-intensive endeavor...will there be people who want to spend their lives doing that?

Caring for someone who is going to recover is one thing...and I think many people will want to do that. Caring for the "hopelessly ill" is another...and volunteers may be quite scarce.

Actually, I would expect a great amount of psychologists and psychiatrists to volunteer to 'care' for the hopelessly sick, just because it is going to be such a rare case, they would be very interested, as true scientists, to examine and understand why a person became a serial killer or a rapist.


I expect that physician-assisted suicide will be common-place in communist society. One should not be compelled to live -- and suffer -- when all hope is gone.

Yes, I agree, this makes sense, as long as the person wants to die of course.


"Asylums" or "hospitals" for such people are simply prisons by another name. The "patients" cannot leave because they are dangerous to others.

But they ARE dangerous to others. Also, I don't think Asylums are same or similar to prisons, because there will be volunteers to take care of the patients, every single one of them. Prisons are for locking people up and not giving a shit about what they do. Prisons in the United States (which are almost humane compared to other prisons I know in the rest of the world) are the best schools of crime, and this is such a stupid thing to that I think it is intentional. Throwing criminals to prisons is a form of punishment. Putting them in an Asylum is not. A serial killer in an Asylum has no difference from a man in the hospital who just had surgery and can't leave or another man who is under quarantine because of a new disease. Execution is actually much closer to prison than asylum because no matter what we intend to achieve, it will look, and it will be seen as if we are punishing someone. Let's say if someone committed a vendetta murder, killed a serial killer who had killed one of his close relatives, what will we do? Will we kill the guy who killed the serial killer? He did exactly what we were going to do, but he is a murderer, he can murder other serial killers too? How dare will we tell the individuals not to handle those thinks by themselves when we do exactly the same thing they want to do? No, I think the society should remain clean, no punishments in the communist society. Nothing that looks like, seen as and understood as punishments in the communist society. If the society is going to give the individuals the message: you should not murder, then the society should not murder either.


We have no reliable means of objectively determining when someone has been "rehabilitated".

Without that, you dare not turn anyone loose!

Because if they rape or murder again, it's on your head!

I don't expect serial killers to be turned loose. The rehabilitation I have in mind is a personal progress between the criminal and the volunteer psychiatrists and it would require full cooperation of the prisoner, but even a step up is success, and we can't know how much they will succeed. As for rage or vendetta murderers, they will have a bigger shot to change themselves.


It's known and widely accepted that people who are violent against others need to be disposed of if people are not to live in fear of their own safety.

Such events are going to be really rare, no matter what we do to criminals; the society won't be living in fear of their own safety.


If someone is resentful because that resulted in the death of a close relative, well, tough shit!

And even that presumes that "family relationships" will be "as strong" as they are now...which probably won't be the case. Everything we see points to the gradual end of the "family" as traditionally understood. The "family feuds" of the past are almost incomprehensible to the modern mind.

I think what would happen is that if a close relative of yours were convicted of violent aggression against another, you'd be so ashamed that you'd change your name...so as not to be even remotely associated with such a barbaric act.


NO! You can't disregard pain caused by executions as 'tough shit'. Family as we know it might not be there anymore, but I expect relationships between individuals to get far ahead in depth, strength and emotions than it is in the current society. And why should anyone be so ashamed of an action they are not responsible with?

I think rather than creating unjust shame in innocent people, executions will result in creating a dangerous and growing minority among and against the communist society of loved ones of the executed.



The purpose of executing the violent criminal is not "punishment"...executions should be quick, painless, and effective.

The purpose is to protect the physical safety of the nonviolent majority.

The purpuse is not important. When you are handling an execution, the purpose will be lost, no matter how humane the executions are.

When we, as the nonviolent majority kill people, even murderers, we become as violent as criminals. This is not a right way of thinking, exactly this way of thinking convinces many that current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just.

Note: While discussing about the environment with Redstar2000, I was somehow thought to imply that Redstar2000 went cutting trees for fun (!) which wasn't the case at all (naturally), so I find it necessary to explain that I make no connections between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Redstar2000, I am just making a point regarding the logic of killing people for safety.

[piet11111]

The purpuse is not important. When you are handling an execution, the purpose will be lost, no matter how humane the executions are.

i fail to see how a corpse would be able to come back to life and continue killing poeple.
as such the purpose of the execution (protecting the society from the executed) is 100% achieved.


When we, as the nonviolent majority kill people, even murderers, we become as violent as criminals.

can you support this claim with evidence that a society that kills its murderers will become a society of murderers ?
also on what basis do you consider it a bad thing to execute murderers ?


Let's say if someone committed a vendetta murder, killed a serial killer who had killed one of his close relatives, what will we do?
we will remind him that vigilantism is not the way to go as he could have killed an innocent he thought was guilty.
but for the rest we would congratulate him on bringing justice to the murdering bastard and that he did what was best for society.


I think the society should remain clean, no punishments in the communist society. Nothing that looks like, seen as and understood as punishments in the communist society.

im certain the criminal part of society would flourish under your guidance.
the rest would probably flee for their lives but thats their decission right ?

[Leo]

can you support this claim with evidence that a society that kills its murderers will become a society of murderers? also on what basis do you consider it a bad thing to execute murderers ?

It won't be a society full of murderer individuals, but collectively it will be violent. Look, if you are going to say killing is wrong, than you shouldn't kill. No matter what you call execution, it is murder. Such act of violence would create a growing wave of violence, and the whole system can collapse because of this wave.


we will remind him that vigilantism is not the way to go as he could have killed an innocent he thought was guilty. but for the rest we would congratulate him on bringing justice to the murdering bastard and that he did what was best for society.

The society too could have killed an innocent! And if the society kills innocents, no matter under which conditions, that stain of blood will always remain untill that society collapses. And briniging justice? What the fuck do you think Justice is? Another murder? And by punishment? That's pretty sad.


im certain the criminal part of society would flourish under your guidance.
the rest would probably flee for their lives but thats their decission right ?

Yeah right, we should punish right? Just like the capitalists do, that'll work right? It works now right? Yeah the capitalist states punish criminals, and there is no trace of crime left on the world right?

One last thing, if you are going to argue something about my opinions, you need to read what I wrote, throughly, understand it and then write your rebuttle with reason. Petty polemics won't work and sharp words with no reason behind won't make you look cool. I've written most of what I've written to you here before in this post. If you want to criticize my opinions read them throughly instead of just picking few phrases, otherwise don't bother.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
When we, as the nonviolent majority, kill people, even murderers, we become as violent as criminals.

No, we are acting collectively in self-defense against an individual who threatens our safety.

That's a big difference.

Unless you wish to argue that people "have no right" to act in self-defense.


Actually, I would expect a great amount of psychologists and psychiatrists to volunteer to 'care' for the hopelessly sick, just because it is going to be such a rare case, they would be very interested, as true scientists, to examine and understand why a person became a serial killer or a rapist.

This is something that remains to be seen; I admit that you might be right about that. In which case, the psychologists would have to get up in front of the court and argue for the preservation of the killer's life in the interests of science.

And the people would decide.


Let's say if someone committed a vendetta murder, killed a serial killer who had killed one of his close relatives, what will we do? Will we kill the guy who killed the serial killer?

Nope. We might throw a parade and declare a public holiday in his honor. :)

If the bastard he wasted did something particularly awful to his victims, then we might give the guy a medal. :)


How dare will we tell the individuals not to handle those things by themselves when we do exactly the same thing they want to do?

We can't. All we can do is explain the risks. If you kill the wrong guy or, by chance, an innocent bystander, then you are in very deep shit indeed. :o


Such events are going to be really rare, no matter what we do to criminals; the society won't be living in fear of their own safety.

That is a prediction; we have to wait and see how things actually turn out.

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

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)There is no "state" in a communist society.

Try to remember that, please.

You might also want to remember that there is no "economic whip" to make people labor to help "the hopeless cases".[/b]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -central tenet of communism

Redstar, are you seriously telling me that you've forgotten what communism means? If we're going to forget about providing for people who need help, then there is no fucking point in working for a communist society at all. I support this movement because I believe it to be inclusive and dedicated to a better life for all those who are currently oppressed and miserable.

This was piet11111's response to my assertion that you were implicitly supporting the murder of mentally handicapped people:


piet11111
now that is going very very low and its obvious redstar2000 never even suggests such a thing.

But you haven't denied it!

You now seem to be supporting a theory which advocates leaving behind anyone not strong enough to support themself.

There's a word for that kind of theory: CAPITALISM.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley
If we're going to forget about providing for people who need help, then there is no fucking point in working for a communist society at all.

Such furious indignation. :blink:

In a communist society you are perfectly free to "provide for people who need help"...no one is going to stop you from doing that if that's what you want to do.

But you cannot "make other people" do that. You can only attempt to persuade them that they "should" do it.

If you'd ever actually had to care for someone in a medically hopeless condition, then you'd perhaps understand how demoralizing and consequently exhausting that is. Why do you think it has become common practice these days for people to dump their aging relatives in a "nursing home" (warehouse for storing people who are dying)?

Taking care of them is too much of a hassle and depressing as hell!

They never "get better". :(

Now, if you can "deal with that", fine. You'll have "something to do" in communist society and, moreover, something that most people probably won't want to do. You may even be widely admired for your "self-sacrifice".

People are different...and in communist society, they'll do what they want to do.


But you haven't denied it!

Ok, I deny it.

Feel better now? :D

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

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:46 AM

But you haven't denied it!

Ok, I deny it.

Feel better now? :D

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

I may have been a little hasty in denouncing your viewpoint, it does have something going for it.

I still think there should be a way of making sure people are cared for, though.

[piet11111]

You now seem to be supporting a theory which advocates leaving behind anyone not strong enough to support themself.

nonsense the only thing i advocate is that the safety of the many is infinitly more important then the life of the murderer.
my personal opinion about dealing with murderers (and rapists) is that they have a choice between execution and participating in medical experiments like a mechanical heart trial or a similar dangerous experiment.
if they participate in such a trial they will be treated just as well as a patient in a hospital otherwise it would influence the outcome of the experiment for the worse.

because of this i expect the amount of executions taking place would be very very low.
also i heared that the worst thing about execution for criminals is the amount of time it takes before they finally get executed.

also read this deathpenalty info (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=479)

this is my main motivation for a shot in the back of the head as the prevered method.

[YSR]

This whole argument is fundamentally too early. Until we see how the elimination of property affects "crime" (we assume it will end most of it) this discussion can't be had and be supported by facts. Any resources that we are using for research purposes (which, interestingly, only the opponents of killing all murderers have even brought up. The pro-killing people have just made assertions without any evidence) are incomplete because so many crimes are tied to property and associated oppression.

I morally think that Redstar and his compatriots here are off the mark, and that's all we can do for now. Until we see how communism statistically changes violent crime, we can't really make a "logical" argument as Redstar is suggesting.

[Leo]

No, we are acting collectively in self-defense against an individual who threatens our safety.

That's a big difference.

Unless you wish to argue that people "have no right" to act in self-defense.


No, I would instead argue that such action is not self defense. If the criminal is dangerous during the process of catching him, he might be killed by societies forces if he actually treathens them. Otherwise, after he is caught he is not dangerous, he is under society's controll. He can't defend himself.


This is something that remains to be seen; I admit that you might be right about that. In which case, the psychologists would have to get up in front of the court and argue for the preservation of the killer's life in the interests of science.

Then why not give all the sick to the psychologists in the interests of science?


And the people would decide.

Well, that's actually the whole point.


Nope. We might throw a parade and declare a public holiday in his honor.

If the bastard he wasted did something particularly awful to his victims, then we might give the guy a medal.

I would be willing to give the guy a medal if he hunted the bastard down and brought him to the society. No matter who he kills, he objectively becomes a killer. What about a serial killer whose victims are other killers? Would we give him a medal too?


We can't. All we can do is explain the risks. If you kill the wrong guy or, by chance, an innocent bystander, then you are in very deep shit indeed.

If we kill the wrong guy or, by chance, an innocent bystander, then we would be even deeper shit. Why? Because now we created a group of loved ones of the innocent we killed, who are complete enemies of the society and for a completely justified reason!


That is a prediction; we have to wait and see how things actually turn out.

Exactly...


If you'd ever actually had to care for someone in a medically hopeless condition, then you'd perhaps understand how demoralizing and consequently exhausting that is. Why do you think it has become common practice these days for people to dump their aging relatives in a "nursing home" (warehouse for storing people who are dying)?

Taking care of them is too much of a hassle and depressing as hell!

I actually had to care for someone in a medically hopeless condition, and I understand how demoralizing and consequently exhausting that is. But, the reason why people dump their aging relatives in a "nursing home" is not just that by itself. Medically hopeless conditions, most obviously predates "nursing homes". People can dump their aging relatives in those warehouses because the relationships are going through a complete collapse under the capitalist system.

Personally I would say it is a balanced situation for the relatives who really love and care about the aging person. If the aging person dies before being hopeless, the shock for the relative is really horrible. If the old person is dying slowly, then the relative can at least prepare himself or herself for the death of the loved one. Both ways it is a sad event, I can't say one is better or worse for the relative of the dying person. As for the dying person, it is totally up to them if they want to die, live, suffer etc.


They never "get better".

Old people don't :( but as for the murderers, we don't know and if we kill them we will never know.


People are different...and in communist society, they'll do what they want to do.

Exactly.