Basic anarchist question

[Muthafuck Judas!]

What about the REALLY bad guys?

I realise this may seem like the kind of question a someone from fox news would ask, but I'm curious about what would happen to rapists, murderers and pedophiles in an anarchist society.

Thanks

[apathy maybe]

It depends on who you ask.

But, my opinion is thus,

Society, and individuals, have the right to self-defence. If an individual violates the autonomy of an individual or society, then there are a few options.


Shooting them, exiling them (and explaining to other communities why) or refusing to allow them to receive more then the basic sustenance for a period of time.

Of course, before anything happens, the community would make sure that they had actually done the alleged "crime".



It is my opinion, as well, that such "crimes" will reduce drastically with the removal of capitalism and oppression.

[spartan]

It is my opinion, as well, that such "crimes" will reduce drastically with the removal of capitalism and oppression.
Economic based murder will perhaps decrease but what about the Ted Bundy's out there who have, un-economic based, mental problems which leads them to kill and rape etc?

Also paedophilia is hardly an economic based crime as it is normally a sexual, and thus non-economic, desire on the part of the paedophile.

So whether we live in an Anarchist or Capitalist society is irrelevent when it comes to paedophiles and paedophilia as all they care about is satisfying their sexual, not economic, desires aimed at, usually non-consenting, children which is of course un-acceptable in any society whether it be an Anarchist or a Capitalist society.

It is how we deal with paedophiles who have admitted to the crime, and evidence proves that they did indeed do the crime, that counts as what form of treatment can we administer to them?

And what if the paedophile refuses the treatment offered them?

Do we force the treatment on them?

If we do indeed force them to have the treatment then who will do the forcing?

A police force?

How do we keep them away from the community whilst we are trying them for their crimes and administering their treatment?

If indeed there will even be a miraculous medical treatment that will cure paedophiles of their socially un-acceptable desires towards children?

[Muthafuck Judas!]

It is my opinion, as well, that such "crimes" will reduce drastically with the removal of capitalism and oppression.

Economic based murder will perhaps decrease but what about the Ted Bundy's out there who have, un-economic based, mental problems which leads them to kill and rape etc?

Also paedophilia is hardly an economic based crime as it is normally a sexual, and thus non-economic, desire on the part of the paedophile.

So whether we live in an Anarchist or Capitalist society is irrelevent when it comes to paedophiles and paedophilia as all they care about is satisfying their sexual, not economic, desires

Exactly. I've always thought that "crime" such as robbery and murder would decrease in anarchist society because of the 'dog-eat-dog' element capitalism promotes and the more communal aspect of anarchism

However 1% of the population will never change! I've had one of my favorite teachers go to jail for 8 years because he's fucking pedophile, if anarchism would someday come to fruition, I don't think those desires would magically be suppressed.

[spartan]

Well if their is no effective medical treatment found for paedophiles in the future, the most effective medicine for them and the community as a whole, who are the ones who suffer the most from their socially un-acceptable actions and desires, is a bullet in the paedophiles head.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Muthafuck Judas!@November 06, 2007 07:39 pm
However 1% of the population will never change!
Where did you get this statistic from?

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Muthafuck Judas!@November 07, 2007 12:39 pm

It is my opinion, as well, that such "crimes" will reduce drastically with the removal of capitalism and oppression.

Economic based murder will perhaps decrease but what about the Ted Bundy's out there who have, un-economic based, mental problems which leads them to kill and rape etc?

Also paedophilia is hardly an economic based crime as it is normally a sexual, and thus non-economic, desire on the part of the paedophile.

So whether we live in an Anarchist or Capitalist society is irrelevent when it comes to paedophiles and paedophilia as all they care about is satisfying their sexual, not economic, desires

Exactly. I've always thought that "crime" such as robbery and murder would decrease in anarchist society because of the 'dog-eat-dog' element capitalism promotes and the more communal aspect of anarchism

However 1% of the population will never change! I've had one of my favorite teachers go to jail for 8 years because he's fucking pedophile, if anarchism would someday come to fruition, I don't think those desires would magically be suppressed.
The idea is not to "magically suppress" them, but to find solutions to them.
We know that the prison system is an absolute failure and reducing crime rates.
The idea is to find the best possible solutions to said issues.
Self defense is a solution, but, in some situations, only a temporary one, and not necessarily, in all cases, a practical one (though, it often is).

Check out this site. (http://anarchistblackcross.org/)
It has essays and stuff on it.

[Muthafuck Judas!]

Originally posted by rev0lt+November 07, 2007 02:45 am--> (rev0lt @ November 07, 2007 02:45 am)
Muthafuck Judas!@November 06, 2007 07:39 pm
However 1% of the population will never change!
Where did you get this statistic from? [/b]
You know what I mean :rolleyes:

And thanks for the website Proper Tea is Theft, I already knew about Anarchist Black Cross but never really got around to having a proper look.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Muthafuck Judas!@November 06, 2007 08:39 pm
I've had one of my favorite teachers go to jail for 8 years because he's fucking pedophile,
When did you have him? ;)


It is my opinion, as well, that such "crimes" will reduce drastically with the removal of capitalism and oppression.

That's true. However, as others pointed out, it is hard to believe that all crimes will disappear in a communist society, even though a big portion of them will. I believe that these individuals will be punished and people who commit less serious crimes might go through some sort of treatment. However, it is obviously impossible to predict exactly how a future society will function.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

However 1% of the population will never change! I've had one of my favorite teachers go to jail for 8 years because he's fucking pedophile, if anarchism would someday come to fruition, I don't think those desires would magically be suppressed.

When observers hear about the movement to abolish prisons, they think of towns folk rising up with pitchforks. Not true.

The example you give is a perfect one. Pedophilia is a disease. There's no debating that fact. Under the current system we treat them like any other child abuser, when we could be working for a cure. There is a taboo in the medical field around fixing the symptoms of pedophilia because it's said to be "impossible." The signs for these diseases and mental issues should be looked at from an early age. If these problems manifest, there should then be a search for a way to cure that person.

The largest change would be that any limitation to the individual would be done for the sole purpose of protecting the community and not to punish the criminal but correct him. The agreements would also be mutually agreed upon by the defender and accuser, given that he is found guilty. If no agreements are met the community can handle the dispute.

[Muthafuck Judas!]

I actually agree with what your saying for the most part, however...


The largest change would be that any limitation to the individual would be done for the sole purpose of protecting the community and not to punish the criminal but correct him.

This theory I don't subscribe to. If a community has no guidelines when it comes to an issue which people are emotionally attatched too, history will tell you that rationality tends to go out the window.

[dannthraxxx]

The term rape means quite a few things. You can rape someone in many different ways. Raping, is basically like "taking away" from. So if you rape someone you take their life basically, or that's how society views it. Therefore, if you decide to force yourself upon anyone, I think you should have a nice hollow-point shell put right between your fucking eyes.


Murders? These will probably decrease. But their will always be some assholes who have to have power and their way. They love to bring about fear. Terrorists as you say. Well, IF someone is caught killing another, kill them.


It's easy.


Quit being soft. If people have nothing to contribute to our ®evolution should be impaled anally. boom.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Muthafuck Judas!@November 07, 2007 01:45 am
What about the REALLY bad guys?

I realise this may seem like the kind of question a someone from fox news would ask, but I'm curious about what would happen to rapists, murderers and pedophiles in an anarchist society.

Thanks
As an Anarchist I believe they should be hangged or shot. Hanging is more efficient as you can re use the rope, perhaps making it the more sustainable form of execution.

It would be up to democratic assemblies what the local law is what an appropriate responce is. It could be amended at any point after discussion of course. It may be that the community do not feel the death penalty is ever appropriate, and so organsie better prisons or rehab centers. But statistically more people are in favour of execution, so I think it's highly likely we will have the death penalty.

[Marsella]

Hanging is definitely not a more efficient means.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:10 pm
Hanging is definitely not a more efficient means.
It's just a rope... ?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:10 pm
Hanging is definitely not a more efficient means.
It depends how one defines efficiency, it certainly takes a lot more time to tie a noose and adjust it so that the subject's neck will break on the fall but - as WE pointed out - it is a one time energy investment in terms of manufacture unlike with guns and ammunition - a gun may last for a long time but ammo will always take up a lot of resources - saltpetre, lead/depleted uranium/whatever and the like. Electric chair type executions don't bear thinking about in terms of energy cost although their are some poisons that would prove quite efficient (simply agitate a snake and get it to bite the subject for example).

===

I'm in full agreement with WE, even though these crimes may be rarer they are no less heinous and should be dealt with accordingly. What "accordingly" means is of course up to individual communities.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+November 07, 2007 11:08 pm--> (Jazzratt @ November 07, 2007 11:08 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 12:10 pm
Hanging is definitely not a more efficient means.
It depends how one defines efficiency, it certainly takes a lot more time to tie a noose and adjust it so that the subject's neck will break on the fall but - as WE pointed out - it is a one time energy investment in terms of manufacture unlike with guns and ammunition - a gun may last for a long time but ammo will always take up a lot of resources - saltpetre, lead/depleted uranium/whatever and the like. Electric chair type executions don't bear thinking about in terms of energy cost although their are some poisons that would prove quite efficient (simply agitate a snake and get it to bite the subject for example).

===

I'm in full agreement with WE, even though these crimes may be rarer they are no less heinous and should be dealt with accordingly. What "accordingly" means is of course up to individual communities. [/b]
Oh I quite agree with William Everard that they should be executed - one way or another - or any other sentence which is imposed by a selected jury or another authority.

But for efficiency, it would take longer, as you have stated, to kill someone by hanging.

And I don't feel that we should glory in the murder of such people, as others seem to be doing. Hangings can sometimes be drawn out affairs; the rope breaks, the guilty's neck doesn't break and he or she dies by suffocation.

Essentially, a bullet in the back of a head is quicker, more humane and essentially a fool proof method.

And as for snake poison - well I scarcely think that would be a quick (relatively) or humane way to die.

As for the cost of a gun or a bullet - well there is going to be a lot of ammunition left over after a violent struggle.

Why not put it to good use?

[Marsella]

Edit: double post, delete me! :marx:

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by William Everard+November 07, 2007 06:05 am--> (William Everard @ November 07, 2007 06:05 am)
Muthafuck Judas!@November 07, 2007 01:45 am
What about the REALLY bad guys?

I realise this may seem like the kind of question a someone from fox news would ask, but I'm curious about what would happen to rapists, murderers and pedophiles in an anarchist society.

Thanks
As an Anarchist I believe they should be hangged or shot. Hanging is more efficient as you can re use the rope, perhaps making it the more sustainable form of execution.

It would be up to democratic assemblies what the local law is what an appropriate responce is. It could be amended at any point after discussion of course. It may be that the community do not feel the death penalty is ever appropriate, and so organsie better prisons or rehab centers. But statistically more people are in favour of execution, so I think it's highly likely we will have the death penalty. [/b]
I agree with you on that. It is up to the community to punish the criminals. If the community finds it necessary to dispose of certain malignant elements in society, then it should do so.

[lvleph]

All I have to say as an Anarchist is that it is the decision of the community.

[syndicat]

the problem with execution is that you have to assume we have an infallible means of determining guilt. and in fact that isn't the case. people could be framed because someone wants to "get" someone. if people are a danger to society, that would justify removing them from society. but killing them isn't the only way of doing that. they could be sent to some big ranch where they do work to make their own food and stuff. also, this kind of crude and violent approach to anti-social criminality would tend to affect society in bad ways.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:56 pm
the problem with execution is that you have to assume we have an infallible means of determining guilt.
No we don't

We get things wrong all the time. But the argument that we shouldn't punish people incase we have wrongly accused them, could be used for letting off literally anyone from anything.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by William Everard+November 07, 2007 06:10 pm--> (William Everard @ November 07, 2007 06:10 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:56 pm
the problem with execution is that you have to assume we have an infallible means of determining guilt.
No we don't

We get things wrong all the time. But the argument that we shouldn't punish people incase we have wrongly accused them, could be used for letting off literally anyone from anything. [/b]
syndicat never said anything about letting them off, just no execution.

[RGacky3]

In an Anarchist Society, dealing with those people the only things that will come into play is protecting the society, and treatment (No one is just 'really bad', its either a matter of circumstances or mental disorders). It could be a matter of watching these people closely and giving them mental treatment, and removing them from situations that engourage sociopathic behavior.

Also some one talked about the 1%, or whatever, assuming there will still be those left over, just naturally evil people, is making an assumtion.

[Cult of Reason]

I am of the view that only the dangerous should be executed. That would be, for example, pathologically caused serial killers, someone who is likely to kill again. The choice is, lock them up, with all the effort etc. that that entails, or kill them. To me there is no contest.

However, for people who are very unlikely to commit murder again, execution, I think, should almost never be used.

So, that Russian 'Chessboard Killer' should be executed, but not the average person who kills someone out of extreme anger/whatever.

[Nosotros]

I'm an Anarchist and I think that paedos, rapists and murderers should be locked up in a very secure prison, I don't believe in shooting these people coz with capital punishment innocent people are wrongly punished.Maybe kill people like Blair and Bush but prison is a worse punishment anyway.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:50 pm
I'm an Anarchist and I think that paedos, rapists and murderers should be locked up in a very secure prison, I don't believe in shooting these people coz with capital punishment innocent people are wrongly punished.Maybe kill people like Blair and Bush but prison is a worse punishment anyway.
1. What about the prison guards? As an anarchist do you support prison guards, who are really no different from the police pigs?

2. I would think that it would be rare that innocent people are executed. Although it may well number in the hundreds in the US or potentially thousands in China. And locking up someone for life doesn't decrease the possibility that innocent people are imprisoned - it just may well provide them with the opportunity to appeal that sentence.

3. I somewhat agree that prison is a worse punishment, but what purpose does it serve to lock up someone for life? Its a large waste of resources and I can scarcely see any purpose for it apart from malicious revenge.

[Nosotros]

Prison guards?Why not?What else would you do?

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:09 pm
Prison guards?Why not?What else would you do?
I suppose next you will be asking me how an accused will defend him or herself without a lawyer! :lol:

My question to you was how could you tolerate prison guards when they are scarcely different from police pigs (which being an anarchist you presumably don't support)

And the methods which would be otherwise implemented are explained above, but expanded here: Crime & Punishment--Some Brief Notes on Communist Justice (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083339099&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Digitalis]

We are always going to have people who will act in an anti-social way regardless of the political or economic system in place. Anarchy does not give communities a book of rules which say "This is how you must survive", put gives individuals and communities the freedom to run their lives as they see fit.

If someone is acting against the best interests of the community, then the community shall decide how to deal with them. Execution is a possible solution, but it's not the 'answer' to your question.

There are two things I can't imagine happening, however:
1. They shan't be locked up, because that simply hides the problem rather than fixing it.
2. They shan't be ignored. Anarchists =/= idiots.

[Nosotros]

I think that we need to be protected from certain people.I say that coz my mate is also an Anarchist and before he went to prison he regarded it as fascist, which to some degree it is.However having been in prison he now realsises that there are some people who should be kept away from us for our own good and theirs, maybe prison is not the answer for that, perhaps we could put people under house arrest or tag them, I don't really have a definate answer but if there was just a few prisons I think that would be good.This doesn't mean there needs to be a hierarchy.I also think that paedos, murderers and rapists have a problem with their head that needs to be sorted out and rehabilitation needs to be done.Regarding shooting these people, I am totally against killing ordinary people, if we do this we become fascists and as I said before and as others have pointed out too, innocent people will die, even if it's just one person thats not right.If we introduce capital punishment for working class people we might as well not bother with the revolution coz we will be just as bad as the US or Saudi Arabia.Infact, in a sense, we would be living in a far worse society than we live in now.

[Digitalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:23 am
I think that we need to be protected from certain people.I say that coz my mate is also an Anarchist and before he went to prison he regarded it as fascist, which to some degree it is.
Prison is one of the worst examples of poorly maintained hierarchical control.



However having been in prison he now realsises that there are some people who should be kept away from us for our own good and theirs, maybe prison is not the answer for that, perhaps we could put people under house arrest or tag them, I don't really have a definate answer but if there was just a few prisons I think that would be good.

This brings about an age old question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guards?). People in prisons need watching, and then need feeding and cleaning and protecting. If a normal person were to simply drain from the community in such a fashion they'd face the scorn of their peers, I'm sure, but it's fine to allow the 'uncontrollable' portions to do as they please?



This doesn't mean there needs to be a hierarchy.

Any prison would require it.



I also think that paedos, murderers and rapists have a problem with their head that needs to be sorted out and rehabilitation needs to be done. Regarding shooting these people, I am totally against killing ordinary people, if we do this we become fascists and as I said before and as others have pointed out too, innocent people will die, even if it's just one person thats not right.


Firstly, there aren't many people who rape and murder for the sake of it. Social conditioning causes a large proportion of the crime we face today, and Anarchism hopes to solve that by removing the stressors that cause such actions. Of course, smarter men than me have put that more succinctly if you'd like to read further.

Secondly, Paedophilia (and other fetishes) are notoriously hard to cure through conventional methods. Whilst obviously the community would be supportive of any of its members who require help we will have to face up the fact that some people are going to be continuously anti-social.



If we introduce capital punishment for working class people we might as well not bother with the revolution coz we will be just as bad as the US or Saudi Arabia.Infact, in a sense, we would be living in a far worse society than we live in now.

No-one will introduce capital punishment, since there is no central government to enforce that. Even with a federalised group of communities, you'd have no single rule of law between them. Paedophiles might get shot, or hung, who knows? The point is that we can't enforce that policy. We have to trust that the people will be smart enough to manage issues such as these themselves.

Don't think there is a strict roadmap for after the revolution. Many people have got many different theories on how things could work, but not one would be enforced at all. All we can do is educate the people and show them ways that might work.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 07, 2007 01:26 pm--> (lvleph @ November 07, 2007 01:26 pm)
Originally posted by William [email protected] 07, 2007 06:10 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 05:56 pm
the problem with execution is that you have to assume we have an infallible means of determining guilt.
No we don't

We get things wrong all the time. But the argument that we shouldn't punish people incase we have wrongly accused them, could be used for letting off literally anyone from anything.
syndicat never said anything about letting them off, just no execution. [/b]
You can apply this argument the other way as well, and that's why it's entirely fallacious.

You don't get another chance to stop a murderer from killing somebody, so all suspects must be executed or given life sentences to stop them from entering back into society...!

No.

We don't get everything right, but it's better than nothing and with new technology it's much easier to definitively determine guilt or innocence. If we execute the wrong guy, tough. We'll try to do better next time.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+November 09, 2007 04:22 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ November 09, 2007 04:22 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:26 pm

Originally posted by William [email protected] 07, 2007 06:10 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 05:56 pm
the problem with execution is that you have to assume we have an infallible means of determining guilt.
No we don't

We get things wrong all the time. But the argument that we shouldn't punish people incase we have wrongly accused them, could be used for letting off literally anyone from anything.
syndicat never said anything about letting them off, just no execution.
You can apply this argument the other way as well, and that's why it's entirely fallacious.

You don't get another chance to stop a murderer from killing somebody, so all suspects must be executed or given life sentences to stop them from entering back into society...!

No.

We don't get everything right, but it's better than nothing and with new technology it's much easier to definitively determine guilt or innocence. If we execute the wrong guy, tough. We'll try to do better next time. [/b]
You sound more bourgeoisie than a revolutionary.

There are countless of people of color in prison, more than likely for crimes they didn't commit.



Texas men's innocence puts a county on trial

DNA is expected to clear a convicted rapist, as it has 3 of his friends.



Miguel Bustillo



Los Angeles Times

April 9, 2007

DALLAS — Many men claim innocence when staring at iron bars. But James Giles knew he was no rapist — and he believed three fellow Texas prisoners who told him they too were wrongly convicted of rape.

They shared their despair over games of chess and dominoes, worked on longshot appeals together in the law library, and dreamed of the day they would win exoneration from a justice system that failed them.

It has taken nearly 25 years, but with the assistance of DNA testing, the men — all African American — are proving they are indeed innocent. Two were freed from prison. A third was cleared last month, years after serving his sentence. Today, Giles is expected to clear his name and become the 13th man from Dallas County to prove with genetic testing that he was wrongly imprisoned.

Giles, who spent 10 years in prison and was paroled in 1993, is seeking to vacate his 1983 conviction. New evidence suggests that another man — also named James Giles — committed the rape. Dallas County prosecutors more than two decades ago knew about the other James Giles, who lived across the street from the victim, but never told Giles' defense.

"I lost everything in the world," said Giles, 53. "I just thank God we finally got someone to see that I was the wrong guy."

Giles struggled to rebuild his life after he got out of prison, branded a rapist. The skilled construction laborer had a hard time finding menial jobs, and his wife, who stuck with him through his prison term, eventually sought a divorce.

The Dallas County district attorney was scheduled to personally apologize to Giles today. The three wrongly convicted men whom Giles befriended in prison will be cheering in the courtroom.

The wrongful convictions of these four men are some of the most dramatic examples of prosecutions in the Lone Star State that have come under increasing scrutiny.

Dallas County has had more people exonerated by DNA than all but three entire states. Texas, which leads the nation in convictions overturned by genetic testing, has had 27, Illinois, 26, and New York, 23. California has had nine exonerations.

-http://www.sheldensays.com/Innocent%20men%20helped%20by%20DNA.htm

Distract Attorney RevMARKSman : Sorry, we imprisoned you, lucky we didn't have the death penalty. We'll get it right next time, you know you black people all look alike!

[syndicat]

me: "the problem with execution is that you have to assume we have an infallible means of determining guilt. "

Wm. E.:

No we don't

We get things wrong all the time. But the argument that we shouldn't punish people incase we have wrongly accused them, could be used for letting off literally anyone from anything.

i didn't say anything about not punishing someone who is convicted of murder or rape. I was arguing against execution as an appropriate form of punishment. If a person engages in this sort of severe form of anti-social behavior, we have a case for taking them out of society. A traditional anarchist proposal was that there would be some area such as an island or ranch, a place where the anti-social types could be removed to, without having to set up guards to brutalize them, as is done with the current prison system. Being removed from society and having your freedom of movement and associations restricted in that way is in fact a strong form of punishment.

The advantage to not executing them is that, if they are still alive, and evidence emerges later they were innocent, maybe that they were framed, we can bring them back into society and right the wrong of their conviction, because they are still alive. If you execute them, you've killed an innocent person and you can't right that wrong.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:08 pm
me: "the problem with execution is that you have to assume we have an infallible means of determining guilt. "

Wm. E.:

No we don't

We get things wrong all the time. But the argument that we shouldn't punish people incase we have wrongly accused them, could be used for letting off literally anyone from anything.

i didn't say anything about not punishing someone who is convicted of murder or rape. I was arguing against execution as an appropriate form of punishment. If a person engages in this sort of severe form of anti-social behavior, we have a case for taking them out of society. A traditional anarchist proposal was that there would be some area such as an island or ranch, a place where the anti-social types could be removed to, without having to set up guards to brutalize them, as is done with the current prison system. Being removed from society and having your freedom of movement and associations restricted in that way is in fact a strong form of punishment.

The advantage to not executing them is that, if they are still alive, and evidence emerges later they were innocent, maybe that they were framed, we can bring them back into society and right the wrong of their conviction, because they are still alive. If you execute them, you've killed an innocent person and you can't right that wrong.
What happends when you make commuity of people who practive a "severe form of anti-social behavior"?

[syndicat]

What happends when you make commuity of people who practive a "severe form of anti-social behavior"?

maybe they'll kill each other?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This discussion is more for the individual communities than the anarchist movement. The truth of the matter is that anarchism will not bring about a globe of political symmetry. I will choose to live in a community that is strictly against the death penalty, but there's a great possibility that certain communities will impose execution on their criminals. If a community (or federation) finds that act to be so unethical/immoral/impractical that it must be addressed, the citizens can refuse to trade with that group.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:20 am
I'm an Anarchist and I think that paedos, rapists and murderers should be locked up in a very secure prison, I don't believe in shooting these people coz with capital punishment innocent people are wrongly punished.Maybe kill people like Blair and Bush but prison is a worse punishment anyway.
maybe you'd be better into looking into the root causes of these social conditions then you'd realise that the status quo has a lot to answer for. Deterrance is a neo-con policy, not a socially just or leftist one.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:05 pm


There are countless of people of color in prison, more than likely for crimes they didn't commit.



Texas men's innocence puts a county on trial

DNA is expected to clear a convicted rapist, as it has 3 of his friends.



Miguel Bustillo



Los Angeles Times

April 9, 2007

DALLAS — Many men claim innocence when staring at iron bars. But James Giles knew he was no rapist — and he believed three fellow Texas prisoners who told him they too were wrongly convicted of rape.

They shared their despair over games of chess and dominoes, worked on longshot appeals together in the law library, and dreamed of the day they would win exoneration from a justice system that failed them.

It has taken nearly 25 years, but with the assistance of DNA testing, the men — all African American — are proving they are indeed innocent. Two were freed from prison. A third was cleared last month, years after serving his sentence. Today, Giles is expected to clear his name and become the 13th man from Dallas County to prove with genetic testing that he was wrongly imprisoned.

Giles, who spent 10 years in prison and was paroled in 1993, is seeking to vacate his 1983 conviction. New evidence suggests that another man — also named James Giles — committed the rape. Dallas County prosecutors more than two decades ago knew about the other James Giles, who lived across the street from the victim, but never told Giles' defense.

"I lost everything in the world," said Giles, 53. "I just thank God we finally got someone to see that I was the wrong guy."

Giles struggled to rebuild his life after he got out of prison, branded a rapist. The skilled construction laborer had a hard time finding menial jobs, and his wife, who stuck with him through his prison term, eventually sought a divorce.

The Dallas County district attorney was scheduled to personally apologize to Giles today. The three wrongly convicted men whom Giles befriended in prison will be cheering in the courtroom.

The wrongful convictions of these four men are some of the most dramatic examples of prosecutions in the Lone Star State that have come under increasing scrutiny.

Dallas County has had more people exonerated by DNA than all but three entire states. Texas, which leads the nation in convictions overturned by genetic testing, has had 27, Illinois, 26, and New York, 23. California has had nine exonerations.

-http://www.sheldensays.com/Innocent%20men%20helped%20by%20DNA.htm

Distract Attorney RevMARKSman : Sorry, we imprisoned you, lucky we didn't have the death penalty. We'll get it right next time, you know you black people all look alike!
Emphasis mine. We get more accurate all the time.

Prisons won't exist. There's no reason to throw someone in a hellhole for doing such "terrible" things as taking drugs, and no reason to throw them in a hellhole if it's more efficient to eliminate them entirely.

Oh, and nice try branding me as a racist. It really helps your argument.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 10, 2007 02:36 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 10, 2007 02:36 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 11:20 am
I'm an Anarchist and I think that paedos, rapists and murderers should be locked up in a very secure prison, I don't believe in shooting these people coz with capital punishment innocent people are wrongly punished.Maybe kill people like Blair and Bush but prison is a worse punishment anyway.
maybe you'd be better into looking into the root causes of these social conditions then you'd realise that the status quo has a lot to answer for. Deterrance is a neo-con policy, not a socially just or leftist one. [/b]
Exactly. Prisons did not even exist when society was not divided up into classes. Throwing someone behind bars will not stop the problem - others will continue committing such acts until the root causes of such social conditions are eradicated once and for all.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 12:20 pm
I'm an Anarchist and I think that paedos, rapists and murderers should be locked up in a very secure prison, I don't believe in shooting these people coz with capital punishment innocent people are wrongly punished.Maybe kill people like Blair and Bush but prison is a worse punishment anyway.
How are punitive measures a progressive stance to take? Ulster and Axel are right that this kind of action and attitude is not at all a way of dealing with these issues. Not only should progression be about compassion, creating a society where people are locked up is not a society where people have understood the concept solidarity.