Dealing with crime

[Individuality]

In the anarchist communist society I know there would be crimes or laws that must be followed. But I was curious about things like due process, trials, stuff like that.

I just want to have two scenarios.

A. I'm accused of Raping someone.

How would this go? Would evidence be needed? Is there a trial?

B. John Smith is murdered.

How do we find the killer?

I know these are just scenarios, so I thought we could all shoot the shit.

[Dr Mindbender]

the argument is that capitalism creates, and sustains the motives and opportunities for crime.

So in effect a socialist/anarchist revolution would be the ultimate pre-emptive crime prevention move.

[Individuality]

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting there will be no murders and crimes in anarchist society?

[Atrus]

A. I'm accused of Raping someone.

How would this go?

Did this strike anyone else as a silly question?
Did I misinterpret or did you just ask how raping someone goes?

[Dean]

In the anarchist communist society I know there would be crimes or laws that must be followed. But I was curious about things like due process, trials, stuff like that.

I just want to have two scenarios.

A. I'm accused of Raping someone.

How would this go? Would evidence be needed? Is there a trial?
A trial of sorts. All crime - judgement - sentencing programs require a trial system, whether it looks like the U.S. model or not. I suspect that the commune would have a lot to do with it, but something you fail to realize is that communist society is not a purist system (for most). I assume that the evidence needed would be greater.


B. John Smith is murdered.

How do we find the killer?
Find evidence, follow leads and consult with experts. Sounds familiar, I expect.


What the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting there will be no murders and crimes in anarchist society?
Maybe he is, but I doubt it. The general idea here is that a socialist or communist society would create less conditions which create violent and dangerous acts; most violence comes from conflicts and competition created by capitalist systems.

[apathy maybe]

In your case, we have a quick look at your sex-toys to see if they have been used recently, and then if they haven't, we execute you for being a reject who has obviously rapped someone because it is the only way to get any from a real live person (perhaps you should look at animals?).


(From no on, it is all hypothetical.)
In other peoples cases, a court system would be established for each case, the evidence would be weighed by a "jury" who would then pass down a judgement if it was considered that a "crime" (that someones rights had been violated) had been committed. The various "punishments" (in an anarchist society this isn't really a good term to use), might range from exile, execution (for mass murder or something, self defence), or simple social stigmatisation.

[Feslin]

In your case, we have a quick look at your sex-toys to see if they have been used recently, and then if they haven't, we execute you for being a reject who has obviously rapped someone because it is the only way to get any from a real live person (perhaps you should look at animals?).

That sounds like a presumption of guilt...

This new paradise of yours... is it France?


(From no on, it is all hypothetical.)

How was it not hypothetical before?


In other peoples cases, a court system would be established for each case, the evidence would be weighed by a "jury" who would then pass down a judgement if it was considered that a "crime" (that someones rights had been violated) had been committed. The various "punishments" (in an anarchist society this isn't really a good term to use), might range from exile, execution (for mass murder or something, self defence), or simple social stigmatisation.

LOL! Oh no, not social stigmatisation!

But how would this jury work, and how would the case work?

Who would gather evidence, pick the jury, run the court, make the rules, figure out what evidence is admissible and what isn't?

We need more specifics to make any real judgement here.

[Individuality]

A trial of sorts. All crime - judgement - sentencing programs require a trial system, whether it looks like the U.S. model or not. I suspect that the commune would have a lot to do with it, but something you fail to realize is that communist society is not a purist system (for most). I assume that the evidence needed would be greater.
I'm sure no society is perfect, that's why I asked about crime and how it's handled. Are people put on trial or are they just mobbed to death.


Find evidence, follow leads and consult with experts. Sounds familiar, I expect.
I'm sure finding out if someone is guilty or murder takes large steps, it's very complex. How will society know if the trial is fair? If a person is appointed to see up the investigation, they maybe involved in the murder itself.


Maybe he is, but I doubt it. The general idea here is that a socialist or communist society would create less conditions which create violent and dangerous acts; most violence comes from conflicts and competition created by capitalist systems.
Well, it's all conjecture right 'cause no one really knows how people will behave.


In other peoples cases, a court system would be established for each case, the evidence would be weighed by a "jury" who would then pass down a judgement if it was considered that a "crime" (that someones rights had been violated) had been committed. The various "punishments" (in an anarchist society this isn't really a good term to use), might range from exile, execution (for mass murder or something, self defence), or simple social stigmatisation.
Who is the judge and jury? Do they need evidence? Do I get to see the evidence presented against me? Do I have the right to defend myself? Am I innocent until proven guilty or the other way around?

[Dr Mindbender]

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting there will be no murders and crimes in anarchist society?
what do you think is the biggest single motivation for crime? Think real hard...

[RedAnarchist]

That sounds like a presumption of guilt...

This new paradise of yours... is it France?

I know this may seem difficult, but could you find a dictionary and finally find out what people mean when they talk about sarcasm?

[Tungsten]

the argument is that capitalism creates, and sustains the motives and opportunities for crime.
To think that those who use this argument would readily mock those who think that Satan creates, and sustains the motives and opportunities for crime is an idea just too funny to contemplate.

So in effect a socialist/anarchist revolution would be the ultimate pre-emptive crime prevention move.
And how would that prevent crime?

what do you think is the biggest single motivation for crime? Think real hard...
Ooooh...let me fucking guess... is it "money"? Jesus Christ. That's like saying sexy clothing is a the single biggest motivation for rape.

Are you another one of these "abolish money" people? How would removing money prevent theft in your world?

[Sam_b]

Do they need evidence?

That might be the stupidest question i've ever heard.

No offense.

[Jazzratt]

A. I'm accused of Raping someone.

How would this go? Would evidence be needed? Is there a trial?

1. Firstly, someone would claim you had raped them, thus becoming your accuser - after a few cursory questions to make sure they aren't talking shit you will be informed of the charge and asked not to leave the community until matters are resolved.

2. Yes of course fucking evidence is needed.

3. There will be a trial involving those affected by your crime and a group of people who are uninvolved to act as objective arbitrators.


B. John Smith is murdered.

How do we find the killer?

The area where John Smith was found is closed off temporairly while those with expertise in forensic science comb over the area, other investigations are mounted and people who become suspects are asked not to leave the community until they are cleared.


I know these are just scenarios, so I thought we could all shoot the shit.

"Shoot the shit"?

[luxemburg89]

B. John Smith is murdered.

How do we find the killer?



I think it was Typhus - Pocahontas supposedly caught it when she arrived in England and John Smith died in the same way. No, in all seriousness, as leftists there will be no murderers as we all eat new-borns.

[pusher robot]

Let's suppose that money is abolished. What would be an appropriate remedy for transgressions that are punished mainly with fines under the status quo - things like illegal parking, littering, jaywalking, and public drunkenness? I would suppose that if there is no money, there can be no fines.

[Jazzratt]

Let's suppose that money is abolished. What would be an appropriate remedy for transgressions that are punished mainly with fines under the status quo - things like illegal parking, littering, jaywalking, and public drunkenness? I would suppose that if there is no money, there can be no fines.

Punishments would be less generalised and more specific to the individual and the crime. For example the community could refuse alcohol to someone arrested for drunken behaviour (obviously this would be a temporary state of affairs and if the individual has actual problems with alcohol those, too, would be a priority) other "punishments" might include menial tasks, exclusions from certain activities or areas and so on. Though there would, obviously, be punishment rehbilitative systems would be preferred over purely punitive ones.

This is, obviously, just a suggestion as I have not considered crime in as much depth as - say - education or resource distribution so feel free to mention any glaring holes (not that you shouldn't do that with all posts, but you know what I mean).

[RedAnarchist]

Where did my picture go?

[Feslin]

I know this may seem difficult, but could you find a dictionary and finally find out what people mean when they talk about sarcasm?

I couldn't place the sarcasm before, I had no idea how deeply you hated Individuality.

[pusher robot]

Punishments would be less generalised and more specific to the individual and the crime. For example the community could refuse alcohol to someone arrested for drunken behaviour (obviously this would be a temporary state of affairs and if the individual has actual problems with alcohol those, too, would be a priority) other "punishments" might include menial tasks, exclusions from certain activities or areas and so on. Though there would, obviously, be punishment rehbilitative systems would be preferred over purely punitive ones.

This is, obviously, just a suggestion as I have not considered crime in as much depth as - say - education or resource distribution so feel free to mention any glaring holes (not that you shouldn't do that with all posts, but you know what I mean).

Well I think the chief constraint is that it has to be reliably enforceable. How would you enforce a requirement of absolute sobriety? You'd have to monitor the individual quite intrusively. That's one reason fines are favored - because it's plainly obvious when a fine is paid or not.

On the other hand, I don't much like fines myself for two main reasons: first, they are not an equal punishment for all people, because obviously somone with plenty of money is not punished by a $1000 fine as someone with very little surplus money. I have no problem with people having unequal incomes because of unequal social contribution, but I have a big problem with unequal justice. The second reason is that fines create a severe moral hazard for the justice administration - since the government keeps the fine, the government materially benefits from the administration of punishment. This has gotten to be almost a crisis in some cities, where for example parking regulations are byzantine on purpose, because parking violations are so profitable by the city.

Personally, I think that most fines should be abolished in favor of community service obligations. This has the benefit of being a more equal punishment and creates tangible benefits for the community. The chief downside I see is that it can crowd out people who would like to be paid for this kind of work, if they were jobs that would have to otherwise be done by paid workers.

[RedAnarchist]

I couldn't place the sarcasm before, I had no idea how deeply you hated Individuality.

What does he have to do with this? Is he you friend, your sockpuppet or something?

[Feslin]

What does he have to do with this? Is he you friend, your sockpuppet or something?

To do with what? You claimed I don't know what sarcasm is, I was pointing out there was no way in hell I could've placed that sarcasm without understanding your feelings towards Individuality

And no, I don't know Individuality.

[RedAnarchist]

To do with what? You claimed I don't know what sarcasm is, I was pointing out there was no way in hell I could've placed that sarcasm without understanding your feelings towards Individuality

And no, I don't know Individuality.

I don't hate him, seeing as the only way I even know of his existence is through a few posts on an Internet message board.

[Feslin]

I don't hate him, seeing as the only way I even know of his existence is through a few posts on an Internet message board.

I don't literally mean hate.

But I can tell he makes you angry. You dislike him for this.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't literally mean hate.

But I can tell he makes you angry. You dislike him for this.

He doesn't make me angry, and why would I dislike him for that?

[Feslin]

He doesn't make me angry,

You can say that, but I still believe I'm correct.


and why would I dislike him for that?

That's not for me to answer.

[RedAnarchist]

Well, I believe you're wrong, so lets leave it at that, should we?

[Dean]

I'm sure no society is perfect, that's why I asked about crime and how it's handled. Are people put on trial or are they just mobbed to death.
I've already answered this question.



I'm sure finding out if someone is guilty or murder takes large steps, it's very complex. How will society know if the trial is fair? If a person is appointed to see up the investigation, they maybe involved in the murder itself.
I've not been apointed to develop a system of trials and punitive measures. I am not an expert. Ask a professor who is both an expert in the field and a communist, then your criticism is warranted. As for now, you may as well be asking us about how quantum physics will be researched in a communist society.



Well, it's all conjecture right 'cause no one really knows how people will behave.
Nearly every statement made in this thread is conjecture, by nature of the fact that social, economic and political arguments can rarely be proven.


Who is the judge and jury? Do they need evidence? Do I get to see the evidence presented against me? Do I have the right to defend myself? Am I innocent until proven guilty or the other way around?
You're a goddamn fool. this is no rational critique of communsim; this is a fruitless quest to have us defien every aspect of how the penal and legal code of a future communist society will be executed. Logically, I don't know, nor have I spent much thought on it, except for a few of the basic things I said and some reformist concepts on how our current system is.

If I was a lawyer, I'd give you some more arguments, because I'd know more about the legal system and what it could be. But you aren't a lawyer yourself, I assume based on your linguistic mannerisms, so don't ask us questions you couldn't answer about your own damn society.

[Dean]

On the other hand, I don't much like fines myself for two main reasons: first, they are not an equal punishment for all people, because obviously somone with plenty of money is not punished by a $1000 fine as someone with very little surplus money. I have no problem with people having unequal incomes because of unequal social contribution, but I have a big problem with unequal justice. The second reason is that fines create a severe moral hazard for the justice administration - since the government keeps the fine, the government materially benefits from the administration of punishment. This has gotten to be almost a crisis in some cities, where for example parking regulations are byzantine on purpose, because parking violations are so profitable by the city.

Personally, I think that most fines should be abolished in favor of community service obligations. This has the benefit of being a more equal punishment and creates tangible benefits for the community. The chief downside I see is that it can crowd out people who would like to be paid for this kind of work, if they were jobs that would have to otherwise be done by paid workers.
I'm surprised to hear you say this, and I agree with much of what you said except some of the obvious points. This made me think of a friend who asked the judge if she could perform community service as opposed to payment of fines; if I were a judge, I would admire this person for wanting to put effort into giving back the community, not just make a financial transaction. This judge, Judge Trible of the Hanover, VA circuit court, refused her request. He loves fines, and has fucked me over a few times.

[Publius]

But how would this jury work, and how would the case work?

Why not as they do now, roughly?

I mean how many ways are there for juries to "work" -- a jury is a jury, if it has 8, 10, 12, or 501 people.

Our courts today are essentially what they had in ancient Greece, even though our society is drastically different.



Who would gather evidence, pick the jury, run the court, make the rules, figure out what evidence is admissible and what isn't?

I don't know, the people who worked in the court maybe?

Jesus....



We need more specifics to make any real judgement here.

No "we" don't. You've already made up your mind and aren't at all interested in what they have to say, as evidenced by your goalpost moving bullshit.

It's classic: come up with a vague hypothetical ("Someone is murdered. Go!") and then ***** when you get a vague hypothetical answer.

[pusher robot]

No "we" don't. You've already made up your mind and aren't at all interested in what they have to say, as evidenced by your goalpost moving bullshit.

It's classic: come up with a vague hypothetical ("Someone is murdered. Go!") and then ***** when you get a vague hypothetical answer.

I think you're being a bit harsh. Trying to imagine the existing justice system in a communist society is literally incoceivable, since there is no coherent vision of "communist society" other than extremely vague principles - often completely different, depending who you ask. Then, there are so many potential ways these principles collide with existing institutions that you should be more understanding that some people cannot concretely imagine how it would work. Nobody can.

It just sort of takes guys like me a while to realize that yes, some people really do advocate for changes without having concrete ideas of what they want or how to achieve them.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I think you're being a bit harsh. Trying to imagine the existing justice system in a communist society is literally incoceivable, since there is no coherent vision of "communist society" other than extremely vague principles - often completely different, depending who you ask. Then, there are so many potential ways these principles collide with existing institutions that you should be more understanding that some people cannot concretely imagine how it would work. Nobody can.

It just sort of takes guys like me a while to realize that yes, some people really do advocate for changes without having concrete ideas of what they want or how to achieve them.
Can you give examples of how the core principles of today's legal system would be unsustainable in any kind of communist society? Keeping in mind that social and economic conditions have not advanced enough for us to paint any kind of real or accurate picture of a communist society.

[careyprice31]

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting there will be no murders and crimes in anarchist society?

He means that with the right type of society, crime can be drastically reduced, not that there will be zero murders in a leftist society.

Criminals are mostly made, not born. Much of it is society, the rest is genetics and the personality one is born with personality (because it is obvious that certain types of personalities fall for a life of crime)

[pusher robot]

Can you give examples of how the core principles of today's legal system would be unsustainable in any kind of communist society? Keeping in mind that social and economic conditions have not advanced enough for us to paint any kind of real or accurate picture of a communist society.

I gave one - fines or any kind of monetary punishment. Incarceration would also be unsustainable unless you can find enough volunteers to be prison guards.

How about a right to legal representation? Leaving aside claims that communism would abolish lawyers, a core principle of our system is that the accused, no matter how much of a scumbag, is entitled to competent representation. This is only possible, however, because the lawyers who represent these scumbags are compensated for it. I really, really, doubt that enough lawyers get enjoyment from representing scumbags that they'd do it voluntarily without compensation.

The biggest conceptual problem is that all of the apparatus of a criminal justice system has only ever been executed through the means of a state. With all the talk about the abolishment of states, states withering away, the nonexistence of nations or political borders, it's completely fair to have questions about such fundamental things as who makes the law? How is it enforced? Who is "in charge?" It's not hard to imagine a communist criminal justice system in a large bureaucratic state, with all the power of guns and butter that entails. It's a bit difficult to imagine a communist criminal justice system that just sort of "happens" by majority vote.

[Demogorgon]

One cannot see into the future and tell you who a society will function in hundreds of years time once Capitalism is long history. But as for any kind of transitional system (which in reality is all we can talk about anyway) I can see criminals being dealt with through (shock, horror) trial by jury.

Obviously the legal system need by drastically overhauled, with the "one law for them, another for us" culture well and truly dealt with and much done to deal with the fact that those with the money for good lawyers have a distinct advantage. But in principle, the concept of trial by jury need not go anywhere.

In fact juries are really a rather good thing indeed. If anything the model should be expanded. More decisions (beyond judicial matters) should be taken by randomly selected bodies. It is very democratic.

[Feslin]

Why not as they do now, roughly?

I mean how many ways are there for juries to "work" -- a jury is a jury, if it has 8, 10, 12, or 501 people.

Our courts today are essentially what they had in ancient Greece, even though our society is drastically different.



I don't know, the people who worked in the court maybe?

Jesus....



No "we" don't. You've already made up your mind and aren't at all interested in what they have to say, as evidenced by your goalpost moving bullshit.

It's classic: come up with a vague hypothetical ("Someone is murdered. Go!") and then ***** when you get a vague hypothetical answer.

You act as if it's incredibly obvious.

I haven't moved any goalposts, considering THAT WAS MY FIRST POST CONCERCING ANYTHING OF THIS TYPE.

Christ.

[Publius]

You act as if it's incredibly obvious.

Because it is.

It's incredibly obvious that none could possibly figure out exactly how the courts will be in 5 years, under the current system.

Who knows what precedents will be formed or repealed in the intervening time?



I haven't moved any goalposts, considering THAT WAS MY FIRST POST CONCERCING ANYTHING OF THIS TYPE.

Christ.

Yes, and it was in response to a post that was itself in response to the original.

And, unsurprisingly, you weren't satisfied with the answer.

[Jazzratt]

Well I think the chief constraint is that it has to be reliably enforceable. How would you enforce a requirement of absolute sobriety? You'd have to monitor the individual quite intrusively. That's one reason fines are favored - because it's plainly obvious when a fine is paid or not.

An energy certificate records what a person needs, and if they try to get alcohol with it they can be prevented from doing so, if someone else wants to get them alcohol and they act in a similar manner, however, they should be punished on the same level.


On the other hand, I don't much like fines myself for two main reasons: first, they are not an equal punishment for all people, because obviously somone with plenty of money is not punished by a $1000 fine as someone with very little surplus money.

Agreed :D


I have no problem with people having unequal incomes because of unequal social contribution, but I have a big problem with unequal justice. The second reason is that fines create a severe moral hazard for the justice administration - since the government keeps the fine, the government materially benefits from the administration of punishment.

I disagree for the reasons of this conclusion but am in complete agreement with the conclusion.


This has gotten to be almost a crisis in some cities, where for example parking regulations are byzantine on purpose, because parking violations are so profitable by the city.

London, for example.


Personally, I think that most fines should be abolished in favor of community service obligations.

Nothing wrong with that.


This has the benefit of being a more equal punishment and creates tangible benefits for the community. The chief downside I see is that it can crowd out people who would like to be paid for this kind of work, if they were jobs that would have to otherwise be done by paid workers.

You seem almost to be with us on this point, although criminal labour is always a tricky issue because it discounts the value of proper labour. As I said to a friend of mine earlier today, I would commit a crime if com. service paid!

[Feslin]

Because it is.

No... it isn't.


It's incredibly obvious that none could possibly figure out exactly how the courts will be in 5 years, under the current system.

I bet I could be more detailed than the people here about communist courts.


Who knows what precedents will be formed or repealed in the intervening time?

THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL! If you have a political philosophy, I think the hypotheticals should be figured out.


Yes, and it was in response to a post that was itself in response to the original.

Doesn't matter. I can't move other people's goalposts.


And, unsurprisingly, you weren't satisfied with the answer.

Who would be?

Leftism seems to hate any kind of authority, yet the court seems to have authority over those in it.

[Publius]

I bet I could be more detailed than the people here about communist courts.


Yes, I bet you could spout off more fictional bullshit.

Is that supposed to impress me? Unless you have a divining glass, and can see into your utopian capitalist society, you're just spouting off.



THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL! If you have a political philosophy, I think the hypotheticals should be figured out.

And I think you're wrong. To have a political philosophy doesn't require knowing what court systems will be used in 200 years.



Doesn't matter. I can't move other people's goalposts.

Actually, you can.



Who would be?

Leftism seems to hate any kind of authority, yet the court seems to have authority over those in it.

The court would be democratically controlled and ran.

[pusher robot]

The court would be democratically controlled and ran.

Unfortunately, that's a poor way to operate a court. First of all, it undermines the validity of the rule of law. Secondly, democracies tend to make relatively poor protectors of individual rights, most especially when those individuals happen to be unpopular - and few are more unpopular than criminals.

[Publius]

Unfortunately, that's a poor way to operate a court.

It seems to work well now.

Don't most places elect judges and DAs, at least in America? We seem to do OK, usually.



First of all, it undermines the validity of the rule of law.

How so? Our current system is fundamentally democratic, even down to the idea of being tried by a "jury of your peers."

In fact, I'd say the biggest problem with the current court system is that it isn't democratic enough, and it's the lack of democracy that undermines the rule of law.



Secondly, democracies tend to make relatively poor protectors of individual rights,

Compared to what?

Oligarchies? No. Fascisms? No. Autocracies? No. Corporate-states? No.

Oh, compared to some idealistic, utopian fantasy of The Perfect Government? Maybe.

But that doesn't mean anything.



most especially when those individuals happen to be unpopular - and few are more unpopular than criminals.

They're not criminals until they're convicted.

I can't see that any court system would want to change that idea -- that'd be self-destruction on the part of everyone who voted for such a measure.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I gave one - fines or any kind of monetary punishment.Monetary punishment is not a core principle. It is a means of deterring people from committing minor offences. It may be substituted by restriction of an individual's use of communal property or services, or really by anything that injures the interests of the guilty party without being a major violation of his or her liberty.


Incarceration would also be unsustainable unless you can find enough volunteers to be prison guards.I have a feeling that people would probably have an interest in protecting society from dangerous criminals.



How about a right to legal representation? Leaving aside claims that communism would abolish lawyers, a core principle of our system is that the accused, no matter how much of a scumbag, is entitled to competent representation. This is only possible, however, because the lawyers who represent these scumbags are compensated for it. I really, really, doubt that enough lawyers get enjoyment from representing scumbags that they'd do it voluntarily without compensation.Are you saying that all criminal barristers hate their job? They find it so contemptuous that the money is the only positive aspect of it? Because even if a job pays very well, to hold every other aspect of it in hatred or contempt and yet do it, day in, day out can be very damaging psychologically. Why haven't we seen more (read: any) criminal barristers taking semi-automatics to shopping malls?

Legal representation is, as you say, a human right. There would of course be many who want to see this right vindicated; there may, for example, be those with an interest in securing sufficient medical treatment for mentally impaired criminals, to ensure suitable treatment of minors in criminal cases, or even just to make sure that those who are guilty aren't unduly fucked over by the prosecution. I think legal representation for the accused is a very good idea, and would gladly advocate for accused people in a socialist society.

To be sure, the fact that people would be defending the accused out of concern for their rights and not simply for money may lead to fewer guilty people walking free due to technicalities or loopholes in the law, but that's just something we'll have to live with now isn't it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

:confused: There are certainly individuals on RL who advocate abolishing everything having to do with prisons, police, and court systems but they're largely a minority (and hopefully shrinking). From my experience it's best to not judge others based on their purist counterparts.

For all we know courts in one region of the world will operate differently than courts in say, Japan. It's not an issue of importance like human sex trafficking.

Personally I would like to see the judge bypassed and everything presented as strictly factual to avoid any emotional plea bargaining that goes on. That doesn't make me "right" nor does my belief have (anything) to do with communism.


Incarceration would also be unsustainable unless you can find enough volunteers to be prison guards.
Everywhere I look I see firefighters, grunts, and police officers accepting shit pay. I don't think it's a problem at all, especially with the drastic reduction in criminals.

[Kropotesta]

:confused: There are certainly individuals on RL who advocate abolishing everything having to do with prisons, police, and court systems but they're largely a minority (and hopefully shrinking). From my experience it's best to not judge others based on their purist counterparts.

I don't see why you say that's hopefully shrinking as it is a large part of the anarchist communist cause.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I don't see why you say that's hopefully shrinking as it is a large part of the anarchist communist cause.
Why is it part of the anarcho-communist cause? And what would be your alternative?

[Kropotesta]

well anarchists seek to abolish the state and all of its institutions. Therefore getting of hierarchy and authority, simply.
I would have a panel elected via lottery, so pretty much a jury type thing to assess the information.

[pusher robot]

[quote=Publius;1075061]It seems to work well now.

Don't most places elect judges and DAs, at least in America? We seem to do OK, usually.

We currently do operate courts a little democratically, through judicial and prosecutorial elections. However, much about the legal system is profoundly anti-democratic. The whole spectrum of Constitutional rights are by definition anti-democratic. The judge operates on a day-to-day basis without any input whatsoever from democratic bodies. Almost all criminal procedure is antidemocratic, since almost all of it serves to protect the accused.


How so? Our current system is fundamentally democratic, even down to the idea of being tried by a "jury of your peers."

A jury that requires - almost always - unanimous consensus. Which means that one single juror can prevent conviction or acquittal. That's not very democratic. Not only that, but everything else about the court's day-to-day operation is governed almost exclusively by statutory and constitutional law - to the point that jurors are explicitly forbidden from considering anybody's opinions but their own. And are truly democratic juries actually such as boon as you imagine? Why do I suspect your paean to the greatness of democratic juries wouldn't extend to the southern juries of the Jim Crow era?

In fact, I'd say the biggest problem with the current court system is that it isn't democratic enough, and it's the lack of democracy that undermines the rule of law.Well, you're wrong. Criminals - antisocial by definition - cannot rely on the whims of the majority for protection of their human or civil rights.



Compared to what?

Oligarchies? No. Fascisms? No. Autocracies? No. Corporate-states? No.


Compared to a representitive republic.



They're not criminals until they're convicted. I can't see that any court system would want to change that idea -- that'd be self-destruction on the part of everyone who voted for such a measure.

Yes they are. A person who commits a crime is a criminal regardless of whether he is convicted. If I steal something and get away with it for some reason - lack of proof, for example - that does not mean my theft was condoned by the law. On the other hand, if the court was operated democratically, it might vote to simply suspend the requirements of admissible evidence, or of needing evidence at all.

[pusher robot]

Monetary punishment is not a core principle. It is a means of deterring people from committing minor offences. It may be substituted by restriction of an individual's use of communal property or services, or really by anything that injures the interests of the guilty party without being a major violation of his or her liberty.Well, fines are core the operation of modern justice system, though you are right, they aren't core ideologically. So I'll grant you that.


I have a feeling that people would probably have an interest in protecting society from dangerous criminals.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that they personally want to undertake that responsibility. Just like I have an interest in having my trash collected doesn't mean that I personally would like to collect trash.

Are you saying that all criminal barristers hate their job?
I don't think it's a coincidence that lawyers have the second-highest rates of depression and suicide after dentists. I've known and talked with quite a few criminal defense attorneys. They try to enjoy the aspects of the job, like trial skills, that are inherently internal. Uniformly, they hate and despise the vast majority of their clients.
They find it so contemptuous that the money is the only positive aspect of it? Because even if a job pays very well, to hold every other aspect of it in hatred or contempt and yet do it, day in, day out can be very damaging psychologically.It's not just they that hate their jobs. Has it escaped your attention that criminal defense attorneys are despised in general society? That they are villified and hated, and the subject of cruel jokes simply for doing their jobs? It is damaging psychologically, which is why so many of them are either (a) borderline socially dysfunctional or (b) extremely cynical and detached. The only solace is that they are reasonably well-compensated for their work.
Why haven't we seen more (read: any) criminal barristers taking semi-automatics to shopping malls?Because they hate themselves, not others. They take the semi-automatic to their own brains.

Legal representation is, as you say, a human right. NO! No, it's a civil right. I never said it's a human right.

There would of course be many who want to see this right vindicated; there may, for example, be those with an interest in securing sufficient medical treatment for mentally impaired criminals, to ensure suitable treatment of minors in criminal cases, or even just to make sure that those who are guilty aren't unduly fucked over by the prosecution.Pure bullshit. There would be some who would volunteer. It would be nowhere near the number needed.
I think legal representation for the accused is a very good idea, and would gladly advocate for accused people in a socialist society.I doubt that very much. I'm certain that in your communist utopia, you'd have no trouble finding something better to do. Defending the accused would not just have to be a priority for you, it would have to be the highest priority of all. Otherwise, you'll be doing something else.


To be sure, the fact that people would be defending the accused out of concern for their rights and not simply for money may lead to fewer guilty people walking free due to technicalities or loopholes in the law, but that's just something we'll have to live with now isn't it.
That's a hilarious way of putting it, since the technical definition of "loophole" is "civil rights." If the criminal defender is not there to make sure that the law is rigorously applied and rights rigorously enforced, then what use is he really?


Everywhere I look I see firefighters, grunts, and police officers accepting shit pay. I don't think it's a problem at all, especially with the drastic reduction in criminals.
By the arguments of your own side, they are only doing that because they are wage slaves, and the purpose of communism is to free them from having to perform such drudgery.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that they personally want to undertake that responsibility. Just like I have an interest in having my trash collected doesn't mean that I personally would like to collect trash.
But all it takes is a coincidence of this interest and a personal interest in law. And in the absence of monetary gain as the primary incentive people would be more willing to do something because they enjoy it (ie advocating), or because it benefits society.


I don't think it's a coincidence that lawyers have the second-highest rates of depression and suicide after dentists. I've known and talked with quite a few criminal defense attorneys. They try to enjoy the aspects of the job, like trial skills, that are inherently internal. Uniformly, they hate and despise the vast majority of their clients.
Well in that case what is it that's so odious about dentistry that drives most dentists to suicide? Presumably it would be something also evident in law but evident to a larger extent in dentistry.


It's not just they that hate their jobs. Has it escaped your attention that criminal defense attorneys are despised in general society? That they are villified and hated, and the subject of cruel jokes simply for doing their jobs? It is damaging psychologically, which is why so many of them are either (a) borderline socially dysfunctional or (b) extremely cynical and detached. The only solace is that they are reasonably well-compensated for their work.
Do you by any chance run in dangerously dysfunctional social circles? I have also talked to a few (though not many) criminal barristers and they seem fine with their jobs. They take an interest in the law and the cases in which they are involved, and they are most certainly not suicidal. Nor are they widely despised by society; in fact this is quite an absurd claim as far as I am aware.


NO! No, it's a civil right. I never said it's a human right.
More a typological error than anything else. I meant to say civil, I accidentally typed human instead. I apologise for raising your blood pressure.


I doubt that very much. I'm certain that in your communist utopia, you'd have no trouble finding something better to do. Defending the accused would not just have to be a priority for you, it would have to be the highest priority of all. Otherwise, you'll be doing something else.
I don't know what you're basing this assumption on.


That's a hilarious way of putting it, since the technical definition of "loophole" is "civil rights." If the criminal defender is not there to make sure that the law is rigorously applied and rights rigorously enforced, then what use is he really?
There is having rights and there is slipping through the cracks of the criminal law.

[pusher robot]

Nor are they widely despised by society; in fact this is quite an absurd claim as far as I am aware.

To be fair, this might be an attitude unique to the United States, which I gather from your use of the word "barrister" you are not located in.

[palotin]

You need to be more explicit about how you understand 'law' in your question. Truly 'anarchist' communism would not involve 'laws' in the liberal sense of codified rules with a direct connection to a threat of physical coercion. I've seen your other posts on this forum and don't believe you are at all sincere in this, or any other question. If you are unwilling to examine your own starting point and the conceptual vocabulary with which you begin, then you clearly have no interest in understanding ideologies and philosophies with which you disagree. Frankly I find it more than a little pathetic that you have nothing better to do with your time than engaging in vulgar Red Baiting of the most uninspired kind. If you are an "anarcho-capitalist" as you elsewhere profess, wouldn't you be more happy off trying to prove the singular genius of your facile individualism by making as much money as you can?

[Dean]

It's not just they that hate their jobs. Has it escaped your attention that criminal defense attorneys are despised in general society? That they are villified and hated, and the subject of cruel jokes simply for doing their jobs?

I haven't heard much against defence attornies, but I did want to be a public defender myself.

[PsciStudent]

As a future lawyer (hopefully), I might be able to contribute somewhat to the discussion.

I doubt that lawyers have one of the highest rates of suicide of all the occupations. There is no question that the job can be stressful, but all the lawyers and judges I've talked to love what they do. No doubt there are people that went to law school thinking they were going to make tons of money working at Biglaw INC who are now living in poverty doing paralegal work. But those that know what they want out of the legal profession do just fine in our society.

Furthermore, I think that we have a sort of love/hate relationship with lawyers. Sure, the media often portrays them as lying scumbags, but there are plenty of times lawyers with principles are presented favorably. Would Law and Order be such a popular show if what goes on in the courtroom wasn't at least somewhat captivating?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

As a future lawyer (hopefully), I might be able to contribute somewhat to the discussion.

I doubt that lawyers have one of the highest rates of suicide of all the occupations. There is no question that the job can be stressful, but all the lawyers and judges I've talked to love what they do. No doubt there are people that went to law school thinking they were going to make tons of money working at Biglaw INC who are now living in poverty doing paralegal work. But those that know what they want out of the legal profession do just fine in our society.

Furthermore, I think that we have a sort of love/hate relationship with lawyers. Sure, the media often portrays them as lying scumbags, but there are plenty of times lawyers with principles are presented favorably. Would Law and Order be such a popular show if what goes on in the courtroom wasn't at least somewhat captivating?
Agreed.

Off-topic, how do you plan to get into law studying political science? Are you going into law after that?

[PsciStudent]

I'm in my senior year at Vandy, so next year its law school or bust. Psci is useful because law is a part of political theory and there are a few Psci classes here that teach abbreviated versions of 1L (first year) law classes like Constitutional law and the such.

Getting into law school is a lot like getting into med school. You have to take this expensive (and leftists would charge that it is exploitative) LSAT test and subscribe LSDAS, a clearinghouse service. Then you actually apply to law school, who admit applicants based on their test scores, GPA, and soft factors.

Only after law school can I even think about taking the bar without failing it. And after that, hopefully I can spend the rest of my life selling out to the man. Although seriously, I enjoy the topic of intellectual property and hope that I can practice in this field.

[Marsella]

Everyone hates lawyers until they marry one...or until their son/daughter becomes one. ;-)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm in my senior year at Vandy, so next year its law school or bust. Psci is useful because law is a part of political theory and there are a few Psci classes here that teach abbreviated versions of 1L (first year) law classes like Constitutional law and the such.

Getting into law school is a lot like getting into med school. You have to take this expensive (and leftists would charge that it is exploitative) LSAT test and subscribe LSDAS, a clearinghouse service. Then you actually apply to law school, who admit applicants based on their test scores, GPA, and soft factors.

Only after law school can I even think about taking the bar without failing it. And after that, hopefully I can spend the rest of my life selling out to the man. Although seriously, I enjoy the topic of intellectual property and hope that I can practice in this field.
That sucks. I'm studying Law in Ireland and it was just like getting into any other college course over here, you sit your leaving cert and if you do well enough you get the course you apply to. The government pays for your first degree. Of course we also have the Law Society/Kings Inns (bar society) hurdle.

IP law is really interesting, I don't study it yet as a subject but I chose it for a LSM (Legal Systems & Methods) essay where we had to write about and suggest reforms to an area of law not covered in this year's subject matter.

[PsciStudent]

Yeah, getting into law school really is a competitive process and expensive to boot. And I totally understand your point that IP law should be reformed. Giving companies a 20 year patent advantage is silly and probably does need to be shortened a little.

Your description of law school in Ireland is very interesting. In the US, once you get into law school you are able to take all the classes available. But I guess this isnt the case overseas...

[Dean]

Everyone hates lawyers until they marry one...or until their son/daughter becomes one. ;-)

I never understood this. I first understood lawyers as people who fought over the law, and that just seemed odd to me. When I realized that lawyers were meant to give people equal chance at utilizing the law properly when fucked over by others (or after having fucked others over) I saw them as fulfilling a necessary, even noble role in the legal system. As I pointed out earlier, I wanted to be a public defender at one point because I hate the law, and even when criminals are in the wrong their punishment is usually way too harsh. I only didn't study that because I didn't want to become immersed in law and hate it at the same time.

Granted, a lot of lawyers are dicks, and they are often abole to get criminals off unfairly, make money for big corporations and defend them. Still, that is a part and response to the law itself, not lawyers.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I never understood this. I first understood lawyers as people who fought over the law, and that just seemed odd to me. When I realized that lawyers were meant to give people equal chance at utilizing the law properly when fucked over by others (or after having fucked others over) I saw them as fulfilling a necessary, even noble role in the legal system. As I pointed out earlier, I wanted to be a public defender at one point because I hate the law, and even when criminals are in the wrong their punishment is usually way too harsh. I only didn't study that because I didn't want to become immersed in law and hate it at the same time.

Granted, a lot of lawyers are dicks, and they are often abole to get criminals off unfairly, make money for big corporations and defend them. Still, that is a part and response to the law itself, not lawyers.
You hate the law? How so?

[Dean]

You hate the law? How so?

It is primarily used to hold down and oppress vast numbers of people. The law has complete moral double standards when it comes to foreigners versus citizens. The law of the land is property rights... The list goes on, really. As a lawyer, you are ultimately bound by, caught up in and working for these regulations. I don't want to be a part of that.

[pusher robot]

Furthermore, I think that we have a sort of love/hate relationship with lawyers. Sure, the media often portrays them as lying scumbags, but there are plenty of times lawyers with principles are presented favorably. Would Law and Order be such a popular show if what goes on in the courtroom wasn't at least somewhat captivating?

You sort of prove my point. The prosecutors are presented favorably. But even in that show, almost every single defense attorney is portrayed as an amoralistic scumbag.

[Dragan67]

Pusher Robot,

If money is abolished? It's a little late to be abolishing a medium of exchange, isn't it? Even the Soviet (so-called Communist) system had currencies, I can prove it too. However, if capitalism, corporatism and the motivation of greed were as abolished as possible, much of the iconography and psychology and socio-pathologies extant in capitalist societies would disappear along with them. Think about it. Capitalism is a system in which businesses strive to sell you shit you don't really need. In order to do so they have to besiege you with doubts and fears about your own effectiveness or attractiveness, masculinity, femininity, blackness, brownness, whiteness and so on. Deprived of your agency as a human being by these carefully engineered anxieties, you are positioned 'in need of' something or another. The capitalist initially looks for a need to be filled. In the absence of a need, one must be created. Madison Avenue is the earthly fleshing of this need amongst capitalists. The function of the ad-men is first to create consumers, and next, deliberately or not, to create subjects. Mainly because actual citizens don't make especially good subject/consumers. Sell some citizens (Real ones, not these nominal types. You might need to go to Pakistan to find some) a batch of worthless, mildly poisonous, snake-oil type medicine sometime. If you're run out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered, hanged, burned alive or some such thing you'll understand what I'm talking about.

The important thing is, in my opinion, that humanity isn't ready for pure anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism, until everyone can understand that it really isn't synonymous with chaos and disorder. A misapprehension sown by, did you guess it already? capitalists and their adman cronies! Meanwhile, criminality can flourish everywhere. Why? Because the greatest mass of humanity doesn't even consciously understand their own motivations a great deal of the time. They must be conscious in order to progress into an advanced political state like True Communism, Democratic Socialism, Anarcho-syndicalism, or Anarchy, where criminal motivations can be limited (by people being active and responsible citizens) instead of deliberately expanded upon (resulting in ignorance, fear, hatred, undirectable outrage, free-floating anxiety, infantilization and subjection to authority).

Dragan67