"Police" in an anarchist society

[FriedFrog]

What role would a "police" force play in an anarchist society?

What I mean is some sort of professional, accountable organisation that would perform duties such as detective work, tracking down of criminals etc as well as employing preventative techniques to reduce crime.

I know that the theory goes that most crime will be significantly reduced, but surely it is a certainty that murders, rapes, paedophilia etc will still take place? How would these be prevented, or the perpetrators brought to justice, without making the group that does this a source of authority?

Does the maxim "To Protect And Serve" hold any significance as to what an ideal "police" organisation would do?

[mikelepore]

Many writers in this forum create most of their own confusion by asking "what will" or "what would" about situations that are to be decided someday. Since the future isn't determined, your question is really "what do you suggest that people do."

Sometimes the human brain gets defective and makes someone become compulsive or violent. I suggest that even the most perfected society continue to have laws, police and trials. If it finds that it needs far fewer of them than are needed today, then have far fewer of them.

[FriedFrog]

Many writers in this forum create most of their own confusion by asking "what will" or "what would" about situations that are to be decided someday. Since the future isn't determined, your question is really "what do you suggest that people do."

Ok, that makes sense, yeah.

What I'm really trying to get at is whether a police force in an anarchist society would be contradictory to it's aims or not. How would society allow a group of people to enforce law without giving them authority? Is it possible? Are the suggestions that I put forward in my first post relevant?

What about non anarchists? What role do you expect the police to play in your vision of post revolutionary society?

The reason I ask is that I've grown up around a lot of members of the police, and whilst I am no apologist for them, I feel that they could provide certain expertise that could help the organisation and maintanence of the post revolutionary society (assuming that somehow they changed sides to become anti-establishment :lol:).

Let me know what you think.

[Raúl Duke]

We would keep all those forensic (civilian-like) people around.

I would cautiously suggest that we rotate police work among people who volunteer for random work that are usually unwanted or etc.

Thus no one will "settle" in as a cop. However, maybe others have better ideas.

Courts would probably be much more simplified than they are now and the jury would decide on everything (There might be no judges at all and maybe even no lawyers).

[apathy maybe]

Amazingly I can remember this coming up only once before. A quick look down the bottom of the page where the similar threads function is, brings up this thread> http://www.revleft.com/vb/police-anarchist-society-t64367/index.html

I stand by my comments in that thread, police and anarchism are two incompatible ideas. You can't have one, and the other.

Yes, there could be some sort of "people's militia" that might fulfil many of the roles currently taken by the police, but they would not be a police force, and they would be no more special then the rest of the population (unlike a police force).

[FriedFrog]

The militia idea seems to be most compatible. I seem to recall that it was a militia based system during the Spanish civil war to fight the fascists, no?

Regarding the rotation system, I would not be entirely convinced that it would be effective. Whilst it would keep the "bad cops" out, it could also prevent the "good cops" from becoming rooted as a respected, long serving member of society. If the militia members were directly accountable (recallable any time) and perhaps elected on a regular basis at a local level, then I would have more trust in them.

[INDK]

I share almost exact opinions with apathy maybe. There would need to be a militia for domestic and foreign threats, and policing and law enforcement would become ultimately obsolete. Moreover, Anarchism and Law Enforcement (note emphasis) are incompatible institutions and could not coexist with each other - Law Enforcement is the enforcement of law, an institution of the State and consequentially class rule.

[Kropotesta]

I'd probably favour a more of a neighbour hood watch scheme.

[mikelepore]

A police department is better solution than a militia. With a continuous department of people specializing in this task, society can see to it that they have a lot of helpful education. We would want them to have studied ethical guidelines, and probably social work and psychology. We want them to be solidly educated to use the minimum amount of physical force. We want them to be educated about individuals' civil liberties. It is also a matter of practiced skill to be able to restrain an out-of-control person in a compassionate way, a fact known to people who work in institutions that house mentally ill patients. The more skills involved, the more there's a need to have people who specialize in it.

The advantages of making police work a specialization are difficult for us to recognize only because of the way today's society perverts the entire role. Today the police departments knowingly recruit wild-west types of personalities who enjoy screaming orders at people and acting out the role of we-heroes versus them-savages. Police are also given promotions and raise according to how many arrests and convictions they win, so instead of seeking the truth itself they are biased toward saying that anyone with shifty eyes is probably guilty. The departments use the filter of the Bureau of Internal Affairs to make police officers somewhat immune from being personal responsible for their misconduct. Some of the excessive force is institutional in origin, for example, the reason Amadou Diallo was shot by a total of 41 police bullets is that the NYPD has a written policy that, once the police begin to shoot at a suspect, they are required to continue shooting the person until all police officers' guns are empty. These procedural outrages make it appear to leftists that the whole idea of having a police deparment is an outmoded idea. I argue that, once the many kinds of misdirection are removed, police work will be a necessary and useful job.

[Kropotesta]

A police department is better solution than a militia. With a continuous department of people specializing in this task, society can see to it that they have a lot of helpful education. We would want them to have studied ethical guidelines, and probably social work and psychology. We want them to be solidly educated to use the minimum amount of physical force. We want them to be educated about individuals' civil liberties. It is also a matter of practiced skill to be able to restrain an out-of-control person in a compassionate way, a fact known to people who work in institutions that house mentally ill patients. The more skills involved, the more there's a need to have people who specialize in it.

The advantages of making police work a specialization are difficult for us to recognize only because of the way today's society perverts the entire role. Today the police departments knowingly recruit wild-west types of personalities who enjoy screaming orders at people and acting out the role of we-heroes versus them-savages. Police are also given promotions and raise according to how many arrests and convictions they win, so instead of seeking the truth itself they are biased toward saying that anyone with shifty eyes is probably guilty. The departments use the filter of the Bureau of Internal Affairs to make police officers somewhat immune from being personal responsible for their misconduct. Some of the excessive force is institutional in origin, for example, the reason Amadou Diallo was shot by a total of 41 police bullets is that the NYPD has a written policy that, once the police begin to shoot at a suspect, they are required to continue shooting the person until all police officers' guns are empty. These procedural outrages make it appear to leftists that the whole idea of having a police deparment is an outmoded idea. I argue that, once the many kinds of misdirection are removed, police work will be a necessary and useful job.
I don't see how this would be any different to the current police force as obviously police do have psychologists and are taught to restrain, so I don't see what you're purposing is any different.
I reckon a close knit neighbourhood watch scheme would work well, like a federal system inside a city. so utra devolution.

[Ell Carino]

I'd probably favour a more of a neighbour hood watch scheme.

Yeah, cuz that'd really tackle organised crime...

An Anarchist state would not work! Such a bad idea, a state, country, province, would be far worse under an Anarchist way of life... can you imagine the power change that would occur? Criminals would end up running the place. Humans aren't altriustic and honest, Anarchism would require a great level of virtue from every citizen, and lets face it... this isn't a reality. There are too many different interests, and Anarchism would make it easier for bad interests and schemes to be executed.

Anarchism is a ridiculous idea; a majority of people would not feel safe. The Police are required in a society. Unless tomorrow every single person becomes miraculously enlightened, and the selfishness in humanity is dissolved.

[AGITprop]

Yeah, cuz that'd really tackle organised crime...

An Anarchist state would not work! Such a bad idea, a state, country, province, would be far worse under an Anarchist way of life... can you imagine the power change that would occur? Criminals would end up running the place. Humans aren't altriustic and honest, Anarchism would require a great level of virtue from every citizen, and lets face it... this isn't a reality. There are too many different interests, and Anarchism would make it easier for bad interests and schemes to be executed.

Anarchism is a ridiculous idea; a majority of people would not feel safe. The Police are required in a society. Unless tomorrow every single person becomes miraculously enlightened, and the selfishness in humanity is dissolved.

whoa. u may not want to pick fights with anarchists whithout backing up your claims. i am not anarchist but claiming that anarchism is a horrible idea is just proposterous. yes, i have my own issues with anarchists but just watch out, they will eat u alive...lol

[BIG BROTHER]

Yeah, cuz that'd really tackle organised crime...

An Anarchist state would not work! Such a bad idea, a state, country, province, would be far worse under an Anarchist way of life... can you imagine the power change that would occur? Criminals would end up running the place. Humans aren't altriustic and honest, Anarchism would require a great level of virtue from every citizen, and lets face it... this isn't a reality. There are too many different interests, and Anarchism would make it easier for bad interests and schemes to be executed.

Anarchism is a ridiculous idea; a majority of people would not feel safe. The Police are required in a society. Unless tomorrow every single person becomes miraculously enlightened, and the selfishness in humanity is dissolved.

I don't think you should be so negative, an anarquist society is indeed hard but no imposibe, for example the towns that are under control of the EZLN could be considered as anarquist in their form of goverment, and they work very well.

By the way, could anyone explain me how the millitia would work?

[AGITprop]

By the way, could anyone explain me how the millitia would work?[/quote]

well i cant speak for anarchists, but marxist theory explains that it s important to have an armed population who can defend itself and not a seperate armed body which can be used against the people. u understand? im sure anarchists share the same view.

[Kropotesta]

Yeah, cuz that'd really tackle organised crime...

An Anarchist state would not work! Such a bad idea, a state, country, province, would be far worse under an Anarchist way of life... can you imagine the power change that would occur? Criminals would end up running the place. Humans aren't altriustic and honest, Anarchism would require a great level of virtue from every citizen, and lets face it... this isn't a reality. There are too many different interests, and Anarchism would make it easier for bad interests and schemes to be executed.

Anarchism is a ridiculous idea; a majority of people would not feel safe. The Police are required in a society. Unless tomorrow every single person becomes miraculously enlightened, and the selfishness in humanity is dissolved.
the ignorance to anarchism in this post is laughable.
well if people looked after each part of where they lived then where would this organised crime be harboured? in anarchist society certainly not in the houses of parliament!
The power change that'd would occur? of course we understand this and this is one of the main reasons for an anarchist society.
so this criminals then, what would they do? run about attacking people and stealing their bread? if popular resistance could raise to otherthrow the government and capitalism, then i am confident to say that I think the people could prevent these criminals.
A common misception is that anarchists believe in all people being good at birth. No we don't all think that. I believe, as Bakunin said, that people are shaped via their surroundings. Also what makes you think that If there was nothing to stop people, that they'd run around killing everyone?
Police are needed to tackle organised crime? do you honestly think that police are really a deterrent to organised crime and actually fighting it?

not really an extensive critque of the post but I hope others we go further into this.

[AGITprop]

the ignorance to anarchism in this post is laughable.
well if people looked after each part of where they lived then where would this organised crime be harboured? in anarchist society certainly not in the houses of parliament!
The power change that'd would occur? of course we understand this and this is one of the main reasons for an anarchist society.
so this criminals then, what would they do? run about attacking people and stealing their bread? if popular resistance could raise to otherthrow the government and capitalism, then i am confident to say that I think the people could prevent these criminals.
A common misception is that anarchists believe in all people being good at birth. No we don't all think that. I believe, as Bakunin said, that people are shaped via their surroundings. Also what makes you think that If there was nothing to stop people, that they'd run around killing everyone?
Police are needed to tackle organised crime? do you honestly think that police are really a deterrent to organised crime and actually fighting it?

not really an extensive critque of the post but I hope others we go further into this.
this is absolutely right, but a more indepth and built analysis is marx and engels. they have said that material conditions determine consciousness. Crime will go down in an anarchist/communist society because the reasons for crime will decrease.

[Everyday Anarchy]

I also strongly support the idea of a close-knit neighborhood watch program. Regular meetings could be held openly and voluntarily to discuss rising troubles in the community and could be dealt with early and diplomatically before anything escalates.

A phone-tree type 9-1-1 phone system could be used to give community members quick contact with willing people who can help. Many towns have volunteer fire departments made of people who could just as easily settle community disputes.

However, each community is different and they should be free to adapt defensive and peace-keeping strategies that best fit the needs of their people.

[Miss Mindfuck.]

Yeah, cuz that'd really tackle organised crime...

An Anarchist state would not work! Such a bad idea, a state, country, province, would be far worse under an Anarchist way of life... can you imagine the power change that would occur? Criminals would end up running the place. Humans aren't altriustic and honest, Anarchism would require a great level of virtue from every citizen, and lets face it... this isn't a reality. There are too many different interests, and Anarchism would make it easier for bad interests and schemes to be executed.

Anarchism is a ridiculous idea; a majority of people would not feel safe. The Police are required in a society. Unless tomorrow every single person becomes miraculously enlightened, and the selfishness in humanity is dissolved.

Don't be so hasty in your judgement...
You are only propagating the (incorrect) belief that anarchy is nothing more than chaos; an opportunity for the wicked to run amok without consequence.
If you managed to work together to overthrow your government, don't you think you and your community could also band together to fight crime, both petty and organized?

[INDK]

Yeah, cuz that'd really tackle organised crime...

Yeah. It would.


An Anarchist state would not work!

Agreed; since an Anarchist State is a complete oxymoron.


Such a bad idea, a state, country, province, would be far worse under an Anarchist way of life...

Really?


can you imagine the power change that would occur?

Yeah; from the thieves to the people. What of it?


Criminals would end up running the place.

Mercy me, I was under the illusion criminals ran the place now.


Humans aren't altriustic and honest, Anarchism would require a great level of virtue from every citizen, and lets face it... this isn't a reality.

They're not altruistic and honest because the altruistic and honest are too weak to survive in Capitalist society and will be overran by the rabid consumer. Now, humans aren't perfect; but honesty isn't what's required; work ethic, contribution, and economic justice are requirements. These are perfectly attainable in an Anarchist society.


There are too many different interests, and Anarchism would make it easier for bad interests and schemes to be executed.

No, no. There's bad interests now - because in the dog-eat-dog world of Capitalism and competition, everyone's trying to get over on each other; to escape the alienation they are subject to.


Anarchism is a ridiculous idea; a majority of people would not feel safe. The Police are required in a society. Unless tomorrow every single person becomes miraculously enlightened, and the selfishness in humanity is dissolved.

Why aren't you restricted, anyway? You anti-Communist piece of shit.

[Xiao Banfa]

Pretty much every attempt at an anarchist society has required policing.

You can call them workers millitias or whatever.

It just matters how you define police. Are they full time?

Are they brainwashed with a reactionary esprit du corp?

If you're a sensible anarchist, you'll admit that humans aren't perfect and they need policing even given the fact that in a stateless classless society crime goes down radically.

[INDK]

Well, you have to understand the clear-cut difference between people's militia and State Law Enforcement. There are some motherfuckers out there that'll make trouble - I don't deny this and any Anarchist that does doesn't understand the implications of reality and the abolition of all State. "Police" in the context used currently is of State Law Enforcement and therefore I feel obligated to attack that specific policing entity.

[LibertarianSocialist]

Here's a little advice, everytime one of you thinks anarchist society just 'couldn't work', because this and this and that, I'd advice you to check ''the anarchofaq'. Which covers pretty much all the stupid assumptions and standard questions about anarchism. This one concerns crime, as usual. So I'll save you guys the time of actually looking up what anarchists think about it and copy paste section i.5.8 of the anarchofaq, "What about crime?". If there's any more questions, please let me know.





For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?")
"Crime", therefore, cannot be divorced from the society within which it occurs. Society, in Emma Goldman's words, gets the criminals it deserves. For example, anarchists do not think it unusual nor unexpected that crime exploded under the pro-free market capitalist regimes of Thatcher and Reagan. Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13 years were marked by a government firmly committed to the "free market" and "individual responsibility." It was entirely predictable that the social disruption, atomisation of individuals, and increased poverty caused by freeing capitalism from social controls would rip society apart and increase criminal activity. Also unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could have had no other effect, for "the government's powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality." [Anarchy, p. 46]
Hence the paradox of governments committed to "individual rights," the "free market" and "getting the state off our backs" increasing state power and reducing rights while holding office during a crime explosion is no paradox at all. "The conjuncture of the rhetoric of individual freedom and a vast increase in state power," argues Carole Pateman, "is not unexpected at a time when the influence of contract doctrine is extending into the last, most intimate nooks and crannies of social life. Taken to a conclusion, contract undermines the conditions of its own existence. Hobbes showed long ago that contract -- all the way down -- requires absolutism and the sword to keep war at bay." [The Sexual Contract, p. 232]
Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct -- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one's happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own." [Mutual Aid, p. 16]
The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic bonds of society - namely human solidarity - and hierarchy crushes the individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with others and so understand why we must be ethical and respect others rights.
We should also point out that prisons have numerous negative affects on society as well as often re-enforcing criminal (i.e. anti-social) behaviour. Kropotkin originated the accurate description of prisons as "Universities of Crime" wherein the first-time criminal learns new techniques and have adapt to the prevailing ethical standards within them. Hence, prisons would have the effect of increasing the criminal tendencies of those sent there and so prove to be counter-productive. In addition, prisons do not affect the social conditions which promote many forms of crime.
We are not saying, however, that anarchists reject the concept of individual responsibility. While recognising that rape, for example, is the result of a social system which represses sexuality and is based on patriarchy (i.e. rape has more to do with power than sex), anarchists do not "sit back" and say "it's society's fault." Individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions and recognise that consequences of those actions. Part of the current problem with "law codes" is that individuals have been deprived of the responsibility for developing their own ethical code, and so are less likely to develop "civilised" social standards (see section I.7.3).
Therefore, while anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialised justice system, they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Therefore, some sort of "court" system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to adjudicate disputes between citizens.
These courts would function in one of two ways. One possibility is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third party. Then the "court" in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. The second possibility is when the parties cannot not agree (or if the victim was dead). Then the issue could be raised at a communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the commune, their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case. As Malatesta pointed out, "when differences were to arise between men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an irresponsible magistrate which has the right to adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?" [Anarchy, p. 43]
In the case of a "police force," this would not exist either as a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. Such a system would "not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special, official body: all able-bodied inhabitants [of a commune] will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune." [James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 371] This system would be based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced. Moreover, by accustoming a population to intervene in anti-social as part of the militia, they would be empowered to do so when not an active part of it, so reducing the need for its services even more.
Such a body would not have a monopoly on protecting others, but would simply be on call if others required it. It would no more be a monopoly of defence (i.e. a "police force") than the current fire service is a monopoly. Individuals are not banned from putting out fires today because the fire service exists, similarly individuals will be free to help stop anti-social crime by themselves, or in association with others, in an anarchist society.
Of course there are anti-social acts which occur without witnesses and so the "guilty" party cannot be readily identified. If such acts did occur we can imagine an anarchist community taking two courses of action. The injured party may look into the facts themselves or appoint an agent to do so or, more likely, an ad hoc group would be elected at a community assembly to investigate specific crimes of this sort. Such a group would be given the necessary "authority" to investigate the crime and be subject to recall by the community if they start trying to abuse whatever authority they had. Once the investigating body thought it had enough evidence it would inform the community as well as the affected parties and then organise a court. Of course, a free society will produce different solutions to such problems, solutions no-one has considered yet and so these suggestions are just that, suggestions.
As is often stated, prevention is better than cure. This is as true of crime as of disease. In other words, crime is best fought by rooting out its causes as opposed to punishing those who act in response to these causes. For example, it is hardly surprising that a culture that promotes individual profit and consumerism would produce individuals who do not respect other people (or themselves) and see them as purely means to an end (usually increased consumption). And, like everything else in a capitalist system, such as honour and pride, conscience is also available at the right price -- hardly an environment which encourages consideration for others, or even for oneself.
In addition, a society based on hierarchical authority will also tend to produce anti-social activity because the free development and expression it suppresses. Thus, irrational authority (which is often claimed to be the only cure for crime) actually helps produce it. As Emma Goldman argued, crime "is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statues can only increase, but never do away with, crime" [Red Emma Speaks, p. 57]
Eric Fromm, decades latter, makes the same point:
"It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity of the growth and expression of man's sensuous, emotional, and intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived . . . the drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the less is the strength of destructiveness. Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life. Those individual and social conditions that make for suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies -- either against others or against oneself -- are nourished" [The Fear of Freedom, p. 158] Therefore, by reorganising society so that it empowers everyone and actively encourages the use of all our intellectual, emotional and sensuous abilities, crime would soon cease to be the huge problem that it is now. As for the anti-social behaviour or clashes between individuals that might still exist in such a society, it would be dealt with in a system based on respect for the individual and a recognition of the social roots of the problem. Restraint would be kept to a minimum.
Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive non-co-operation by neighbours, friends and work mates would be the best means of stopping acts which harmed others.
An anarchist system of justice, we should note, would have a lot to learn from aboriginal societies simply because they are examples of social order without the state. Indeed many of the ideas we consider as essential to justice today can be found in such societies. As Kropotkin argued, "when we imagine that we have made great advances in introducing, for instance, the jury, all we have done is to return to the institutions of the so-called 'barbarians' after having changed it to the advantage of the ruling classes." [The State: Its Historic Role, p. 18]
Like aboriginal justice (as documented by Rupert Ross in Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice) anarchists contend that offenders should not be punished but justice achieved by the teaching and healing of all involved. Public condemnation of the wrongdoing would be a key aspect of this process, but the wrong doer would remain part of the community and so see the effects of their actions on others in terms of grief and pain caused. It would be likely that wrong doers would be expected to try to make amends for their act by community service or helping victims and their families.
So, from a practical viewpoint, almost all anarchists oppose prisons on both practical grounds (they do not work) and ethical grounds ("We know what prisons mean -- they mean broken down body and spirit, degradation, consumption, insanity" Voltairine de Cleyre, quoted by Paul Avrich in An American Anarchist, p. 146]). The Makhnovists took the usual anarchist position on prisons:
"Prisons are the symbol of the servitude of the people, they are always built only to subjugate the people, the workers and peasants. . . Free people have no use for prisons. Wherever prisons exist, the people are not free. . . In keeping with this attitude, they [the Makhnovists] demolished prisons wherever they went." [Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 153] With the exception of Benjamin Tucker, no major anarchist writer supported the institution. Few anarchists think that private prisons (like private policemen) are compatible with their notions of freedom. However, all anarchists are against the current "justice" system which seems to them to be organised around revenge and punishing effects and not fixing causes.
However, there are psychopaths and other people in any society who are too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely. Restraint in this case would be the only option and such people may have to be isolated from others for their own, and others, safety. Perhaps mental hospitals would be used, or an area quarantined for their use created (perhaps an island, for example). However, such cases (we hope) would be rare.
So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of pubic opinion and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically rehabilitate those who commit anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued, "liberty, equality, and practical human sympathy are the most effective barriers we can oppose to the anti-social instinct of certain among us" and not a parasitic legal system. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 117]





Pretty much every attempt at an anarchist society has required policing.

You can call them workers millitias or whatever.

It just matters how you define police. Are they full time?

Are they brainwashed with a reactionary esprit du corp?

If you're a sensible anarchist, you'll admit that humans aren't perfect and they need policing even given the fact that in a stateless classless society crime goes down radically.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yeah, cuz that'd really tackle organised crime...

An Anarchist state would not work! Such a bad idea, a state, country, province, would be far worse under an Anarchist way of life... can you imagine the power change that would occur? Criminals would end up running the place. Humans aren't altriustic and honest, Anarchism would require a great level of virtue from every citizen, and lets face it... this isn't a reality. There are too many different interests, and Anarchism would make it easier for bad interests and schemes to be executed.

Anarchism is a ridiculous idea; a majority of people would not feel safe. The Police are required in a society. Unless tomorrow every single person becomes miraculously enlightened, and the selfishness in humanity is dissolved.Get back to us when you know what anarchy is.

[Communist Theory]

Police of course would serve as target practice for the militia.