Court System

[Remus Bleys]

Do you have any evidence for this claim? That murders and rapes are less common in countries with less wealth inequality than with those with more of it?

Im sure this proof exists somewhere - but equal pay has nothing to do with communism. Communism is production for need, ensuring each member of the human community is able to develop to their fullest - communism is the human gemeinwesen. Equality has nothing to do with why the true human community will significantly reduce, I'd not eliminate "crime"

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I said they shouldn't be treated inhumanely, which rules out killing them. But they need to be separated from the community.

Why, if they are unlikely to murder someone again?

Isolation, prison...that's a matter of semantics really.

No, it really isn't. Living in an isolated area, with few other people, is not the same as being locked up in a cell. Think exile instead of prison.

Prevention of more murders?

How? Because we've had prisons in the modern sense for a couple of centuries now, and they certainly don't seem to be stopping people from committing murder.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? That murders and rapes are less common in countries with less wealth inequality than with those with more of it?

Class society exists in both kinds of countries.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why, if they are unlikely to murder someone again?

Because, to me, there should be consequences for depriving someone of their life. For what I believe will be very rare cases of murder, being removed from the community for a certain period of time is appropriate.

No, it really isn't. Living in an isolated area, with few other people, is not the same as being locked up in a cell. Think exile instead of prison.

Does a prison have to have cells as such? To my mind, a prison is simply a place from which you cannot leave.

[Remus Bleys]

What complete moralist buffoonery. People have to get punished for what they do because of your "personal feelings" (you have a habit of letting those dominate your politics, don't you? ). I mean, so much for "libertarian socialism" right? The individualism in your post completely ignores the Marxist method - the individual makes other individuals but not themselves. I.E. the individual is not in charge of their "destiny" nor do they define themselves, but rather they are defined by their relation with broader social relations and it is that, not some transhistorical soul, that defines their actions.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What complete moralist buffoonery. People have to get punished for what they do because of your "personal feelings" (you have a habit of letting those dominate your politics, don't you? ).

We're talking about the extreme action of murder. If thinking that it should have consequences makes me a "moralist buffoon", so be it.

I mean, so much for "libertarian socialism" right?

Murder is as authoritarian as it gets. In contrast, thinking a murderer should be treated humanely but removed from the community for some period of time isn't.

[ThatGuy]

How? Because we've had prisons in the modern sense for a couple of centuries now, and they certainly don't seem to be stopping people from committing murder.

The empirical data is pretty distorted on this question, because there's a spike in violent crime following the war on drugs, and no country ever legalized murder, but it logically follows that if some people want to commit murder and there's less incentive not to, there will be more murders.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Governments have legalized robbery for themselves though, and we can clearly see how that's doing.

Class society exists in both kinds of countries.

So you have no empirical evidence for your claim, and reject estimates that might suggest an answer. Do you have a logical argument to support it?

[Remus Bleys]

What does it matter that murder is a more extreme form of a social relation? Is Marxism only valid in so far as it's not murder? Why? Why do you turn to ridiculous concepts of free will (which necessitates, again, since form of a soul that determines all instead of one's social relation) in the case of murder?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What does it matter that murder is a more extreme form of a social relation? Is Marxism only valid in so far as it's not murder? Why? Why do you turn to ridiculous concepts of free will (which necessitates, again, since form of a soul that determines all instead of one's social relation) in the case of murder?

What are you even on about?

[QueerVanguard]

What are you even on about?

It's pretty simple. You reject Marxism when it interferes with your non-historical moralist hogshit but accept it when it coincides with it, pretty crappy in terms of consistency if you ask me. You sound like a Proudhonist when it comes to this.

The point is that murderers can't be held responsible for things beyond their control and no individual, no matter how many liberal fairytales you read about free will and autonomy, is in charge of their actions in isolation. We are an ensemble of social relations, nothing more nothing less, and taking people out of the community who may have murdered someone is extremely inhumane when you think like a true Marxist about the issue.

[liberlict]

What would that accomplish, though? I think the sentiment that "there needs to be a consequence" sounds suspiciously like "justice" etc.

What's your issue with the principle of justice?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because, to me, there should be consequences for depriving someone of their life. For what I believe will be very rare cases of murder, being removed from the community for a certain period of time is appropriate.

It might seem appropriate to you, but what are the tangible benefits of this course of action to the people who would live in the communist society? Presumably in the communist society, what little "policy" would still be necessary would be based on the concrete needs of the community, not on what people feel is right, particularly people who were born in the class society.

I genuinely don't know how you reconcile this morality-driven approach to social issues in the communist society with the communist commitment to abolishing government over men.

Does a prison have to have cells as such? To my mind, a prison is simply a place from which you cannot leave.

But obviously, we distinguish between prison and internal exile in English. In any case, the difference between our proposals is that I do not think the murderer should be punished. If there is a real danger of them killing again, they need to be isolated for the protection of the population, not because of some retributive notion of justice.

The empirical data is pretty distorted on this question, because there's a spike in violent crime following the war on drugs, and no country ever legalized murder, but it logically follows that if some people want to commit murder and there's less incentive not to, there will be more murders.

There have been situations - quite a few of them in fact - where the central authorities were pretty much powerless to enforce the laws. And, as I hinted, prisons are a fairly modern invention. Yet the notion that there were more murders in e.g. mediaeval Island than there are in modern Island doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

All this talk of "incentives" presupposes a very lop-sided, wooden view of human rationality; it's about as useless as the homo economicus models of bourgeois economy.

Governments have legalized robbery for themselves though, and we can clearly see how that's doing.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything; it seems like a remark that would be appropriate in a discussion between American right-libertarians and liberals. But we communists don't want to expand the powers of the bourgeois government, we want to kill the bourgeois government and seize all your fast food wagons.

So you have no empirical evidence for your claim, and reject estimates that might suggest an answer. Do you have a logical argument to support it?

It's not a matter of having no empirical evidence, but of the entire thing being a minor point in all of this. I would dig through the back issues of The Radical Therapist etc., but it really isn't relevant to the discussion.

What's your issue with the principle of justice?

The same as it has always been - it is anti-materialist, arbitrary, and unnecessary.

[Tim Cornelis]

I imagine there'd by some sort of council court system which functions as mediation between conflicting parties. The council court would be made up of, say, 12 randomly selected volunteers that assess the evidence and determine on ad hoc basis the appropriate course of action through mediation and restorative justice wherever applicable. Rehabilitation should be preferred over punishment, though we might expect that with collective child rearing and socialisation rehabilitation would not be needed often. Murder will fall in two categories: as a result of mental illness (which will result in forced isolation but humane care) and crimes of passion for which the chances of recidivism need to be assessed on case to case basis, but I imagine it's quite low. In essence, there'd be a form of customary law.

As for this thread, it's riddled with vulgar materialism (determinism) which ignores that materialism does not invalidate human agency (Remus Bleys and Vincent West particularly).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I imagine there'd by some sort of council court system which functions as mediation between conflicting parties. The council court would be made up of, say, 12 randomly selected volunteers that assess the evidence and determine on ad hoc basis the appropriate course of action through mediation and restorative justice wherever applicable. Rehabilitation should be preferred over punishment, though we might expect that with collective child rearing and socialisation rehabilitation would not be needed often. Murder will fall in two categories: as a result of mental illness (which will result in forced isolation but humane care) and crimes of passion for which the chances of recidivism need to be assessed on case to case basis, but I imagine it's quite low. In essence, there'd be a form of customary law.

So, like many l-l-libertarians, you end up proposing a "red" court with "red" juries and undoubtedly "red" lawyers, "red" prisons and so on - in fact the present system, only somehow "communist". As I said in an earlier post, communism abolishes government over men, it does not mean we carry on as before, only our courts are "workers' courts" and our prisons are "people's prisons" and undoubtedly they are just, etc. etc.

As for this thread, it's riddled with vulgar materialism (determinism) which ignores that materialism does not invalidate human agency (Remus Bleys and Vincent West particularly).

Well, you're free to demonstrate any vulgar materialism on our part.

[QueerVanguard]

I imagine there'd by some sort of council court system which functions as mediation between conflicting parties. The council court would be made up of, say, 12 randomly selected volunteers that assess the evidence and determine on ad hoc basis the appropriate course of action through mediation and restorative justice wherever applicable. Rehabilitation should be preferred over punishment, though we might expect that with collective child rearing and socialisation rehabilitation would not be needed often. Murder will fall in two categories: as a result of mental illness (which will result in forced isolation but humane care) and crimes of passion for which the chances of recidivism need to be assessed on case to case basis, but I imagine it's quite low. In essence, there'd be a form of customary law.

As for this thread, it's riddled with vulgar materialism (determinism) which ignores that materialism does not invalidate human agency (Remus Bleys and Vincent West particularly).

I think your post is riddled with reactionary assumptions and liberal theories of "justice". Reactionary assumption #1 is the idea murder will even continue after capitalism and Reactionary assumption #2 is the idea that even if it did murderers should be held responsible for actions they really have no control over. Liberalist crap #1 is the idea we need courts to oppress people after capitalism. Call me kooky or whatever, but it doesn't matter to me if it's 1 bourgie judge oppressing me or a "council of volunteers" doing it, oppression is oppression is oppression.

[Tim Cornelis]

So, like many l-l-libertarians, you end up proposing a "red" court with "red" juries and undoubtedly "red" lawyers, "red" prisons and so on - in fact the present system, only somehow "communist". As I said in an earlier post, communism abolishes government over men, it does not mean we carry on as before, only our courts are "workers' courts" and our prisons are "people's prisons" and undoubtedly they are just, etc. etc.

Whatever mate, I haven no interest in someone so closed minded to the point of self-delusion (for instance, wanting to evade the issue of murder so badly that you think murders will simply be prevented by community interventions, as if murders always happen in public and plain sight, it's ridiculous really). I'm not a l-l-libertarian, or whatever. But you are being utterly ridiculous if you believe there will be no dispute resolution and third party mediation, you are utterly ridiculous if you think there will be no mental hospitals. I might as well ridicule your proposal of "red exile" as if that is any different from imposed consequences of anti-social acts, or "government over man".

Well, you're free to demonstrate any vulgar materialism on our part.

You ignore human agency in your deterministic paradigm.

I think your post is riddled with reactionary assumptions and liberal theories of "justice". Reactionary assumption #1 is the idea murder will even continue after capitalism and Reactionary assumption #2 is the idea that even if it did murderers should be held responsible for actions they really have no control over. Liberalist crap #1 is the idea we need courts to oppress people after capitalism. Call me kooky or whatever, but it doesn't matter to me if it's 1 bourgie judge oppressing me or a "council of volunteers" doing it, oppression is oppression is oppression.

#1 Stop abusing the word reactionary. Reactionary refers to wanting to revert back to a previous state. This does not apply here.
#2 The notion that there will be no murder in communism is really naive and dull class reductionism in my humble opinion. The burden of proof is on you to show there will not be murders in communism, though. All I can say is that there was plenty of murder in primitive communism and I see no reason why under communism there wont be any murders. As if there will not be psychopaths and mentally ill people or people who kill out of passion (hunter-gatherers frequently murdered over 'extra-marital affairs' for instance).
#3 You respond 'knee-jerkingly' to the word 'court', which I explained is basically dispute resolution and mediation on the basis of customary law (which, incidentally, also exist in primitive communism). Nowhere did I suggest these courts will have an oppressive function, which you inferred solely from the word court without looking at context. As if two neighbours having a conflict and bringing it forth dispute resolution court to reach an agremeent on how to proceed with, say, a tree in their garden is "oppression".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Whatever mate, I haven no interest in someone so closed minded to the point of self-delusion. I'm not a l-l-libertarian, or whatever. But you are being utterly ridiculous if you believe there will be no dispute resolution and third party mediation, you are utterly ridiculous if you think there will be no mental hospitals.

This is just radlib rubbish masquerading as the latest in r-r-revolutionary thought; quite frankly, I might be delusional (obviously something is not right with me if I continue to post on this site), but what you want is the present society, only with "revolutionary" phraseology (although, given my other exchanges with you, "revolutionary" might be a bit generous).

I might as well ridicule your proposal of "red exile" as if that is any different from imposed consequences of anti-social acts, or "government over man".

It's not an "imposed consequence of anti-social acts", whatever that means, but a measure for collective protection, no different in principle than restraining someone who is trying to kill you. It does not constitute government over men, a term you put in quotation marks - could it be that you aren't familiar with the distinction Engels makes between government over men and the administration of things? It seems difficult to believe - more likely is that this distinction is completely incompatible with what you want, "red mental hospitals" and all.

You ignore human agency in your deterministic paradigm.

Apparently you aren't going to answer seriously. I can't say I'm surprised by that.

[Thirsty Crow]

Reactionary assumption #1 is the idea murder will even continue after capitalism and Reactionary assumption

Quite the contrary, your underlying assumption that people will magically become simply unable to commit murder in communism just might be a result of some stupid liberalism with its idea of the progressive perfectability of human beings, to the point they resemble angels really. You also got it all backwards as making a one-to-one correspondence between all sorts of anti-social behavior and capitalism is some lazy, lazy thinking (and factually incorrect really).

But hey, I'm really looking forward to this Heavenly realm that's communism.

[Igor]

murder is a crime that's sometimes motivated by economic incentive yeah - but really not always or even majority of time. it can be a crime of passion, it can be related to personal issues or it can be tied to mental health issues. none of these things are going to go away under communism.

we're never going to eliminate crime. individual acts of crime from petty theft of personal belongings to assault, murder and arson will be things that happen, from time to time, because there is no reason to assume they wouldn't. if they stopped happening for whatever reason, fuckin great but nothing backs that up. everyday street crime and people no longer opting to live a life of crime is where it's at - any plan for communism that talks about getting rid of all crime as opposed to just radically reducing it is out of touch with reality imo and the question of how to deal with criminals remains topical

[DOOM]

We oppose prisons and police full stop. Why in the fuck would we need courts once we have a society based on fulling needs? and don't give me that crap about "crimes of passion" continuing, that's a bunch of non-historical bullshit.

Edit: Uh forget it, fuck my reading comprehension

[DOOM]

So what about stalking, abuse, battery, attempted murder? I mean, I would be pretty pissed off if someone tries to kill me and probably very anxious about a second attempt.