Results 1 to 20 of 136
Court System
This is something that occurred to me today which I haven't seen discussed around here. How to you envision the courts and legal system operating under a communist society?
Obviously there wouldn't be any disputes over private property. And perhaps not theft. But for crimes of violence like murder and rape? Would you support a trial/jury system such as we have now (in most places)? Anything drastically different besides what constitutes a crime?
http://ppe.mercatus.org/
I would see them much more democratic and just than today. Their workings would remain roughly similar. There would be a trial and a court hearing where the cases are presented, and a jury of individuals would be empowered to deliver verdicts.
That is going to depend on how these things are concepted. There might be theft or disputes over personal property. I recognize that, though other communists/socialists might disagree. There would be no theft or disputes of private property, since it would cease to exist.
Well first let's take a look at the current definition of what police are and what they do:
The change would be in role. Citizen militias would be organized instead whose role would be to protect people from both violence and even theft (again dependent on definitions). These militias would be elected from and by the people. The current definition of police is to limit civil disorder, enforce the law and protect property. No where in the definition is protection of people. That would be a major difference and change in protection of people rather than property.
I definitely envision public trials (unless there is a good reason for a private trial, such as in cases of rape) being held for those captured and suspected of crimes. There would be defense counsel and prosecutors the same. Those roles would have to be selected by the community and subject to recall.
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.
Noel Ignatiev: "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"
Marquis de Sade: "You young maidens, too long constrained by a fanciful Virtue's absurd and dangerous bonds and by those of a disgusting religion, imitate the fiery Eugénie; be as quick as she to destroy, to spurn all those ridiculous precepts inculcated in you by imbecile parents"
I was thinking that communists might think of theft as being antiquated under communism because of freely available goods. Why steal something when you can get it for free?
I'm pretty sure protecting people comes under 'limiting civil disorder'. Assault is a crime and there are many grades, ranging from common assault right up to homicide.
http://ppe.mercatus.org/
*I dont know if this ones true* The Zapatista system for victim producing crimes is pretty interesting. Like a homicide for example, where they detain the killer and have the families of the killer and victim figure out what to do with the killer.
"Maybe some day... I'll find a way... without you.."
You aren't really getting anything for free under socialism. Sustenance and work are simply decoupled.
EDIT: Allowing for a concept of personal property, people might still steal. It would be for different reasons, of course. For instance, a personal grudge or as a prank.
Under US law they are not equivalent. Police have no duty to protect, even if you are calling 911 for emergency assistance--Warren v. DC
There was another recent case where Joseph Lozito was trying to protect himself from being killed by a murderer who had already killed two other people on the subway. He was stabbed a few times in the process while NYPD officers stood by watching from behind a door. Once Lozito had the guy pinned (despite his own wounds) NYPD came out and arrested the guy. Lozito nearly passed out from blood loss before help arrived.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nyc-stabbin...ry?id=12910843
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1409451
So no. Cops do not have a duty to protect. They even have the audacity to claim credit for the bravery of citizens. Precisely what happened in the case with Lozito.
Last edited by Loony Le Fist; 6th May 2014 at 08:37.
Are police any more duty bound to protect private property than they are people? Like if burglars try to break into my factory and the police don't respond properly are they legally accountable?
Anyway, that is alarming, I would have thought police would have more of a duty of care, given that normal citizens can have a duty of care.
But in a way I can see the logic behind it. If you could sue every time a police officer screwed up it would open up a pretty big can of worms.
http://ppe.mercatus.org/
That's a cool idea! They should do that in Texas---let the family decide whether to kill them or not.
http://ppe.mercatus.org/
All this demonstrates is that the Zapatistas are a petit-bourgeois movement, and that their ideology is based on property and the market.
I don't think the communist society will need any sort of court system. Obviously there would be a militia as an enforcement organ of society - and note that this militia would consist of every member of society, we don't want a "red" police even if it is elected etc. - but surely the emphasis would be on stopping things like murder from occurring. E.g. people who witness a murder attempt would intervene, there would probably be patrols and emergency response units etc. Restraining orders could also exist, probably issued by the local soviet or an organ of the same. But apart from that, once the murder etc. has occurred, what's the point of locking someone up, fulfilling some collective revenge fantasy? It won't bring anyone dead back to life.
I think murderers should be locked up. Not treated inhumanely, but locked up. There needs to be a consequence to depriving a member of the community of their life.
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
Law in stateless societies historically revolved around restitution, which meant that perpetrators of crimes had to make up to the victims for their transgression, or they faced some sort of repercussion, usually excommunication.
I don't think excommunication would be a viable option in communism, because it would require banning people from resources, which sounds a lot like property, so restitution would likely be mandatory. That's a pretty big problem, because all crimes in communism are crimes against your person, therefore restitution is pretty hard to determine and also, because now you have to have a system by which people determine which courts to use. But what happens when a perpetrator doesn't agree to any court? Banishing him from the community seems to be a no-go, so what's left? Force him to accept the authority of the court? That doesn't seem right.
Agreed. There are psychopaths out there that will murder people just for the rush of doing it. If they are never held responsible for their crimes there's no incentive to not continue committing them.
What would that accomplish, though? I think the sentiment that "there needs to be a consequence" sounds suspiciously like "justice" etc.
Seriously? You want a society where murder is essentially a legal act because anyone can engage in it at any time without consequences? Taking someone's life is the worst possible thing that you can do to someone. Also, some people are likely to commit serial murders. Communism isn't going to do away with pathological behavior.
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
Lenin said that the armed people themselves will deal with it. I don't know, but perhaps measures will be taken to get murderers/rapist/whatever the help they need in order to stop killing people. I think that perhaps a mix of therapy and medicine could help these people - how messed up does someone need to be to kill for no reason (why would anyone kill in the higher stage of communism) and why would simply locking them up help them or broader humanity ("communism isn't society, communism is life" etc).
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
Except they can't. If they try to murder someone, the armed community will intervene to stop them, possibly fatally injuring them in the process. But if they somehow succeed, what is the point of locking them up or killing them?
To an extent it will. Quite a few pathological behaviours are the consequence of class society. But if someone is likely to harm other members of the community, they can be isolated. This, however, is not equivalent to prison etc.Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe
Red prisons are still prisons.
Maybe it could. If that's the case, "you will receive mandatory treatment" is still a consequence.
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
Prevention of more murders? I don't particularly care what exactly happens to murderers, but since you couldn't make them leave my property if they murdered someone in communism, some other method of segregation from people who are known murderers would be nice I suppose.
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?
I said they shouldn't be treated inhumanely, which rules out killing them. But they need to be separated from the community. For how long will depend on the circumstances.
Isolation, prison...that's a matter of semantics really.
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
Likely there would still be experts in forensics who could gather information and details about an incident that could then be presented to the community as a whole to help determine the actions of the community. I think mental health and physical health counselling would be the main recourse for communities, as Remus suggested.
Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin
