Judicial System in an Anarchist Society
Oct 23 2009 18:02
This is a follow up to the Prisons in an Anarchist Society thread,
http://libcom.org/forums/united-kingdom/prisons-anarchist-society-paedophiles-dangerous-individuals-ppl-who-get-ki
Many people came to the answer (I agree with) to what would you do with Fred West and Ian Huntly is throw away the key.....
However to have a prison system means you must have a judicial system and as we know not all cases are as cut and dried as the ones above. DNA alone has shown convicted people jailed for decades in the UK and put to death in the US innocent.
So how would you decide to put someone in prison in an anarchist society?
Oct 23 2009 18:53
#2
The post isn't really about less dangerous criminals, just the really dangerous ones.
How would regional assembly and consensus decisions prove less prone to miscarriages of justice than a judge/jury system with advocates?
Oct 24 2009 08:05
#3
jaocheu, I'd like to see what everyone else has to say.
As to miscarriages of justice, there are many of these now where people are being convicted of things that should never be crimes in the first place & others are getting away with crimes which are never recognized & deserve severe reprimands.
How would you feel if someone stole 40% of your money by force then gave you back the rest? And what if it happened every single month before you were paid? Guess what.
How would you feel if someone forced you to be homeless unless you did what they said for over a third of your waking hours & that's if you were lucky. Guess what.
How about if you complained & were beaten & locked away. Guess what.
So what I'm saying is that with an agreed framework there would be less miscarriage of justice than there is now.
Oct 24 2009 11:16
#4
As a general point, it's not for us to say as a minority how a future anarchist society will be run - that will be the task of the masses of people and their organisations/councils in the future.
However, the trial system with a randomised jury of peers seems to be quite a good system. Although having a prosecution and a police force which needs to always try to convict, is something which would make miscarriages of justice more likely (for example, you would only benefit from planting evidence on a suspect if you were desperate to have them convicted, because you have targets to hit, etc). So removing that pressure should make "justice" more effective.
Oct 24 2009 14:10
#5
Steven. wrote:
Although having a prosecution and a police force which needs to always try to convict, is something which would make miscarriages of justice more likely (for example, you would only benefit from planting evidence on a suspect if you were desperate to have them convicted, because you have targets to hit, etc)..
There are a lot of innocent people put in prison true, but also plenty of guilty people go free. In this debate where we're talking about only trying the worst of the worst, isn't there a chance by removing the need to convict this will bias the trial in favour of the defendant too much and a rapist killer goes free to do it again?
With a regional assembly meeting & consensus decision making, no?
For less dangerous criminals, restorative justice seems to have some good ideas.
Here is a link with some ideas http://www.newformulation.org/4Amster.htm