Dilemma

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
31337_haxor
Offline
Joined: 16-03-04
Mar 18 2004 11:08
Dilemma

Well i asked this question before and someone suggested that i put it in the beginner forum. The question is... If someone commits a murder under anarchist law, then what would happen to him? or what would be the penalty?

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Mar 18 2004 12:20

Well in an anarchist society i would think that the person would be held accountable by the community for there actions within a trial like system where a group of members of the community would then decide on teh fate of the person in question.

I dont think the death penalty is an option, imprisonment depending on the type of murder, for example if it is pre-meditated and callous, but if it is self defence then i do not think if it can be established that the defendant wanted to kill the other person intentionally then they should be equited and given back their liberty.

I think there would have to be some sort of horizontal organisation which could held a person accountable if they commit acts against peoples liberty and against society.

I think the biggest question is, where is the line drawn between defending society and authority in the form of punishments and laws.

Anonymous
Mar 18 2004 14:22

I think to really take a bite out of crime we'd have to recreate village life.

Anti-social behavior is not only a symptom of capitalism with its real and artificial needs being unmet, it is also a problem of urban life (another capitalist creation, come to think of it...) . For more on crime and anarchy,

see "Laws (?)" at http://anarchism.tribe.net

star green black :red: red n black star

31337_haxor
Offline
Joined: 16-03-04
Mar 18 2004 15:02

Thanx for the replies now its making sense )

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Mar 18 2004 16:26
wounded hobo wrote:
I think to really take a bite out of crime we'd have to recreate village life.

Anti-social behavior is not only a symptom of capitalism with its real and artificial needs being unmet, it is also a problem of urban life (another capitalist creation, come to think of it...) . For more on crime and anarchy,

see "Laws (?)" at http://anarchism.tribe.net

star green black :red: red n black star

I disagree anti-social will be apart of an anarchist society wether we like it or not, there will always be people who will be intent on destroying things.

JoeBlack
Offline
Joined: 28-10-03
Mar 18 2004 16:52
wounded hobo wrote:
I think to really take a bite out of crime we'd have to recreate village life.

I'm not sure what your experience is of 'village life' but crime free it is not. Cities do tend to allow for anonymous crime so stuff like mugging, stranger rape etc is way up. But villages are often the scene of long running feuds, sometimes leading to murder, often just assault, domestic violence etc. They are not so much 'crime free' as 'behind closed doors' and because of the small scale of the village there is often nowhere to go to avoid situations developing.

The interaction of class society and the city does lead to very high rates of certain crimes but murder is still common amongst 'primitive' people living in isolation. As are deaths due to 'witchcraft'.

I don't think there are any easy answers as to what can be done with regards to crime, either in the short term or post revolution. Some long and detailed discussions of these issues can be found at http://struggle.ws/wsm/crime.html

Anonymous
Mar 19 2004 02:56
Quote:
I'm not sure what your experience is of 'village life' but crime free it is not. Cities do tend to allow for anonymous crime so stuff like mugging, stranger rape etc is way up. But villages are often the scene of long running feuds, sometimes leading to murder, often just assault, domestic violence etc.

Well, I only lived in a village for 3 months, and I wasn't really connected to anything besides a farm while I was there, but I have lived in a predominantly poor British-American town of 11,000 for about 7 years and also a poor side of St. Louis that was once mostly Scotch-Irish I think. In the latter I saw crack cocaine addiction, guys prostituting themselves for crack, auto-theft for crack, kids with 6 or 7 brothers and sisters each with a different father, a kid with parents that didn't mind him doing crack because he brought them some....Also I heard gunshots at night, saw neighborhood fights during the day, with people on their front steps watching, stranger kids insulting me....

Interestingly main of these white folks would go back to their small towns where their immediate family had emigrated from (for jobs during WW11), to try and kick their addictions. It was the same in the small town I lived in. People by and large from the same white American culture, but had gone in radically different directions after entering city life. In my small town, I'm not sure I saw one big fight in all of high school, no crack cocaine, no prostitution, people who were poor but more or less functioning for better and worse within this society. The thing is it would be really tough being a prostitute, junkie, car thief, deadbeat dad, whatever here cause people would find out, and word would get around.

So, quite possibly the reason smaller towns have lower crime rates is because of coercive social control-not a great thing either. So how can we mix the personal freedom of the city with the social togetherness of the village?

Coconut man
Offline
Joined: 13-02-04
Mar 19 2004 05:06
wounded hobo wrote:
I think to really take a bite out of crime we'd have to recreate village life.

Anti-social behavior is not only a symptom of capitalism with its real and artificial needs being unmet, it is also a problem of urban life (another capitalist creation, come to think of it...) . For more on crime and anarchy,

see "Laws (?)" at http://anarchism.tribe.net

star green black :red: red n black star

I really dont think you can blame all the problems of humanity on capitalism and urban life. As some other people have mentioned, villiages are not exactly crime free. Yes, crime would be reduced, but it will not go away completely. You must remember that many of people who kill are under alot of pressure or stress and they do not always think of the consequences when they commit murder, because they are not thinking rationally.

In response to the original question, I, personally, think that in an anarchist society, murderers should be imprisoned, but prisons would be very different from what we have now. I think prisons should actually try to re-educate wrond doers. If re-education is impossible, they should be allowed to live the most fullfilling life it is possible to live while being imprisoned.

Kalashnikov_Blues
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 19 2004 12:41

First of all, small town life is totally mental!!!

Its full of big fish in little ponds (granted I am refering to the ones I have lived in and run from...). I can definetly say in 2 years of living in a small town I saw more proper fights and full on aggression then I have in years of living in cities and near cities. Even really nasty parts of cities.

There seems to be alot more bubbling under the surface in small towns, like someone said, almost like fueds.

On the topic of murder, I think thats a really vague term, all it means to me is someone has killed someone else.

I would imagine within an anarchist community, unlike in our "advanced" times, it would be more viewed as a case to case thing.

You know, self defence, crimes of passion, these "crimes" dont tend to be commited repeatedly. I should note that though crimes of passion allowances do not make room for abuse, which is out and out a no no.

Vigilante justice could possibly raise its ugly head...

But overall, no ones gonna get killed for a few quid in thier pocket, or for thier new stereo.

So yeah, "murder" as a term should be defined, as it has far to many levels.

I do not foresee imprisonment. But rather an investigation in to the reasons behind the action and dealing with them, as opposed to the person and his/her actions.

That would be far more productive in the long term and beneficial to society, not to mention the people involved.

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 19 2004 13:56

It is issues like this that make me wonder whether I can truely commit to the anarchist cause.

If some paedophile murders my kid he's going to get a bullet from me no matter what society I live in.

I have often wondered who will decide the ethics and morality in an anarchist based society. Surely each 'community' should be able to decide their own values?

phoebe
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Mar 19 2004 14:06
Quote:
If some paedophile murders my kid he's going to get a bullet from me no matter what society I live in.

Not that I don't think killing or abusing a child is a horrible crime, but there's a whole load of crazy moral panic about paedophiles and children and stuff right now that makes this seem to trump up as the biggest crime a person can commit and it's treated as if it's some kind of rampant problem. I'm wandering off topic here (and sorry about that) but as someone with direct experience of the effects of paedophilia (not saying that I've been on the recieving end of it) the social panic revolving around it often hurts the victims and also leaks into other arenas and has caused a lot of shit for innocent people. I just wanted to highlight my concerns about this. I've been accused of doing stuff with an underage person and a whole lot of people assumed it was true until it turned out that the accuser was psychotic and there was a whole lot of proof that I couldn't possibly have been where they said I was.

The biggest danger is that in a society full of people like you, I'd already have a bullet through my head long before there was a chance for people to stop being angry and tell what's going on.

Augusto_Sandino
Offline
Joined: 21-02-04
Mar 19 2004 14:17

Well the way i see it, in a society of independant communes, a vote would be taken on wether the person was guilty by all the commune's members, a discussion on his merits and problems to the commune, and then if he was a guilty a vote on a punishments. If he was a minor criminal, social action like exclusion could work. If he was a problem, but not a threat he could be thrown out to find someone else to accept him. Only if he was a mass murderer or something, or a direct threat to everyone else, would i approve of shooting a person.

And in a totally egalitarian society, there would be no impulse to steal, and thus less crime anyway. Alot of crime is a result of drugs and alcohol, so i imagine that would decrease. what crime there was would be viewed as a phsycological problem, rather than a crime.

Kalashnikov_Blues
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 19 2004 14:39
Quote:
The biggest danger is that in a society full of people like you, I'd already have a bullet through my head long before there was a chance for people to stop being angry and tell what's going on.

Whoa! Go easy there...

Thats a bit harsh and reactionary, isn't it?

However I couldn't agree more with what you said otherwise. The whole kiddie fiddler thing in the UK is insane!!!

And again, one would hope in a more positive enviornment, acts like that wouldn't happen, as it is an inherantly oppressive action.

But then Leigh brings up the point of Crimes of Passion... What if... It's not like (i'll assume) Leigh regularly pops caps in peoples asses, but here he would have a "morally" valid reason, blind protective rage.

Some say revenge is one of the strongest emotions in a person. (where the fuck did I read that...?) It can certainly drive you to do things you wouldnt otherwise do.

So how responsible is he in that situation?

Or as another example, I was watching NYPD Blue last night, and there was a guy who mugged and smacked an 80yo lady, 2 guys on the street caught him and "detained" him til the cops came, obviously there was a bit of a punch up. The muggers fucked up a bit, trucked off to hospital and dies from a brain hemmorage... the 2 guys get done for manslaughter...

Now that ain't cool!

Granted I have already takin mugging out of the equation in my other post, but theres another example of murder.

You couldnt reasonable "charge" them, could you? or would you?

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 19 2004 16:06
phoebe wrote:

The biggest danger is that in a society full of people like you, I'd already have a bullet through my head long before there was a chance for people to stop being angry and tell what's going on.

The only reason I ventured into the realms of Anarchist theory is because of the Iraq war. Seeing a picture of an Iraqi child with half his head blown away by a bomb I helped pay for tipped me over the edge. Having kids myself I understood the pain and hatred he must have felt.

As I said on another thread, if I was in his shoes I'd be willing to kill, no two ways about it.

I am the 'average joe' that you have to convert to the anarchist cause, and I'm pretty sure that most parents have the same attitude as myself when it comes to protecting their family.

phoebe
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Mar 19 2004 16:29
LeighGionaire wrote:
phoebe wrote:

The biggest danger is that in a society full of people like you, I'd already have a bullet through my head long before there was a chance for people to stop being angry and tell what's going on.

The only reason I ventured into the realms of Anarchist theory is because of the Iraq war. Seeing a picture of an Iraqi child with half his head blown away by a bomb I helped pay for tipped me over the edge. Having kids myself I understood the pain and hatred he must have felt.

As I said on another thread, if I was in his shoes I'd be willing to kill, no two ways about it.

I am the 'average joe' that you have to convert to the anarchist cause, and I'm pretty sure that most parents have the same attitude as myself when it comes to protecting their family.

Look, I'm just saying that the social panic and attitudes like "if some paedophile murders my kid I'll..." (the accusations levelled at me were that I was sexually involved with an underage girl and that I used to encourage her to self-mutilate and that I used to self-mutilate with her, which lumped in with the fact that she occasionally attempts suicide is pretty bad if not quite on the same scale) lead to people jumping on accusations, assuming that theres "no smoke without fire" and then some vigilante takes out a (potentially) innocent person. If you're willing to try and justify that (some paedophile murders your kid, it looks like it's probably person X, you decide that you'll kill X regardless of not actually knowing) I don't fucking want you as a fellow anarchist (not that you can't call yourself an anarchist, but geezus, I'm not fighting in a revolution alongside nutcases like that).

I don't mean any offence, but surely you can understand that whilst you're a parent and this is sensitive to you, I've been on the recieving end and it's sensitive to me too.

Quote:
Whoa! Go easy there...

Thats a bit harsh and reactionary, isn't it?

yeah it is. I've been fingered for stuff I didn't do and people got angry with me and I don't want it happening again to myself or other people. I don't give a shit if people think they're excused because of the moral panic about paedophilia. They're not. I never deserved the rumours going around my friends or any of that stuff. I'm reacting to it.

Kalashnikov_Blues
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 19 2004 17:08

Now its all within a context your reaction is more understandable.

Like I said before, I agree with you on the over reaction of people with regards to this topic.

However I think it is unfair of you to continue to condemn him and to effectivly disown Leigh, or anyone else for that matter.

Esp. as he has pointed out several times and quite openly that he is new to all this.

But then like he said, he is the one that needs "converting" (you know, to the Church of the Circle A circle A ) And here is a perfect oppurtunity to give him a good preaching to, make him see the light sister! (can I get a witness?)

Obviously he's coming from a place where he see them as a real threat (not that they aren't but the fuckers aint lurking behind every bush (I wont make a really rude joke throughly tasteless there)) but rather as media hype and scare tactics... possibly one could argue to allow closer government scrutiny over the public. Scare the parents aka the voters enuff and you can pass all the ID Card laws you want...

Just a thunk....

phoebe
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Mar 19 2004 17:15
Kalashnikov_Blues wrote:
Now its all within a context your reaction is more understandable.

Like I said before, I agree with you on the over reaction of people with regards to this topic.

However I think it is unfair of you to continue to condemn him and to effectivly disown Leigh, or anyone else for that matter.

<snip>

Just a thunk....

Point taken and sorry Leigh. My reaction was over the top and overly emotive, especially in the context of civilised (no I'm not using the word in the context of primmie theory) conversation on a webboard, largely triggered by me feeling threatened personally by folks who advocate vigilanteism.

Anonymous
Mar 19 2004 19:12
LeighGionaire wrote:
It is issues like this that make me wonder whether I can truely commit to the anarchist cause.

If some paedophile murders my kid he's going to get a bullet from me no matter what society I live in.

I have often wondered who will decide the ethics and morality in an anarchist based society. Surely each 'community' should be able to decide their own values?

As much as i disagree with you on the death penalty, you are raising an important issue

What crimes are mental disorder, and what crimes are social in origin. Ok before someone calls me a stalinist it is an issue, while many diorders are social in their cause some people are born with disorders, perhaps we will be able to detect and treat these disorders, perhaps not.

As for paedophilia

Most paedophiles have been subjected to physical abuse as a child, rape is largely a power issue. It is our society that creates these sado-machocistic power relations. Capitalism itself is inherently sado-machocistic. (nb i like Erich Fromm)

I think taht rape and paedophilia being planned crimes that largely stem from authoritarianism and the moral hypocrisy of current sexual relations, would probably be eliminated, though of course, i could not be sure.

Also i would have thought having some bizzarre absolute idea of ''Morality'' is something we're trying to avoid.

Each community would have to decide how best to deal with transgressors in the spirt of libertarian principles, although I do admit there are difficulties you cannot have an absolute vision of how things should be, have to rely on humanity, that is the entire point of anarchism.

Kalashnikov_Blues
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 19 2004 21:49

are you saying that it would all be ok if we had communities of paedoophiles? The we wouldn't have a problem at all?

Maybe we could create communities of sadists and masocisits then rape would never be an issue either...

tfalbb
Offline
Joined: 7-11-03
Mar 19 2004 21:59

Can we stop playing the same games as the Sun, Star and Mirror, and maybe define what we are talking about? Paedophilia is with pre-pubescents, Ephebophilia is sex with 13-15 year olds. What are you referring to, cos there is a BIG difference.

Now if you wanna go back to the original comment, then I believe that whatever we may like to think, within an anarchist society you would have a lynch-mob attitude. Someone dies, and we all THINK we know who did it, then they will be next. Mob law. Don't disturb my nice being, if you will. No laws, no criminals, just antisocial behaviour and dead people.

Kalashnikov_Blues
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 19 2004 22:36

your pedantic definitions of playing about with underage people, leave much to be desired....

I ain't gonna bother but to say that its down to peoples personal opinions as to what makes one "of age " or not.

However mob rule seems a bit harsh. an your total acceptance and expectation of it is some what disconcerting.

Like I said before I think Vigilante Justice with or without the capes will play a big part in the justice of Anarchist Societies, but I do think theres a (even if only pedantic) difference between that an mob violence.

tfalbb
Offline
Joined: 7-11-03
Mar 19 2004 23:23

It's not pedantic at all. They are definitions. "Underage" is 15 in the UK, 18 in the US, 12 in Japan. It matters not except in Government parlance. It is all up to the individual, and I would give the priority on that decision to the younger in whatever "relationship" you choose to mention.

I'm also not accepting mob rule as a given, just accepting that it is the logical conclusion in the immediate aftermath following anarchy. I would trust that after 50 years or so that society itself would have changed enough for it not to be an issue, except in the hot blooded one-off type murder anyway. Certainly, if you eradicate money from society almost all crime disappears anyway.

tfalbb
Offline
Joined: 7-11-03
Mar 19 2004 23:25

Sorry, I meant 17 in the US, and even that depends on the State

Anonymous
Mar 20 2004 00:52
Kalashnikov_Blues wrote:
are you saying that it would all be ok if we had communities of paedoophiles? The we wouldn't have a problem at all?

Maybe we could create communities of sadists and masocisits then rape would never be an issue either...

what the? where the feck did you get that one from?

I just said that those particular crimes were related to social conditions and would probably be eliminated in anarchist society.

But i cannot be 100% sure about that can i?, no doubt if it did persist as a social problem under anarchism then it would have to be dealt with by communities.

And your sado-machocism comment is just stupid and not really worth replying too.

Kalashnikov_Blues
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 20 2004 08:11

But you did reply to it, didn't you.... grin

and you are right, neither of them were really worth replying to at all.

BlackEconomyBooks
Offline
Joined: 7-02-04
Mar 21 2004 00:25
LeighGionaire wrote:
As I said on another thread, if I was in his shoes I'd be willing to kill, no two ways about it.

Kill who? His kids? His family? Would that really make you feel better? That would make you just as bad as he was and would just keep the cycle of murdering going round confused

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 21 2004 13:09
phoebe wrote:

Point taken and sorry Leigh. My reaction was over the top and overly emotive, especially in the context of civilised (no I'm not using the word in the context of primmie theory) conversation on a webboard, largely triggered by me feeling threatened personally by folks who advocate vigilanteism.

No need to apologise phoebe. Life is all about opinions and as long as they are discussed honestly and openly I can live with that.

In my example I didn't mean that I'd take the law into my own hands. The person in question would have to be convicted by the community before any punishment was carried out. What I meant was that I'd be more than happy to carry out the sentence if it was one of my children who had been murdered.

But back to 'morals' in an Anarchist society. The age of sexual consent is a typical issue which would need to be addresssed. Do we leave it to the individual? If two twelve year olds went at it like rabbits would that be acceptable? Would I be wrong to stop them? Would they be expected to take on the responsibilities of their actions if a child was born? Who decides when a child becomes an adult in an anarchist society?

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 21 2004 13:18
BlackEconomyBooks wrote:
LeighGionaire wrote:
As I said on another thread, if I was in his shoes I'd be willing to kill, no two ways about it.

Kill who? His kids? His family? Would that really make you feel better? That would make you just as bad as he was and would just keep the cycle of murdering going round confused

My target would be the 'society' that imposed it's will through violence upon me and my family. I wouldn't regard my actions as murder, I would regard it as justice.

Turning the same question to you, if the revolution ever comes and the people in power resort to bloodshed and murder to defend their capitalist cause, would you too resort to violence to bring down the establishment? If so, wouldn't you just be keeping the cycle of murder and bloodshed going round?

Or is the 'Anarchist' revolution going to be led by pacifists?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 21 2004 14:48

I watched an interesting documentary the other day that suggested although most of us SAY we're capable of killing, it takes years of high level military training to create a person capable of killing in cold blood, unless the person involved is already a psychotic.

Face to face with an unarmed human being, no matter how repulsive, are you sure you could actually end their life forever, especially doing so in the name of your child, who would then spend the rest of their days with the knowledge that if they hadn't spoken up this life would never have been taken?

Sometimes it just isn't as easy as inflicting revenge.

nb// interesting use of 'Anarchists', are you saying that you aren't a true Anarchist if you aren't willing to beat the shit out of someone? I'm not a pacifist myself but that seems a bit exclusive to me, some of the bravest people I've ever heard of never laid a hand on another human being, and their tactics raised more support across society than years of violence managed.

Age of sexual consent: Difficult one. As has already been pointed out people mature at different rates. Tbh I think the idea that people are somehow magically mature at 16 is ridiculous - almost everyone is physically mature by then sure, but some will have already been mature for years at that point, and others will be fundamentally immature for years to come. Really it should be up to the people who know them to decide, not lawmakers.

Paedophilia: Once age of consent is decided on, by whatever means, punishment is again a thorny issue, and should really be tailored to circumstance. Most important of all is the victim and their feelings. It was pointed out to me a the other day that victims often feel shame and that it was somehow their fault - this is not something that can be made better by hanging the person who did it. Anarchism is actually a far more suitable way of finding a solution to something like this, because it is not a catch-all way of thinking unlike law.

nb// I'd like to make clear I'm not ruling out anything here, not even hanging. It's not my place to do so for the same reason it's no-one else's place to make laws on the subject.

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 21 2004 16:57
Saii wrote:
nb// interesting use of 'Anarchists', are you saying that you aren't a true Anarchist if you aren't willing to beat the shit out of someone?

Not at all. I'm just trying to rationalise 'anarchist theory' with my own political/moralistic viewpoints, to fathom out if I can truely commit to the Anarchist cause.

Kalashnikov_Blues
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 21 2004 20:37

What would define "commitment"?

Im not being rude, I'm just curious as to what you would view as that.

Like I assume, you voted Labour or whatever in the past... were you commited to the Labour scene?

And if so how do the 2 scenes differ in what you would have to do to "commit"?

I'm askin totally outta curiousity, not aggresively. grin