Once anarchy is here...

A friend of mine got chatting to me about anarchy, and asked me a question. i answerred to the best of my ability, but it was just my answer, and i dont suspect it's something an anarchist might actually have said. so i said i'd ask you guys to see what the pro's would answer.
the question is:
Once anarchy is fully set up, and there is no state, if someone commits murder, what happens, are they punnished, by who?
Lets say hypothetically someone killed their lover because they had cheated on them. How does an anarchist world react to murderers?
Are there murderers in an anarchist world?

Can't wait to hear the answers.
Cheers

m

xdumbfuckx wrote:

there will still be correctional facilities, but they will not be privately owned, so ergo, the only profit that the prison, or housing, would come in to, would be directly put back into the facility. to fund for workshops, and of course correction.

yes, but who decides who goes in them, what if someone doesnt want to be rehabilitated, is rehabilitation not optional? would they be forced to? surely if you did that there'd be a state, since someone is deciding what is right or wrong for everyone and punnishing/rehabilitating those who don't fit a social norm?

JackBrindelli wrote:

Once anarchy is fully set up, and there is no state, if someone commits murder, what happens, are they punnished, by who?

Punishment is not a progressive way to deal with human beings. We simply don't react well to it. The only reason i suspect we deal with it from our parents is that there is some inherent love there because they gave us life, and we spend our youth with them.

Forgiveness and understanding should be the norm in a free society.

As far as dealing with these issues, (note that this will rarely occur, as the Inuits hadn't had a single murder within the tribe for about 60 years) they should be worked out communally and reasonably (can't go into much detail at the moment, but i'll expand if this thread continues, which it should, as this is a VERY important subject).

Quote :

Lets say hypothetically someone killed their lover because they had cheated on them. How does an anarchist world react to murderers?

Labeling them a murderer is already a step in the wrong direction. And is this one egregious act enough to warrant such a title as murderer?

Quote :

Are there murderers in an anarchist world?

Doubtful. People will try to tell you it's our nature, but that doesn't seem to comply with history, that is, before the foundation of the State. And remember that we are social creatures who take most of our personality from external factors (society, friends, our environment in general)

Quote :

once there is no state, that doesn't mean there will no longer be any correctional facilities.

Really? Would not the environment of brotherly love and solidarity be the ultimate correctional facility? The correctional facility that restores to us our ethics? As far as i can tell, the State is what needs correcting, not people.

Quote :

yes, of course.

That's quite an assumption to make without substantiation. Unless you're saying that we should call anyone who kills someone a murderer, which, as stated above in this post, will inevitably lead us down a wrong road to an ethical drought.

Now if you'd like Jack, you can read Kropotkin's "The State: It's Historic Role" or "Mutual Aid", (the former is shorter and more to the point) and that will give you a good idea of how primitive communes and federations of towns and villages and such dealt with what they considered "crimes"...

...Or...

Just ask, and i'll give a brief representation of what that system would look like (not much time right now.

Black_Cross wrote:

Quote :

Are there murderers in an anarchist world?

Doubtful. People will try to tell you it's our nature, but that doesn't seem to comply with history, that is, before the foundation of the State. And remember that we are social creatures who take most of our personality from external factors (society, friends, our environment in general)

lol doesn't that make the rest of your answer a bit redundant?
although i'm glad for it anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.
i have to agree, i can't see the need for 'murder' in a stateless classless society with no capitalism, all the environmental factors that may have contributed towards murder will have disappeared anyway.

JackBrindelli wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

Quote :

Are there murderers in an anarchist world?

Doubtful. People will try to tell you it's our nature, but that doesn't seem to comply with history, that is, before the foundation of the State. And remember that we are social creatures who take most of our personality from external factors (society, friends, our environment in general)

lol doesn't that make the rest of your answer a bit redundant?

How so?

And don't get me wrong, there may well be some crimes of passion, but it's nothing to risk our societies integrity over (hell, our society itself), just to punish someone we think is criminal. Everything must be kept to proportion.

Black_Cross wrote:

JackBrindelli wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

Quote :

Are there murderers in an anarchist world?

Doubtful. People will try to tell you it's our nature, but that doesn't seem to comply with history, that is, before the foundation of the State. And remember that we are social creatures who take most of our personality from external factors (society, friends, our environment in general)

lol doesn't that make the rest of your answer a bit redundant?

How so?

And don't get me wrong, there may well be some crimes of passion, but it's nothing to risk our societies integrity over (hell, our society itself), just to punish someone we think is criminal. Everything must be kept to proportion.

lol sorry, i just meant since you said there'd probably be no murder, the other stuff could be overkill, but clearly i misread you

but what becomes of everyone who is already in prison, what about serial murderers rapists and paedophiles, they aren't just gonna go straight as soon as the state is no more, what can be done for them? because it seems to me if you create a society with no state, thus no law enforcement, and you release people who have been mentally destroyed by the previous system on society, things could go bad. are they rehabilitated? by whom? who has the authority to do so?

JackBrindelli wrote:

but what becomes of everyone who is already in prison, what about serial murderers rapists and paedophiles, they aren't just gonna go straight as soon as the state is no more, what can be done for them? because it seems to me if you create a society with no state, thus no law enforcement, and you release people who have been mentally destroyed by the previous system on society, things could go bad. are they rehabilitated? by whom? who has the authority to do so?

All good questions. Of course the germ of criminality has already been planted in their minds by the state or one of its many coercive offsprings. Here's how i see it, you may disagree, but that's what a forum's about (keep in mind that this decision is not mine to make, but will be made collectively, so i can just give you an idea of what may happen). I say, as soon as the social revolution begins, release them. Maybe some will say this is short-sighted, but i'll substantiate as best i can.

Let me start off by reiterating that we are social creatures, whose consciousness, attitudes, emotions, and personalities are greatly shaped and influenced by exterior factors such as family, friends, and our environment in general. This is always important to keep in mind. Now, we know that these criminals were not born to be criminals, no? (I've never seen a baby with murderous intentions).

Assume there is a social revolution, and we leave the criminals pent up in their cages. They will have missed one of the most conscious-building experiences a man can go through (social revolutions have a profound effect on the psyche). Even if we genuinely try to rehabilitate them, through whatever means, why would they think we were genuinely trying to help? They would understand that our mentality is exactly that of the oppressive State which locked them up in the first place (that they deserved to be where they were. I'm not justifying what they've done, just being understanding of how they came to a place where they could bring themselves to do such a thing).

Now, if we were to release the prisoners, give them back a small portion of what makes them human, not only will that immidiately affect their outlook, but they will, in my opinion, be swept up by the current of brotherly love, in which the social revolution will be steeped. Now, there may be some whose mentality is just too warped to reach even by this means. But if they wish to keep trying to commit their crimes, they will almost inevitably be met by force of arms, as during the revolution we will arm ourselves (otherwise, we're already off to a terrible start, fighting against a state with a monopoly on violence). It will be much harder for these criminals to operate under these circumstances, first because no parent with a gun would allow their child to be raped (and if the pedophile dies, will anyone really feel remorse? or prosecute the parent?), and second because the people will be energetic in their defense of the revolution, and will be in the streets, making it very difficult for the criminal to hide, thus making his crime basically inaccessible.

Again, this is only my opinion, and it will be up to the people to decide what is to be done. I can only try to influence the decision. And if they are not released, we can only hope that it will be resolved in another way, and that whatever is decided will not lead to the foundation of another prison system, which i believe will be the foundation of a new State.

JackBrindelli wrote:

so, whilst we're on the subject, in your opinion, anarchy can only be achieved after a stage of violent revolution? why? is there no other way to disable the arms of the state?

I'll move your question into a new thread if you don't mind. That way we can keep this thread undistracted, as i find this topic very important as i said above.

And let me say that i haven't spoken yet on those that are mentally inhibitted in some way. My last post was addressing just those social criminals, which are the wide, wide majority of those occupying the prison system.

Black_Cross wrote:

JackBrindelli wrote:

so, whilst we're on the subject, in your opinion, anarchy can only be achieved after a stage of violent revolution? why? is there no other way to disable the arms of the state?

I'll move your question into a new thread if you don't mind. That way we can keep this thread undistracted, as i find this topic very important as i said above.

And let me say that i haven't spoken yet on those that are mentally inhibitted in some way. My last post was addressing just those social criminals, which are the wide, wide majority of those occupying the prison system.

where exactly is this new thread, i cant find it, can i have a link or something?

My bad, i figured you woulda got a reply notification.

http://anarchist-org.forum-gratuiti.net/revolutionary-thoughts-f1/revolution-and-violence-t311.htm?sid=2293d7945f3f0033ca6cda4cccd6f5aa#2811

i thinkthe portion of the answer here is the fact that voilence often steams from the state, and aslo the cultre, it is wel known fact that there is way more violence in Amerika than canada for example, and this is a cultural isse, if you have anarchist society you'll have an anarchist culture ad that alone will reduce the levels of voilence,