14

How would law enforcement work?

Submitted by ________deleted in Socialism

I've been looking into left wing politics more and more lately, and while I agree with most of it there is one thing that seems to come up in many very left wing circles and that is that police forces, rather than being reformed, could and should be done away with completely.

Now I am no Blue Lives Matter person looking to debate; I know there are plenty of problems with the police force in the US and elsewhere; but, surely even in a world of fully automated luxury gay space communism there will still be murderers, rapists, drunk drivers or even just folks parking illegally?

Just wondering if anyone would have some links for me I could read up on the subject?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9

__deleted_ wrote

May as well copy/paste my response from the other thread:

What isn't talked about a lot today is that so much of what we consider crime is really related to the particular institutions of capitalism, like private property, wage labor, high finance, etc. Ensure a broad and guaranteed standard of living for people with collective property rights and even by definition a lot of today's crimes will cease to exist. But certainly there will be violent psychopaths, crimes of passion, etc in any society that need to be dealt with in a way that protects the rest of the community. Perhaps the latter can be settled with some sort of collective justice and reconciliation process, as it was in many other societies, but the first?

Personally I favor the broad communalist (Murray Bookchin) idea that people who are uncontrollably violent need to be put in institutions that aren't focused on punishment but fulfill the dual role of a) ensuring public safety while b) allowing that person to be as comfortable as possible.

Here are some other resources (that I have not entirely read through, mind you!) that may or may not be of interest.

3

Pop wrote

This is f/ACAB sidebar material. Or maybe stickied post material?

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

I agree! I'd like it if f/ACAB moved from becoming just a blunt hating of cops to a hating of cops that really does the work to getting other people to hate cops too.

Currently the sidebar is just "Blue lives don't matter" - I think we'd do well to articulate some important reasons why and make this accessible to people unfamiliar with our radicalism.

1

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Hey Punk_Kropotkin
Can you send me the content of your comment here so I don't have to rewrite all the links when I make the ACAB wiki? I'm not sure where you got it from or I might try that.

5

Pop wrote (edited )

Anarchy Works! is a book that deals with these questions. There's a whole section on crime here, if you're looking for a one-stop resource

3

sudo wrote

In the State and Revolution, Lenin says that the current police should be replaced by the armed vanguard of the workers. What he means is that there should still be a group that protects people from violent criminals, but it should be in control of and in service to the workers. It would be preferable if it's made up of workers and community members, also. So, there would still be a police force, but it would serve the proletarian state instead of the bourgeois one, and of course the proletarian state is controlled by the proletariat. Some people say that the word "police" only applies to the current bourgeois police, but I think that's silly.

I imagine that a huge percent of the current police force will be booted out (maybe some neutral administrative types could stay, or some necessary specialists who can't be replaced). The only actual officers that could stay would be the ones who aren't personally bigoted, and didn't understand that they were doing the capitalists' dirty work. There are some like that, who joined out of a misguided attempt to administer justice (and under socialism, joining the police would actually be administering justice). All the racist, classist, sexist, etc, ones would be booted out, and hopefully would be forced to repay the communities they terrorized.

And as far as jails go, they should be about protecting the innocent, reforming the criminal, and repaying the victim. As of now, they are purely about punishment.

1

BlackFlagged wrote

It wouldn't. Any permanent authority with a monopoly on violence will lead to authoritarianism. If there's a problem, the community will form a temporary armed group to deal with it.

-1

Defasher wrote (edited )

murderers,

Shoot them.

rapists,

Shoot them.

drunk drivers

Shoot them if they run someone over.

even just folks parking illegally

Burn their car if it's endangering others.

3

sudo wrote

I'm getting a bit tired of seeing meme responses when someone is trying to have a serious discussion.

-1

Defasher wrote

Not memeing, 100% serious.

3

sudo wrote

Well then, that's horrible.

Shoot the murderers.

One, it depends on why they murdered somebody. Two, you should at least make an attempt to reform them. Let's say someone commits murder for some petty reason at a young age. Instead of shooting them back, you try to reform them. It takes time, but eventually they realize they shouldn't have murdered the other person. They go on to live a full and productive life, and die a completely changed person at the age of 88. None of that would've happened if you'd decided to instantly shoot them. You'd have prevented the wise, reformed member of society from ever existing. I agree that there are some who can't be reformed, but there are some who can. And even for those who can't be reformed, I wouldn't say to shoot them unless keeping them in prison turns out to be too much money or labor.

Shoot the rapists.

See my argument above. The knee-jerk reaction feels good, but it's wrong. We want justice, not vengeance.

Shoot the drunk drivers if they killed someone.

This makes even less sense than above, because drunk drivers don't even intend to kill anybody, whereas the murderers obviously do. I personally know someone who drove drunk, crashed, but didn't kill anybody. They instantly swore off alcohol forever, and have been sober for the past 8 years. I can vouch for their character, but if they were unlucky enough to have killed someone while driving drunk, you would have them shot anyway. Despicable.

Burn people's cars who are parked in such a way that they're endangering others.

One, I don't think it's even possible to park a car in such a way that it's endangering others. How could it hurt someone if it's not moving? Furthermore, wouldn't burning it make it more dangerous? Just tow it.

2

23i wrote

We want justice, not vengeance.

counterpoint: is justice achievable through anything other than vengeance as any other method removes the individual's subjective viewpoint and and places power in the state's "objective" viewpoint?

1

sudo wrote

Justice and vengeance rarely, if ever, overlap. Justice is reform and reparation, whereas vengeance is an eye for an eye. If we did leave the punishment up to the victim, at what point would their punishment be going too far? I've already said that the death penalty is too harsh a punishment for rape, but apparently some people disagree. What if the person says the rapist should be waterboarded? What if they said they should be waterboarded for the rest of their life? Go watch the Black Mirror episode called "White Bear," then tell me that's not too harsh of a punishment.

We don't want to rectify suffering with even more suffering. We want to first isolate the violator from society, so they can't harm anyone else, then make them understand what they did wrong, so they can make reparations, and eventually rejoin society as an individual changed for the better.

1

zod wrote

What "we" want is irrelevant, the victims will have to deal with the trauma for the rest of their lives, they're the ones who should decide what justice is.

1

sudo wrote

Did you watch that Black Mirror episode? Go watch that Black Mirror episode.

0

zod wrote (edited )

They're not going to be tortured for the rest of their lives, that wouldn't be on the table. I'm simply concerned that you want to take the victim's power away further. Who better than them to decide if a murderer / rapist can be forgiven?

1

sudo wrote

But that's exactly what I'm asking you. If a rape victim said they wanted their rapist to be tortured forever, would you allow it? It's not out of the question - some people will be so overcome with hatred and disgust that they might ask for something like this, without thinking it all the way through. I don't want to "take away a victim's power," I want to prevent a second atrocity from being committed in response to the first.

Who better than them to decide if a murderer / rapist can be forgiven?

A neutral third party would be a better judge of if the murderer/rapist should be forgiven (especially if it's a murderer - the victim of murder can't make that decision, because they're dead). For a rapist, let's say they've been in a socialist prison for a long time, and their counselor has gotten through to them - they now understand that they did commit rape, and they feel remorseful. They want to make reparations to the person they harmed, and return to society. But, according to your rule, the rape victim gets to choose their punishment. When they see their rapist again, all the memories come flooding back, and they can't see that the rapist has been reformed. They choose to keep him in prison. That would be the wrong decision to make, but they can't see that, because they are (understandably) biased against the rapist. It should be an unbiased, objective (as far as that is possible) person making the decision.

1

zod wrote (edited )

No because that's cruel and unusual punishment and furthermore you'd need a prison to keep the person in, guards, torturers, etc and I don't support prisons or prison keepers to not turn into Soviet gulags or capitalist private prison industrial complexes. Once you have an institution like that established, it's going to need to be fed more and more inmates to justify its existence.

But if the victim wants the person executed/released, they shouldn't be told by some representative of an external power that it isn't their decision to make. Taking power away from victims ensures they'll be traumatised for life. It's important that they have their power restored.

The choices on the table to the victim should be limited. For rapists: mind alteration, branding, community service or death.

Edit: and they should also have the option of allowing someone else to decide the punishment. To me, branding makes the most sense because it forces the abuser to wear the scars on his face for the rest of his life, the same way the victim has to in her mind.

-1

Defasher wrote (edited )

Removing proven rapists and murderers from society isn't revenge, it's to stop them from doing it again. When I say murder I mean premeditated murder, not manslaughter, self defense or any other kind of killing.

Tow it before you burn it, of course. Where I live the roads are bending and narrow, if you parked on the road someone would crash into you. In a city if you blocked the view of oncoming traffic you could get people killed. If you parked on the pavement or bike lane and forced people to walk into traffic to get around your car, that's dangerous too. So you don't get to have the car any more. That's justice.

I don't support prisons of any kind and don't think we should labour to feed and shelter serial killers and rapists.

Drunk drivers that kill people don't deserve any sympathy, no one forced them to get behind the wheel.

3

sudo wrote

Removing proven rapists and murderers from society isn't revenge, it's to stop them from doing it again.

But you don't have to kill them to remove them from society. I suggest putting them in jail until they've demonstrated beyond a doubt that they're reformed, and won't do it again.

When I say murder I mean premeditated murder, not manslaughter, self defense or any other kind of killing.

Yes, that's what I assumed you meant. Still doesn't justify killing them back.

Tow it before you burn it, of course. Where I live the roads are bending and narrow, if you parked on the road someone would crash into you. In a city if you blocked the view of oncoming traffic you could get people killed. If you parked on the pavement or bike lane and forced people to walk into traffic to get around your car, that's dangerous too. So you don't get to have the car any more. That's justice.

I was with you until you said don't let them have the car anymore. What they need is to go to some sort of driving school to learn why not to do that, then let them have it back. Your proposed law is draconian.

I don't support prisons of any kind and don't think we should labour to feed and shelter serial killers and rapists.

Not even the kind that try to reform them? Plus, the labour is an investment in the future of these people. Some may come out completely changed, and go on to be productive members of society, who donate their own labour.

Drunk drivers that kill people don't deserve any sympathy, no one forced them to get behind the wheel.

I don't think you understand how drunk driving works. A lot of people don't understand just how inhibited their senses are when they're drunk, so they think they'll be able to drive just fine, when they really won't. The second factor is that they're drunk, so logical thought itself is inhibited (even if they would normally agree that you shouldn't drive drunk, they're drunk then, so they aren't thinking clearly). So, nobody forced them to get behind the wheel, but they weren't thinking clearly when they did. That's why the current propaganda campaign against drunk driving is so hamfisted - it needs to be embedded so deep in people's brains that they'll remember it even when their brains are hardly working. Drunk drivers shouldn't be held responsible for getting in the car for the same reason people can't consent to sex while drunk - because their brains aren't working properly then. What a drunk driver needs is therapy to help them get over their addiction.

0

Defasher wrote (edited )

It's not a law, it's direct action.

You talk about putting people in jail, and that's why this is such a difficult discussion - we're playing with 2 different decks. I'm an anarchist and you're not. There are no jails under anarchism. Especially when you're anticiv like me. Justice has to be instant. We have no intention of devoting our lives to running prisons. Then we'd be a state for all intents and purposes. I'd rather there not be cars, period. They're just a mobile form of prison.

i don't believe that rapists and serial killers can be reformed.

I'm also an individualist so I don't buy into this whole 'people can't be held responsible for their actions' line.

Honestly, I shouldn't even be posting on this sub.

1

sudo wrote

Well, that's all just so out of touch with reality that I can't say anything to that.

1

_________deleted wrote (edited )

In fairness, none of our ideologies are reality. We're all dreamers.

1

sudo wrote

Not what I meant; I meant that what this person suggests is completely wack. Socialism is not wack.