But, am I right in assuming that a serious crime, say murder, would be punishable according to the desire for vengeance or mercy of the victim's next of kin? If so, on what basis do we make family a basis for decisions relating to punitive justice, if not the same basis upon which a mother would be able to employ her son? Isn't this justice scenario a kind of 'negative nepotism'?
No your not, a mother would not be able to employ her son either. If someone is a danger to society they would be separated from it, most probably by locking them in a secure guarded building.


A question triggered by a comment on yesterday's thread by Saii that a mother who employs her son is a nepotistic minor capitalist.
First of all, I accept that in an anarchist (particularly pacifisct anarchist) context, crime would be reduced, so you've already won one argument.
But, am I right in assuming that a serious crime, say murder, would be punishable according to the desire for vengeance or mercy of the victim's next of kin? If so, on what basis do we make family a basis for decisions relating to punitive justice, if not the same basis upon which a mother would be able to employ her son? Isn't this justice scenario a kind of 'negative nepotism'?
The practical problems are more concerning. When one looks at societies such as Saudi Arabia where families do have a say in the punishment of offenders, a pound of flesh is often the demand. How, then, do we guard against miscarriages of justice (i.e. it wasn't person X who did it at all) and a tendency while a person is angry and grieving towards punitive justice, rather than restorative justice from which society will benefit most?
What are the alternatives to family-as-judge? Communally elected judges? But then do we not begin to see the emergence of control?
Appreciate any responses.