New day, new question: justice

Submitted by boxthejack on 3 July, 2008 - 08:08.

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.

3 July, 2008 - 10:12
Quote:
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.

3 July, 2008 - 11:22

Thanks RG. So are anarcho-communists not necessarily against prisons? Most anarchists are, aren't they?

Who enforces the separation?

3 July, 2008 - 11:45

Not necessarily, though most would be against prisons as they are today. There are various different fields of thought on the issue.

Kropotkin for example espoused care in the community - where villages, or farms say, with the proper training and understanding of the people sent to them would maintain an environment designed to rehabilitate or at the least control humanely.

Others might say that for all but the worst crimes - extreme harm etc - community sanctions would be 99% effective, isolating individuals socially, or reducing their share temporarily, making them sit down with the victim, making them pay back the damage through community service on top of their normal workload etc, and then for the severest cases - almost certainly involving mental unbalance - a form of secure asylum .

In terms of patrolling them, there's any number of ways. You could have a rotating system set at any pace deemed most suitable, you could train people whose personalities suit them to it to take on the role of carer and developer of the inmates...

Basically there's various different ideas, all or none of which may or may not work effectively, and which aren't incompatible with organising an anarchist society. Frankly though, anything is better than building a network of huge, corrupt and bullying prison complexes with an emphasis on punishment, little educational or support work and which act as universities of crime.

3 July, 2008 - 12:04

That's a particularly enlightening answer, thanks.

Our target-obsessed government seems intent on reducing everyone's liberty in order ineffectively to eke out the very worst: in schools, in healthcare, and notably child protection, health and safety and surveillance. The result is far worse than lowest common denominator - it's slow rot (prisons being at a more advanced stage in meltdown than schools and hospitals).

You mentioned Kropotikin. What are the three most important books for you as an anarcho-communist, thinking particularly of theorists like him, and which are the three most useful, thinking more of introductions, summaries of the debate etc.?

3 July, 2008 - 13:05

Well, you'd have to read the big three (the most famous);

Mikhail Bakunin* - God and State, etc.
Piotr Kropotkin - The Conquest of Bread, etc.
and Errico Malatesta - Anarchy, etc.

*Wasn't 'communist', but still considered one of the main founders of the tradition. Personally I always enjoyed reading into their and other anarchists' lives just as much as what they wrote themselves.

You might be interested to know there's a small, growing group of the Anarchist Federation in Scotland. However as anarchist communists the class struggle is of central importance and we're very much against primitivism. But maybe you could look into the Fed, or try and get along to some of the general anarchisty events - you'd be most welcome. I know there's also IWW members in Aberdeen.

3 July, 2008 - 13:27

Aye, I looked at the IWW website yesterday. Currently seem to be in agreement with them. If I am this time next month I'll join.

Thanks for the reading tip-offs. I hadn't heard of Malatesta or the Anarchist Federation so I'll go look both up.

3 July, 2008 - 19:18

IWW are doing a leafleting in aberdeen on the 12th. any questions im sure they will be answered there. if you want any more info p.m. me and i can either answer your questions or pass them on.

4 July, 2008 - 08:02

Will do. Thanks Jambo.