| Theory |
|
Crime and Punishment -- Part 3 December 21, 2005 by RedStar2000 |
This is a long collection of posts primarily focusing on the topic of violent crime in a communist society and what our response to it should be.
The reader will note the passionate character of my critics on this issue and, like myself, wonder why.
Capital punishment, as applied in capitalist society, is certainly barbarous...no question about that.
But is that sufficient to "explain" why people should be so "outraged" at the idea as an abstraction?
Are my critics simply bourgeois liberals at heart?
I really can't "rule out" this possibility.
===============================================
The best way to minimize crimes like rape and murder is to promptly execute the guilty.
We don't know why a small minority of humans rape or kill...but we do know that a dead rapist will never rape again and that a dead murderer will never murder again.
So if our goal is not "a perfect society" where "nothing bad ever happens" but instead is one in which the frequency of such bad things is very low...then we must be prepared to take stern measures to stop people from doing it again.
Given our present knowledge, I think that's the "best we can do".
Perhaps someday we'll be able to tell in advance who is likely to rape or murder and provide some form of chemical therapy to them that will stop them from ever "doing the deed".
That would be even better.
But until then, you all know what has to be done.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What the hell? Are you serious?
So a person who rapes or kills once is bound to do it again? Great logic.
Yes, that is how we learn about the real world.
A person who rapes or murders has demonstrated the capability of doing those things.
Totally "unique" phenomena are quite rare in nature. What happens once will generally happen again under similar conditions.
If someone has already shown that they think that rape or murder is an "appropriate response" to a particular situation, then they are quite likely to reach a similar conclusion under similar circumstances.
Do we wish to allow for that probability?
By and large, I don't think it can be credibly argued that rape or murder are "mistakes" or "errors of judgment".
They seem rather to be behavioral reflections of something "different" about the brains of murderers and rapists.
Consider most or all of us. Do we decline to murder or rape because "there's a law against it"? Or because "we might be punished" if we did those things?
Isn't it rather that we can imagine what it would feel like to have those things done to us...and we would not want to inflict that on others because "we're not the kind of people who do those kinds of things to others".
The murderer or rapist "thinks differently". Other people are "not like him" and "it's ok" to do to others whatever pleases him. He probably can't even imagine that anyone else would dare do to him what he does or might do to others.
This may not seem "logical" to you but it's what we observe taking place in the real world.
Therefore, what must be done must be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 26, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Plenty of people kill or rape, do their time, come out and never do it again.
Is that your "humane alternative"? A prison complex where murderers and rapists are degraded even worse than animals in a zoo?
Do they deserve decades of suffering and humiliation for their deeds?
To be sure, the broken shells of humanity that are finally released from prison are unlikely to be physically able to rape or murder again...or do anything else either except wander the streets waiting to die.
It's usually not a long wait.
Oh, I know...you're going to build "country club" prisons -- places so nice that people will volunteer to live in them. *laughs*
Think that's going to win a broad mandate of popular support???
And there's also this to consider: a prison system requires guards...in other words, fascist thugs.
And what effect will an organized faction of fascist thugs have on the culture of our communist society?
Think it will be a good one?
quote:
When Anarchism and Right-wing Christendom collide - the results are not pretty.
How about Trotskyism as "just another version" of bleeding heart liberalism? *laughs*
quote:
That's about the most reactionary thing I've ever heard.
Live a sheltered life, do you?
Perhaps you should try and get out more.
quote:
Let's talk about it in the CC.
No, let's talk about it right here in front of everybody.
I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of the chance to see the complete uselessness of Trotskyism as applied to a specific matter of controversy.
quote:
Though I have no problem with killing rapists or murderers, the problem is that mistakes probably will happen, and if people are promptly executed after being accused of the crime, I have a feeling we'll be shooting a lot of innocent people.
Well, remember that under communism we have no people with a material incentive to "secure convictions at any cost". No cops, no prisons, no lawyers or judges, no guards...none of those parasitic assholes will be around to plague us.
It will be ordinary people who will accuse, ordinary people who will defend, and ordinary people who will decide.
Will they sometimes make a mistake and execute an innocent person? Sure they will...they are humans, not "gods".
Will they fill up enormous prisons with innocent people like our rulers do now?
No.
quote:
That would work, but we have to ask ourselves if it's right.
I think it is right...people have a right to live their lives without fear of rape or murder!
And, for that matter, without fear of grievous bodily assault.
The people who kill, rape, or even just beat the crap out of others "for fun" are no good motherfuckers...and I do not see why a communist society owes those bastards anything more than a bullet in the back of their fucked-up heads.
Communist society is not "required" to tolerate barbarism!
quote:
Capital punishment should be abolished - period!
You are entitled, of course, to make any moral assertion that happens to please you.
But how about some reasons for this? Perhaps even some historical examples.
Was it "wrong" in your eyes to execute a few Nazis after World War II was over?
Me, I don't think they executed nearly enough! I would have had every official in the Nazi Party executed.
Along with all the aristocrats and capitalists who actively supported the Nazis.
Does this make your moral outlook "tremble with indignation"?
If so, I can only say the obvious: my morals are very different from yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
To live in pain is better than to not live at all.
In my opinion, only someone fairly young could have that point of view. Pile on the decades of pain and I think you'd probably come to a different conclusion.
Pain does not "ennoble" us and suffering does not "confer wisdom"...those are simply pious myths.
Pain degrades us...makes us less than human.
Do you know how prisoners treat other prisoners? It's much worse than anything you're ever likely to see "on the outside".
quote:
There are questions of logic:
- will ultra-democratic worker-participant courts/juries/legislation really support it?
- does capital punishment really reduce crime?
I might be wrong - but I think the answer is no.
With good fortune you may live long enough to actually find out.
I think my views will prevail but I could also be wrong.
I don't see how you can question the "logic" of my statement that a dead murderer cannot murder again. Or the same for others who commit violent crimes against people.
quote:
If it does happen, communities will have to restrain the perpetrator in a considerate and humane manner (not at all like our present humiliating and inhumane prison system) until the community can feel secure that the perpetrator has been rehabilitated.
At this point we do not know if someone has really been "rehabilitated" or not.
The present practice is to release the violent criminal back into society...rolling the dice that he "won't do it again".
In other words, people are being put at risk of being murdered without ever being aware of it...much less consulted.
Is that "right"?
As to your fantasy of "humane prisons", I've already commented.
A "humane prison" is an oxymoron...like calling a concentration camp a "vacation resort".
Prisons by their very nature are either hellholes from the beginning or turn into hellholes.
What you turn into when you try to "run a prison" needs no elaboration.
quote:
Well, you see, Redstar, the problem with your entire argument is that you assume that there is a relationship between the number of people executed and the number of crimes committed. In other words the more people you kill, the safer the streets become.
Yes, I assume that in a healthy society the number of people capable of violent crime is only a small minority...and if that minority is even further reduced, then "the safer the streets become".
You do not "have" to execute violent criminals, of course. You could send them all to live "on Mars".
Or you could do what all countries now do...warehouse them in unspeakably barbaric conditions.
quote:
Need I point out that the democratic country where that principle has been most warmly received also happens to have one of the highest crime rates in the world? Is it that the US isn’t killing enough people?
The United States is not "a democratic country"...it is an empire.
Most people convicted of murder here are not executed and a surprising number serve fairly brief prison terms (7 or 8 years, I believe). They return to their violent neighborhoods and take up their old practices. What else could be expected?
quote:
There is no scientific link between the death penalty and a decrease in crime.
Perhaps because no one has thought to actually look for the data.
How do you quarrel with the logic of "a dead murderer cannot murder again"? Do you imagine that the "supply" of murderers is "elastic" and "expands" to "fill the gap" left by executed murderers?
Is there some "hidden law" which says that so many murders "must happen" every year...and new murderers will step forward in whatever numbers "required" to "keep the rate steady"?
That simply makes no sense.
quote:
Certainly not for a crime such as rape where the motives are deep set and the perpetrators unlikely to be deterred.
My arguments are not based on "deterrence" as such...I don't know if that "works" any more than anyone else.
But I do know that a dead rapist cannot rape again. And I believe it's generally accepted that a "successful" rapist does rape again...over and over until he's finally apprehended.
In fact, he may go on to rape smaller and weaker males in prison.
quote:
Is it too much to assume that they’ll have found a more humane way of reducing crime then killing people? Whether it's through genetics, chemicals or plain old electrical implants, I doubt it will be necessary to resort to the same barbaric practice that man was using thousands of years ago.
Of course you could be quite right.
Perhaps the victims of such crimes (the ones that survive the experience) will "no longer seek revenge" upon those who attacked them.
Do you think that communism will "teach people" that revenge is "barbaric"?
That seems "a bit much" to me...but I'm sure that all of us in one way or another are "too conservative" about how people will live two or three centuries from now.
My real concern in this thread is to combat the reactionary vision of prisons under communism. I think execution is the humane alternative.
quote:
There’s a reason why governments separate their butchers from their shepherds.
Indeed there is...but it's not a good one.
Communist society is about taking personal responsibility in a sense far deeper than is possible in class society.
Power in the hands of the masses means that we really have to decide and implement policies ourselves...there's no one to "do the dirty stuff" while we go for a nice swim.
A "separate caste" of "butchers" can always use their "skills" against all of us.
It's happened before and, if we allowed such a caste to emerge, would happen to us too.
So...no professional police force or military, no judges, no lawyers, no prisons or prison guards, none of that crap!
We have to learn to do things ourselves.
Some say that we "can't" and others are terrified by the prospect.
As if what we live under now is not terrifying enough!
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
What a remarkable thread!
Who would have thought that the subject of "crime and punishment" in communist society would attract such passionate responses.
And such...well, strange responses.
quote:
Well I would not go that far, but I would certainly adopt a much improved model, a good start would be not massively overcrowding our prisons. However on the whole I would adopt a system resembling that of some of the Scandinavian countries penal systems. We in the west seem to take an attitude closer to your own than to our Scandinavian cousins. We treat our prisoners very harshly, they do not, and interestingly they have far fewer repeat offenders. I think that you can draw your own conclusions based on that fact.
I think much of the confusion in this thread derives from trying to use data gathered in the context of class societies and just extrapolating it to classless societies.
We'll do what is done now but we'll be "nicer" about it.
I think that's a totally inadequate approach to these questions.
Perhaps it's an understandable mistake. When one ruling class replaces another, much is preserved...at least in form. Our law codes, for example, are still full of concepts that date from the Justinian Code (c.550CE).
This is because all class societies are concerned with maintaining the wealth and power of its ruling classes "against the rabble".
We will have entirely different priorities...something to which I think people have not paid sufficient attention.
quote:
Let's also delve into the causes of violent crime...
A rather difficult proposition under our present circumstances. It can certainly be argued that the various forms of violent physical crime against persons "would" sharply decline in a society that did not force people (in one sense or another) to "live on the edge of the abyss".
But we can't know that until we actually have some experience of a working communist society.
I think we will discover that there will be an intractable minority of "sociopaths"...people with brains that work "differently" from ours.
People who think that violent assault, rape, and murder are "ok" if that's what they feel like doing.
This minority is likely to be, in my opinion, quite small.
But I think we will discover that it exists. Even now we speak of "senseless murders"...meaning murders that have no evident economic motive.
If I am right about this, then we must decide how communist society is to be protected from random violence.
To "do what is done now, only nicer" is not an "answer".
quote:
But even in your system a prison system with guards would have to exist.
Nope. We might have a secure location where an accused rapist or murderer might spend a couple of days awaiting trial...but that should be about it.
The interminable delays in the present day legal system do not exist to "protect the rights of the accused"...they exist in order to support an army of parasites that live off the legal system -- off of us in the final analysis.
Since we won't permit such parasites, there is nothing to stand in the way of "justice swift and sure". Within the week, you -- the accused -- will either be acquitted or dead.
The calculated infliction of protracted suffering is incompatible with communist culture.
quote:
However to expand, what do you do to people who commit numerous acts of petty theft?
There is no "point" to such a crime in communist society...except with regard to desirable consumer goodies in short supply.
If such a person is discovered, we'll just take back the goodies and put him on the "shit list"...ineligible for any rationed goodies. If they behave themselves for a couple of years, then they can go back on the same list that everyone else is on.
What purpose is served by keeping them locked up?
quote:
You are prepared to endorse capital punishment on the basis that a person is likely to be a repeat offender?
Yes. Once someone has shown that they can do it then I think the safest assumption is that they will do it again if we give them the chance.
I see no reason to give them that chance.
quote:
Continue the logic of your statement out and you could say that a dead anyone cannot murder ever.
Well, that's a true statement...so what?
Most of us manage to get through life without physically attacking another person in any way. We consider ourselves civilized.
The question here is what to do to protect the civilized from the random violence of the uncivilized.
quote:
The logic is flawed in the assumption that "crime" comes from some permanent "defect" originating withing an individual; as if "crime" is the result of a person's body producing too much bile.
The use of the word "bile" nicely invokes the image of medieval "medicine"...suggesting to the reader that my views are "very archaic".
Once we have a situation in which the economic motive for violent crimes is no longer present, then we must face the problem of violent crime that has some other cause...or causes.
I think the cause is a "defect" in the way the brain of the violent criminal "works".
What do you suggest?
quote:
Again, you seem to suggest the source of crime as coming from within individuals; if your dad was a murderer, does that make you 1/2 murderer?
I did not suggest that there is a "genetic basis" for "propensity to commit murder".
More likely, in my opinion, it's an "accident" in the natural development of the brain.
Accidents happen in nature...and some of them are more unfortunate than others.
quote:
With this logic, why don't we just brand people who commit rape with a big "R" tattooed to their forehead.
Because they'd cover it with cosmetics, of course. The effort to "stigmatize" violent crime is, I think, mostly futile.
I strongly suspect that rapists are quite proud of their deeds...as a demonstration of their "real manliness".
quote:
I don't think the prisons for executives and politicians who commit white collar crimes are quite the same as the ones they stick the rest of us into.
Not as violent...but just as degrading. The guards there take delight in inflicting endless petty humiliations on the inmates.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the guards in such prisons are fascist thugs as well...though perhaps somewhat older and less physically fit.
quote:
If people in a worker's society are truly unable to function safely in society (i.e., they are a danger to others), then workers will have to restrain them somehow. This is true for drug addicts who become unstable ("mean drunks", for example), people with mental problems, serial rapists and murderers.
I agree.
So...do you prefer gulags? Because once you start that process, that's where it's going to end up.
Or is my recommendation of a quick and painless execution the more humane alternative?
quote:
What makes no sense is your belief that murder is like becoming epileptic or a werewolf or something. Yup, once you murder someone, you got the bloodlust and every full moon you must murder again to quench it.
As a thread lengthens, it sadly becomes necessary to repeat oneself because people generally don't start reading "at the beginning".
What I actually pointed out was this...
quote (redstar2000):
If someone has already shown that they think that rape or murder is an "appropriate response" to a particular situation, then they are quite likely to reach a similar conclusion under similar circumstances.
Do we wish to allow for that probability?
Well, do you?
quote:
But while we're blowing the brains out of anyone who appears at least slightly guilty of rape, do you think there'll be no fear in the countryside of being accused by any woman you cross?
Ah yes...that great masculine myth that women are always ready to "play the rape card".
If that is your real opinion of women, I suggest that you simply avoid their company.
quote:
Freakonomics, a NY Times Bestseller. Read it.
I have. I found it "mildly interesting" but not "a work of genius".
As I noted earlier, very few murderers are actually executed in the U.S. -- and this often after delays of up to ten years or more.
No, I don't think this "deters murder" in any way.
quote:
Guards are fascist thugs? I thought they were members of the nation, your neighbors, your 'brothers', people you have no right to hate, people who, under communism, you would have nothing but love for? Going further than that, how come these prisoners would be degraded to animals? I thought they're neighbors as well.
I can see you've yet to encounter the ideas of one Karl Marx -- though you may have heard of him.
A basic discovery made by Marx is: you are what you do.
If your job is to treat people like sub-human pieces of shit, then your attitudes will evolve to justify that.
Why would the job of prison guard involve treating people like shit in the first place?
Well, what's your opinion of murderers and rapists? Aren't they pieces of shit?
quote:
Oh hey, while we're killing these murderers, rapists, and others, should we ignore those of them who are genetically inclined to be crazy and thus have a warped view of reality?
No.
quote:
Why don't we arrest the mentally retarded person who accidentally kills a person because (s)he doesn't know what (s)he is doing?
The concepts of "accidental death" and "diminished capacity" are present day innovations in the legal system. Presumably they would be considered by a jury in a communist society.
The accused would be, after all, speaking for himself. If he was clearly retarded or manifestly incompetent, presumably he would be acquitted of the charge of murder.
But that would hardly be an "unmixed blessing"...I think it unlikely that anyone would "want him around".
quote:
Imagine your daughter, 8 years old, is raped, beaten to the point of near-death, pissed on, beer poured on her, etc, all because she is black, and it's done by two white men. The two men are most likely going to walk. The father kills the two men with an M16 and doesn't regret a goddamn minute of it. Now tell me, would you imprison the man?
As you may conclude from my previous remarks, I think there should be no prisons in a communist society.
Nor can I envision a crime of this nature even taking place in a non-racist society.
So your "example" is irrelevant.
If someone were to kill as an act of vengeance, he would have to get up in front of the people and explain why he thought it was "justifiable homicide". And the people would accept his argument or reject it.
quote:
If someone tries to hurt you, and you end up killing them in self defense?
I can't imagine a popular court failing to recognize a clear-cut case of self-defense as justifiable homicide.
quote:
What if the murder is in a fit of passion? One lover finds their partner in bed with another person, and murders them both in a fit of passion. Does it still warrant an execution? Or even punishment for that matter?
Yes.
As I have had occasion to point out in the past: people are not property!
You do not "own" the people you have sex with.
There's no such thing as a "right" to "exclusive sexual access" to someone else.
I would vote to execute the "jealous lover"...maybe even publicly. I don't want a society where crazy motherfuckers like that are allowed to walk the streets.
Given my own past, I could have been the target of some asshole like that.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 27, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote (Wilhelm Reich):
Among those primitive peoples who lead satisfactory, unimpaired sexual lives, there is no sexual crime, no sexual perversion, no sexual brutality between man and woman; rape is unthinkable because it is unnecessary in their society.
You know it was intellectually fashionable during the 19th and early 20th centuries to celebrate (or deplore) the "sexual freedom" of "primitive peoples" -- in particular, those who lived on islands in the Pacific.
I suspect this myth had its origins in the practical availability of Pacific Island women to "western" men. European male representatives of western imperialism were not only "exotic" and thus appealing to some Pacific Island women...they also had novel material resources to dispose of that would have perhaps appealed to many Pacific Island women.
Consider mirrors for example.
I don't like the "subtext" of this myth. It seems to suggest that if women were just "more willing" to have more sex with more men, then "rape would disappear".
Thus rape is really "women's fault" because they insist on choosing who they're willing to have sex with instead of just being immediately available to any man who wants them.
That's a reactionary idea!
quote:
No one should have the power to kill another. No matter what.
Maybe they "shouldn't", but they do.
I don't think it's very constructive to offer a "moral imperative" when discussing a practical situation.
What should we do in a communist society if one person murders, rapes, or violently assaults another?
Nothing?
quote:
The idea of executing rapists is way off. You can't repress away something like that.
No, but you can reduce its frequency.
Most men do not rape. Executing the ones who do rape must necessarily result in the overall reduction of the frequency of rape.
I don't ever expect rape to entirely disappear...but I think my proposal would drastically lower the rate from its present levels in patriarchal society.
I desire to see a communist culture in which physical violence directed against another is regarded as unspeakably barbaric and detestable.
That means, in one fashion or another, that we have to get rid of those people who do that sort of thing.
Several people have suggested that future technology will permit solutions that remove the need for execution. That's fine with me...when such technology emerges, I have no problem with "putting it to work".
But until that happens, I think we should shoot the bastards who violently terrorize people.
We have a right to defend ourselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 28, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it took a while, but at last we have my Trotskyist critic's substantive "contribution" to this thread.
Although he is quick enough to accuse me of "fantasies", he shows that he is not without a few of his own.
Consider...
quote:
Firstly, I'd say something I think others have been reluctant to say and suggest that under Communism, rape and murder will disappear completely.
This is "communism as heaven" where everything is "perfect".
Not being a theologian, I can't really respond to this revelation.
It reminds me of an old song though...
On a summer day
in the month of May
a burly bum came hiking
Down a shady lane
through the sugar cane,
he was looking for his liking.
As he roamed along
he sang a song
of the land of milk and honey
Where a bum can stay
for many a day,
and he won't need any money
Oh the buzzin' of the bees
in the cigarette trees
near the soda water fountain,
At the lemonade springs
where the bluebird sings
on the Big Rock Candy Mountain.
Yeah, I'd like to live there too. But I hope I may be forgiven my skepticism.
quote:
I think we can quickly dispense with the notion that violent behaviour is determined at all by a person's genetic makeup.
No, you can't "dispose of it"...to be precise, no genes that "determine" human behavior have ever been discovered.
At this time, scientists are still in the process of discovering what each gene actually does.
It will be many decades before we can say with any reasonable certainty that "gene X" results in "behavior Y".
And it may well be that such a direct link will never be discovered...because there's no such thing.
Right now, we just don't know.
quote:
I think therefore we, as Marxists, can posit that the vast majority of what we consider 'crime' (from robbery to rape) is a product of our own historical epoch, rather than flaws inherent in individuals or humanity in general - or 'human nature'.
No Marxist would contest the view that economically-motivated crimes would disappear in a communist society.
The matter is murkier with regard to non-economic crimes. We need some actual experience of a working communist society to see if those other kinds of crimes decline slowly or rapidly or even remain just as prevalent as they are now.
I don't think this is something that can be reliably "predicted" -- not even with "dialectics". *laughs*
quote:
That is, when someone commits a crime against the person in any society, be it capitalist or classless, then society itself is to blame.
The ghost of Jean-Jacques Rousseau has risen in our midst. You know...that "noble savage" who is "inevitably corrupted" by association with other humans in a society.
This charming 18th century myth has rested undisturbed for quite a while...because we never found any humans who didn't live in a society.
It was not, therefore, an empirically testable hypothesis.
That someone who claims to be a "Marxist" would raise it in the first decade of the 21st century would certainly delight old Jean-Jacques...but I just find it incomprehensible.
quote:
When 1 in 4 women say they have been raped, that is not proof of widespread imbalance in the male brain, it's proof that our attitude to rape, as a society, is flawed, i.e., we accept it.
Well, attitudes towards rape under patriarchy vary widely. It was traditionally seen as a crime against another male's property.
Only in our own time has it come to be seen as a crime against another person.
For a variety of reasons, the real incidence of rape is presently unknown -- all we can really talk about are the numbers of men arrested and convicted of "forcible rape"...involving the threat or use of violence.
Even now, I don't think those numbers are very large...but we have no way of discovering the number of forcible rapes that go unreported.
And even now, the "tolerance" for rape is clearly declining...it's increasingly seen as an especially heinous crime. This is a consequence, of course, of the rise of feminism in our society.
The anger of women is becoming more visible...and not without effect.
I think that the time will come, even before proletarian revolution, when the large majority of men will come to regard rape as inexcusable.
Which it is!
quote:
That is why rapists are usually, though not always, the most marginalized, exploited members of society - they are victims, too.
I suspect this is another "media myth"...that it's "mostly underclass men" who roam the streets looking for women to rape.
It probably is true that the poor man who rapes is most likely to be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned.
The upper class man who rapes is often able to "buy out" his victim with a large cash settlement. And we know the traditional reluctance of the authorities to prosecute the wealthy for any crime...not to mention the ability of the wealthy to hire a battery of "celebrity lawyers" to defend themselves.
Thus it "looks like" poor men are the ones who rape...but I don't think that's the "whole story".
Or even close.
quote:
RedStar has basically told you that rape occurs because some men simply can't help themselves (he never specifies the nature, quantity, characteristics of these devils).
Actually, I did suggest a hypothesis to explain violent behavior: an accident in brain development.
We know that brain development is a very complicated process...and that, sometimes, "things go wrong" in that process.
The consequence is that such unfortunates literally "don't think like the rest of us do".
To them, the people around them are "not really people" but rather objects to be used and then disposed of as they see fit.
They think no more of murder or rape than we would be remorseful in throwing out an old computer that no longer worked properly.
I am not "making this stuff up"...there's actually been some research on this. The quality of that research can be disputed, of course, but I find it quite plausible.
It "makes sense" out of "senseless crimes".
quote:
If we kill them before they procreate, their 'faulty genes' will die out - leaving 'the rest of us' free from their violence.
A nice "eugenic" twist...does it matter if I never said that?
Not to a Trotskyist.
quote:
If some men 'can't help' raping women, how can it be ethically just to kill them for it? How can you execute someone for behaviour they have no control over?
Because it is ethically unjust to compel women to submit to the risk of rape! By executing the known rapist, we prevent him from ever raping again...thus reducing the risk of rape.
quote:
For the few who do transgress, they will not be 'punished' in the traditional sense. They will be re-integrated back into the community in a spirit of reconciliation. Remorse will be encouraged, but vengeance will not be sought.
Are you qualified to make that judgment? Is it not possible that the victim of rape might have an entirely different opinion?
Far from being "reconciled" with her rapist, perhaps she might prefer to see the bastard executed!
That's what Inez Garcia thought. She tracked down one of the two men who raped her and blew the asshole's head off.
You can read a little about her here...
http://www.womenprisoners.org/fire/000127.html
Speaking personally, I regard her as a comrade and I hope that after the revolution people will put up a few statues of her and name some parks and streets after her.
She did the right thing!
And you?
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 28, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Since, as others have suggested, the majority of crime would be drastically eliminated through changes in material conditions in society, the remaining violent crimes could be treated like a violent mentally ill individual.
A schizophrenic really is a schizophrenic for their entire life, so is it more humane to execute them once they have a violent schizophrenic episode?
As I understand it, present medical treatment of violent schizophrenic patients involves not only imprisonment but stuffing them with enough tranquilizers to turn them into walking zombies.
I would not (and did not!) "rule out" the idea of future advances in medical technology that would make executions unnecessary.
It's already becoming customary to abort fetuses that can be clearly shown to be seriously defective...and perhaps a test could be developed to detect the propensity to become schizophrenic in utero.
If that were the case, then abortions would replace executions.
That's ok with me. My objective is to protect communist society from the randomly violent as much as possible.
I am not interested in or concerned with "punishment" in the abstract...but rather in prevention.
And I frankly don't believe in "rehabilitation"...at this point, I think that's liberal mythology.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 28, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
But few if any feminists have advocated the death penalty for rape.
So? How is this relevant to the arguments I have raised?
quote:
These people are called sociopaths. Genetic factors or brain disorders may play some role in sociopathy, but so do childhood experiences. Not all people with sociopathic inclinations become violent criminals....and in any case sociopathy is not the explanation for most violent crime.
That's something that can't be known until we actually have a functioning communist society with real experience to draw upon.
quote:
Redstar's ultimate argument for everything: he finds it plausible.
Yes...not being a genius, that's the best I can do.
I will concede that plausibility sets the bar "too high" for some of the folks on the board...who've already demonstrated their preference for various and sundry mythologies.
Too bad!
quote:
...but it also matters that you're citing the eugenicists' favorite explanation for crime, and the eugenicists' "research".
Since I haven't actually specifically cited any research papers as such -- much less expressed any support for any "genetic" theories of crime -- how can you draw such a conclusion?
Another example of Trotskyist "reasoning"?
quote:
The political evolution in the direction of eugenics is pretty apparent. And logical, from the positions Redstar's already taken.
Though reactionary as fuck, and today mostly associated with the racist far right, eugenics does have a certain history on the left as well.
Ah yes, I have been "dialectically transformed" into an early 20th century supporter of "left eugenics".
Or perhaps I am just "moving in that direction".
Or perhaps this is all just another Trotskyist fantasy.
You decide.
quote:
Far more useful to ask: what should be the policy during the initial phases of the transition?
I expect revolutionary justice to be "rough and ready" with executions taking place in considerable numbers as people see the need for them.
It's practically certain that some injustices will take place...the "wrong guy" will be hanged or shot, here and there.
And there will be people who will use the opportunity to "settle old scores" of a personal nature "under the revolutionary flag".
These things are bound to happen in the course of a massive proletarian uprising...and all we can do, I think, is try to make sure that the bastards who really need to be hanged meet their appropriate end.
What happens afterwards depend on one's view of how the revolution will develop.
Leninists (if there still are any around) will argue on behalf of a centralized state apparatus with pretty much what we have now: cops, judges, lawyers, prisons, prison guards, professional soldiers, etc.
Things would start to look pretty familiar within a few years.
If real communists (and anarchists) prevail, which I expect to be the case, then entirely new social forms will emerge...forms of direct mass administration of all public functions, including crime and punishment.
This will probably result in many "common sense" notions of justice being put into place...which some people will find very uncomfortable.
Like, for example, executing murderers and rapists.
quote:
Crime-fighting cannot be our be-all or end-all.
No one suggested that it should be. But it is interesting that the subject seems to arouse considerable and even passionate interest on this board.
quote:
We need lots of cameras and lots of police everywhere.
Try Leninism. Their beloved "transitional state" will suit your preferences perfectly. They love cops and prisons...the more the better!
quote:
Not communism as heaven, just communism as a society that has eliminated many of the root social causes for murder and rape.
Communism will eliminate the root causes of economically-motivated murders.
I have never seen anyone suggest that rape is "economically" motivated.
Now it may be argued that within a society which has a strong "cultural bias" against sexism of any kind, the number of rapes will decline impressively.
Perhaps that will be true...but what still remains is what to do about the rapes that still take place?
quote:
Your conjecture on the other hand is that a rapist will rape again so the solution is execution.
Yes...that is what we generally observe in real world phenomena. Once someone has shown that they will rape, the reasonable conclusion is that under similar circumstances they will rape again.
This "common sense" observation seems to be "uncomfortable" for many of the posters to this thread. But I think that they should be aware of the fact that they conduct their own lives according to the same principle.
If "B" has been shown once to follow "A", the most reasonable expectation is that the next time "A" shows up, start looking for "B".
If you discover that someone you trusted has lied to you, do you still believe whatever they tell you?
If you find out that someone has stolen something from you, do you still think of them as a "friend?"
We humans learn from experience. In fact, that's our best learning tool.
Why some people don't want to apply this to rapists or murderers is something I don't understand.
quote:
The only mythology I see here is the idea that past actions predict future actions.
*laughs*
Just what do you think science does?
quote:
In prisons in capitalism, prisoners, despite the prison system, rehabilitate themselves.
Well, we could have a lengthy dispute on how often that happens. In my view, most people emerge from prison as simply broken shells of humanity capable of little more than waiting to die. Their sense of personal autonomy is shattered beyond repair.
Not to mention those who emerge even more violent than when they went in.
Or those who cope with prison by plunging into reactionary superstitions like Christianity or Islam. You may call that "rehabilitation" if you like...I think some more odious word would be appropriate.
quote:
Executing people therefore suggests to me that you think that individuals are the cause and that some "brain defect" that caused them to do this is inherent and unchangeable.
Yeah, I do think that. That is, I think that even under communism (with all those "root causes" removed) there will still remain a small minority of people who will readily resort to violence to attain their goals because "that's the way they think".
If I'm wrong, fine. No executions are required if that doesn't happen.
But what if I'm right and those things do happen?
quote:
If it's brain defects that cause rape and murder in a worker's society, then it would be in the interests of potential victims to have those causes removed before they had a chance to lead to rape or murder in the first place.
I completely agree, of course. Our present day knowledge does not permit us to follow this course. But if it becomes possible someday to accurately predict "who will kill or rape or both", then, by all means, stop them before they have a chance at even one victim.
quote:
Logically this would mean trying to find a way to treat this brain dysfunction; allowing people to have access to medical treatment and emotional therapy and so on, finding cures or treatments for severe mental disorders like schizophrenia or manic-depression.
Sure! Go for it! And good luck to you!
But you can't expect us to rely on cures that have yet to be discovered.
This is our personal safety from violence that's at stake.
quote:
In your logic, when followed through, we should execute people, based on the assumption that they will do it again, so why not execute anyone who shows any sign of anti-social behavior before they have a chance to murder or rape?
Well, what do you mean "anti-social"?
If you're speaking of some kid who already shows some "alarming signs" of a willingness to resort to violence -- perhaps a "neighborhood bully" -- then we'd face a pretty serious dilemma.
What do we do with this little piece of shit? Do we "wait" until he cripples some old man or rapes some girl in the neighborhood or even kills someone?
Do you want to try drugs or psychological therapy or whatever and "hope it works"?
And how are you going to feel about yourself if it doesn't work?
I'm not sure what I'd do myself...but I don't think I'd want the weight on my shoulders of being indirectly responsible for someone being beaten or raped or killed.
How about you?
quote:
By your logic, if there was a plague in a workers' society, we should simply kill all infected [persons] immediately to cure the outbreak.
The practice of isolating plague victims goes back, I think, to 15th century Italy...if not even earlier.
Was this "cruel" -- just allowing people to die in complete isolation from all uninfected people?
Well, the 15th century Italians didn't have a cure for the plague.
Would our workers' society move quickly to find a cure? Presumably so.
What would happen to the infected while we were searching for that cure? Should they be "allowed" to infect the entire society?
You tell me.
quote:
One Marxist idea which really resonates with me is that individual consciousness and people change.
Indeed they do...and sometimes with astonishing speed. In revolutionary periods, people change in a single year more than they would "normally" have been able to manage in a century.
But that "general principle" is not "universal" and does not necessarily apply to everyone.
Even after the utter ruin of the Confederacy, there were still a substantial number of former slave-holders who were never "re-constructed".
Even after the Reich was a pile of rubble, there were still some numbers of Germans who mourned its defeat and defended what it "stood for".
I am deeply skeptical of the notion that we have now or will someday have "techniques" to change murderers and rapists into "good communists".
But of course I could certainly be wrong about that.
quote:
Any civilized notion of justice has to rely on an impartial, emotion free system of 'punishment'.
Everyone quit laughing! He's being serious.
He accepts the bourgeois myth of "impartial justice" as if it were something "real".
Or "ought to be real".
There's no room for humans in his system...perhaps he intends to hand over the job to super-computers.
Trotskyism is very strange.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 29, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone "knows" that the "left" is "against capital punishment". That seems to be a common refrain among my critics.
It has no historical basis at all, of course. The revolutionary left -- anarchist, Leninist, or just spontaneous popular rebellions -- has always "resorted" to capital punishment when they thought it was appropriate (rightly or wrongly is a matter of historical controversy).
I heard a Maoist back in the 60s say "The problem with Stalin is that he killed a lot of people that he shouldn't have and he didn't kill a lot of people that he should have!"
In modern class society, the people who are most likely to face execution are either "people like us" or people "even worse off than we are"...and the conclusion that is currently fashionable is that "therefore" capital punishment is "just plain wrong".
Rightists relish the execution of "people like us" and "people even worse off than we are"...and constantly pound the drums for more executions of the "rabble"...as they always have.
Nor are they particularly concerned with actual guilt or innocence...as has been recently demonstrated by the use of DNA technology. Their main concern is, as it has always been, to "teach the rabble a lesson".
But how does it help the rational discussion of the use (or non-use) of capital punishment in communist society to be diverted by the irrelevant fulminations of reactionaries?
Who gives a shit what they "think"?
Instead of approaching this question from the standpoint of the safety and well-being of the people living in a communist society, all of my critics instead rely on the so-called "parallels" between my views and the views of present-day reactionaries in the context of existing class society.
Not to mention the fact that if they can't "find a parallel", they just make one up and hope that "no one will notice".
Although I have never suggested (much less "supported") any "genetic theories" of the origins of violent crimes, I have already been called a "eugenicist" by more than one person.
Not to mention "a reactionary blowhard".
Ok...that's what happens on political message boards. "Cheap shots" are as common as spelling mistakes.
I have a "thick skin" and I can "take it". But I hope that readers of these discussions will see clearly what is taking place. It's not really a "rational discussion" at all, but rather an effort to "make me look bad" -- and, by inference, make my harsh criticisms of 20th century Leninism also "look bad".
I think most people on this board are sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable to see through that.
quote:
There is little known study, if any, about the reasons for rape and murder. What causes someone to rape? What causes someone to murder?
Quite true. But the implication of this is that "if we knew the causes" then what?
Would there turn out to be "techniques" that we could use to "stop murder or rape" before it happened?
That would be nice.
But until that happens, what are we to do?
Would anyone suggest that having discovered "the real causes" of murder or rape, we "should" therefore permit people to do that?
quote:
What if rapists are a victim of society?
What if "Hitler's willing executioners" were "victims" of traditional German child-raising practices?
What if Hitler himself was a "victim" of a violently abusive childhood?
You know that French saying: To understand all is to forgive all.
I disagree.
quote:
But surely being progressive is discovering the answer and dealing with it in a way that all human beings can have, at least, the potential to belong to a communist society? Even if they're not true, surely rehabilitation is a far better way of dealing the problem.
There are presently no known "rehabilitation" techniques that are 100% successful.
If some are discovered in the future, then that's ok with me...as I've said before. (!)
But remember, they have to work 100% of the time.
Otherwise, you're "rolling the dice" on the fate of potential future victims of rape or murder.
quote:
Simply putting a bullet in the back of a head of someone may bring down virtual statistics in ridding the world of these actions, but it isn't dealing with the problem.
It seems to me that steadily lowering the frequency of those horrible acts is "dealing with the problem".
In fact, outside of what I have proposed, there is "no other known way" of "dealing with the problem" except prisons.
So you have a choice and one that is essentially unavoidable: do you envision a communist society with prisons OR with capital punishment for violent crimes against persons?
quote:
Also, if a communist society employed the death penalty for murderers and rapists, who would enforce it? Who would decide whether or not the person was guilty? Presumably you would attempt to resolve that matter before taking away someone’s life? How would that process operate? Would we have a judge, a jury, lawyers etc?
I've already discussed those matters here...
Crime & Punishment--Some Brief Notes on Communist Justice
Crime and Punishment -- Part 2
quote:
Many older people are stuck with prejudicial ways of dealing with situations.
Don't I know it! In fact, I've said the same thing about some of the defenders of "dialectics" on this board.
Advancing age is indeed a common liability in political thought -- look at Castro's servile fawning over Catholicism!
Nevertheless, age does involve the accumulation of experience...and sometimes "us old guys" get it right.
The merits of the arguments remain decisive...not the age of the person who makes them.
quote:
I wouldn’t want an admin to have the opinion that drug addicts should be locked away.
My long-standing opposition to "left" neo-puritanism is a matter of public record on this board.
"Left" Drug Wars
"Left" Prohibitionism -- Dreams of Redemption
Or, if you'd like something more recent, look at this thread...
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43224
I was the one who edited the subtitle of this thread...much to the distress of its author.
quote:
There will always be another rapist, to take the place of the person you executed.
In other words, the "supply" of rapists is "elastic"...it "expands" in accordance with "a hidden law" that says "there must be" X number of rapes every year.
If we execute a rapist, a "new one" will automatically "emerge" to "take his place".
What should we call this hitherto overlooked sociological phenomenon?
Username's Law?
quote:
How about the community maintaining a secured hospital unit where the rapist or murderer undergoes scientific examinations, psychological counseling and education. Why don't we try and understand why the rapists rape?
Well, it's an "interesting" (if "resource intensive") scientific problem. And as long as it really was "secure", I see no problem with your proposal.
But does it really matter? That is, suppose we accumulated a body of verified scientific knowledge about "why murderers murder" and "why rapists rape", how would that help?
Do you think there's a "cure" awaiting discovery?
You might be right...at this point no one knows.
But it's going to cost a lot more (in time, energy, and resources) than a bullet in the back of the head...and being a "lab rat" may turn out to be just as unpleasant as being a prisoner.
So...
quote:
I mean, prison is shit, but it's probably more preferable to most people than death.
This seems to be a fundamental difference between myself and my critics.
They "choose life" even under the most horrible conditions...whereas I think degradation below a certain level is indeed worse than death.
I think that this is a "gut difference"...not subject to rational argument in the usual sense.
I do recall reading once that some Spanish anarchists shared my outlook. They thought that imprisoning another human -- taking away their autonomy -- was a truly abominable thing to do...compared to which execution was a humanitarian act.
Those of you who think that prison is "better" than death may want to reconsider the matter.
quote:
If we are going to talk about consciously taking the life of someone else for consciously taking the life of someone else, how do you justify this obvious contradiction?
To defend our personal safety, of course.
Why do you think that all human societies prohibit murder and punish those who get caught at it?
Because a society that permitted random murders could not function. Everyone would live in constant fear of being murdered...and would accordingly devote a wildly disproportionate share of their resources and productivity to self-protection.
Indeed, very little productive labor would probably take place at all!
Thus all the invented "gods" proclaim: Thou shalt not kill! -- understanding that this injunction applies to members of one's own society, of course. Killing people in neighboring societies is "ok" with the "gods".
quote:
RedStar's position is that in communist society we should be executing rapists. He holds this position because he thinks 'rape' is a natural aspect of some men, like blue eyes or big feet.
The genes for "blue eyes" or "big feet" are inherited from one's parents.
No one has demonstrated (to my knowledge) that the "propensity to rape or murder" "runs in families".
So your "summary" of what I "think" is totally wrong...as it has been since this controversy began.
You are the only one who knows your real motives for this deliberate and on-going distortion of my views.
But "old cynic" that I "am", I assume the worst.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 29, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
We're discussing your admin status, redstar.
Do you propose we move this discussion to Theory?
No...I was referring to the fact that my critics have not responded to my specific arguments in the thread concerned with the matter...but have instead presented their views in this forum.
Here, it would have been sufficient for them to say "he's a reactionary windbag" & "I vote to give him the boot".
Instead, they wanted to have a long discussion over the merits of my position here instead of "out in public" where "everyone could see".
I think that "says something".
quote:
I would probably want to die rather than spend my life in prison, but looking at this matter from a logical point of view, freedom cannot be held in a higher regard of importance than life.
No? Then what are we risking our lives for?
Aren't we being "illogical"?
Or do you assume that the ruling class is not really "as bad" as we say it is and that they "wouldn't really" kill us because of our ideas?
Lots of dead revolutionaries thought that.
quote:
Furthermore, we cannot kill everyone who would otherwise be sent to prison.
Well, try this...
1. Non-violent crimes --> brief sentences in small humane "jails" and self-directed rehabilitation.
2. Violent crimes --> execution.
quote:
You did mention the use of genetics for dealing with crime.
Only as a possibility which has not been confirmed and which may never be confirmed.
In class society, it can't even be researched...because of the built-in class bias of the existing social science establishment. The people who finance them would instruct them to "find" that "poor people" (especially people of color) murder and rape "because" they have "inferior genes".
And that's what they'd "find" because that's what they'd be "looking for".
Only in a functioning classless society would it even be possible to objectively investigate the problem in a genuinely scientific manner.
quote:
I believe he's saying that there is something in society that leads people to become rapists and murderers that cannot be solved by getting rid of existing murderers. I reckon this is actually the most accepted theory among us leftists used against capital punishment.
Well if that's what he means, then he should have made it clear that he was speaking of present-day class society...and not just "speaking in generalities".
No one would question the idea that most violent crime is a product of the tensions and stresses of life "on the edge of the abyss".
What is at question, at least in my view, is the idea that after those stresses and tensions have been removed, will violent crime "just completely disappear" or will there be an intractable minority of violent criminals who will "pop up" now and then at random?
And, if that "gloomier" forecast is accurate, what should be done about that?
quote:
But I'm glad it was just a misunderstanding.
I wish the explanation for this "shitstorm" was that "innocent". But I think people can tell -- or should be able to tell -- that the venomous attacks on me have "deeper roots".
I don't mean anything so shallow as a "personal vendetta" -- I'm talking about profound political differences between myself and the whole 20th century "tradition" of the "left".
I have seriously "pissed off" some folks here...and you will see for yourself that "they'll be back" with another poll as soon as they can manufacture even a remotely plausible-sounding "excuse".
That's the way things are in politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 30, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
If rape is given the same punishment as murder, then there is a very good chance that a rapist will also murder his or her victim as it will probably reduce their chances of getting caught [not being able to be photo id'd by the victim themselves] and if they do get caught, well, what difference does it make?
I would imagine that a conviction for rape would rely most heavily on DNA evidence...which can be acquired from a corpse as well as from a living victim.
So there would be no "point" to murdering the rape-victim unless the corpse could be successfully hidden for a long enough period to allow the rapist's DNA to deteriorate enough to make identification impossible.
quote:
Also, in the case of 'date rape', the victim is less likely to report it to the police, as the rapist is usually known to him or her. This doesn't make the act of rape any 'better', but in the victim's mind it could easily produce an even huger conflict than already exists - to tell or not to tell?
I think this phenomenon is a consequence of the lingering effects of patriarchy in present-day society. Women still receive a lot of messages advising her that to be "a passive victim" is "part" of being a "real woman".
I expect women in communist society to be a lot more assertive.
And also a lot more "in touch" with their sisters. The bastard who raped her "on a date" is certainly going to rape other young women on other "dates" again and again...until the "whistle is blown".
So I think a young woman who is the victim of "date-rape" will not only "tell"...she will yell her head off!
And rightfully so! I cannot think of any circumstance where rape should be "accepted" by any woman.
The use of violence or the threat of violence to coerce a woman into sex is simply unforgivable.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on November 30, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...and it's right now you're talking about isn't it? Or at least that's the implication.
The attentive reader will note one of the problems I have with my critics...they simply will not read what I actually write.
I say that communist society should execute all persons who commit crimes of violence against people.
They find this such an "outrageous" thing to say that they immediately move my recommendation "back to the present".
And suddenly I am "converted" into a "disciple" of Rush Limbaugh or some other semi-fascist defender of property against the "rabble".
And consequently they can rise up in righteous indignation and denounce this "reactionary" in their midst. *laughs*
So I must repeat for the Nth time: the on-going debate among the supporters of capitalism about the merits of capital punishment is not relevant to this discussion.
We have "no role to play" in that debate and certainly no "seat at their table" where they make their decisions.
Those who think that at the present time the death penalty is simply "unjustifiable under any circumstances" are free to "campaign" for that point of view.
For my part, I will be neutral...though I may express occasional skepticism that a lifetime spent in a capitalist gulag is the "humane alternative" to the death penalty.
It seems to me self-evident that people in prison suffer far more than people who are quickly and painlessly executed. The accounts of prison life -- actually written by ex-prisoners -- that I have read make it clear that contemporary prisons are truly hellish to a degree that would likely horrify anyone who's never been in one.
And yes, if I were faced with the prospect of imminent imprisonment right now, I would certainly prefer death. Which I would suffer soon enough anyway...since I am an old man who would physically be unable to survive the rigors of prison "life".
Indeed, my critics have continually failed to grasp the obvious: prison is execution by centimeters.
You are still "taking life"...only you're executing the prisoner "one day at a time".
You think this is "humane"...even now at this moment in capitalist gulags.
Astonishing!
quote:
You cannot compare rape to Nazism or Hitler. The comparison doesn't fit because they're two different examples of sociopathy.
They are two different examples of the same thing -- a sociopathic attitude towards other humans.
Of course the phenomenon of Nazism is indeed complex and involves a host of "big questions", complex economic, political, and ideological factors, etc., etc., etc.
But what is the difference, really, between the Nazi stormtrooper who enjoys driving his fist into the face of a helpless old Jew and your average rapist who enjoys the fear and terror of his victim?
I think my comparison was most appropriate and that the readers of this thread will find it difficult to disagree.
quote:
I don't see what relevance this fact has in showing that rehabilitation is or is not preferable than executing someone.
Is it not obvious? If your "rehabilitation technique" does not work 100% of the time, then, sooner or later, you will release a murderer or rapist into the community who will murder or rape again!
And that blood is on your head.
Would you want that???
quote:
Executing someone, just like throwing people in prison, does not stop the crime from existing.
I did not suggest anything so absurd...nor has anyone else to my knowledge.
It stretches credibility to suggest that any human society will ever exist that will be "100% free" of violent crime.
What I am concerned with, as I have repeatedly stated, is reducing the frequency of violent crime in communist society.
A dead murderer or rapist cannot "do it again". The frequency of violent crime must therefore decline.
Unless you still want to argue that the falling numbers of violent crimes will "provoke" an unanticipated response in civilized people...
Hey, the numbers are dropping too low, I'd better get out there and kill or rape someone this weekend and help get those numbers back up to where they ought to be.
quote:
It's not at all as binary as that, and your attempt to make it seems so is most likely through an inability to move beyond convention. It's quite a normal trait in reactionaries.
One of the responses of my critics lately has been the attempt to pin the "reactionary" tag on me...as if by repeating it often enough, people "will believe it".
You'd imagine that if there were any substance to this slander, they'd forthwith start a poll in the Commie Club to restrict me to Opposing Ideologies. *laughs*
Well, they tried to get me recalled from being an administrator of this board...and lost by a 3-1 margin!
Most people on this board do not and will not think of me as a "reactionary"...no matter how many times you "say it".
As to your assertion that "it's not at all as binary as that" (executions or prisons), I disagree.
quote:
Securing people in hospitals in an attempt to find a cure/rehabilitate, to study and to learn from these people is the middle ground, and far more productive and time/resource effective.
Possibly.
Nevertheless, I caution you to remember that "names" are not "things". In capitalist societies, plenty of places were called "hospitals" that were just as hellish as prisons.
Only a half-century or so ago, "mental patients" were routinely tortured with what was called electro-shock "therapy".
I don't think that it was all that long ago (and might even still be happening!) that Christian "doctors" were trying to "cure homosexuality" by giving painful electric shocks to gay men each time they became sexually aroused by looking at gay porn.
I think the masses in communist society would be well advised to keep a very close eye on your "hospital".
You may begin with "good intentions"...but the people should know "how things are working out".
quote:
But, if we look around the world at countries like Iran who exist on Sharia law, Liberia and other African countries or even the U.S., who I also think have the death penalty for certain cases of rape and murder, we can clearly see that executing people does not negate the problem or even mildly protect us from it.
The data from class societies is irrelevant to this discussion.
Violent crime in class societies is, to an unknown degree, caused by the very existence of classes. Whether a class society executes murderers, puts them in hellhole prisons until they're just too old and broken to be able to murder again, or both is unlikely to make much difference because, at the same time, class society in its normal functioning is creating new murderers in substantial numbers.
In fact, the historical rule seems to be that the more primitive a class society is, the more violent it is.
As much as modern rightists like to piss and moan about violent crime, the fact seems to be that 19th century America was more violent than 20th century America, and 18th century America was more violent than 19th century America, and so on.
Nor do I think this is an "American exception". From what I've read about London, 19th century violent crime there was far more common than in the 20th century, and 18th more than 19th, 17th more than 18th, etc., etc.
The countries that currently suffer the rigors of "Islamic Law" are, of course, far more primitive forms of class society than the ones we live under...and accordingly far more violent.
quote:
I mean, each country has laws against rape that will land you in prison if caught, and, if as you say prison is worse than death, why is it that people still rape. Why is it that these deterrents have never worked?
Well, you might ask yourself how many more rapes would take place if rape were perfectly legal? *laughs*
"Deterrence", however, does not form part of my argument. I have no idea (nor does anyone else!) if "deterrence" actually works in reducing crimes of violence.
And even if it does "work", what "kind" of "deterrence" works "best"?
For example, I think that as long as we live in class society still heavily influenced by many patriarchal attitudes, it would be an excellent "deterrence" to rape if every woman was armed.
If every man contemplating the "rape option" knew that "his life was on the line"...I think there'd be far fewer rapes, attempted or successful.
Of course, we don't want a society in which everyone must go around armed and "ready to kill"...in fact, we want the exact opposite of such a society.
We want to live in a society in which any kind of violent physical attack on the autonomy of another person is "unthinkable"...perhaps regarded in the same way that we now regard "human sacrifice" or cannibalism.
But while we live in class society, our "choices" are very limited indeed. I think it is "better" if women kill their rapists "on the spot" than to await the dubious outcome of a bloated and sclerotic "criminal justice" system.
I think that would "deter" more rapes than any number of "laws" or "official punishments".
quote:
Once we know why it happens we can attack the root cause of it.
Yes, be it medical or social.
Precisely, and if we execute everyone, we'll never find out.
Very well, then how about this modification to my proposal?
Comrades of the jury, do you demand execution or do you remand this asshole to the Username Memorial Hospital for the study of the causes of rape?
And the people will decide.
You do understand that the rape victim herself will be in front of that jury, possibly demanding execution "as a matter of simple justice".
So you (or someone with your views) will have to be there and explain why "learning the causes" is "more important" than vengeance.
I don't envy you that task.
quote:
I think you can make an objective study on how people would answer if you said: "death" or "prison."
Yes, but I don't want a society with prisons or the whole apparatus (fascist guards, etc.) required to carry that out.
Nor do the expressed preferences of convicted murderers and rapists "carry any weight" with me.
quote:
I've heard this justification many times and never really understood how it's justifiable?
Would you prefer to live in fear? To be afraid all the time?
I don't know...perhaps you are a large and intimidating fellow that "no one wants to fuck with". You can "go anywhere" and "do anything" in the confidence that anyone who tries to fuck with you is going to end up as a greasy smear on the sidewalk.
Most of us don't have that advantage...and half of us are female.
Are we not entitled to live our lives without fear of violent attacks on our personal autonomy?
I think we are...and if it is necessary to kill those who have failed to respect our personal autonomy and integrity, then I say we have every right to do so.
quote:
Can you actually prove that it's defending our "personal safety"?
Only by inference, obviously. You yourself admitted that my proposals would reduce the amount of violent crime in a communist society...thus increasing our personal safety.
If someone else someday comes up with a technology that would completely eliminate violent crimes, that would be wonderful.
We wouldn't have to kill anyone because no one would ever do those things.
But suggesting that this is an "inevitable" accomplishment that will "necessarily" happen is not credible to me at this time.
If my skepticism makes me a "reactionary" in your eyes or the eyes of all my other critics, then so be it!
quote:
I have no idea quite how old RedStar is, but at a guess, he still can't quite shake off that queezy nostalgia for the 1920s...
Most amusing. *laughs*
Well, my very young friend, as I was not born until 1942, I have no first-hand knowledge of the "roaring 20s"...though you are the first person I have ever heard suggest that it was a time "when women could walk safe at night".
It was the "era" of prohibition...and thus featured the "gang wars" characteristic of our own era right now.
Working class women (especially women of color) were probably less safe than they are now.
I don't deny that I am not guilty of "nostalgia"...it's something that all but the very youngest of humans experience. But what I remember "with rose-colored glasses" is the 1960s -- a period which, in many ways, was much more "rebellious" than the present day.
But, believe it or not, I am not nor do I wish to "play the age card" in this or any discussion. It was raised by my critics...and I think quite unjustifiably so.
I repeat: what counts are the merits of an argument...not the age of the person who raises it.
I don't see how anyone could seriously dispute this.
quote:
The other thing that disturbs me is the uncompromising nature of imposition on the will of other individuals!
Well, you have to remember that the violent criminal imposed his will on his victim in a most uncompromising fashion.
Once you do that, then what right do you have to take refuge in the shelter of "your individual will"?
You've already demonstrated in practice that you don't give a rat's ass about the autonomy or integrity of others.
Having done so, you forfeit any "right" to have your own "individual will" taken into consideration.
What the non-violent overwhelming majority will consider is how best to protect themselves from "your individual will".
And I will cheerfully advocate that they should shoot your sorry ass at once. It's cheap, quick, and humane.
No doubt you would prefer a short sentence in a reasonably comfortable prison where, with luck, you could find a smaller, weaker prisoner to rape or murder as your "individual will" might dictate.
Tough shit!
quote:
Since RedStar himself seems to admit... that these few individuals are ill, would it not be far more rational to treat them as such?
It would...if we had a cure and, moreover, one that always worked.
We don't have that now. So what will you do?
Lock them up "for life" in a prison? With a sign on the prison gate that says "hospital"?
"Treat" them with the "cures" that you think "might work" and then release them?
And what will you say to people when one of your "cured" patients rapes or murders again?
Whoops! I guess we messed up on that one. Well, nobody's perfect. *shrugs*
Perhaps you imagine that the victim, the victim's family and friends, will all take great consolation from your sincere expressions of remorse.
Or maybe they'll just grab a rope and come looking for you!
And if they catch you and give you a fatal dose of revolutionary justice, I will not be slow to vote "justifiable homicide" at their trial.
So consider your options carefully.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 1, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...couldn't we just simply cast out any murderers or rapists into the wilderness to fend for themselves? Or to a further extent, out of the country?
In a way it solves the problem, you have no right to take the life of any other human, but you don't have to live with them in your society.
Exile is indeed the obvious humane alternative to execution of those who commit violent crimes against people.
The logistical difficulties are formidable. There are no more large areas of the earth's surface where life is possible that are not already inhabited. If you "send them to Antarctica" to "fend for themselves", they'll simply freeze to death in an hour or two.
Even with a whole lot of global warming, Antarctica is still going to be a very nasty place to live.
Thus food supplies, building supplies, and heating oil would have to be supplied in large amounts.
The males would have to be sterilized before sending them to "Barbarian Land"...we want no children born into such an environment.
It is unlikely that any country will welcome an influx of known violent criminals.
Don't forget that in the long run we are talking about a planet with many billions of inhabitants. Right now, we are talking about communism in countries with perhaps a billion or so people total. But, say five or so centuries in the future, we'd be talking about the whole world.
And "new communists" in Kabul have just as much right to live their lives without fear of violence as "old communists" in Paris.
So we'd have to consider the rate of violent crimes on a world scale...and even the most optimistic projection that you can imagine is still likely to suggest some fairly substantial absolute numbers.
Suppose that the "intractable" rate of violent crime is one in ten million per year. That's 800 violent criminals per year for the whole world. In 10 years, that's 8,000. In 50 years, that's 40,000. (Assuming a global population of 8 billion.)
That's an optimistic projection; look at the more pessimistic view. Suppose that the "intractable" rate of violent crime is one in 500,000 per year.
That would generate 16,000 violent criminals per year for the whole world.
The rightest "anti-crime" ideologues of our own era would regard even my "pessimistic" projection as "wildly optimistic", of course. They think humans are inherently violent...and would murder and rape more or less constantly were they not severely repressed by a large state apparatus.
As should be obvious by now, I do not share their view of "human nature".
quote:
...you have no right to take the life of any other human...
Yes I do. We all have the right to take the life of another human who directly threatens our own.
On the other hand, the calculated and deliberate infliction of protracted pain and suffering on another human does seem to me to be a reprehensible act. I cannot see any reasonable justification for torture...which is why I am so adamantly opposed to prisons.
quote:
Utopianism aside, in the real world of today, vigilantism and support for vigilantism tend to lead toward the ultraright.
You "set aside" what is exactly the point of this thread: how should communist society deal with those who commit violent physical attacks on people?
Having observed that it is the predominately reactionary elements of the population that presently resort to violence, you assume that this is a "law of history".
Thus you must "find refuge" in a large and repressive state apparatus with professional police, massive prisons, and all the rest that goes with "the rule of law".
The idea that the people themselves might legitimately resort to violence against those who attack them is "outside" of your view of the world. Presumably, we are instead supposed to "call the police" and "file a complaint".
That's not how things work in a period of popular insurrection...and I don't think it's how things should work in a communist society.
We are not lambs who will permit ourselves to be sacrificed on the "holy altar" of "the law".
If a woman kills her rapist "on the spot" in a communist society, I think she should be publicly honored for her deed.
At least with a big parade!
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 3, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What if the rapist wasn't a rapist at all? What if there's no evidence of there being a rape and she just killed him because they had some argument? How can you tell? Will we just say "oh, he was a rapist, it was in self defense" without investigating the case? Do you propose there to be a group of people who investigate what really happened just in case she made it up or will we assume she's telling the whole truth out of "ideological correctness"?
Just wondering
I do not know what people "will assume" in the future, of course.
I know what I assume in the present.
The idea that women are ever ready to "play the rape card" is a masculine myth.
I have already noted elsewhere that communist society would certainly contain specialists in forensic investigations...to give objective evidence about "what really happened" and "what could not possibly have happened" in the course of a violent crime.
A man who attempts to violently remove a woman's clothing, for example, will leave traces of his DNA on that clothing...that can be easily detected and identified.
Especially within an hour or two.
So if she says "the bastard tried to rape me", there will be evidence to prove that happened...or at least make attempted rape the most probable explanation.
Given your defense of sexist "humor" in another thread, I also "assume" that I know "where you're coming from".
Just another guy whining about the erosion of your traditional and "rightful" male privileges.
Find some other shoulder to cry on!
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 3, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Instead of executing the rapist after his offense has been proved beyond "reasonable doubt", I think the best punishment would be surgical castration of guilty's genitalia.
Possibly because you imagine that rape is a "purely sexual" crime.
It's not.
What rape is really about is the "thrill" of terrorizing another human being...something which castration will not "solve".
A castrated rapist is nevertheless perfectly capable of beating the living crap out of some woman "just for the fun of it".
Now...it has been suggested that elevated testosterone ("male" hormone) levels are associated with the elevated risk of committing crimes of violence against people.
And "no balls Mike" will necessarily have a sharply reduced testosterone level in his bloodstream.
Still...would you really want a guy walking the streets possibly seeking vengeance for the loss of his testicles?
That doesn't sound like a "good option" to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 3, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
So far the best punishment is the injecting of female hormones into the criminal's body.
Well, this overlooks the occasional violent female criminal.
But there are other problems with this approach. You realize, I trust, that "one injection" does not "do the job". You will need periodic injections for the rest of his life.
Now consider: it's a common practice presently to treat severe mental illness with a "cocktail" of drugs that must be taken at regular and frequent intervals.
Such patients are not always willing to co-operate in this practice.
You are asking the violent criminal to "co-operate" in his "female-ization". To show up every day or two at a clinic to receive his "shots".
Or, possibly, to show up every week or two at a clinic to have a new "internal patch" installed.
Men who have chosen to convert themselves into biological females will certainly do what's expected of them...it's something they want to happen.
Is the violent male criminal likely to be so co-operative?
What you suggest "might work"...but it depends on the violent male criminal being willing to "go along with the idea". Even if he initially preferred this option to execution, he might well change his mind as he observed the changes taking place in his own body.
And how would that "play out"?
Not very well, I think.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 3, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Do you, Redstar2000, propose capital punishment for someone who has, for example, paralysed an innocent person from waist down? I'm thinking that you'd probably say no...
Well, then think again.
Violent attacks against people, even if they do not result in death, are nevertheless symptomatic of the willingness to use lethal force.
So I don't think that we "have to wait" until the asshole actually kills somebody...we can finish the motherfucker off as soon as it's clear that he might.
I do not know if this conforms to your abstract notion of "justice"...but it fits mine!
To repeat: people in communist society have an absolute right to live their lives without fear of physical violence directed against them!
Among other things, that's what communist civilization means.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 3, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
There will still be drunken brawls outside pubs and bars. There will still be heated personal arguments between a man and a woman - where one might even hit the other.
Are "drunken brawls" and men hitting women "in our genes"? *laughs*
Perhaps we should establish a theme park -- "Asshole Land" -- where folks who like to do that sort of thing (including women who "like" to be hit by men) can go and freely engage in their preferred behavior without consequence.
Act like that in such a way as to endanger ordinary civilized people...and you may anticipate the worst!
quote:
The way you stop rape and murder and all crimes that aren't capitalist driven (crimes like stealing since in a communist society there would be no point to them) is to publicly torture and execute the guilty; the middle ages had a lower crime rate but people were afraid, INSTILL FEAR into all so they don't commit crimes like that because they're afraid.
Your post is based on a gross historical misunderstanding.
Violent crime against people was actually far more common in medieval cities than it is now. Portions of the countryside were often terrorized by gangs of robbers.
Public torture and painful execution were commonplace...to no avail whatsoever. Economic conditions were so primitive that people were driven to behavior that we today would consider quasi-barbaric.
Beyond this, your whole approach defeats our purpose. We want a society where people do not have to live in fear...at all!
Not to mention the effects on us of using torture or deliberately painful forms of execution.
What would that sort of thing turn us into?
It may turn out to be "difficult enough" to convince people that performing a quick and painless execution is "best for everyone". You can see from some of the posts in this thread how "squeamish" some folks are even about the option of justified execution for violent crimes against people.
What you suggest is "a non-starter".
Sorry.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 4, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
But it appears to me that you want a sanitised society that is cleansed of forms of human behaviour that you deem undesirable - which, for you, means executing 'undesirables'.
Yes, I deem murder, rape, and violent physical attacks on people as "undesirable" and I think a communist society should be "cleansed" of that behavior insofar as practical...by killing the assholes who do that shit.
What else do you suggest?
"Tolerance" perhaps?
quote:
The desire to put someone to death is...also about applying ultimate power over another, being able to punish them in a horrifying and forceful way and dominate them.
It would be refreshing if my critics would attempt to reply to what I actually say instead of building up elaborate fantasies about what they "think I mean".
Executions of violent criminals, in my view, should be prompt and painless.
It's not something to relish or celebrate...but rather a painful necessity. We'd much prefer not to have to do it at all...ever.
Indeed, I suspect that we'd probably come up with an almost entirely "automated" process that would involve minimal direct human participation in the process.
You get convicted and, within a couple of hours, someone "presses a button" and you painlessly die...that's it.
The details would depend on the advanced technology of that future era...so speculating about "the best way" is rather pointless.
But the elaborate (and sometimes sadistic) rituals that presently surround executions would certainly not exist.
quote:
Maybe Redstar2000 has a little bit of a rapist in him? A little more in common with rapist mentality than he'd like to admit? Seems like he gets a bit of a thrill out of the idea of dominating and punishing people himself, eh?
Ah...a fresh accusation from my critics. And what a "principled" objection to my views!
I guess all my criticisms of Leninism "show" that I must "have a little bit of Lenin in me". *laughs*
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 5, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What does anyone have to gain from someone being killed two hours after they're 'convicted' - I don't know why RS is even using this term, since he called me a 'bourgeois liberal' when I suggested there could be an impartial justice.
Well, you are a bourgeois liberal if you believe in the fantasy of "impartial justice".
Ain't never happened and is most unlikely to ever happen. Because people are not impartial...ever.
But there is, nevertheless, a real question submerged in your rhetoric...and it's one that has a real answer.
The present practice is to sentence someone to be executed and then put them on "death row" in a prison...where conditions are reportedly almost humane and certainly much better than those suffered by the general prison population.
Here, they "twist in the wind" for years and even decades while "appeal" after "appeal" is filed and processed.
How would you like to wake up every morning wondering if today your fate "will be sealed" or not? Every day your life "hangs in the balance".
I find it difficult to imagine a more subtle form of psychological torture.
So "who benefits" from a "prompt and painless" execution?
The convicted violent criminal!
As I said earlier, the deliberate and conscious infliction of protracted pain and suffering on another human is contrary to the ethos of a communist society.
Therefore, the more humane alternative is the prompt implementation of the death penalty at the conclusion of the trial.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 5, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Eh...about the reforming rapists and 'if we let them live what if they just rape again' stuff, you need to consider that all rape and rapists aren't identical...I think for instance that the average date rapist is probably much more 'reformable' then a serial rapist or a serial murderer (who, presumably kills his victims for sexual reasons).
How would you know this? Is it not equally probable that the "date rapist" may well "graduate" to stranger-rape?
My argument is that a demonstrated propensity to use violence against women is a reliable predictor of future activity of the same type.
Or, as historians put it, what has happened can happen.
It may not turn out that way at all, of course. The "date rapist" may have discovered that he "didn't like this kind of sex" and may never do it again. Indeed, he may feel such remorse that even a harsh word directed towards a woman will be something he "can't do".
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Do you want to gamble with the outcome?
I don't see why we should...because the stakes are too high. Women in a communist society should never have to think "I mustn't do that because if I do, I might get raped".
Indeed, I anticipate that the time will come when a rape trial is as rare then as a trial for someone accused of cannibalism is now.
Perhaps in two or three centuries at most...
quote:
I assume that since the majority of people posting here are guys, that they probably have fewer first hand accounts of their friends getting raped...usually in situations where you know both the victim and the rapist given that everyones in the same social circle.
This may well be true of students attending the same university...or even high school.
But I have seen "close up" the effects of "stranger rape" on a young woman...and to all intents and purposes, it was murder.
That is, she remained physically alive and recovered from her physical injuries.
But it crushed her feminist rebelliousness...in fact she ended up going back to the Catholic superstition that she was raised to believe.
It was the worst tragedy that I've ever seen happen to anyone around me.
Perhaps this lies at the root of my "intolerance" on this subject.
quote:
They ["date rapists"] should just be given jail sentences and made to pay compensation to their victims.
There is no money in a communist society so the issue of "financial compensation" will not arise.
In my view, there will be few "jails" in a communist society. They will exist for non-violent criminals. They will have the "look and feel" of an apartment building...except that the prisoner can't leave. Prisoners will be treated with dignity and encouraged to rehabilitate themselves. Sentences will be short...certainly no more than two or three years.
Perhaps a "date rapist" might rehabilitate himself in such a setting.
But only if you want to gamble with the fate of potential future rape victims.
I don't.
quote:
Likewise, I could see executing hit men and serial murderers but not people involved in unplanned voluntary manslaughter.
So an old guy like me who enters a bar to enjoy a drink must be prepared to risk his life at the hands of some belligerent asshole who's "had a few too many".
Nope. Men also have the right to live without fear of violent physical assault.
All of us have the right to live our lives as we see fit without fear of physical violence directed against us.
There's really only two ways to do that. Either all of us must go about heavily armed or we must permanently remove the violent from our society.
The first of those options would not be a good one. It would make communist society into a replica of America's "wild west" and death by violence would be a daily occurrence...including those hit by stray bullets. I've been in "inner city" apartments where people pointed out the bullet holes in their ceilings...the "stray shots" came through the open window from the street and impacted the ceiling on their upward trajectory.
So I favor the second option: execution of the violent criminal.
quote:
On a related topic, this is one of a stream of threads started by and principally posted on by males, on "female issues" (yes, of course, men are rape victims too but not in close to the same numbers outside of the prison system) that to me shows a lot of sexism by way of co-opting women for political reasons.
It is unfortunately the case that all of the threads on this board are "started by and principally posted on by males".
Surveys of our board membership indicate that about 90% of the active members are male.
At this time, political women who are active on the internet apparently mostly post at feminist message boards...possibly because they find the "dick swinging" rhetoric that sometimes takes place on "male" boards to be distasteful or even repugnant.
It's true that the title of this thread is "what is the solution to rape?". But I think if you look at my posts (and a fair number of other posts as well), you will see that the real topic is what should we do about violent crime in a communist society?
Women are far more likely to be victims of rape, true. But men are far more likely to be murdered.
Thus the issue of violent crime is just as pressing for us guys.
quote:
This thread in particular, the majority calling for far more extreme penalties for rape then those that exist in most western and socialist governments, including the United States (yes, I realize that some are also arguing that life imprisonment is a *more* severe penalty then death, but that is rather absurd considering that a felon in jail has the option of suicide so they would choose which penalty is more severe, and moreover, in that both death and life w/o the possibility of parole are more severe penalties then normally given to rapists)...
People do commit suicide in prison...but I imagine it's "not easy" -- that is, neither quick nor painless. People are also beaten, raped, tortured, and murdered in prison.
Sound like fun?
As to the penalties imposed for violent crimes in various countries today, I don't really think that's a relevant consideration for us.
Communist society should not be bound by the limits of bourgeois "justice"...any more than capitalism is bound by the limits of feudal "justice".
Things will be different.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 6, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
This implies that women are inherently, naturally fragile, when they obviously aren't.
I have some bad news for you.
When it comes to physical violence, all humans are fragile.
No matter how "tough" or "macho" you imagine yourself to be, a few minutes of torture will reduce you to an animal capable only of howling in pain.
And after it's all over, do not imagine for a second that you will be "the same person".
You will, most likely, never be able to consider any proposed activity without asking yourself that darkest of questions: could I be tortured again if I do this?
Fear will shadow the rest of your life.
I am well aware of the common masculine delusion that "I'm a real man and I can handle anything", blah, blah, blah. I grew up in a time when that's what young boys were taught.
But it's bullshit.
And it always was bullshit.
That mythology came from a savage era when men "had to fight" in order to survive at all.
If we think it no longer necessary to live like savages, then why maintain a savage ideology?
quote:
But human beings have historically survived far greater adversity and managed to persevere. Such as famine, torture, war, prison camps, seeing loved-ones murdered, seeing comrades murdered.
What do you mean by "persevere" in this context?
Do you mean "remain alive in an animal sense"...still capable of breathing, eating, etc.???
Sure, that happens.
But what remains of the human personality that existed prior to that "adversity"?
The tone of your post suggests the attitude of a 19th century English colonialist: "Keep a stiff upper lip, old chap".
quote:
It is a terrible thing, and must be very upsetting for friends and family. But you shouldn't let it cloud your ability to be rational.
It seems to me that I am far more "rational" on this subject than my critics.
All of which seem to have some mystical attachment to the "sacredness" of human life...even that which directly threatens their own well-being.
None of them, including yourself, have offered any practical alternatives to what I have proposed except one or another version of "do what we do now only be nicer about it".
Prisons and prison guards, professional police, judges, lawyers, etc., etc., etc. -- the whole corrupt and brutal panoply of "justice" in class society.
Labor camps too, no doubt.
Do you imagine for a moment that your "vision" of a post-revolutionary society would inspire confidence...or even interest on the part of the working class?
It will sound to people like the same old shit...which is what it would be.
quote:
Is it not contradictory to say "Don't harm anyone" and then harm someone?
As a verbal abstraction, yes, the statement contradicts itself.
But this thread is not about the rules of English grammar.
It's about how do we reduce the possibility of becoming a victim of violent crime to its lowest practical level?
How do we establish a society where no one must live in fear of violence?
Where women need not ever fear men? Where the weak need not ever fear the strong? Where the old need not ever fear the young? Where children need not ever fear adults?
Where fear of other humans has utterly vanished from human society...and would be regarded as something as atavistic as "fear of damnation".
That's my goal...and while it may not be "absolutely" attainable, I want something as close to that as is humanly possible.
And I'm quite prepared to advocate any measure that will rationally contribute to the achievement of that goal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 6, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
And executions aren't part of capitalist oppression? Executions aren't the "same old shit"?
Maybe where you live, but I'm in California right now trying to stop the execution of "Tookie Williams" who founded the Crips gang and has since been nominated for several Nobel prizes and has dedicated his life in prison to discouraging kids from joining street gangs.
Yes, people are killed by capitalist "justice". But they don't have to start "street gangs" to qualify for that fate. It's quite sufficient to be an unarmed civilian with a heavily pigmented skin to be summarily gunned down by police...and it happens all the time.
As to "discouraging kids from joining street gangs", what kind of liberal bullshit is that?
Kids join street gangs in certain neighborhoods because that's what they have to do in order to survive.
Or, at least, that's what they think they have to do.
And who of us is in any position to argue otherwise?
Does Mr. Williams rightfully deserve execution? How the hell would I know? You evidently think that "life in prison" would be "better".
Up to you.
But instead of "saving one guy", why not put your energies into exposing the inhumanity of prisons?
Most of the people in prison are not there for violent crimes -- they are there for "crimes against property" or "crimes against official morality" (drugs).
In a communist society, those "crimes" would not exist.
quote:
I think workers will set up places to put violent people for treatment, but they would have a real material interest in seeing people reformed...
In other words, prisons.
Perhaps they would express a "real material interest" in "seeing people reformed".
The question is: can that be done with 100% reliability?
As soon as you discover "how to do that", then we'll have something to talk about.
quote:
Cases such as Tookie's shows that despite the current neglect and basically just being thrown into a locked room, people can reform.
No, it shows that people can say that they've reformed in order to escape what they perceive as an unpleasant situation.
The violent criminal has a powerful incentive to say whatever it takes to be released.
Indeed, any of us held captive by another would say whatever our guards wanted to hear in order to escape captivity.
It doesn't "have" to be true.
quote:
If a future worker society listened to you, some kid who got too drunk too much and became violent would be executed; what a waste that would be when it would be much more humane to treat the person's problem rather than treat the person as a problem.
How about the waste of the people this asshole attacked?
That doesn't count?
quote:
Why fight to stop Arnold from killing Tookie Williams in a coalition and try and win people to socialist ideas by saying, "oh, well workers would kill him anyway"?
Well, that's your choice, not mine. I'd rather work "in a coalition" to stop police murder of innocent people then lift a finger on behalf of Mr. Williams.
You know, priorities.
quote:
I know some immigrants in Britain who were active communists in their native countries in the Middle East during the Cold War. They spent time in prison and were tortured (hung by their limbs, whipped, beaten, etc.) until they would inform on their communist party leaders. They never did. When they were released they got back into highly illegal revolutionary activity. Today they have families in Britain, but they still contribute to British socialist politics.
Yes, I think there are cultural factors that affect resilience in the face of torture. If you grow up in a society where torture is routine, then some will "toughen up" to the point where it seems to "have no affect" on them.
Of course, should such people ever find themselves with the authority to inflict torture on others, they'll do it.
It's "part of their culture".
Just as in our own culture, if you "survive" a violently abusive childhood, guess what you're most likely to do to your own kids?
quote:
Why should they suddenly embrace the identity of victimhood that has become so fashionable in Western societies today?
Perhaps they would consider it "unmanly"?
You seem to have a curious indifference to the fact that people are victims of the atrocities of capitalist society. As if "admitting victimhood" was a "badge of shame" or something.
It seems to me that there are two possible responses to our objective status as victims of class society and all its horrors.
The first is to "curl up" and "beg" for someone to "help us" or "protect us".
The second is outrage...a fixed determination to ruthlessly overthrow and crush our tormentors.
There "is" a third "option" that we hear a lot about these days...generally under the label "reconciliation". We are supposed to "forgive" the bastards who've fucked over us and "achieve closure" and "move on".
I think that's a load of liberal crap myself.
How about you?
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 7, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
The death penalty is a highly authoritarian act which implies the need for a State, i.e., an armed body of men.
It "implies" no such thing, of course. I have said explicitly (and repeatedly!) that justice in a communist society -- like everything else -- will be directly administered by the people through popular organs of their own creation.
To repeat again: NO cops, judges, lawyers, prisons, etc., etc., etc.
quote:
There is no such thing as 100% safety.
I agree. The question is how close can we come to that?
If you think present standards are "acceptable", fine.
I think they are completely unacceptable.
quote:
Everyone is a potential psychotic.
I do not know -- nor do you or anyone else -- if "everyone is a potential psychotic" or not.
I do know what I observe...that most people manage to get through life without launching any violent physical attacks on another human.
The proposition that all humans are "inherently violent" is at least as dubious as the "idea" that they are all "inherently greedy".
quote:
If we killed for every power tripping psychotic episode, we would have a bloodbath.
Ahem. In case you haven't noticed, that's what we have now.
The difference is that now most of the victims don't have it coming to them.
They were simply "in the wrong place" and "at the wrong time".
They had the misfortune common to us all...being born into a class society where personal safety is a class privilege.
That's obviously unacceptable in a communist society.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 7, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
So what anti-police violence coalitions or rallies have you been organizing lately?
Let's take this one first.
I'm an old man now and I don't do anything anymore except write posts on this message board.
Happy? Think that "discredits" everything I say?
Well, better think again.
I do not wish to be perceived as "boasting" about "what I did" over the course of a lifetime in radical political struggles...so I will confine myself to suggesting that it was a good deal more than you have had time to do.
It is admirable that you are engaged in struggle against police brutality.
Your involvement in the bourgeois liberal "movement" against capital punishment is considerably more dubious.
quote:
I will however, help existing reformist causes and try to bring revolutionary politics into it so that other people who are radicalized by doing anti-death penalty work will be exposed to this argument and politics.
The arguments against police brutality can be rather easily extended into an argument against the very existence of class society.
You can try to make that same connection with the death penalty as applied in class society with some plausibility.
But if you are telling people that "there will be no executions after the revolution", then you are simply lying your ass off.
Or, possibly, you really "believe that" and are, in fact, a bourgeois liberal "with socialist sympathies". There've always been a few people like that around...no reason why you couldn't be one of them.
I frankly wonder what you really say to people about police brutality. Is it something like "under socialism, the police will be really nice and friendly"??? *laughs*
I suspect you of that because of this...
quote:
Yeah, but I doubt that "prisons" in a worker society would resemble those of a capitalist society.
Oh no, of course not. They'd be like a modern vacation resort with a fence around it. *laughs*
Same old bullshit: we "should do what is done now only be nicer about it".
The readers of this thread must, by now, be literally buried under the weight of irony supplied by all of my critics.
They dredge up every possible "parallel" between my views and those of contemporary reactionaries while at the same time proposing nothing more novel than a "kinder and gentler" version of what we already have now!
It boggles the mind!
quote:
He's writing books and negotiating gang truces and that is evidence of his personal transformation.
He's writing books for kids who can't read?
Good grief!
What he should really do is "find Jesus". Parole boards really like prisoners who "find Jesus" and often release them well "ahead of schedule".
How's that for "personal transformation"? *laughs*
quote:
Do you think workers would execute violent drug addicts in the future?
Probably. The excuse that "I was drunk" and "didn't know what I was doing" is probably not going to "fly".
You see I've been drunk myself and nevertheless did not kill or rape or even physically attack anyone. So have most people!
So why should we put up with the presence of assholes who cannot drink or get high without taking a violent shit on others?
quote:
Now you've shifted your argument to one of vengeance. Which is it? Logical "humane" way to deal with people who at one point could not control an impulse, or irrational revenge for the dead?
Why not both? Do you think that the desire for vengeance will "wither away" under communism?
I don't know...maybe it will.
People do seem to have a "built-in" sense of "fairness" -- in fact, it may be a characteristic trait of all primates. There've been some experiments that suggest that conclusion.
If one is violently attacked by another, is it "wrong" or "irrational" to desire vengeance...as a matter of simple fairness?
Whatever your response, it has no effect on my rational arguments, of course. You may think that the desire for vengeance is "morally reprehensible" or even "irrational" if you wish. But I don't see anything "wrong" or particularly "irrational" about it at all.
Where is it written that we must "turn the other cheek" and "forgive those who trespass against us"?
You know where! *laughs*
quote:
The death penalty is the ideological crown jewel for the justice system because it says the problems in society are certain people (mostly the poor) and the best thing to solve society's problems is to simply get rid of them (which is essentially your argument as well).
Yes, there is an obvious parallel. But you overlook (deliberately) the equally obvious differences.
The purpose of a "criminal justice system" in a class society is to keep the "rabble" terrorized into submission. So of course it is the poorest who are disproportionately arrested, imprisoned, and executed. In class society, the "rabble" are the problem...and "getting rid of some of them" keeps the rest "in line".
The situation in a communist society would be an entirely different one...starting with the fact that there would be no "criminal justice system" at all.
The massive legal texts that exist today would be found only in the "basement stacks" of university libraries.
Or perhaps carefully preserved in the "rare old books" collections. *laughs*
When a crime of violence was committed, people in the immediate vicinity would be collectively responsible for finding out "who did it" and would take the responsibility for apprehending the guilty, putting them on trial, convicting them, and executing them.
If the guilty person fled, they would go to the "wanted" website and post a picture of the wanted person and a description of what they were wanted for.
A newcomer to your area might well prompt a check of the "wanted site" -- if you are sensible -- and the guilty might be apprehended and returned to stand trial.
On the other hand, the guilty might travel a very long distance and "keep his head down"...or, as you might put it, "rehabilitate himself" and commit no more violent crimes.
That might prove extremely difficult to do...but may not be impossible. If it happens, it happens...what we can be sure of is that no one in the vicinity of where he did commit a violent crime will ever have to worry that "he's still around" and "might do it again".
Isn't that easy?
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 7, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
As I said before, how can you possibly have a trial, and by assumption a conviction or acquittal, without some sort of impartial, adversarial procedure whereby evidence is examined and objectively analysed.
I'm rather partial to the ancient Athenian system and I think it could be suitably modified for use in a communist society.
Juries were large (500 people) and chosen by lottery...so they were a reasonably accurate sampling of the general public.
The "judge" was really just another ordinary citizen (also chosen by lottery)...and simply presided over the trial.
The accuser was the victim himself or, if he had been murdered, his friends and family. The defendant actually defended himself...with the help of his friends and family.
In communist society, we would introduce whatever forensic evidence existed...collected by people who engage in that sort of work because they find it fascinating and enjoyable.
At the conclusion of argument, the jury votes.
And that's it.
quote:
I think it's quite clear that RedStar is not arguing for a just society, but mob rule...
Thus have conservatives always characterized any real power in the hands of the people.
He is appalled...not least because his beloved "Vanguard Party" would have no role in "ruling the mob"...for its "own good", of course. *laughs*
Considering his own ambitions to join the "circles of power", I suspect he is entirely sincere in his fear of the "mob".
With good reason.
quote:
And the similarity between Redstar's position (on rapists) and that of the far-right is that they are both based, essentially, on populism.
Horrors!
That power to decide these matters should be in the hands of ordinary people -- including the surviving victims -- why...that's populism.
We can't have that, can we???
Ahem...yes, we can have that if that's what we want.
Real communists and serious anarchists do want that.
Bourgeois socialists (including the serious Leninists) don't want that. What they want is to replace the existing despotism with one of their own.
What really lies beneath the righteous indignation of my critics?
Are they really concerned with "human life"?
Or is it the populist implications of my proposals that have aroused them from their torpor.
That bastard redstar2000 really wants all power in the hands of the masses, can you believe that outrageous bullshit???!!!
Yes, believe it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 7, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
If communist are populists, why not base our politics on some key 'popular demands' in society today?
Well, it all depends, doesn't it?
Is this particular demand genuinely popular or is it something manufactured by the bourgeois media?
Does this particular demand "go in the direction we want to go" or does it go in a reactionary direction?
The "direction we want to go" is, of course, the deepening and strengthening of resistance to the despotism of capital...not simply the enactment of this or that modification of despotism.
For example: in patriarchal society, it would be far more radical to advocate women's armed self-defense than to bother with "harsher penalties for rape".
Why? Because self-defense is genuinely "empowering"...while capitalist law will only be applied against poor and working class males with little or no regard to actual guilt or innocence.
The real communist view is that the working class should "take matters into its own hands" and not rely on bourgeois legality to satisfy its needs.
Or, as one of my critics so charmingly put it, "mob rule".
It is not uncommon in large cities for apartment building owners to "hire a torch" (a professional arsonist) to set fire to a "money-losing" apartment building and collect a large settlement from their insurance company.
In my old neighborhood in San Francisco, some "street people" actually caught such a "torch" in the act of setting such a fire. While some of them called the fire department, others chased the "torch" down the street, grabbed him, and beat the living shit out of him.
Considering that this bastard endangered the lives of hundreds of people (apartment buildings in San Francisco are large), I would have felt perfectly ok if they had "strung him up" on the spot.
"Mob rule".
quote:
They [Leninists] believe they can achieve this by organising the most class conscious and advanced sections of the working class into a revolutionary party to lead the whole working class.
"Lead"?
You mean rule the "mob" for "its own good"?
Piss off!
quote:
The important thing for us is not that the working class suffers, but that it is capable of providing a dynamic revolutionary solution to its suffering. As revolutionaries, we should always emphasise the latter truth.
Capable? Sure, in the long run.
Right now? No...because if it were, then it would do it.
Indeed, I think the rhetoric you advocate is actually counter-productive...because it has an "air of unreality" about it.
In addition to which it ignores the "outrage" factor. Working people are victimized in countless ways by the despotism of capital.
Capitalist ideologues argue that "it's the victim's own fault"...just as patriarchal ideologues argue that rape is "the woman's own fault".
We should say the exact opposite -- the truth, in other words -- and encourage our class to become outraged by capitalist atrocities.
Where else is the furious anger that is required for proletarian revolution to come from?
But that may not be what you really want at all. An angry proletarian "mob" might well be disinclined to listen to its would-be "leaders" like yourself.
And you wouldn't want that, would you? *laughs*
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 8, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
It boggles my mind that you think that workers couldn't figure out how to actually rehabilitate someone better than rehabilitation in modern class societies where "rehabilitation" means throwing a kid into a stone room for 15-20 years.
I can only say that your optimism (and my pessimism) have yet to meet the test of objective reality.
Until we have actual experience of a working communist society, we do not know what is "possible" or "impossible" with regard to "rehabilitation".
Just as we do not know if the human desire for vengeance will "wither away" or perhaps become even stronger than it is now.
Don't forget, when you grow up in a society that deeply and profoundly respects your sense of personal autonomy and integrity, how much more outraged will you be if it is violated?
quote:
Should we execute some religious nut too?
Why not? Do you think "God told me to do it" is a "valid excuse" for murder?
quote:
Well, if someone gets violent while drunk, is the problem somehow inherent to that individual or is the problem that that person can't control themselves while intoxicated?
Who cares? Unless you're proposing that someone follow this shithead around and "make sure" that he never has a drink, the sensible option is execution.
And who the hell would want the job of "personal guardian" to a violent drunk?
Would you want to do that kind of "work"? Would anyone?
quote:
If someone is violent because of bi-polar disorders or substance abuse or whatever, those problems can be overcome by people....
Wouldn't workers have hospitals for physical and mental health? If so, they would already have places to house violent or self-destructive people with disorders while these patients are treated.
This raises some fairly complex problems that we haven't discussed up to now.
Consider...
1. A hospital for the treatment of curable conditions. I can imagine a lot of people wanting to do this kind of work...for the enormous self-satisfaction involved.
2. A "hospice" for people with terminal illnesses for which no cures are known. At least we can provide a "death with dignity" for those we cannot save...but care for the dying is pretty depressing work and I don't think a lot of people will want to do this -- at least not for very long.
In fact, I expect euthanasia will become routine.
3. Some kind of "institution" for those who are physically healthy enough but who have chronic and perhaps incurable mental disorders that make it impossible for them to function in normal human society.
Work in such a facility would likely be incredibly demoralizing...unless genuine cures had been discovered.
Maybe some people will be motivated to do this kind of work from a very strong "humanitarian impulse"...but I expect their numbers will be extremely limited.
It is such a literally hopeless situation.
In principle, we could, as you propose, put violent criminals into such an institution...with the understanding that you're now exposing the people who work there to the threat of injury or even death.
I would imagine that such a step would reduce even further the "pool" of people who would want to do that kind of work.
And unlike class society, there is no "economic whip" to "make" people do this kind of work. In capitalist society, all of our "hopeless cases" are cared for by people who have no decent shot at any better kind of work.
Indeed, I used to know a young woman who, after considerable effort, managed to get a job as a hotel housekeeper...which she regarded as a real "step up" from working in a "nursing home".
As she said to me, "At least now I don't have to spend my whole day smelling piss and watching people die!"
So there you are. We have to take into consideration not only what is possible "in principle" but, more importantly, what kinds of work are people going to be willing to do in communist society.
And what they are actually prepared to "tolerate" and what they will find "absolutely intolerable".
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 8, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
But what do you do, as the victim of rape - or any crime - if the jury of 500 (or whatever) decides "against" you? I don't think anyone is going to suggest that there will be uniformity of thought on the matter. So how do you mediate between the two "opposing" groups here? Take the case you mentioned earlier, redstar2000: the woman you knew personally who was raped. Presumably (then as now), you argue for the execution of the rapist. But the jury, for whatever reason, decide otherwise - and they impose a minimal "sentence". Do you consider this unfair?
Of course I do! In fact, I would undoubtedly be so bitter about this brazen injustice that not only would I widely publicize it over the internet but I would also move away from the place where that happened and tell people on the internet not to ever go there.
I would have no interest in "mediation" of any kind.
Ok, that's me.
Maybe others would just shrug their shoulders and say "sometimes you're the windshield and sometimes you're the bug" or whatever.
quote:
Or you could take matters into your own hands - hunt down the bastard and "make him (or her) pay". Is that really a wise option? I imagine that you'd find yourself standing in front of a revolutionary court before long. And who wins then?
Even if I don't "hunt the bastard down", the rape victim might well do so herself!
And she would face that big jury and would have to convince them that this really was a case of "justifiable homicide".
And would she win her case?
I think she would...but no one knows until it actually happens.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 8, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You see, I imagine that relatives or friends of the rapist, if he or she were to be executed for the crime, would feel a similar sense of injustice (and take similar drastic action): the trouble is, in all these cases, there are no winners.
The "winners" are the women who will never be raped by the dead rapist...and who need not live in fear that they "might be raped".
I surmise, moreover, that rape will be considered so reprehensible that any friends or family that the convicted rapist may have had will "melt away" like a springtime snowfall. Families may well change their names...that's how "bad" it will be.
quote:
Obviously, personal experience of a crime like this is going to be traumatic - that goes without saying. There is likely to be a strong desire for revenge. But simple (brutal) vengeance is unlikely to satisfy the victim.
If you say so...this sounds entirely speculative to me.
quote:
I believe that the majority of people might also seek some sort of reconciliation - realisation by the offender that their crime was in fact a "crime" (i.e. "wrong").
Again, you may be right...I don't see how we could possibly know that 50 or 100 years ahead of time.
quote:
People can change; people can feel remorse for "crimes" committed in the past.
And people can say anything that they think might get them out of a "tight spot".
How do we distinguish between "genuine remorse" and "fake remorse"?
And anyway, what good does remorse do? Does it really "make everything ok"?
quote:
Execution removes any possibility that an individual will rape (or murder, etc.) again, but it also removes the potential for them to contribute to society in a positive fashion.
I believe communist society can get along just fine without the "positive contributions" of rapists, murderers, etc.
quote:
I expect we've all suffered at the hands of others - whatever the scale of this suffering might be. For my part, and in my mind, I'd rather hear a genuine apology on the part of the wrongdoer than see them punished.
Such noble sentiments do you credit...though you still have the difficulty in distinguishing between a "genuine apology" and a fake one.
My own interest is more utilitarian: how can we stop this from happening again?
Apologies, genuine or otherwise, are of no measurable use in this regard.
quote:
So rather than "writing off" these men and women, and hoping to control the problem that way, why not deal with the causes and the effects of this violence in more of a "civilised" way?
Because I know of none.
Throughout this lengthy thread, my critics have offered nothing but rosy promises: really "humane" prisons, new technological "fixes", rehabilitation techniques that "really work", blah, blah, blah.
This allows them to cling tightly to their conviction that the taking of any human life is "immoral" or "uncivilized"...because we simply don't know "what the future will bring".
I think people in a communist society would regard any kind of forced confinement as far more uncivilized than executions.
But we'll see.
quote:
Next... A legal system acknowledges that there may be different interpretations of events....In the past, it has also upheld the interests of certain classes over others....Why need this be the case in the future?
Much depends on what you mean by "a legal system" in this context. The swarms of parasites that presently live off of our "legal system" are obviously unacceptable.
Indeed, I would surmise that the general attitude in communist society would be that justice is far too important to be left to "specialists". And even if this would not be true in a literal sense -- crime scene investigators would be "specialists" -- it would be perceived to be true as long as the final decisions were actually made by a large representative sampling of ordinary people.
The institutionalization of such procedures could be called a "criminal justice system"...but it would be misleading to use that term now.
It would imply a duplication of what actually exists now...something which I think the people would find both "uncivilized" and totally unacceptable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 8, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I believe that if a person has the desire to kill or rape (in some minor way or another) they must not be completely mentally stable, therefore they need to be given help, not killed.
No one has suggested that someone who has the "desire to kill or rape" should be executed. Someone has to actually do or actually attempt to do one of those things before execution becomes necessary.
quote:
Another point which rather puzzles me is that, if the assumption that once someone has killed or raped they will always be a killer or rapist. By that rationale, how can we expect people to change their views and make the transition from capitalist to communist [society]??
Because there is a rather obvious difference between someone's political and economic views and their demonstrated propensity to commit crimes of violence against people.
I'm sure you realize that it is a bourgeois media myth that "only poor people" commit crimes of violence.
Unlike politics, violent crime (murder, rape, violent bodily assault) cuts across class lines.
This suggests that there are other causes at work...and that the abolition of class society "all by itself" is not going to eliminate violent crime -- though it may substantially reduce it.
quote:
Everyone makes mistakes..some people learn, some don't.
Violent attacks on people are not a "mistake".
The calculated intent to do physical harm to another person followed by "the deed itself" is purposeful action by any reasonable definition.
quote:
There will always be counter revolutionaries who won't agree to a communist society. So how will they be approached?
How does capitalist society now treat those nostalgic cranks who want to restore feudalism?
We laugh.
With the passing of time, so it is likely to be for those nostalgic cranks who want to restore capitalism.
quote:
Redstar seems to think it's a "liberal myth" that people can change. To me it seems rather like common sense: me ten years ago and me today are hardly the same person.
Have you stopped killing people or are you planning to start? *laughs*
Obviously we change with time in many ways. I am not arguing against the observed phenomenon of change.
I am making a much more specific argument: an individual that has demonstrated a propensity to violently attack people will keep doing that until he is no longer physically capable of successfully engaging in that behavior.
If nothing else happens to halt his behavior, old age will do it.
Want to wait for that?
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 9, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Hang on a second, redstar2000... Is the concept of "remorse" really that alien to you?
I guess it must be...as I've never done anything to anyone for which I've had reason to feel "remorse".
To be sure, I've undoubtedly "hurt someone's feelings" (intentionally or unintentionally) at one time or another.
But, thinking back, I can remember only two violent confrontations that I was ever involved in...where I sincerely wanted to physically hurt my adversaries...and that covering a period of nearly 50 years!
In both cases, I was the victim of physical aggression and acted entirely in self-defense.
I feel no remorse for those actions whatsoever. Indeed, I wish I had hurt them substantially more than I did. *laughs*
quote:
Surely the "criminal" is capable of accepting that he or she has transgressed; surely there is the potential for reform?
Surely I have no idea what you are even talking about.
How do you objectively measure such a phenomenon? Do you have a "remorse-meter"? Or do you anticipate that one will be invented in the foreseeable future?
quote:
Are you going to exclude just violent criminals?
Who else?
quote:
So even if the jury decides that such and such a criminal must forfeit his or her life, an effort ought to be made to convince the criminal why this is so.
To what purpose? Will execution be "easier" on you if the violent criminal says, "Yeah, you're right to kill me...I'm an asshole who really deserves to die"?
I frankly find this to be one of the most bizarre suggestions yet made in this thread.
quote:
But I'd argue that falling back on executing those who cross certain chalk-drawn lines on the playground of morality is a little...barbaric?
We are not making a "moral judgment" here. We're not telling a violent criminal that "you have sinned and therefore you must die".
We are acting in self-defense...we collectively have an over-riding right to live in a society free from the fear of violent crime.
If there is any message to the violent criminal implied, it is: "you have attacked us and therefore you must die so that you cannot ever do that to us again".
In communist society, that old IWW slogan takes on a far deeper meaning.
An Injury to One is an Injury to All!
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on December 9, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
================================================== |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| The material conditions for communism simply do not exist anywhere in the so-called "third world"...indeed, they may not exist yet even in the advanced capitalist countries -- at least to the required level of development.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
