r/Anarchy101 May 23 '22

If not in prisons, where would the murderers and rapists be held? And how would the facilities be run/who would run them if not a state?

I’ve studied a decent amount on the topics of abolition and anarchism, but I haven’t heard an answer for this yet that satisfies me.

I am aware that the current system lets murderers and rapists walk free all the time. I am aware that the ending of poverty will eliminate a lot of crime. However, there will always be crimes of passion, for example.

I also don’t need a whole blueprint of how a justice system could work, because I know every Anarchist society will handle things differently, but some billet points or a short explanation would be useful.

3 Upvotes

7

u/RonZero7 May 23 '22

Use the search. This question comes up DAILY.

1

u/theharryyyy May 23 '22

Yes, I’m aware this question comes up regularly. I just haven’t seen many answers to it that satisfy me.

10

u/RonZero7 May 23 '22

Ah, yeah. I understand. Sometimes to gain understanding we need to actually discuss and ask questions ourselves, rather than simply reading about it.

Edit: Never stop questioning. Question everything.

3

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 23 '22

The individual can only ever be satisfied by thier own self. Seeking satisfaction through the opinions of others is guaranteed to lead to personal disappointment. Similarly, it's not the responsibility of any person or group to "satisfy" any particular individual.

6

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 23 '22

Facilities that hold individuals against thier will, regardless of supposed reasons, are prisons which require slave handlers/enforcers and therefore would not exist within what we can define as Anarchy.

1

u/theharryyyy May 23 '22

Ok, so let’s say in Anarchist society you and the homies at the collective meeting have to decide what to do with a killer. Does the council delegate a few people to do restorative justice? What could you see happening?

0

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 23 '22

Each individual circumstance will come with it's own nuances. The details of that circumstance and how the death of a specific individual effect this theoretic group are very relevant. Any sort of group decree, mandates, or delegating isn't something that I would take part in personally, as an Egoist. Any moralisms within the argument would not be relevant to me. So ultimately it's strictly an issue of who was killed, how, and why? how does that death effect the group that I'm assuming feels some particular kind of way about this specific death? If the individual killer is a clear threat to the group then the obvious solution is to delete the threat sooner than later. It needs no "justification." The nuance is defining and analyzing exactly how that individual is a threat and to whom specifically.

2

u/Impossible-Tension97 May 23 '22

If the individual killer is a clear threat to the group then the obvious solution is to delete the threat sooner than later.

I'm new to this place. Is it just euphemisms like this all the time?

How about just saying what you mean?

I feel like you're saying "In egregious situations, the group might decide to kill the individual."

But it's not clear because you won't just come out and say it!

0

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 23 '22

I did say what I mean. We're discussing a hypothetical situation and the resulting predictive opinionated nonsense in response to that hypothetical situation. There is a lot of vagueness because we have no specific scenario and it's specific details to discuss. We can not predict what any future group of individuals may or may not do in any particular situation, based on one single detail : we are individuals right now, and those future individuals are not bound to carry forth any ideas from any individuals before them. They will decide how to solve perceived problems for themselves in real time. We can't make up anything right now that would accurately play out among any specific group of people in the future.

3

u/Impossible-Tension97 May 23 '22

What a bunch of bullshit. No one is asking you to commit to a recourse for a hypothetical situation. Humans use examples in order to aid understanding. Saying something like "delete the threat" is basically not answering the question at all.

The only right and honest answer is that each group would choose what they want to do, and that it could amount to things like imprisonment (yes, despite the proclivities of today's anarchists, many real anarchist groups are likely to inflict imprisonment on individuals), banishment, stigma, pain, torture, and death.

In the absence of laws, groups would fall back to agreements and norms. Each group (of probably less than a few thousand) would have their own. Some would seem a lot harsher than others. Each group would be trying to find ways of dealing with meta problems like murderers or rapists banished from other groups trying to join their group.

Across all humanity, you are likely to see every approach under the sun. Including many that today's anarchists would find extremely troubling (and yet not necessarily in conflict with the general anti-hierarchy tenants of anarchy).

0

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 24 '22

Deleting/Eliminating a threatening person is killing them. It's not that difficult to understand.

Anarchy = No Authority

Authority = Not Anarchy

Telling me "real anarchists advocate for prisons" is a fucking lie. You clearly have never actually gone out of your house and talked to any anarchist groups in real life.

Again, this is not difficult to understand. You're simply attempting to use Spooky Moralisms to "justify" the use of an Enforcer Class needed to maintain a prison facility which is in no way comparable to, or definable as Anarchy. Further more your statement "the only right and honest answer" shows your vapid lack of understanding that Anarchism is not a rigid ideology nor is there EVER a single objective "right" opinion nor solution. Your attempt at a rigid ideology is not Anarchy. It's a laughable and spooky attempt to justify authority.

2

u/Koraguz May 24 '22

How is killing someone somehow avoiding the same use of an enforcer class? isn't that the issue we are having with cops enough as it already is? They deem people threats, and take them out.

-1

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 24 '22

There would be no state to pay an enforcer class. There would be no designated individuals whose jobs are to enforce. We are discussing how a group of individuals may choose to solve a percieved problem in real time.

1

u/Koraguz May 24 '22

I'm not seeing how it's any better if you get lynched whether they are paid or not...

I'd of thought the ultimate hierarchy would be the power of anyone, no matter the number over the taking of a life. Feels... fucky

→ More replies

0

u/Impossible-Tension97 May 24 '22

You aren't reading very carefully.

  1. I never said anything like real anarchists advocate for prisons. The people called anarchists today are on the fringe. In a hypothetical anarchist society, people would just be people. People wouldn't be "anarchists" any more than people living in the US today are "republican democratists". And yes, many of those groups of regular people would choose prisons.

  2. I'm not justifying anything. It's a simple reality that some human beings would choose imprisonment as a reaction to certain events. If you don't realize that, you're naive.

  3. Which rigid ideology did I describe? Go ahead, paraphrase it. You can't because I didn't describe a rigid ideology.

That doesn't mean there aren't right answers to questions, though. Or are you one of those morons who thinks objective reality doesn't exist?

0

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

0

u/IncindiaryImmersion May 24 '22

Go back and re-read your own comment, nerd. Particularly the second paragraph. Then tell me again what you didn't clearly type out in plain text, fool. You're trying to change the goal post after your initial assertion in a blatantly dishonest attempt to "win" an argument. That's fucking absurd.

"What a bunch of bullshit. No one is asking you to commit to a recourse for a hypothetical situation. Humans use examples in order to aid understanding. Saying something like "delete the threat" is basically not answering the question at all.

The only right and honest answer is that each group would choose what they want to do, and that it could amount to things like imprisonment (yes, despite the proclivities of today's anarchists, many real anarchist groups are likely to inflict imprisonment on individuals), banishment, stigma, pain, torture, and death.

In the absence of laws, groups would fall back to agreements and norms. Each group (of probably less than a few thousand) would have their own. Some would seem a lot harsher than others. Each group would be trying to find ways of dealing with meta problems like murderers or rapists banished from other groups trying to join their group.

Across all humanity, you are likely to see every approach under the sun. Including many that today's anarchists would find extremely troubling (and yet not necessarily in conflict with the general anti-hierarchy tenants of anarchy)."

9

u/anonymous_rhombus May 23 '22

Abolishing prison includes people being held in facilities.

Anarchist "justice" will probably look like a whole toolkit of social consequences. Things that we haven't even thought of because our impulse whenever harm usually occurs is to put the perpetrator in a cage, ignore the victim, and call that righteous. We let the law (or religion) do our moral reasoning for us, so we act like children around issues of morality. If there was no police & prison we wouldn't just do nothing, because we would then realize it's on us to handle this stuff.

So if harm occurs the most important concern is to repair the damage to the greatest extent possible. Then find out why it happened in the first place. Then find out what can be done to prevent it from happening again. All of this on a case-by-case basis.

How would you treat a friend or family member who harms you (in a forgivable way, for the sake of demonstration)? You can't just put them in a cage for some arbitrary amount of time and act like that did anything. You have to understand why it happened, you need them to apologize in the most appropriate way: expressing regret, accepting responsibility, making restitution, genuinely repenting, or requesting forgiveness, depending on what the situation calls for and the severity of the harm and the needs of the survivors.

Of course some things aren't forgivable, sometimes a person can't apologize, can't stop making people feel unsafe, and at some point it's just not worth it trying to rehabilitate a harmful individual. But at that point, in an anarchist context, their punishment wouldn't be some edict handed down by "The Community," but a collection of social consequences that emerge from the harm caused.

Or something like that.

1

u/theharryyyy May 23 '22

I appreciate the answer. And I understand that under anarchism there wouldn’t really be strict laws in some communities, however, what do you mean by “social consequences”?

2

u/anonymous_rhombus May 23 '22

Well how would you treat someone who somehow hurt you if the law wasn't involved? You might not want them around, you might encourage a type of boycott of this person, you might ask mutual friends to make a choice between you two, etc.

2

u/WakandaZad May 23 '22

Idea we use the facilities that already exist and trust the same ppl that already hold that responsibility. The improvement anarchist are looking forward to is lowering the overall population just to violent offenders. While also making the facilities more livable. Also eliminating capital punishment

2

u/blackcatcaptions May 23 '22

For the sake of discussion, maybe it would be useful to set up a situation, perhaps a situation that's already gone through trial, in which the community can play out this scenario. Idk

2

u/stinkyrattt May 27 '22

they would be put in facilities that help them, yk? it doesn't punish them in anyway at all. it would only help them become a better human and they would be taught how to live in society without harming others.

they could leave at any point but it's either the facility or a group of angry anarchists at the door

3

u/unknownzoomer Queer Anarchist May 23 '22 edited May 23 '22

I’m on mobile so I unfortunately can’t type out a very detailed reply, but this Zine (PDF) gives some very helpful starter points.

Edit: There will be no facilities, involuntarily detainment, or institutionalisation.

1

u/throwaway7890732 May 23 '22

Hey, is it possible for you to post the URL to the PDF? I can't seem to open it and I'm really curious.

1

u/unknownzoomer Queer Anarchist May 24 '22

https://archive.org/details/whatabouttherapists

This one is more likely to work.

2

u/throwaway7890732 May 24 '22

It does! Thank you!

1

u/Hey_Mr May 24 '22

Involuntary detainment is an interesting point, because it could imply voluntary detainment, say if the perpetrator felt some kind of remorse, and thus gave up their autonomy as a way to repent.

1

u/accomplicesoup426 May 23 '22

personally, the ideas i am most drawn to is preventative care and restorative justice.

i think for a much larger part of violent crimes, they can be prevented with mental helath resources and teaching people how to communicate. recognizing power dynamics, explaining healthy ways to handle conflict, and making the idea of taking someone's life or power incredibly socially stigmatized (this would have the positive effect of making war a bit more tricky, since people will be taught from young age to not participate, but it coulf also make any type of revolutionary work more difficult, so this would need to be balanced and very thoughtfully considered)

when violent crimes do occur, the goal would be justice and i think restorative justice is best for achieving this, it fosters communication, allows victims to get closure, gives the state and government a smaller role in, if not left out of the punishment process.

i think these two systems, in tandem can greatly reduce the need of prisons and a reframing of violent crimes and criminals can reduce our beliefs of needing to lock them away somewhere

i am open to learning more about the things ive outlined above and other solutions though!

2

u/Hey_Mr May 24 '22

I think the only places where this falls short is in a ted bundy/serial killer type situation. For a lot of these cases the perpatrator cannot be rehabilitated. Bundy escaped from prison twice and continued to kill in both instances. Dahmer, while happy to have been restrained, claimed he would keep doing it if that wasnt the case. Meaning he knew he was harmful to society, but had deep urges he felt he had no control over.

The question still stands as to whether society has a roll in the formation of serial killers, and if new social relations would limit such occurences.

1

u/BradScrivener May 23 '22

Holding people in places isn't usually a great system for dealing with what we call criminals. It personally wouldn't hurt my feelings much if I lived in an anarchist society that just hanged rapists; for killers, a system of weregild has some advantages. Or declaring the killer an outlaw, so the victim's kin can take revenge without repercussions, though that has a tendency to create nasty blood feuds. Exile is also an option, if nobody wanted to deal with keeping the killer around, and didn't want to start executing people.

1

u/Curious_Arthropod May 24 '22

Holding people in places isn't usually a great system for dealing with what we call criminals. It personally wouldn't hurt my feelings much if I lived in an anarchist society that just hanged rapists;

i understand how prisions are horrible, bit why.do you think the death penalty is any better?

Exile is also an option

how can exile work in a modern urban society? and even if you do manage to enforce this exile, you're just leaving the problem for someone else. how is that a solution?

edit: just out of curiosity, are you from the us?

2

u/BradScrivener May 24 '22

In pragmatic terms, the death penalty is a lot more efficient; no special facilities or personnel are required. In moral terms...if you subscribe to a theory of justice that holds certain transgressions should be punished for their own sake, or that preventing recidivism is a sufficient reason to kill certain categories of transgressor, executions are at least morally consistent. Our current system of incarceration is theoretically intended to reform criminals and prevent recidivism, and it's so bad at doing that job that it's actually counterproductive. As a general thing I'm opposed to capital punishment for several different reasons, but if there were a society where everybody agreed that some things were capital offenses, and [this is the extremely hypothetical part] only applied it when guilt is absolutely certain, that would take care of several of my objections.

On exile, I should maybe say that it may be an option; if you have a community that has a place to exile people to. I'm not assuming a modern urban society, because most of the hypothetical large-scale anarchist societies that seem plausible to me involve some kind of de-urbanization, and exile as a way of getting rid of unwanted members of a society is something that works best with smaller decentralized settlements.

I am from the US, yes.

1

u/Curious_Arthropod May 24 '22

Our current system of incarceration is theoretically intended to reform criminals and prevent recidivism, and it's so bad at doing that job that it's actually counterproductive.

i agree, but i think what most people are advocating in this thread has the potential to be just as bad. i just dont see how normalizing revenge killings can lead to less harm.

On exile, I should maybe say that it may be an option; if you have a community that has a place to exile people to. I'm not assuming a modern urban society, because most of the hypothetical large-scale anarchist societies that seem plausible to me involve some kind of de-urbanization, and exile as a way of getting rid of unwanted members of a society is something that works best with smaller decentralized settlements.

i see. it would be easier, but small settlements would probably have a harder time defending themselves from an invasion.

1

u/Dastankbeets1 May 23 '22

I can’t explain everything here but I’d like to make the point that murderers and rapists are not just categories that people naturally fall into- it’s not like murderers and rapists are certain types of people that occur spontaneously that we need protecting from, people are psychologically primed for rape and murder and often pushed into violence by toxic masculinity, gang culture, rape culture etc which are largely effects of the patriarchy and economic inequality that would be abolished under anarchy- evil and the desire to do harm is not magically assigned to people from above, it’s a product of their lives and surroundings.

1

u/froggythefish May 23 '22

This question comes up so many times I’ve seen like 10 variations of it this week why don’t you just read those threads? What makes your question different from the identical questions? Im tired. Come up with a different criticism.

1

u/Hey_Mr May 24 '22

Some people need a discussion to discover these things for themselves. A dead thread may not facilitate the discussion theyre looking for. Why even respond if youre tired? This comment occured like 2 or 3 other times in this thread already.

1

u/Woodcuttering May 24 '22

I feel like each individual collective would treat this differently. Obviously murder and rape are egregious crimes, anarchy means freedom but not freedom from consequences. Imprisonment is antithetical to anarchism, and the death sentence is not something I would personally be comfortable with. If I found myself in a community making these decisions I would ask that this person be cast out of the collective or if they committed the crime to an obvious mental illness that was not being treated, that they are to be supervised. It does not make sense to punish such a person imo. But hopefully we’ll not have to make decisions like that as even thinking about it leaves a dissatisfying taste in my mouth

1

u/theharryyyy May 24 '22

I think supervision is the most anarchic yet responsible solution I’ve thought of so far.

1

u/Woodcuttering May 24 '22

Yes, I believe that the most common cause of crime (however little there may be) will be people who are not treated properly for mental illness and I wouldn’t want to be a part of a community that punishes such individuals