Are anarchists against prison only or against punishment in general?
By - GaGmBr
Against punishment, as it doesn’t work to rehabilitate people, it causes more harm and reinforces violent narratives in everyone involved. The alternative is restorative justice, therapy and community support. Turns out it’s easier for people to rehabilitate if that effort is supported by their community and better for the victim if their given the same kind of support and additional support if needed.
That said anarchy creates goals to work towards not policies to implement. These ideas need to be woven into the fabric of our culture to function as intended.
Genuinely curious to know how you might rehabilitate someone like Anders Breivik or El Chapo. I'm sure it's happened but how? What if someone cannot be rehabilitated?
Yeah I agree. While I think that restorative justice is simply BETTER than punitive justice, how would society deal with people like those mentioned above. To go further I think an even more interesting example of a challenge to a restorative justice system is that of someone like Ed Kemper. A man who it seems showed no remorse for his killings and had no empathy for his victims but actually TRICKED his psychologists and therapists into thinking he was “cured” of his murderous impulses and pathologies. Only to show up to one of his out patient appointments with a decapitated corpse in his trunk, and not found out until he confessed and turned himself in because by his own admission he WANTED to tell someone about his crimes. He went into such detail it made the cops who arrested him sick and the begged him to stop recounting his murders. Again I’m not saying this disproves the entire concept of restorative justice, I’m just asking how society would deal with people such as this who seem to totally lack empathy or sympathy, actively work against and do not want to be helped mentally or physically.
Someone like Kemper is a special case and a justice system shouldn’t be built around special cases. Communities should make informed democratic solutions to deal with special cases if the process in place fails to provide one, much like a jury system but more involved with the therapist community and those invested in rehabilitation. But as I said in other comments unprompted violence is authoritarian in nature and needs to be met with harm reduction in mind.
Thing is—you shouldn’t *wait* until a serial killer has killed again to figure out a solution. You should have one ready to go, not just “eh, we’ll figure it out if the time comes”. Know the bridge you might have to cross instead of hoping you can build one later
I agree, in another comment I advocate for broader access to arms, self defense, weapons and safety training, which I believe would provide a good start to a preventive solution, by increasing the resistance a serial killer or mass shooter would meet.
No one is advocating for just letting a serial killer murder after they've been caught. These people must be placed in psychiatric hospitals and evaluated. Violent psychopaths will need to stay in an institution for the rest of their lives.
[My response elsewhere.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/nxj5ws/slug/h1gxgfe)
I agree with you the justice system should absolutely not be built around special cases or the worst case scenario that just leads to over policing and people getting 20 years for a little weed in their pocket. And I really like the pint you made about communities dealing with it I guess my question would be how do you KNOW it’s a special case before it’s too late. We know Kemper was a special case cause he went on to kill more after he was “cured.” Would there be a way to catch these special cases before it was too late and they took advantage of the restorative justice system or would that risk just kinda be there? Kinda in the same way it is now with our punitive system. After all it’s very very hard to actually KNOW if someone is a psychopath.
EDIT: hope that made sense I’m high
Haha, I hope you’re having a good night friend.
To my knowledge, you can’t know. The best we can do is make it difficult and dangerous for serial killers by arming people, training them in self defense, showing them how to spot abuse and other red flags, and building community response networks. These strategies have other benefits worth pursuing as well unrelated to serial killers. That said the network solution needs to be woven into the fabric of a community to be effective and everyone needs to either be actively involved and rotated or intimately familiar with the network to avoid accidents and power dynamics.
Yeah maybe, I’d like to see a world were someone like Kemper is pursued with continued rehabilitation and studied so we as a species can work towards solutions to some of the hardest questions. I don’t think we’re going to find good solutions if we don’t actively pursue them and reject the solutions we already know don’t work, you know?
> pursued with continued rehabilitation and studied so we as a species can work towards solutions to some of the hardest questions
Exactly what I meant. Also, over time you should see fewer cases like Kemper in the first place.
Oh ok, yeah as we move towards anarchist principles becoming more mainstream it should be more and more difficult for serial killers to fly under the radar. I don’t know that anarchism would stop anyone from becoming serial killers though. But I’m not super familiar with how people become serial killers, so if you have anything to share on that I’d love to hear it.
Higher rates of mental illness emerge from an ill society. Mental illness is social illness.
It might be important to note that some people are far beyond trying to reintegrate into communities. They either simply don’t want to or are too far gone to help anymore. If that’s the case, I see no real issue with exiling these individuals from said communities. They are free to not follow the established rules of communities but these communities don’t HAVE to integrate them, nor should they force them. There should be attempts made, of course, but you can’t help someone who doesn’t want it. They can go and start their own group, or wander the no mans land if they wish. But ultimately, they’d have to accept that they’re going to have to follow rules if they wish to live within established communities. What’s important is that it’s up to them whether or not they want listen. At least, that’s how I like to view it...
But as long as they exist they are a threat to everyone else, the only justifiable thing to do IMO is to kill them before they do something else horrible
I have no qualms with a death penalty in an anarchist society as long as it has been proven justifiable. I was mainly just trying to find another way to deal with individuals like this without killing them as I’ve seen more than a few fellow anarchists that seem to have an issue with a death penalty. I get why, but, I have no such reservations...
The death penalty is the ultimate restriction of freedom. To quote David Peoples: "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
There's no greater restriction on freedom of movement than death.
There's no greater restriction on freedom of will than death.
There's no greater restriction on happiness than death.
While I still think there's always going to be some hypothetical people who are beyond reintegration into society, the death penalty is absolutely not compatible with an anarchist view.
Even if everyone but the “criminal”(I don’t know the stateless equivalent) agrees to it?
I suppose so. However, I can’t see a reason why a community cannot defend itself against a potential threat. If the scenario in question is still being presented, then a dangerous individual is going to continue to harass and worse to the individuals of that community. If they agree that’d It’d be safer for everyone if they were to kill this person, then that is their decision, which would be justifiable in the sense of safety of the group and others. You take away their freedom sure, but if they’re consistently taking away other people’s (killing people, stealing important resources, etc.) shouldn’t you and the people affected do whatever is necessary to stop them?
Killing them is never necessary. Even prison is preferrable to the death penalty. Only for the extreme cases, and not as a facility specially built for it. Just ban them from leaving their home and heavily guard it.
That’s still the same as prison. It sounds a little more like, you don’t want it to be necessary. That’s fine, it doesn’t have to be. I think the major point though is that the people are deciding as a group rather than one fuck head deciding for everybody...
Everyone is a threat to everyone else. This idea that someone should be killed because they pose a threat is complete nonsense.
People who have proved they cannot be trusted should be prevented from harming anyone else. We are a clever species - we can figure out ways to do that without killing them.
Ed Kemper was only released because he was a child when he committed his first murders. If he had been an adult, he would have been held fully responsible and he would have been treated as a violent psychopath, rather than as a troubled kid.
In any system, mistakes occur. No one is perfect. That does not mean the system doesn't work. Psychiatric evaluation would work much the same under anarchism as it does under capitalism. The fact that folks like Kemper can trick some psychiatrists does not mean that psychiatry doesn't work, and it certainly doesn't mean that anarchism cannot work better than our current system.
Kemper is exceptional; but, does not break our mold. With Kemper, a mental hospital (granted one that uses restraints) is probably a better solution than the prison-industrial complex. The same is true of anyone who would be imprisoned because of a mental illness.
it’s worth noting that a lot of mental illness is created by culture. While people in other cultures can have the same kinds of brain-bads, it can be a lot less devastating or distressing when the people around them are chill and non-pathologising, and they’re not told they’re broken, and they don’t need to participate in capitalism properly to survive.
It’s *also* worth noting that there is a wide, wide gap between mental illness and inpatient treatment. Historically, you’d get inside for such mental illnesses as “being queer”, “being outspoken” and “being extramaritally pregnant”, and to this day you can go in for such crushing mental health issues as “publishing incontrovertible evidence of police racism”. Mental hospitals are *absolutely* a carceral setting and are used as such.
*Mental hospitals as they exist now. Because mental hospitals have been taken over by the prison industrial complex. Most of them are literally wings of a prison.
Both Breivik and El Chapo are pretty society contingent criminals, though potentially pretty tough to redeem now, I'm far from convinced they'd exist were the context different.
Whatever untreated mental illnesses Breivik may have had, he was an ideologically motivated actor as is evident by the fact that he didn't just kill anyone he saw but specifically members of the NLP. Fascism isn't an inextricable part of human biology, it's a reaction to material conditions that ideally wouldn't exist in an anarchist society.
As for Chapo, he's not pathologically driven to sell drugs and run cartels, he was born to a poor family in a poor country and this is how he makes money. There's no reason to believe he couldn't have been as stellar an urban planner as he is a tunnel digger were the conditions not right to get him started in a life of crime.
As for someone that genuinely can't be rehabilitated because of some pathology we have no way to treat, imo we don't have much choice but to give them as comfortable and fulfilling a life as possible while not letting them hurt anyone. If they genuinely can't be rehabilitated then it's hardly their fault so it's not like punishing them would do any good.
El Chapo was a drug lord, heading one of the worlds most powerful crime syndicates. These crimes are only possible within the context of a society with hierarchical structures in place, and therefore, in an established anarchist society, inconceivable.
His is a cocktail case of surviving intergenerational, institutionalised poverty. We know now that the way to reduce crime is to support impoverished communities; with his needs taken care of, it's unlikely he'd have found his way into his life of crime. Additionally, he was able to be as evil as that because others revered him; if others didn't acknowledge his power, he'd have none, and the problem would solve itself.
The same is true with most forms of right-wing extremism. They're most often born from communities stricken by poverty and bad education, and grow within a cultural echo chamber of people suffering the same ailments. Reduce poverty, improve education, and you reduce extremism. Breivik never happens.
There are other types of crimes possible within anarchist societies (serial murderers comes to mind) - it's not a cure-all system. However, absent capitalism and hierarchies, there isn't as much need to do crimes to begin with. People are very imaginative, and more than likely will create new forms of crime - but it's difficult to imagine what that would look like.
Well someone like El Chapo would never come to fruition in an anarchist society, but I too would like to know how we help people who are genuinely psychotic.
I'm gonna broaden that to "people who are a danger to themselves or others due to some pathology we don't know how to treat". It doesn't really matter what it looks like but just imagine the worst-case scenario, someone who shows no empathy and has a drive to hurt others.
Most anarchists I know would propose something like removing them from normal society and keeping them as safe and as comfortable as possible, working to make improvements when the opportunity presents.
If it's genuinely pathological, what they did isn't in any meaningful way their fault so it makes no sense to punish them for it. And if there's no point in punishing them and we don't know how to help them, keeping them safe, comfortable, and able to live as fulfilling a life as possible while keeping everyone else safe is about the best we can do I reckon.
(That said, the number of people who are genuinely, untreatably a danger to society regardless of life circumstances is likely pretty small so it's not like this'd be the most pressing issue an anarchist society might face)
Thank you for the response comrade
That’s where I disagree with many anarchists it seems. I’m fine with holding facilities for those who are a danger to others. Call it prison if you want—but there’s a limit to how much freedom those people should have, as they impose a threat to others’ lives/well being and therefor freedom.
Give them a comfortable living area; private apartments, parks, educational/trade related classes if they wish, let them choose their own food, start a garden, have a pet if they don’t have a history of animal abuse, free movement within the area unless they have *continuously* attacked others within and refuse to stop, etc..
However much freedom they can have before others get provable harmed, is how much they should have. That varies case by case, but typically we can take a few lessons from, say, Finnish prisons. They’re still state prisons, that’s not good. But the way the apartments (they’re fucking apartments—I’m not calling shit that nice a “cell”, especially when they can freely leave the room) are set up and how murderers in there for life (21years for 1 life sentence there) can even get cars and drive to and from college classes or connivence stores shows it’s possible.
That's not Anarchy at all in my opinion.
Tbch I'm not sure I see what the distinction you're making is?
I'm saying that if someone genuinely has no control over their being dangerous to others then pretty much all we can do as a society is keep them and ourselves safe while making sure they're comfortable and have the possibility to live a fulfilling life.
It reads to me like you're saying pretty much the same thing and just specifying that they'd be kept more or less separate from society but if I'm just not seeing the distinction please let me know.
I've thought about having an area set aside for people who hunt others (maybe different areas for war, predatory behaviors, etc) can go hunt each other. As long as they consent, it fits into my beliefs nicely but I don't think it would work well in practice.
I also don't think Anarchism is compatible with prisons at all. However, retribution is. [My response elsewhere.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/nxj5ws/slug/h1gxgfe)
some people just straight up can't be rehabilitated or at least we currently don't know how to with most cases of ASPD, psychopathy, etc. i'd probably have them locked up the same way Hannibal Lecter was, despite their inability to act on their violent urges, they'll typically feel indifferent to being locked away
I'm not sure how much I buy "these people don't feel empathy as we understand it and thus, wouldn't care if they were put in solitary confinement".
Seems like even if it were true for a handful of people, you're placing a lot of reliance on one interpretation of our current understanding of a mental illness that we really only barely understand at all as justification for one of the worst things you can do to a person.
For now, we support research into the dark triad, psychotic breaks, schizoaffective disorders, etc so we can learn how to treat those illnesses and what tools help them most or reduce their suffering. We know nurture plays a big role, but not the only role, in the severity of many illnesses, so focusing on childhood and domestic abuse is another good thing to support.
Well I’d like to see broader access to self defense and weapons and safety training. In the anarchist society I want to see, people like Chapo and Breivik would meet much heavier public resistance and would likely get shot in self defense.
If Chapo or otherwise survive it is the communities responsibility to weigh what that makes sense for their circumstance, there will never be a one size fits all answer with these solutions I just don’t think punishment is one of them, if the community in question decides to hold Chapo with force out of self preservation I support that. Someone like Chapo is authoritarian after all and authoritarianism needs to be opposed in all of it’s forms.
Edit: Rehabilitating them would come in the same form really and left to the therapist community come up with effective treatments if there are any.
I have also had this question if the person is truly and utterly “evil”.
Restorative justice is not just about rehabilitation, it's also about victim satisfaction and prevention!
If someone cannot be rehabilitated, and if they refuse to admit themselves into a psychiatric hospital, then the community would have to force them to get the help they need.
Just as a side note. According to Wikipedia, there is a large body of evidence that shows punishment can "have a powerful and lasting effect in suppressing the punished [behaviour ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment_(psychology). I think it's misleading to suggest that punishment does not work when psychological studies in operant conditioning has shown the powerful effects of punishment.
Not arguing for punishment. Just want everyone to know that punishment can be extremely effective.
Oh thank you. I’ll add an edit.
Serious question: How would an Anarchist Society deal with serial killers or individuals with psychopathy?
I fully support restorative justice, and I believe that will work for the vast majority of cases. However, what actions would an Anarchist undertake to deal with someone who, for the sake of the argument, cannot be rehabilitated?
Again, this is a serious question, and I am not trying to cause anyone here any offense.
> I fully support restorative justice, and I believe that will work for the vast majority of cases. However, what actions would an Anarchist undertake to deal with someone who, for the sake of the argument, cannot be rehabilitated?
I don't think there's any real answer to what anarchists *would* do. That would be a decision taken by those real people at that real time. But anything from exile to isolation to killing might be on the table for that group, regardless of what I personally think of those approaches right now.
I responded to this question on another comment under this thread if you want to continue the conversation there.
What is the solution for recidivistic enemies of the people? Like fascist influencers and such that show no signs of rehabilitation whatsoever?
The anti-fascist strategy of making fascist action difficult uncomfortable or dangerous has proven really effective. So the idea is to scale up the strategy.
I don't know if just making these people social pariahs will be effective when they are so powerful. It may even vindicate them.
I mean it does work but you’re welcome to add to the solution. Anti-fascism isn’t a monolith and generally embraces new strategies. Fascism is an expression of the aesthetic of power so anything that makes them feel weak is a go from me.
Are you talking about what to do right now, or in a future anarchist society? I assumed it was the latter, and in that case, they aren't "so powerful". They'll have no more direct power than anyone else, and would have the general culture against them (much like anarchists do in a liberal society, even before accounting for direct power like police)
Communism doesn't happen overnight, it's a protracted process. In that interim period, how do we deal with powerful rogue actors? They won't relinquish power without a fight.
> They won't relinquish power without a fight.
Then we fight them until they are no longer empowered.
Right, and then what? Give them a trial and execute them? Lock them up? Tell them off and release them back to society?
Then the problem of reactionaries being "so powerful" is solved, and they're no longer a threat. They can stand on a street corner with a doomsday sign all they want, and face the same ridicule that doomsday prophets do today.
And what would removing their power roughly entail without a penal system?
Oh I think I miss understood, do you mean influencers like Steven Crowder types? People who work leverage the algorithms?
Against punishment in general. The problem with punishment is (next to the violence needed) that it requires a hierarchy and authority over someone else.
So if you live in an anarchist society and your neighbor punishes someone what do you do?
Idk, that's up to you. If you have the chutzpah and enough solidarity you'll go over to your neighbour and talk to them if you notice it. If you don't then... that's lacking in solidarity, making you a bit of an arse but there is no central authority to rebuke you.
You *should* go and talk to them though.
So you talk to them and they say fuck off then what
Then you act like a rational human being. I won't explain you in great detail how to handle social interactions. Since you can read and write I'm going to assume that you have handled various social interactions before already. If not or if you're having trouble with social interactions I am in no way qualified to help you with that, for that I suggest seeking out a professional.
It's not a reasonable question to want social interactions explained in every detail. I wasn't explaining it in disdain, I just told you that you have to act like in a normal social interaction. This isn't unreasonable to ask of you.
What should they have said? Typed out each individual word for them to say in that instance? Explain the concept of a dialogue to them. You clowns really need to learn how to use that ol noggin of yours. Not even sure how ya could your shoes on this morning if you are having trouble here
what do you mean by "your neighbor punishes someone?" what's this punishment, and what did the person on the receiving end do to "deserve it?" ideally the neighbor would be rehabilitated to acknowledge punishment is cruel and ineffective, and therefore should not be used
Wow the world you guys live in sounds amazing 😆
In my view, there is plenty of room for justice in retribution within anarchism.
I think this is a nuance i haven't seen stated in other comments. Also, allowing for just retribution, in my view, is one of the things that allows an anarchistic system of justice to work quite well.
It creates deterrence, penalties, and justice - all while still leaving room for reconciliation, community approaches, and non-hierarchical community involvement like restorative justice, counseling, etc.
How do you decide on a “system of justice” in an anarchist society? Wouldn’t it need to be enforced? Wouldn’t that require an authority?
justice doesn't necessarily mean top-down codified laws. Justice could simply be treating each other ethically and respect.
Is there really any difference between top down laws and community decided rules?
well obviously, top down laws are imposed and decided unilaterally, community decided rules require communication between people who are part of said community, and while you can disagree, at least there is a space for you to show your discontent and be taken into consideration
Isn’t that how we already do things?
not really, normal people can't modify the rules of the justice system
Neither could a person in an anarchist society. They could try to persuade others to change the rules which is basically the same as our current society.
No - you've completely misread my comment.
I'm describing how justice works under anarchism - not a 'justice system' under anarchism.
I don't know why I even bother anymore...
If you can’t even explain your ideas to me how are you going to get an entire society to agree with you without any system or rules in place?
Lol - as if the receiver's interest and ability to listen was immaterial, right? Just sad...
Against legal order. If you're going by a legalistic definiton of punishment, I guess we're against that too.
I consider myself a penal abolitionist because it is more coherent to oppose all forms of punitive justice.
I worked for a wilderness therapy company a few years back, we worked with teenagers who had some sort of behavioral issue. It had some problematic elements but overall was pretty cool and I learned a lot about myself and working with people.
Anyway, while there I was taught a really cool concept regarding the difference between "punishment" and "consequences." If you're camping, and you don't set your shelter up properly, you will get wet when it rains at night. That's a natural consequence. If you don't do the dishes for a month straight and you get cockroaches in your kitchen, that's a natural consequence. However, if you backtalk your mom and don't do the dishes one night, and your dad belts you to "teach you a lesson," that's a punishment.
Right now I work with kids as a sports coach every day. They don't learn from synthetic punishment at all; it really makes it harder for them to learn, because they are fearful of whoever is doling out the punishment, whether it's a teacher, parent, coach, etc. I explain to the kids I'm working with, "look guys, I've been up since 5:30 and I'm tired, my throat is sore from shouting to be heard over side conversations you're having, and if I have to repeat this another time I'm gonna be angry and I'll give up trying to explain the fun thing I want us to do. We'll just have to do some hard, shitty thing because I gave up trying to explain the fun thing to you." That technique works so much better than shouting or punishing. I just lower my voice and say "hey kids I don't want to shout anymore so if you can't hear me right now you'll just have to go home for the day, sorry." They quiet down and listen. So much easier than yelling.
Anyway I think this applies to the broader society but I'm not gonna try to connect it, if you're reading this then you are loved and I hope you have a good day
Talking about punishment almost always stems from the idea of soverign distributive judgements and justice, the product of authority, which anarchists reject on principle.
"I have often heard this question discussed: Has Society the right to punish with death? Beccaria, an Italian of no great talent, made himself a reputation in the last century by the eloquence with which he refuted the advocates of the death penalty. And in 1848 the people thought that they were doing a wonderful thing, while waiting for better, in abolishing the death penalty for political offences.
But neither Beccaria nor the revolutionaries of February have touched even the first word of the question. the use of the death penalty is only one special manifestation of criminal justice. **The real question is not whether society has a right to inflict the death penalty, or to inflict any penalty at all, however trifling, or even to acquit or to pardon, but whether it has any right to pronounce judgment at all.**
**Let society defend itself if attacked: that is within its right.**
**Let it avenge itself, taking the risk of reprisals, if that seem for its advantage.**
**But that it should judge, and after judging should punish, this is what I deny, that is what I refuse to grant to any authority.**
The individual alone has the right to judge himself, and, if he thinks expiation would be good for him, to demand punishment. **Justice is an act of conscience, essentially voluntary, as the conscience cannot be judged, condemned, or acquitted but by itself: all else is war, the rule of authority, and barbarism, the abuse of force.**"
"**When that is accomplished, what use will there be any more for government; what use punishment; what use judicial power? The contract solves all problems.** The producer deals with the consumer, the member with his society, the farmer with his township, the township with the province, the province with the State, &c., &c. It is still the same interest which passes along, transforms itself, balances itself, is reflected to infinity: still the same idea which issues from each faculty of the soul as a centre toward the periphery of its attractions."
Both quotes from [The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-the-general-idea-of-the-revolution-in-the-19th-century) - Proudhon
Yep, this is the way.
No prisons, no social system of punishment - retribution and community support and involvement instead.
Most people commit crimes because of being underprivileged or inequality in the first place.
Anarchists are against retribution, ie punishment for the sake of it.
In those cases where punishment actually rehabilitates the offender, repairs the damage caused and/or in general makes the society better for everyone without catering to feelings of vengeance, anarchists are ok with it.
Retribution isn't 'punishment for the sake of it' - at least that's not what my understanding is.
Isn't vengeance sometimes called for? Aren't there cases where it's justice?
AFAIK anarchisms are against legal order and "justice systems" because they require authority and enforcement - it's just too authoritarian and statist since it's states that claim monopoly on legitimate violence (which courts, prisons and police are the embodiment of). This doesn't exclude punishment in general, only *legal* punishment.
However this led most anarchists to seek alternatives in non-retributive approaches - restorative justice and transformative justice - focus on mediation, helping victims, possibly helping perpetrator, also fixing what caused perpetrator to become one in the first place. And not only beacuse of the above but simply beacuse it sucks. Most of us would rather focus on critical approach to society and focus on removing reasons rather than petty retribution which helps nobody.
But I don't think there is one single approach that anarchists have. Some would be glad to shoot drug dealers or cops. Some actually do.
In addition to what other comments are saying: Let's not play utopian here. The benefit of anarchy is that it is a better, kinder, more moral system than any other. The benefit of anarchy is not that it is a perfect system that can control all variables. If rare individual cases are resistant to rehabilitation, an authoritarian system and an anarchist system can both fail to deal with it properly. Anarchy is still the better system in this case, because the other injustices of the world have still been reduced by anarchy.
Mindless hate is punishable, and there is no way to make up for a crime against a human, truthfully. Still, usually there are circumstances that create a "criminal," who knows violence usually from an early age. It's why you see, just as an example, more sexual assault crimes from those who have been sexually assaulted themselves.
Violence breeds violence, hate breeds hate. If you're able to rehabilitate a human from not only acts done to them but the acts that they have done to others, by treating the root of their own hate and violence, you'd be hard-pressed to find a reason, other than unending psychopathy, to throw anyone in a cell.
Criminals require rehabilitation and humanity to avoid making more criminals.
Personally, I think rehabilitation is always better than punishment. I'm actually OK with those great Norwegian prisons, that just rehabilitate people and help then get back on their feet. Tho, sometimes, people are truly psyhopaths or sociopaths, and in those cases rehabilitation MIGHT not work.
I’m against punishment too, nobody has the right to take anyone’s freedom away, and nobody has the authority to decide what reasons someone be punished for. A punishment should be something the other person has the right to retaliate against, like being called an insult for being a nuisance or immoral person, or a punch from a stranger, you can punch back, mace, or kill.
It's okay to kill someone for punching you? Wtf?
Yeah why not?
bc society doesn't work like that dumbass, killing someone for punching you is literally the same as death penalty, it's punitive and doesn't work to rehabilitate. how is that okay? anarchism isn't only about individual freedom it's also about community. if your understanding of freedom is to kill anyone that bothers you, just for the sake of "freedom" then why are you saying you're against punishment??
Punitive systems don't aid society, they just make things worst. As we see today, all the courts and police and laws and prisons, and crime goes up and up at a steady rate.
I'm actually not totally against it, in principle some people can't be rehabilitated and allowing them into society in general is a recipe for disaster.
Jail can be a place of rehabilitation. You can use that time to learn a trade or to pursue an education.
But jail isn’t for everyone. Drug use, mental illness can be treated for better in other places.
The practical goal should be to empty prisons through rehabilitation, and fix as many of the underlying societal and material conditions that result in people committing infractions that result in them ending up in jail.
Portugal model for drug use is a very practical step, UBI or other economic restructuring ks another step.
So, shortly. The system should never punish individuals. It should rehabilitate them. Jail can be a tool to achieve that for some people.
>Jail can be a tool to achieve that for some people.
No. Why the need for this statist apologia? Jail is slavery. It is only a tool of the oppresors. It is never aligned with anarchy
That’s because of how jail has been used so far in society. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t be used productively.
We already have plenty of real world examples of how a smart and humane jail system can help people get back into society.
Don’t confuse tools for ideology.
>That’s because of how jail has been used so far in society. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t be used productively.
I dont care about productivity or however you want to justify your authority. Its antithetical to anarchism.
>We already have plenty of real world examples of how a smart and humane jail system can help people get back into society.
Who cares? This has nothing to do with anarchism. Plenty of examples of people lucking out on capitalism but we don't go advocating for that
>Don’t confuse tools for ideology.
I'm not. Im just not going to act as if an institution founded on the concept of people with authority inprisoning others is in any way compatible with anarchism
You can learn a trade and pursue rehabilitation without being stripped of your right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
You can have privacy and bodily autonomy in jail. You just don’t have freedom, temporarily.
In many jail systems you don’t have those, but in some you do.
>You can have privacy and bodily autonomy in jail. You just don’t have freedom, temporarily.
So not anarchism and just a state.
Yes, but jail shouldn't be a part of ideology anyways. It should just be utilized as a tool for rehabilitation.
We can, as a group, determine which crimes are best rehabilitated behind bars, and live through those rules.
>It should just be utilized as a tool for rehabilitation.
It shouldn't because its antithrtical to the idealogy.
>We can, as a group, determine which crimes are best rehabilitated behind bars
This is a state.
Depends how you define punishment. I wouldn't be in favor of punishment just for the sake of punishing someone, but if a person threatens other people, social ostricization could be called a punishment and it might be the only way for a community to protect itself from someone. But that would just come in the form of not allowing someone to participate in things that they threaten to ruin. It wouldn't be anything like physically hurting or restraining someone.
Against punishment. For rehabilitation and defense of the community. Punishment for the sake of it helps no one.
i'm against punishment in general, nobody ever got me to change my behaviour by punishing me, why would it work for anyone else?
What do you do for those without empathy?
I'd guess the latter but I'm no longer an Anarchist.
In theory we are all against punishment, but in practice I have had the misfortune of knowing some really vindictive anarchists who definitely got off on socially ostracizing, or strait-up bullying people they didn't like, or felt personally slighted by and just dressed it up in the language of "community defense" or "justice."
I feel like anarchist communities are particularly vulnerable to that kind of thing, since there's often an implicit assumption of solidarity and good-faith that can be easily abused.
Revenge and justice are opposites. Justice means rehabilitation.
Fuck punishment all my homies hate punishment
Anarchy means no rulers not no rules. You can't have anarchy without the culture evolving. If we had it now it would be like Chaz with all these lunatic rich white opportunists kids running around crying murdering and looting
If you steal or hurt somebody if could be solved with compensation of the victim agrees in An anarchist society
Rape, murder, and especially pedophilia will be solved by men with guns.
The reality is there is no evidence that punishment works as a deterrent. If anything, it creates a cycle of violence. Also, even if punishment did work as a deterrent, it can never be applied in a non-authoritarian manner.
This is why punishment can never be a part of an anarchist system.
Apparently, punishment doesn't work as a deterrent but it's extremely effective in "suppressing" undesirable behaviour."
LOL! Yeah, try telling that to the people in prisons who have been abused or murdered by other inmates, or by prison guards. Reeducation and/or long-term psychiatric treatment work far better.
The point of anarchism isn't just to do what works. If that was all we wanted, we could leave things just as they are. The point is to dismantle what works poorly and replace it with what works best.
I'm not talking about prison, just that psychological studies show the efficacy of punishment. And I'm not sure if there is evidence to show "longterm psychiatric treatment works far better." I have not seen it - Not saying the research doesn't exist.
related: /r/anarchyjustice, /r/prisonabolition
According to the majority of comments here and on anarchist subs in general, only against prisons. It freaks me out when I read anarchists who come up with "solutions" worse than prisons because of an *a priori* commitment to prison abolition.
I get that anarchist isn't utopian, etc etc, but when your solutions aren't in any way an improvement over what exists, this isn't about being utopian or not anymore.
The justice system would be completely changed, things like for-profit exploitation of prisoners end, but society would know that some people cant fit in this society and this is just what I garnered from a few talks with anarchists are those people either in to be locked away anyway (locked away does not have to mean to put them in tiny cells), or are going to be executed.
Talking about worst case scenarios. And Im against capital punishment so I actually am in favor of locking threats to society away, instead of killing them. But there is no cookie-cutter approach of anarchists to fascists and other criminals that pose severe threats to innocent people.
If there is please enlighten me. The thing is that it is handled some way or another.
The approach of what "crime" actually is would also dramatically change. Noone would be criminalized if they do something that is not rooted in the harming and oppression of other people. Like today with "drug crimes" for example.