Anarchist justice.
My Godwinian-Bookchinian phase notwithstanding, in fact any phase notwithstanding, I would have to say I have a basically Social-Liberal take on criminal justice.
OK, I have about three takes on criminal justice, but I like to be both balanced and different.
My first, but most recent take on it would simply be: GET RID OF THE POLICE AND PUT THE MONEY INTO SOCIAL SERVICES (needs to be said)! Effectively fitting in with a (strong) social liberal/ anarcho-syndicalist (v.tempted to put quotation marks on one or t'other) position in that offences are better off being prevented (potential of nanny state so I can't wholly endorse this position) than society taking its revenge out on perpetrators. Instead I would favour rehabiliton programs (including for some murderers like for the unfortunate examples when an individual in an act of madness kills his/her children) with only the worst killers and rapists (but maybe most killers realistically) imprisoned basically for their own safety.
Of course I could be charged with wooly thinking here, but to tar someone with the tag "murderer" will result in history being repeated.
Consensus justice. In this case an indvidual would have a trial of sorts, any external factors taken into consideration (like peer pressure), a unanimous verdict given (not including the trialee) and punishment/rehabilitation decided by consensus. If the perpetrator does not agree to the sentence (to prevent a lynch mob mentality) then they would either be let off, possibly expelled from any present communal relations or the trial would be repeated with different members of the community present. If a sentence is never decided, trials could be repeated indefinitely thus creating an ad-hoc punishment of sorts.
Commune justice. This could be interpreted as neo-tribalism. If people live in small communes, a set of guidelines/punishments etc could be reached by consensus. If someone from one commune infringes on the rights on someone from another, individuals from a third could be brought in as arbitrators.
My Godwinian-Bookchinian phase notwithstanding, in fact any phase notwithstanding, I would have to say I have a basically Social-Liberal take on criminal justice.
OK, I have about three takes on criminal justice, but I like to be both balanced and different.
My first, but most recent take on it would simply be: GET RID OF THE POLICE AND PUT THE MONEY INTO SOCIAL SERVICES (needs to be said)! Effectively fitting in with a (strong) social liberal/ anarcho-syndicalist (v.tempted to put quotation marks on one or t'other) position in that offences are better off being prevented (potential of nanny state so I can't wholly endorse this position) than society taking its revenge out on perpetrators. Instead I would favour rehabiliton programs (including for some murderers like for the unfortunate examples when an individual in an act of madness kills his/her children) with only the worst killers and rapists (but maybe most killers realistically) imprisoned basically for their own safety.
Of course I could be charged with wooly thinking here, but to tar someone with the tag "murderer" will result in history being repeated.
Consensus justice. In this case an indvidual would have a trial of sorts, any external factors taken into consideration (like peer pressure), a unanimous verdict given (not including the trialee) and punishment/rehabilitation decided by consensus. If the perpetrator does not agree to the sentence (to prevent a lynch mob mentality) then they would either be let off, possibly expelled from any present communal relations or the trial would be repeated with different members of the community present. If a sentence is never decided, trials could be repeated indefinitely thus creating an ad-hoc punishment of sorts.
Commune justice. This could be interpreted as neo-tribalism. If people live in small communes, a set of guidelines/punishments etc could be reached by consensus. If someone from one commune infringes on the rights on someone from another, individuals from a third could be brought in as arbitrators.
posted by Legal Smeagol at 11:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home