Too many cops?

[Saipan]

Wrong. There has to be a process to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...

Always is. Then back to work.

You can't just grab a suspected shoplifter and start beating the snot out of him.

Yes, you can. Even purse snatcher. Things are changing. It's why Mr. Wong (the shop keeper) won his case.

Who is "we"? You think we should enact laws stating "no liberalism allowed"?

Federal elections decide that. Watch Ontario provincial elections as well. In fact even the liberal Toronto changed somewhat.

[bloodyminded]

Always is. Then back to work.

And it costs money. You seem to forget that.

Yes, you can. Even purse snatcher. Things are changing. It's why Mr. Wong (the shop keeper) won his case.

But you weren't talking about this sort of thing. You were talking about giving lashes to people, and within the legal framework.

I understand you have trouble keeping up with others. But surely you can keep up with your own arguments?

Federal elections decide that. Watch Ontario provincial elections as well. In fact even the liberal Toronto changed somewhat.

If you believe there will never be any liberal-minded people in politics and in the justice system, then your views are fundamentally ridiculous.

Edited August 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

And it costs money. You seem to forget that.

Yes, vendors can confirm that. Shoplifting cost millions.

You were talking about giving lashes to people, and within the legal framework.

Yes, 'cause it works.

I understand you have trouble keeping up with others.

I'm far ahead. I can even spend part of the winter on the other side of the planet.

If you believe there will never be any liberal-minded people in politics and in the justice system, then your views are fundamentally ridiculous.

IF I believed that yes. But I believe people are now far more informed than in the past, thanks to internet. And they no longer believe in "natural party" of crooks.

[Zachary Young]

We definitely have way too many cops. Just yesterday I was assaulted by a thug with a badge, for the terrible crime of not wearing a helmet while driving my scooter. It's pathetic. We have way too many cops and they are all paid way too much money. We should get rid of 90% of them and put the rest on the minimum wage.

[capricorn]

Just yesterday I was assaulted by a thug with a badge, for the terrible crime of not wearing a helmet while driving my scooter. It's pathetic.

Wow, on top of as you said in the Ontario election thread, the cops stopped you, searched your pockets and ransacked your vehicle. They must have some kind of grudge.

[Bonam]

I don't like the idea of corporal punishment--especially public.

Not least because it's extreme statism, of a type that no libertarian worth his or her salt would even consider.

And remember the context: we're talking shoplifters, here.

I honestly believe that a physical punishment along the lines of "lashes" as Saipan mentions is less severe than jail time (unless that jail time is only one day or so). I don't think such a punishment is inherently more statist. When the government imposes a punishment on you, it is infringing upon your rights, and it is granted power to do because you have committed a crime. Why is a week in jail indicative of a more statist government than a couple minutes of lashes?

In regards to your back and forth with Saipan over the costs. It seems pretty obvious that all we would be changing would be the method of punishment. The legal costs and procedure would remain identical, and so would their costs. It is only the cost of the sentence that would be different. Putting someone in jail for a period of time costs money. Having a physical punishment administered for a few minutes would also costs money. However, I think a few minutes wage of a certified punishment application specialist would likely cost less than a week or few weeks of feeding and housing someone in a jail cell.

[bloodyminded]

I honestly believe that a physical punishment along the lines of "lashes" as Saipan mentions is less severe than jail time (unless that jail time is only one day or so). I don't think such a punishment is inherently more statist. When the government imposes a punishment on you, it is infringing upon your rights, and it is granted power to do because you have committed a crime. Why is a week in jail indicative of a more statist government than a couple minutes of lashes?

Where do you get "a week in jail" versus "a couple of minutes of lashes?"

Violence has achieved a different level in public consciousness than it used to. (Incarcertion is, arguably, a form of violence, but I think we understand the implied distinction. I think your questions here are philosophically interesting ones, but I think there are serious differences.

Well, in a way it comes down to what is most affecting for the victim...I mean criminal, so I take your point that far. Most people would prefer a day in jail to public lashings (and why public? Another interesting topic, less to do with justice than sadism, I think....). As for longer jail terms; well, we aren't talking about lashings i lieu of prison for serious offenses...and I think most people would object to that based on the notion that the criminal is allowed immediate freedom, just as much as antipathy towards State violence.

At any rate, we've moved more and more away from state-sanctioned violence of criminals for several reasons; but one of them is that physical violence is not precise, and the consequences can too easily be disproportionate, accidentally or otherwise. The same is true for incarceration, yes, but I'm not seeing them as "as good as each other."

In regards to your back and forth with Saipan over the costs. It seems pretty obvious that all we would be changing would be the method of punishment. The legal costs and procedure would remain identical, and so would their costs. It is only the cost of the sentence that would be different. Putting someone in jail for a period of time costs money. Having a physical punishment administered for a few minutes would also costs money. However, I think a few minutes wage of a certified punishment application specialist would likely cost less than a week or few weeks of feeding and housing someone in a jail cell.

Yes, but because of the view of corporal punishment, you'd have an entire legal industry built up around exactly this matter, both prosecutorial and defense.

More to the point: think now of the increasing fixity with which police are scrutinized for too-violent and allegedly too-violent behaviour.

Multiply this by a hundred, and you'll see what sort of can of worms is opened here.

[Zachary Young]

Corporeal punishment for vandals is a good solution at minimal taxpayer expense. The death penalty for murderers should also be enforced.

[guyser]

The death penalty for murderers should also be enforced.

Enforced?

What death penalty? this is 2011 ya know.

[Zachary Young]

Our legal system should be reformed so that it's focus is on restitution for the victim.

[Wild Bill]

Our legal system should be reformed so that it's focus is on restitution for the victim.

Few folks give a damn for the victim, Zachary. They never knew him! He's just a statistic. Few people have ever seen a murdered body, or a family grieving over such a crime. Most people lack the wit or the imagination to show empathy towards the victim.

The perp however is still here! You can see him and if you're close enough you can reach out and touch him! Any idiot with hair in his ears can relate to him.

What's no longer right in front of your nose is forgotten.

[Zachary Young]

In our current legal system the victim actually suffers doubly. First, the assault or what have you, and then second they are forced to pay taxes for the dubious pleasure of having the criminal caught and punished. I think it would be far wiser to force the criminal to pay restitution to the victim, and if they do not have the money to do so to force them into indentured slavery until the wrong is righted. Criminals - real criminals, violent thugs and the like - are absolutely coddled by our legal system while honest people are harassed for victimless crimes which should not even be illegal in the first place (like insider trading, or marijuana consumption / distribution).

[guyser]

In our current legal system the victim actually suffers doubly. First, the assault or what have you, and then second they are forced to pay taxes for the dubious pleasure of having the criminal caught and punished.

Er no, they are not suffering 'doubly'

Criminals - real criminals, violent thugs and the like - are absolutely coddled by our legal system while honest people are harassed for victimless crimes which should not even be illegal in the first place (like insider trading, or marijuana consumption / distribution).

Criminals are not coddled, they are sentenced once convicted. Seems to me you should read cases before commenting.

Real criminal= violent thugs

NOT real criminals= scum who rip off grandma for all her retirement funds/traders who manipulate the market for personal gain thus ensuring someone else loses.

HUH?

[Zachary Young]

The largest criminal organization in Canada is our Federal Government. They guilty of billions of counts of theft. Every dollar they steal from us in taxation should be another charge.

[Zachary Young]

Many criminals such as the police commit countless acts of violence and are never sentenced or arrested for their crimes.

[dre]

The largest criminal organization in Canada is our Federal Government. They guilty of billions of counts of theft. Every dollar they steal from us in taxation should be another charge.

Oh boy...

[bloodyminded]

Many criminals such as the police commit countless acts of violence and are never sentenced or arrested for their crimes.

But under your scenario, there would still be police: private security firms.

What's their incentive to not commit crimes?

And who would arrest and sentence them if (actually, when) they did so?

[Zachary Young]

But under your scenario, there would still be police: private security firms.

What's their incentive to not commit crimes?

And who would arrest and sentence them if (actually, when) they did so?

First of all, it's impossible to predict exactly how society would organize itself upon voluntary and organic lines. I do not wish to plan an idea society - I simply stand in opposition to the initiation of violence. That being said..

The role of private security agencies in a voluntary society would be radically different from that of police in modern society. The purpose of a libertarian legal system would be restitution for the victim, not 'punishment' or 'rehabilitation'. Private security agencies would not have a monopoly on the use of force. They would be treated exactly like anyone else. In our society cops are 'super citizens'. They can break the law without redress. I propose that 'police' be absolutely no different from anyone else.

Could private security agencies commit criminal actions? Certainly. Anyone can commit criminal actions. But you would have competing defence agencies. So if one security firm was ruthless and criminal, other security firms would be hired to defend individuals from this firm.

Now what do you do if the state monopolist on 'protection' (the police) becomes corrupt or criminal? Where do you turn to then?

[Zachary Young]

But there wouldn't really be "arrests" and "jails". If someone commits and assault or burgarly, they would have to pay back the victim. So if you steal $1000 you will have to pay back $3000. If you do not have the money you will be forced into indentured slavery with the victim receiving profits from your labour until they are paid back. Crimes without a victim would no exist. It would be legal to download music, consume drugs or do insider trading. A crime like murder would be punishable by death, or your heirs could receive suitable compensation. One could also specify in their will that they would accept no compensation for being murdered. Anyone would be able to put to death a murderer, but of course if they were wrong and a court(private) saw so anyone could then now kill them for the wrongful murder of the supposed murderer, and this would in turn prevent unwarranted vigallante justice from running amok.

[bloodyminded]

First of all, it's impossible to predict exactly how society would organize itself upon voluntary and organic lines.

Fair enough, agreed.

Could private security agencies commit criminal actions? Certainly. Anyone can commit criminal actions. But you would have competing defence agencies. So if one security firm was ruthless and criminal, other security firms would be hired to defend individuals from this firm.

Hired by whom? What if they, too, behave in a violently criminal manner?

I'm not trying at all to be difficult, Zacahry; I honestly don't think you've thought through how this could work.

But there wouldn't really be "arrests" and "jails". If someone commits and assault or burgarly, they would have to pay back the victim

Says who? The private courts you've hired, who have every incentive to "believe you" because they're taking your money?

You're insisting on retaining existing problems...and then exacerbating them.

So if you steal $1000 you will have to pay back $3000. If you do not have the money you will be forced into indentured slavery with the victim receiving profits from your labour until they are paid back.

So now freedom is slavery, huh?

Just a short while ago, you were complaining about how the justice system is corrupted in part because those without money suffer in ways that those of means do not--using your personal experience as an example of this injustice.

Now you're saying it's fine; those with money, pay it back, and go on your merry way. Those without: slavery! In other words, stealing is a different crime for the rich than for the poor: the rich shouldn't have to suffer for their crimes to the extent that the poor do.

Your view here is absolutely, 100% elitist. Classist. It is an obscene disjunction of Power based purely on wealth, and zero on justice.

The rich will rule the Earth under your scenario. Through force.

You don't see the contradictions?

And one of the primary differences is that, under your scenario, we can't even vote for our rulers. They "earn" it through having money.

Edited September 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Zachary Young]

The point is restitution for the victim. Yes, I would rather see the person who get hurt benefit with monetary compensation than see the criminal hurt. My concern is entirely with the victim. They got assaulted, raped, whatever - they deserve to have their situation improved. With the status quo they are not only first attacked by the criminal they are then attacked by the state which demands they pay taxation for the dubious honour of seeing their assailant chased down and punished.

If you don't want to suffer from indentured slavery, you shouldn't rob or beat people. I have no sympathy for those who use violence against others or their property. The real travesty in my case was that I had not done anything wrong. All I did was not show up for a probation meeting, and then not show up for court. Those aren't real crimes. It's being tardy. What the state did to me, incarcerating me for a month, locking me in a cage, that is the real crime. It's kidnapping. Forcible confinement. But of course the government is allowed to do anything it wants and there's no recourse because they are the government.

In my society there wouldn't be any rulers. Just people interacting voluntarily.

Private courts would have a huge incentive to give anyone a fair shake, because fairness would be their stock in trade. There would be competition. The best judges, the one who most thoroughly analyze a situation would be the most sought after. The ones who are corrupt, well no one would want to go them. But it's impossible to get a fair shake in our current system. Let's imagine you and I make an arrangement that I will mow your lawn for $10. But let's give me the power of arbitrage over any dispute we have. YOu pay me the $10 and tomorrow you come out and see your lawn is not mowed. So you complain to me and I rule in my favour, saying perhaps that I will mow your lawn 50 years from now. An organization with a monopoly on arbitrage will use that in their favour.

[guyser]

The point is restitution for the victim.

Already have one. Office for Victims of Crime. Been areound awhile too.

My concern is entirely with the victim. They got assaulted, raped, whatever - they deserve to have their situation improved. With the status quo they are not only first attacked by the criminal they are then attacked by the state which demands they pay taxation for the dubious honour of seeing their assailant chased down and punished.

What i boils down to is you want the state (the one you rant against) to pick up the cost to pay victims. Criminals for the most part do not have the money.

I

The real travesty in my case was that I had not done anything wrong. All I did was not show up for a probation meeting, and then not show up for court. Those aren't real crimes. It's being tardy.

Two no shows is more than a travesty. Its a blatant disregard for the the Office of the Court.

A bench warrant was issued, and THAT is a real crime.

Private courts would have a huge incentive to give anyone a fair shake, because fairness would be their stock in trade. There would be competition. The best judges, the one who most thoroughly analyze a situation would be the most sought after. The ones who are corrupt, well no one would want to go them. But it's impossible to get a fair shake in our current system. Let's imagine you and I make an arrangement that I will mow your lawn for $10. But let's give me the power of arbitrage over any dispute we have. YOu pay me the $10 and tomorrow you come out and see your lawn is not mowed. So you complain to me and I rule in my favour, saying perhaps that I will mow your lawn 50 years from now. An organization with a monopoly on arbitrage will use that in their favour.

The most popular judges would be the ones who make decisions on popularity.

You need to think about this again. Far too many holes in your logic.

[bloodyminded]

The point is restitution for the victim. Yes, I would rather see the person who get hurt benefit with monetary compensation than see the criminal hurt. My concern is entirely with the victim. They got assaulted, raped, whatever - they deserve to have their situation improved. With the status quo they are not only first attacked by the criminal they are then attacked by the state which demands they pay taxation for the dubious honour of seeing their assailant chased down and punished.

If you don't want to suffer from indentured slavery, you shouldn't rob or beat people.

Unless you're rich...then you don't have to suffer as much.

It is an elitist view, a class-based view. By definition.

In my society there wouldn't be any rulers. Just people interacting voluntarily.

But you said there would be a death penalty and restitutive slavery.

Private courts would have a huge incentive to give anyone a fair shake, because fairness would be their stock in trade. There would be competition. The best judges, the one who most thoroughly analyze a situation would be the most sought after.

That's preposterous. The most sought-after judges would be those who provided the most amenable service to their (paying) clients for money.

People pay money to win; not to see "justice" done.

The ones who are corrupt, well no one would want to go them.

Everyone who knew such judges were favourable towards them and their cause would indeed very much want them. why wouldn't they?

[jacee]

You can't just grab a suspected shoplifter and start beating the snot out of him.

Yes, you can. Even purse snatcher. Things are changing. It's why Mr. Wong (the shop keeper) won his case.

Mr Wong won his case because he used 'reasonable force' to restrain him until the police came (ie, citizen's arrest).

"Beating the snot out of him" is excessive force, and would land you in jail.

Two young employees of Canadian Tire chased and caught someone stealing a few dollars worth of goods, put him down and restrained him with a knee on the chest. He died of asphyxiation.

You don't want to go there!

Petty criminals often come from physically abusive homes. If you offered them a few lashes instead of jail, they would take it gladly. More time on the street is more 'earnings' for them.

Physical punishment would not have the effect you are seeking.

Edited September 16, 2011 by jacee

[Zachary Young]

Criminals who are unable to pay restitution should be forced into involuntary servitude with the proceeds going to their victim. It's amusing that you justify what the state did to me - I guess some will stop at no lengths to apologize away the sins of the state. The government had no business telling me where I should be at what time. It's a shame that we have all become so complacent that we accept any state dictate no matter how unnecessary or absurd. The only real crime is one that has a victim. There was no reason for me to go to court in the first place. I hadn't hurt anyone. On the other hand I was greatly injured by having my liberty taken away from me. You clearly have never experienced first hand the system of injustice or you would not be so blithe about it. Being locked in a cage for a month is a very serious offence. How would you like it if someone locked you in a cage for a month? Can you imagine a grosser violation of liberty?

The problem with our society is we have far too many laws. Far too many things are crimes. People who hurt others, people who damage others property, they are criminals and should be dealt with harshly. But if there is no victim there should be no crime.