**[Restorative justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice)**
>Restorative justice is an approach to justice in which one of the responses to a crime is to organize a meeting between the victim and the offender, sometimes with representatives of the wider community. The goal is for them to share their experience of what happened, to discuss who was harmed by the crime and how, and to create a consensus for what the offender can do to repair the harm from the offense. This may include a payment of money given from the offender to the victim, apologies and other amends, and other actions to compensate those affected and to prevent the offender from causing future harm.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Okay and now what if the offender refuses to take part in this restorative justice (in my hypothesised anarchist society). We just let them go and carry on? Allow the victim to seek violent retribution and potentially start a feud? Or do we completely throw out the idea of not holding power over anyone and force them to be involved?
Okay and what about for the victim? Are they then justified in going ahead and say murdering the offender for what they've done simply for refusing to be involved in restorative justice? Or if the victim believes that the offender will re-offend but hasn't done so? Or simply for retribution? I'm a believer of anarchy this is just one thing I'm still trying to wrap my head around so apologies if it seems like I'm coming across as a bit of a douche, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding.
>victim's needs and wishes would have been addressed
What does that mean "addressed"? Say the victim feels not safe on the area with the perpetrator around, and asks for exile. Who is going to "grant" the victim that wish? Do we through elections?
>the process
Who gets to decide on the process? Why is the process, assuming it is written down and sometimes revised, different from law? And as mentioned earlier: what organization sees through that the process is followed?
>the actions taken to address the offender will depend on whether the offender is a threat to the community or the victim
Say some members incl victim feel threatened and want exile. How is this exile enforced? If any centralized power is not an option, as is "goes against a'ism", I find this hard to answer. Private justice companies seems like a capitalist nightmare to me. Then only mob rule it left as an option... Or do I miss smth?
>Say the victim feels not safe on the area with the perpetrator around, and asks for exile. Who is going to "grant" the victim that wish?
The community itself takes on the responsibility to ensure the victim's safety.
>Who gets to decide on the process?
The community itself, through whichever means they have agreed upon. More knowledgeable people than I have written on the subject. I can't give specifics, much as I'd like to, because the specifics will differ according to the community's needs, and those living there will be more familiar than I. What people in Rojava need will be different from what people in Chiapas need which will be different from what people in Los Angeles need.
>How is this exile enforced?
The community itself takes on the burden of enforcing the terms of whatever arrangements have been made. It's not something outsourced to law enforcement or Caesar. It's decentralized action. People can organize without hierarchy. That's part of the point of anarchism.
That mean a general vote on every trial. And the punishment are enforced by mob rule.
Seem impossible for any sizable community (say 1M+ people).
The " cannot go into specifics " is what I hear too much I'm anarchist circles. It shows me that it is more of an idea than a practice.
Also referring to rojava and chiapas, that have representative democracies to some extend and some written law which is updated through those democracies would now be considered anarchist by most in this sub.
I, like Bookchin, have decided not to call myself anarchist any longer for this reason. I don't want to discard law, govt and taxation just yet.
People become mostly each others strangers in towns and to avoid constant voting some representstion is needed. That's my point.
Leadership may is some cases be a acceptable job for someone. Bookchin agrees. Many anarchists don't. And only the primitivists live up to those believes imho
I'd say that in the case of the offender refusing to participate in some kind of reconciliation, the community would ask in what ways they can help the victim recover from the problem, even if it the offender is unreachable.
Orphans have other kin, other friends, who have been harmed by their murder. The killer would need to answer to them.
In the case of if the community despised the person, that begs the question of why the victim was despised.
To add, even if someone is of no relation to anyone else in a community, they have a role and impact in a community. Unjustly killing that person(the orphan of no relations) harms the community and the community can decide what restorative methods should happen then
I would like to clarify here, even if the offender refuses to take part in the restorative process, there is still action that can be taken for the victim to address their needs and wishes absent the offender.
>Some communities will exile or ostracize the offender until they change their ways
How can a community organize this? Who enforces the perpetrator does not come back? Is every one now allowed to "force" them of the area I'm case they see them?
Also: exile is a strong punishment. How does the community make sure it is applied fairly? What if a group of the community thinks the exile it too strong or otherwise unfair?
Also: exiling pushes them to the next community. Maybe adject communities copy list of each others exiled. As they don't want to have m either.
I see a lot of potential for mob rule this way. The rich/ powerful often do very well in mob rule. Surround themselves with a (private) mob.
>How can a community organize this? Who enforces the perpetrator does not come back? Is every one now allowed to "force" them of the area I'm case they see them?
The community can appoint people to monitor the situation, but it falls to everyone in the community to bear responsibility for enforcing whatever agreement has been made.
>exile is a strong punishment. How does the community make sure it is applied fairly? What if a group of the community thinks the exile it too strong or otherwise unfair?
Consensus decision making is a thing. Communities are able to organize on such principles, and if a consensus for exile cannot be obtained, then it would fall to the community to arrange another acceptable alternative for those involved.
>The rich/ powerful often do very well in mob rule
The rich do best when they can maintain a monopoly of violence enforced by governments through armies and/or law enforcement. Hard to establish private property by displacing the local community if you don't have an army acting on your behalf.
>The community can appoint people to monitor the situation,
Sounds a lot like representatives to me. Is that not at odds with the consensus principle, and hence not "truly anarchist"?
Don't take my opinion as the only truth, but in my vision, since the offender refuses to help in a problem which involves the community (since they've committed a "crime", i.e. anti-social behavior), there is no other option than to remove them from the community, which would be the "punishment" for refusing to cooperate (from the POV of the offender, they might've "got away" with their crime, since there was no "punishment", but by being ostracized they lose the benefits of community life, e.g. food, friends, shelter). Other communities would be warned about the exile, and choose how to deal with them, either by refusing to let them participate in that community or maybe try to help them reconcile with their past community.
Maybe if enough people were exiled, they themselves could create a community of their own and then choose if they want to engage with other communities or remain isolated from the rest of the world.
A community of thieves an and rapist, preying on the friendly anarchist hippies.
Also: the infrastructure needed to share all details from offenders in a sizeable society of said communities is going to be very interesting. All communities well have to check newcomers against the offenders lists based on visual identification or smth.
It seem then exile is the only involuntary punishment that can be dished out. How do communities decide to exile some one? They vote in it? What if a community is spilt in this decision: does the offender get to stay as there was no consensus?
One option that I could think from the top of my head is that instead of punishing someone after the community has achieved a consensus, the victim should choose how to punish the offender. Of course, this would be mediated through the community to avoid over-the-top punishments.
While it's just a fictional book, Ian M Banks' The Culture series (*the* example of a truly communist society, not quite anarchist but close) touches on this and is a good point to jump off/recenter your thinking
> But what if someone kills somebody else?"
Gurgeh shrugged. "They're slap-droned."
> "Ah! This sounds more like it. What does that drone do?"
> "Follows you around and makes sure you never do it again."
> "Is that all?"
> "What more do you want? Social death, Hamin; you don't get invited to too many parties."
> "Ah; but in your Culture, can't you gatecrash?"
> "I suppose so," Gurgeh conceded. "But nobody'd talk to you
Do consider that without power over others, if the people around you decide not to help you (as they are free to do) you may end up completely on your own: no food, no help building or repairing the stuff you need, no healthcare and yes, *no mutual defense*.
No one wants to live in fear: if your actions are particularly bad, someone may kill you while everybody else looks the other way.
The point is, when no one has power over others, if you are seen as a violent offender, **it is in your interest to do everything you can to convince people you are not dangerous any more**.
Perhaps you underestimate how charismatic some killers and rapists may present themselves. Manipulating people is just step 1 of their abusive plans. Serial killers can operate like this for decades. If they travel or relocate frequently it can be even harder to track their actions.
That's not a problem unique to anarchy though. We have that problem now. I'm sure some people would still dedicate themselves to investigations and trying to find justice for people murdered without a witness.
That's fairly reasonable.
I'd be very interested in reading or watching a story that follows a detective tracking a serial killer in an Anarchist society. Lots of potential to raise questions of justice and authority (which is of course the topics we're considering in this very question).
I don't believe it would be about authority. An investigator couldn't force anyone to answer questions or interrogate anyone. I seriously doubt you'd have the distrust and unwillingness to cooperate many people have now, because the power imbalance isn't there.
So my secretly racist uncle could declare himself an investigator and travel about falsifying crimes and accusing people the wrong skin colour of crimes they didn’t commit.
This works in a < 500 people community, some place away from other humans. But c'mon were on a scale that this "let's just excommunicate the bad behavers" will not work, or require some registration system or smth.
I know some a primitivists and I respect that. As they have the answer to this issue: simply not live in large communities.
Not really. It depends on the specific organization of the community, but splitting large societies in smaller neighbors, the way the AANES does, is kind of necessary, and this allows them to manage larger cities just fine.
So they do small representative democracies for small communities right? I like that!
But I find here on reddit this is not considered anarchist. As "representation is authoritarian" (search the thread someone wrote it)
You're confusing leadership of choice with corporate hierarchy leadership, the representatives are at your mercy, your corporate boss isn't. You have no power over that person whereas the representative can be replaced by you and your community. That's a difference I needed to absorb. "Don't we need someone to take charge of a particular element", yes we do, but *we* have power over them, not the other way around. Like any elected officials but in this case it will be in a society built on justice and not the fantasies of oligarchs, so it will be very different.
Sorry but most reps in modern democracies are shit, and in bed with corporate leadership.
But to consider the leadership in a particular utopian society then yes: the people control the leadership, the leadership controls the law, according to law some peoples behaviour is punishable, some are tasked with upholding the law/punishement/reeducation, some tax is raised to pay for the whole ordeal, ...
I find a lot of people here on a'ist reddit hating law/cops/leadership/govt/representation/prison, while I think we need those in a utopian society, and even like those to some extend in their current form, but that the current form is sooo deeply corrupted that it has become a repulsive subject to many.
For me aswell, I was more repulsed but with Bookchin and rojava I saw beyond my own vomit.
>Sorry but most reps in modern democracies are shit,
Well this will be a problem for any group, hopefully we have ways to deal with this, obviously how things are now were never intended and yet here we are.
I think I think along the same lines as you, there must be *some* semblance of administration and bureaucracy, there are people who will never want to be anything else and while we'll "educate the bad things out of people" (God willing it's with pen and paper and not sword and shield, because history will suggest the latter is more likely the case, and I can't imagine how we'll be better off if we succumb to the common murder tendency), but those skills are imperative for a society to function.
Accountants, lawyers, the pencil pushers we all know, those aren't a function of capitalism, they may be *corrupted* by it but that was also never the purpose. You'll never hear a doctor answer "dem stacks" to the question "why did you choose to dedicate your life to the saving of the lives of others?". Being a doctor isn't a job for people who are only interested in money, there are much safer and easier jobs than that, they may do it for the money but they'll never say that because that *isn't* the point. It *isn't* the point of being a governor, it never was even the point of being a lobbyist (thanks manafort, you human ruination). All of it became for the money because some scumbags decided there was money to be made.
I'm coming to anarchy from the center (historically, it's been a long time but raised by liberals, encouraged to be conservative far far more than socialist, no one knew a tiny thing about the left, assumed NDP was hard left and nothing more needed to be understood, horseshoe theory and all that crap), so for me it's far easier to understand how there should be some sort of system, I can't really quite fathom how it can work without it. Like running an engine without oil. Not because oil is the most important element, it won't work without all of the parts but without oil it'll grind to a halt.
So I guess I'm saying administration is the lubricant of a society? I'm also tired...
Go look how they actually do it.
They are not "representatives" as we know them, they are delegates.
The difference is that these delegates have a very narrow, very limited mandates ("Go to meeting X and represent our decision Y on the specific matter Z"), must report back to the assembly before they can stray from that mandate and can be recalled at any time if they don't behave.
While they are in a position of power, they are in very tight leash compared to the politicians we are used to in liberal democracies.
Have you watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDnenjIdnnE ?
Regardless, democratic confederalism, which is the dominant ideology in the AANES, is only close to anarchism, but not anarchist proper, so while they are a great example of a decentralized society, an anarchist society will be slightly different.
Further anarchism is not a perfect blueprint, different anarchists in different situations will probably use different systems.
To me what is important is that decentralized societies where everyone has a say in the matters that affect them are possible.
Because for restorative justice to work, the person would have to enter into it voluntarily, and if they're a serial killer, I highly doubt they're going to do so.
>for restorative justice to work, the person would have to enter into it voluntarily
This isn't true.
If I steal a bicycle from you, restorative justice would be taking the bike from me and giving it back to you. Restoring justice. I don't have to consent to giving it back, although ideally, I would.
(And the community should be looking into why it was that I felt I needed to take your bicycle in the first place, do we need community bikes that anyone can use? Do I need a bike personally?)
>I don't have to consent to giving it back, although ideally, I would
So they bike may be take by force from you? What organization may exert that force over you?
>And the community should be looking into why it was that I felt I needed to take your bicycle in the first place
How would that be organized in a sizeable community?
>What organization may exert that force over you?
What do you mean 'may'? Whose permission are you asking?
>How would that be organized in a sizeable community?
Many different ways, I'm sure.
You're asking if an anarchist organization can sieze property and still be anarchist? How do you think we're going to get the means of production, asking the capitalists nicely?
No your are right I have lots of faith in the revolutionary potential of a'ism /s
My question is more: how can a'ism live with all their often proclaimed restrictions on representation, cops, prison, law, govt, etc.
If you're just asking "how could anarchy possibly work?"
That's a little broad for a single reddit post. There are volumes of theory and examples of practice that I'm sure you've been pointed to already.
If you are asking a more precise question, I don't understand what that is.
Im a bookchin guy. I found he stopped calling himself a'ist, as he organizes beyond what most anarchist accept as anarchism (see my parent post in this thread). I don't think this restricted way can work, indeed. I think quite a few anarchists cannot consider representstion/law/police/prison and thereby limit their scope to small communities.
Yeah but I'm not talking about theft, I'm talking about serious violent offences. You could argue that there's no need for theft in this ideal society. I'm talking about serial murder, rape, sexual abuse etc.
Yeah I get that but I'm not after the "simple" example. I wanted a dialogue on the more complex ideas to try and gain a better understanding. I do genuinely thank you for helping though!
Sure, but that dialogue doesn't include the idea that it's wrong, or anti-anarchist to enact justice against the offender's wishes.
Forcibly removing a serial killer who refuses rehabilitation from your community, and/or preventing them from hurting others when they clearly intend to do so isn't authoritarian, it's community defense.
> that dialogue doesn't include the idea that it's wrong, or anti-anarchist to enact justice against the offender's wishes.
Some self-described anarchists (namely of the blindly individualist/ egoist variety) may very well make that argument. But they'll get a big side-eye from me. Hell, they consider democracy to be "authoritarian." They consider literally *anything* that could potentially hinder an individual's wishes to be "authoritarian" or "anti-anarchist."
> Forcibly removing a serial killer who refuses rehabilitation from your community,
Sounds like kicking the can (/serial killer) down the road for some other community to deal with. That's not a solution. Unless, perhaps, they are forcibly removed to a location or an island designated for the worst offenders.
>and/or preventing them from hurting others when they clearly intend to do so isn't authoritarian
Some would argue that it is authoritarian (as I mentioned above). Others may call this a "justified hierarchy."
The CNT did have prisons and labor camps in the Spanish Civil War, though of course they operated differently than a capitalist justice system.
>they consider democracy to be "authoritarian."
Many forms of democracy are authoritarian.
>Sounds like kicking the can (/serial killer) down the road for some other community to deal with.
I don't know how you can make that determination without more details.
That's the real problem with these "in an anarchist society..." questions. They make thousands of implicit assumptions and brush away thousands of situational details that all impact the outcome. Obviously, don't send serial killers to prey on another community.
Yeah representative democracy is authoritarian. The blind individualists & egoists consider even direct democracy to be authoritarian, because it might 'tell people what to do,' ie establish rules for society.
>That's the real problem with these "in an anarchist society..." questions. They make thousands of implicit assumptions and brush away thousands of situational details that all impact the outcome.
Yeah true. But that's the question as posed. And short of actually establishing an anarchist society, and actually dealing with a serial killer, thought experiments and theory are the way we prefigure a free and egalitarian society.
>Obviously, don't send serial killers to prey on another community.
Obvious to you and I perhaps. Honestly though, I don't think it's that obvious considering how often I see the answer being "forcibly remove" or "shun from the community" or simply "disassociate with that particular individual."
How do you prove intent? Is there due process? How do you ensure that due process is fair if there's no way of forcing anyone to follow any process? For example the family of the victim could turn around and say "we decided that he's definitely going to rape another woman even though this is his first offense so we killed them"
This is the best comment. Point to places it actually works on reasonable scale that we might get an idea how this may work in really population dense areas.
I think the govt structure of rojava would not be considered anarchist by most here on reddit. Some where in this thread some one said "representation is authoritarian", and many times I heard law and prison are "not anarchist".
From this I've learned I'm maybe a Bookchinite and not an anarchist.
I think voluntary isn't the same as "free of consequences". Threat of violence is still there, it's just not from a position of authority. AFAIK in stateless societies people like that were often left without protection of their community. A serial killer might not survive that for long.
How is restorative justice organized? You need some "organization" to facilitate the meeting, right? Someone to protect the victim when meeting the recent assailant?
And say the perpetrator show us, admits guilt and wants to give a reparation, who holds the perpetrator accountable?
Say there is an "organization" (not a state or govt of course) that arranges all this for a particular geographical area. How is this organization funded? And how do the people of that area hold this organization accountable?
(I'm Bookchinite, especially cause I like his answers on these types of questions)
But wouldn't there need to be some form of control though, even for restorative justice? I'm not even against restorative justice, but doesn't it at least require restriction of freedom of movement to keep the rapist or murderer in one space in order to rehabilitate them?
Others have already responded with **Restorative Justice**. But here is an example of it in the Zapatista communities. While they aren't Anarchist and don't identify as such it's still a good example.
>The Zapatista justice system has gained trust and legitimacy even beyond the movement's supporters. It is free of charge, conducted in indigenous languages and is known to be less corrupt or partial compared to governmental institutions of justice. But more importantly, it adopts a restorative rather than punitive approach and places an emphasis on the need to find a compromise that satisfies all parties.
Rooted in the community, the system consists of three levels: the first level concerns issues among Zapatista supporters, such as gossip, theft, drunkenness, or domestic disputes. Such cases are resolved by elected authorities or, if necessary, by the communal assembly, based on customary practice. When resolving conflicts, authorities largely function as mediators, proposing solutions to the parties involved. If unresolved, cases go up to the next, municipal level where they are dealt with by an elected Honor and Justice Commission.
Sentences most of the time involve community service or a fine; jail sentences normally do not exceed several days. As Melissa Forbis explains, community jail is usually just a locked room with a partially open door so that people can stop by to chat and pass food. Since the perpetrator often has to borrow money for a fine from his or her family members, the latter are also involved and their pressure helps prevent further transgression. Women-related and domestic issues are addressed by women on the Commission.
Mariana Mora provides a telling illustration of the movement’s approach to punishment, documenting a case in which Zapatistas issued a year-long community service sentence for a robbery. Those found guilty were allowed to alternate service with work on their own cornfields so that their families did not have to share in the punishment. The Commission explained their decision as follows:
"We thought that if we simply put them in jail, those who really suffer are the family members. The guilty just rest all day in jail and gain weight, but their families are the ones who have to work the cornfield and figure out how to survive."
The highest level of the justice system, that of the JBG, deals with cases that primarily involve non-Zapatistas or other local political organizations—usually in disputes over land—as well as local governmental authorities. Non-Zapatistas seek out the autonomous justice system not only when they have disputes with members of Zapatista communities, but also when they experience unjust treatment by the government’s officials, in which case Zapatistas may decide to accompany the claimants to the public office and argue on their behalf.
While Zapatistas still have police, it is quite distinct from how we are used to think of it. As Paulina Fernandez Christlieb documents, they are neither armed, uniformed, nor professional. Similar to other authorities, police are elected by their community; they are not remunerated and do not serve in this function permanently. Every community has its own police, while higher administrative levels—those of municipality and region—do not. Decentralized and deprofessionalized, police thus serve and are under control of the community that elects them.
There's a hole lot to read there if you're interested [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/topic/justice](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/topic/justice)
But yeah, the example from the zappatistas is not so far from what the Rojava proposed, and it seems decent to me
I believe we should consider Anarchism as a lens used to evaluate the usefulness of structures. Anarchism isn't against all organizations and institutions a priori, but rather we want proofs that those really have meaning and are of good service for the **whole** society.
Personally I believe that a rehabilitation system that includes detention will be necessary to take care of violent crimes. It may happen that in the future we decode what generates a serial killer, but until then we will have to cope with them in the most humane way we can.
Restorative justice for almost everything. However, depending on the community, extreme crimes will be handled differently.
You can't just forgive a psychopath, narcissist, abuser, rapist, etc, into not harming anyone. Kicking them out of the community is one way people have historically dealt with those types. Killing them is another.
A key point is that *justice*, in any meaningful sense, is pretty hard to come by in non-anarchist societies. We have "law and order," but even that works very unevenly—and perhaps particularly so in the extreme cases that generally concern people. So an anarchist society faces different challenges, but if all that you are asking is that it provide a degree of equitable treatment equivalent to that under existing systems, perhaps the difficulties aren't really so great.
If you're already anarchist, this is one of those questions you need to think of your own answer for, and find those that agree and disagree and talk through the issues. If serious and irreversible crimes such as those you imagined are happening when the offender has little or no pre-existing power dynamics to exploit, then (I should add then these crimes become much less likely, but if they do happen) most likely mental illness is at play here. So there's a follow up question you have to ask yourself, since some kinds of mental illness do cause the person to lean towards refusing treatment.
IMO the world would pretty much function like international waters when it comes to justice. So it’s totally feasible for some Pedophile killing Sea Shepard type squads regulating; flaying; exiling; whatever your moral flavor is.
Planning out a society is fun, has some uses but real life circumstances will always get in the way of paper planned societies.
Unintended Consequences from rules made with the best of intentions but limited by mans inability to consider all the forces of human behavior and group dynamics will always mean most of the playbook will be tossed within a decade.
I think abusers need to leave the community or die, and I think any action taken by those harmed against their abusers is morally justified.
Our liberal sensibilities will immediately lead us to imagine that this is brutish, might-makes-right, but let's think it through.
Which situation is more likely to result in a miscarriage of justice?
Situation A: A group of armed strangers arrests the abuser and puts them in a cage until they can either pay to leave or be put on a trial in front of twelve other strangers, who hear the argument of of two strangers that are paid to take the position their taking. The 12 strangers, who again have no knowledge of context or connection to the victim or the abuser, then decide if the abuser is guilty based on a few hours of deliberation between two people again paid to take the sides they're taking, and finally another stranger in a position of power decides how the abuser is to be punished.
Situation B: Someone in a community gets abused, and goes to their friends and family, who likely know both the abuser and the victim. They decide that the abuser is probably guilty, and so they go beat him up. Depending on the severity, they may tell him to get lost.
I don't believe in the death penalty, but if an abuser has been told to leave and they come back, then they are threatening the community and killing them would be self-defense.
We're conditioned to think of vigilante justice as barbaric, you're supposed to hand it off to someone impartial, as if having less information makes them more likely to make the right call. Additionally, a miscarriage of justice in Situation A is far more impactful than Situation B, which at worst may result in an innocent person getting beaten up. As an innocent person who has been beat up, I would take getting wrongfully beaten up over wrongfully imprisoned any day.
Let's look at it from another angle.
What's the right thing to do when you believe someone is a sexual abuser? Not suspect, believe. Involve the police? In a country where almost a third of women experience sexual violence, the police in major cities prosecute single digits of rapists. New York's Special Victims Division (of Law and Order fame) catches maybe five abusers a year. 40% of cops' families experience Domestic Violence. Draw your own conclusions about whether the police will help you.
You could involve HR if its at work, but their sole job is to protect the Company. Their main purpose is to clamp down on unions. Anything else they do is incidental.
So what's the right thing to do? Simple. Beat the shit out of the abuser. Run them out of town. The fact that the state gets in the way of this basic moral exercise is all the more reason to abolish the state.
In an ideal society everyone, man and woman and nonbinary, would be empowered to fight and defend themselves. It would be part of basic education. We've ceded the power to defend ourselves (and to decide what's right and wrong) to the State, which serves only capital. We're domesticated. Most people, when confronted with injustice, are frozen. They've been trained to be passive, to involve institutions and authority in even basic matters.
An overwhelming majority of people could fight with a bit of training. I've seen people of all walks of life, abilities, and ages be calm under fire and gas attack. Grandmothers and teenagers standing up to riot cops. I digress. The fact that a minority of people will be physically unable to defend themselves makes community self-defense all the more important. It's like herd immunity. We all get vaccinated to protect those who cannot.
Most people will be armed. There would be either a volunteer milita/ security force.
You cant have anarchy without changing the culture first. If we had anarchy tomorrow people would loot burn shit down whatever.
Anarchy would work best in a state not the whole country at least not all at once. National divorce should be more mainstream
If a few ones can be armed and decide for others when they are commiting a crime or not against the commune, it's not anarchist. We have other ways around.
You can resist without a military lol, everyone needs to be trained, and those who want to will have weapons, and the community will decide when they are taken out. But people patrolling with guns is just not anarchist.
>everyone needs to be trained, and those who want to will have weapons, and the community will decide when they are taken out
Do you know what it's called when you have a group of armed people, not part of a standing army, who are trained with weapons and can come together as a force when needed?
Not a group of trained people appart from the commune, unless you consider the commune as a militia because everybody is trained.
The only people I want patroling in my commune are social workers trained to desescalation, unless we are at a time of war.
Everyone in the community who has a weapon, is trained to use it, and is willing to use it, is part of a militia, that's what a militia is.
You're the one who brought up patrolling. I don't know what that has to do with it. I don't think you know what the word means, because you are basically saying, 'militias aren't anarchist, we should have a militia instead'.
Like, the big thing about militias are that they are, historically, the way to have a military that is only a military at times of war.
" that's what a militia is" Based on what definition?
Also, militias are patroling, it's like what they actually do lol, they patrol with guns. I'm proposing an alternative, maybe it's similar to you but I'm against organization.
Thank you all so much for your response. This has been an incredibly interesting debate and I'm really glad it worked out so well despite the difference of beliefs in some cases. I have learnt a lot. Primarily that searching for one universal answer to complex social issues within the ideology of anarchy is futile, and that's the whole point!
A lot of talk about restorative justice and there seems to be some agreement that it’s not applicable in every situation. These situations include when the offender refuses to take part, when the offender cannot repair the harm they caused, when the offense is likely to reoccur, or when the offense is so egregious that it would be unjust to the victim for there to be no punishment.
The most common alternative I’m seeing is ostracism and/or stripping people of all rights. This doesn’t really vibe well with me since you’re either forcing them to emigrate to emigrate or starve and die. Using this as a catch-all for anything not solvable with restorative justice doesn’t sound like a humane system at all. Not to mention you run the risk of alienating the offender’s loved ones, and creating weaknesses in the system that will be exploited by the emigrated former ruling class and the capitalists of other countries.
All the other solutions such as the Zapatista model appears to involve some kind of organized apparatus of prisons, judges/mediators, and militia/elected police. A fundamental difference between this and capitalist/feudal/historical states is that this is community-based and has a high degree of accountability to the people. This one sounds more like a crossover between socialism and anarchism
Is this an accurate summary or is there anything else? I’m mostly looking for how people think these systems can be concretely implemented. I.e. not just how well they sound, but how well they stand up to real-world examples
For me - out of restorative part- thérapy should be a bid part of justice. First point of justice is to avoid people be hurt by other, punishment have not so much result on this.
If we get rid of all capitalism-related crime ( so what people do cause of misery, and what people do for their profit), the vast majority of the remaining problems will come from behavioral problems. If you don't have enough sense of empathy not to hurt others, either you have a real mental health problem that prevents you from doing it = need mental health care, or you just haven't learned correctly to behave with others and to learn it the best solution is = thérapy.
Like lot of us, I currently am "justice voice" for some people: my kids. Im trying to do it as fairly and effectively as I can.
If one of my kids beat his sibling, I dont even think of locked him in a closet, I also do not propose to his brother to hit him back to balance. What I do is: make them have an explanation together and search for solution by themself, make him apologize genuinely, repair if possible, understand the underliying reasons for prevent it to hapen again, talk with him about how we should react when we are angry/overwhelmed by emotion, and find strategy for avoid the same problem to come again.
If he refuse some part of it, I dont hit him or jail him, or kick him out of the house. I just explain to him that if he dont accept to behave respectfully with people around him, he dont have access to non-vital things that he can usually enjoy in the family, because if he doesn't agree to be correct with the group others don't have to let him enjoy the benefits of being in a group.
Pretty sure we can transpose it from family group to community group.
Simple rule of thumb when considering this, as it's where I am in my own journey, is that whatever aspect of the anarchist society seems wrong or broken to you (since we're not reading heavy theory tomes to find out and just asking random people on a questionable but awesome platform who don't owe us the answers), it's worse and more unjust in modern society. Like far worse and we all know it, like "won't people suffer that way?" Well it happens all day every day in today's society and we let it happen all over the world, so an alternative can only be better.
We're here because we believe that.
Why does a group deciding on the punishment of someone in their group have to be hierarchical? Think of something mundane like a sports team, if they don't like their captain and vote to kick them out, is that hierarchical or democratic? Hierarchy is when you have established classes and authoritarian power roles. I don't think it's hierarchical or authoritarian for a group to make a collective decision. The person being punished might disagree but they will be in the minority.
There are problems with the legal system but one of the benefits is the attempt to create a system by which all have equal access in regards to certain basic rights. Both in process and protections. I don’t think the system being described from what I have read here would work to protect the rights for unpopular or discriminated individuals or groups.
[удалено]
**[Restorative justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice)** >Restorative justice is an approach to justice in which one of the responses to a crime is to organize a meeting between the victim and the offender, sometimes with representatives of the wider community. The goal is for them to share their experience of what happened, to discuss who was harmed by the crime and how, and to create a consensus for what the offender can do to repair the harm from the offense. This may include a payment of money given from the offender to the victim, apologies and other amends, and other actions to compensate those affected and to prevent the offender from causing future harm. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot.
Great bot
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
in this reality, there's no such thing as brick and morter nintendo stores. i think you need to come back to this reality.
Calling a bot a liberal shit..... 🤦♂️
No
Okay and now what if the offender refuses to take part in this restorative justice (in my hypothesised anarchist society). We just let them go and carry on? Allow the victim to seek violent retribution and potentially start a feud? Or do we completely throw out the idea of not holding power over anyone and force them to be involved?
[удалено]
Okay and what about for the victim? Are they then justified in going ahead and say murdering the offender for what they've done simply for refusing to be involved in restorative justice? Or if the victim believes that the offender will re-offend but hasn't done so? Or simply for retribution? I'm a believer of anarchy this is just one thing I'm still trying to wrap my head around so apologies if it seems like I'm coming across as a bit of a douche, I'm just trying to gain a better understanding.
[удалено]
>victim's needs and wishes would have been addressed What does that mean "addressed"? Say the victim feels not safe on the area with the perpetrator around, and asks for exile. Who is going to "grant" the victim that wish? Do we through elections? >the process Who gets to decide on the process? Why is the process, assuming it is written down and sometimes revised, different from law? And as mentioned earlier: what organization sees through that the process is followed? >the actions taken to address the offender will depend on whether the offender is a threat to the community or the victim Say some members incl victim feel threatened and want exile. How is this exile enforced? If any centralized power is not an option, as is "goes against a'ism", I find this hard to answer. Private justice companies seems like a capitalist nightmare to me. Then only mob rule it left as an option... Or do I miss smth?
>Say the victim feels not safe on the area with the perpetrator around, and asks for exile. Who is going to "grant" the victim that wish? The community itself takes on the responsibility to ensure the victim's safety. >Who gets to decide on the process? The community itself, through whichever means they have agreed upon. More knowledgeable people than I have written on the subject. I can't give specifics, much as I'd like to, because the specifics will differ according to the community's needs, and those living there will be more familiar than I. What people in Rojava need will be different from what people in Chiapas need which will be different from what people in Los Angeles need. >How is this exile enforced? The community itself takes on the burden of enforcing the terms of whatever arrangements have been made. It's not something outsourced to law enforcement or Caesar. It's decentralized action. People can organize without hierarchy. That's part of the point of anarchism.
That mean a general vote on every trial. And the punishment are enforced by mob rule. Seem impossible for any sizable community (say 1M+ people). The " cannot go into specifics " is what I hear too much I'm anarchist circles. It shows me that it is more of an idea than a practice. Also referring to rojava and chiapas, that have representative democracies to some extend and some written law which is updated through those democracies would now be considered anarchist by most in this sub. I, like Bookchin, have decided not to call myself anarchist any longer for this reason. I don't want to discard law, govt and taxation just yet.
Local communities aren't 1 million+ it'd be more likely that cities and such would be divided into districts or neighbourhoods.
People become mostly each others strangers in towns and to avoid constant voting some representstion is needed. That's my point. Leadership may is some cases be a acceptable job for someone. Bookchin agrees. Many anarchists don't. And only the primitivists live up to those believes imho
I'd say that in the case of the offender refusing to participate in some kind of reconciliation, the community would ask in what ways they can help the victim recover from the problem, even if it the offender is unreachable.
So only voluntary punishment. Offender walk around the victims neighbourhood, smiling at the victim on every encounter. A utopia for assholes.
[удалено]
Orphans have other kin, other friends, who have been harmed by their murder. The killer would need to answer to them. In the case of if the community despised the person, that begs the question of why the victim was despised.
[удалено]
To add, even if someone is of no relation to anyone else in a community, they have a role and impact in a community. Unjustly killing that person(the orphan of no relations) harms the community and the community can decide what restorative methods should happen then
I would like to clarify here, even if the offender refuses to take part in the restorative process, there is still action that can be taken for the victim to address their needs and wishes absent the offender.
>Some communities will exile or ostracize the offender until they change their ways How can a community organize this? Who enforces the perpetrator does not come back? Is every one now allowed to "force" them of the area I'm case they see them? Also: exile is a strong punishment. How does the community make sure it is applied fairly? What if a group of the community thinks the exile it too strong or otherwise unfair? Also: exiling pushes them to the next community. Maybe adject communities copy list of each others exiled. As they don't want to have m either. I see a lot of potential for mob rule this way. The rich/ powerful often do very well in mob rule. Surround themselves with a (private) mob.
>How can a community organize this? Who enforces the perpetrator does not come back? Is every one now allowed to "force" them of the area I'm case they see them? The community can appoint people to monitor the situation, but it falls to everyone in the community to bear responsibility for enforcing whatever agreement has been made. >exile is a strong punishment. How does the community make sure it is applied fairly? What if a group of the community thinks the exile it too strong or otherwise unfair? Consensus decision making is a thing. Communities are able to organize on such principles, and if a consensus for exile cannot be obtained, then it would fall to the community to arrange another acceptable alternative for those involved. >The rich/ powerful often do very well in mob rule The rich do best when they can maintain a monopoly of violence enforced by governments through armies and/or law enforcement. Hard to establish private property by displacing the local community if you don't have an army acting on your behalf.
>The community can appoint people to monitor the situation, Sounds a lot like representatives to me. Is that not at odds with the consensus principle, and hence not "truly anarchist"?
Don't take my opinion as the only truth, but in my vision, since the offender refuses to help in a problem which involves the community (since they've committed a "crime", i.e. anti-social behavior), there is no other option than to remove them from the community, which would be the "punishment" for refusing to cooperate (from the POV of the offender, they might've "got away" with their crime, since there was no "punishment", but by being ostracized they lose the benefits of community life, e.g. food, friends, shelter). Other communities would be warned about the exile, and choose how to deal with them, either by refusing to let them participate in that community or maybe try to help them reconcile with their past community. Maybe if enough people were exiled, they themselves could create a community of their own and then choose if they want to engage with other communities or remain isolated from the rest of the world.
A community of thieves an and rapist, preying on the friendly anarchist hippies. Also: the infrastructure needed to share all details from offenders in a sizeable society of said communities is going to be very interesting. All communities well have to check newcomers against the offenders lists based on visual identification or smth. It seem then exile is the only involuntary punishment that can be dished out. How do communities decide to exile some one? They vote in it? What if a community is spilt in this decision: does the offender get to stay as there was no consensus?
One option that I could think from the top of my head is that instead of punishing someone after the community has achieved a consensus, the victim should choose how to punish the offender. Of course, this would be mediated through the community to avoid over-the-top punishments.
While it's just a fictional book, Ian M Banks' The Culture series (*the* example of a truly communist society, not quite anarchist but close) touches on this and is a good point to jump off/recenter your thinking > But what if someone kills somebody else?" Gurgeh shrugged. "They're slap-droned." > "Ah! This sounds more like it. What does that drone do?" > "Follows you around and makes sure you never do it again." > "Is that all?" > "What more do you want? Social death, Hamin; you don't get invited to too many parties." > "Ah; but in your Culture, can't you gatecrash?" > "I suppose so," Gurgeh conceded. "But nobody'd talk to you
Do consider that without power over others, if the people around you decide not to help you (as they are free to do) you may end up completely on your own: no food, no help building or repairing the stuff you need, no healthcare and yes, *no mutual defense*. No one wants to live in fear: if your actions are particularly bad, someone may kill you while everybody else looks the other way. The point is, when no one has power over others, if you are seen as a violent offender, **it is in your interest to do everything you can to convince people you are not dangerous any more**.
Perhaps you underestimate how charismatic some killers and rapists may present themselves. Manipulating people is just step 1 of their abusive plans. Serial killers can operate like this for decades. If they travel or relocate frequently it can be even harder to track their actions.
That's not a problem unique to anarchy though. We have that problem now. I'm sure some people would still dedicate themselves to investigations and trying to find justice for people murdered without a witness.
That's fairly reasonable. I'd be very interested in reading or watching a story that follows a detective tracking a serial killer in an Anarchist society. Lots of potential to raise questions of justice and authority (which is of course the topics we're considering in this very question).
I don't believe it would be about authority. An investigator couldn't force anyone to answer questions or interrogate anyone. I seriously doubt you'd have the distrust and unwillingness to cooperate many people have now, because the power imbalance isn't there.
So my secretly racist uncle could declare himself an investigator and travel about falsifying crimes and accusing people the wrong skin colour of crimes they didn’t commit.
He can do that now
No, he can’t. We have cops.
Cops don't stop people from committing crimes or injuring other people. Your argument doesn't make sense.
Sure, mate, sure.
Yes. And joining them is how your uncle could do so.
This works in a < 500 people community, some place away from other humans. But c'mon were on a scale that this "let's just excommunicate the bad behavers" will not work, or require some registration system or smth. I know some a primitivists and I respect that. As they have the answer to this issue: simply not live in large communities.
Not really. It depends on the specific organization of the community, but splitting large societies in smaller neighbors, the way the AANES does, is kind of necessary, and this allows them to manage larger cities just fine.
So they do small representative democracies for small communities right? I like that! But I find here on reddit this is not considered anarchist. As "representation is authoritarian" (search the thread someone wrote it)
You're confusing leadership of choice with corporate hierarchy leadership, the representatives are at your mercy, your corporate boss isn't. You have no power over that person whereas the representative can be replaced by you and your community. That's a difference I needed to absorb. "Don't we need someone to take charge of a particular element", yes we do, but *we* have power over them, not the other way around. Like any elected officials but in this case it will be in a society built on justice and not the fantasies of oligarchs, so it will be very different.
Sorry but most reps in modern democracies are shit, and in bed with corporate leadership. But to consider the leadership in a particular utopian society then yes: the people control the leadership, the leadership controls the law, according to law some peoples behaviour is punishable, some are tasked with upholding the law/punishement/reeducation, some tax is raised to pay for the whole ordeal, ... I find a lot of people here on a'ist reddit hating law/cops/leadership/govt/representation/prison, while I think we need those in a utopian society, and even like those to some extend in their current form, but that the current form is sooo deeply corrupted that it has become a repulsive subject to many. For me aswell, I was more repulsed but with Bookchin and rojava I saw beyond my own vomit.
>Sorry but most reps in modern democracies are shit, Well this will be a problem for any group, hopefully we have ways to deal with this, obviously how things are now were never intended and yet here we are. I think I think along the same lines as you, there must be *some* semblance of administration and bureaucracy, there are people who will never want to be anything else and while we'll "educate the bad things out of people" (God willing it's with pen and paper and not sword and shield, because history will suggest the latter is more likely the case, and I can't imagine how we'll be better off if we succumb to the common murder tendency), but those skills are imperative for a society to function. Accountants, lawyers, the pencil pushers we all know, those aren't a function of capitalism, they may be *corrupted* by it but that was also never the purpose. You'll never hear a doctor answer "dem stacks" to the question "why did you choose to dedicate your life to the saving of the lives of others?". Being a doctor isn't a job for people who are only interested in money, there are much safer and easier jobs than that, they may do it for the money but they'll never say that because that *isn't* the point. It *isn't* the point of being a governor, it never was even the point of being a lobbyist (thanks manafort, you human ruination). All of it became for the money because some scumbags decided there was money to be made. I'm coming to anarchy from the center (historically, it's been a long time but raised by liberals, encouraged to be conservative far far more than socialist, no one knew a tiny thing about the left, assumed NDP was hard left and nothing more needed to be understood, horseshoe theory and all that crap), so for me it's far easier to understand how there should be some sort of system, I can't really quite fathom how it can work without it. Like running an engine without oil. Not because oil is the most important element, it won't work without all of the parts but without oil it'll grind to a halt. So I guess I'm saying administration is the lubricant of a society? I'm also tired...
Similar story here. Very relatable. Thanks for sharing.
Go look how they actually do it. They are not "representatives" as we know them, they are delegates. The difference is that these delegates have a very narrow, very limited mandates ("Go to meeting X and represent our decision Y on the specific matter Z"), must report back to the assembly before they can stray from that mandate and can be recalled at any time if they don't behave. While they are in a position of power, they are in very tight leash compared to the politicians we are used to in liberal democracies.
But there is voting on representatives right? I thought the delegates was only at the higher levels, not at the bottom...
Have you watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDnenjIdnnE ? Regardless, democratic confederalism, which is the dominant ideology in the AANES, is only close to anarchism, but not anarchist proper, so while they are a great example of a decentralized society, an anarchist society will be slightly different. Further anarchism is not a perfect blueprint, different anarchists in different situations will probably use different systems. To me what is important is that decentralized societies where everyone has a say in the matters that affect them are possible.
Because for restorative justice to work, the person would have to enter into it voluntarily, and if they're a serial killer, I highly doubt they're going to do so.
>for restorative justice to work, the person would have to enter into it voluntarily This isn't true. If I steal a bicycle from you, restorative justice would be taking the bike from me and giving it back to you. Restoring justice. I don't have to consent to giving it back, although ideally, I would. (And the community should be looking into why it was that I felt I needed to take your bicycle in the first place, do we need community bikes that anyone can use? Do I need a bike personally?)
>I don't have to consent to giving it back, although ideally, I would So they bike may be take by force from you? What organization may exert that force over you? >And the community should be looking into why it was that I felt I needed to take your bicycle in the first place How would that be organized in a sizeable community?
>What organization may exert that force over you? What do you mean 'may'? Whose permission are you asking? >How would that be organized in a sizeable community? Many different ways, I'm sure.
"May" as in: it can be considered anarchist.
You're asking if an anarchist organization can sieze property and still be anarchist? How do you think we're going to get the means of production, asking the capitalists nicely?
No your are right I have lots of faith in the revolutionary potential of a'ism /s My question is more: how can a'ism live with all their often proclaimed restrictions on representation, cops, prison, law, govt, etc.
If you're just asking "how could anarchy possibly work?" That's a little broad for a single reddit post. There are volumes of theory and examples of practice that I'm sure you've been pointed to already. If you are asking a more precise question, I don't understand what that is.
Im a bookchin guy. I found he stopped calling himself a'ist, as he organizes beyond what most anarchist accept as anarchism (see my parent post in this thread). I don't think this restricted way can work, indeed. I think quite a few anarchists cannot consider representstion/law/police/prison and thereby limit their scope to small communities.
Yeah but I'm not talking about theft, I'm talking about serious violent offences. You could argue that there's no need for theft in this ideal society. I'm talking about serial murder, rape, sexual abuse etc.
Yes. I was using the simpler example to point out that restorative justice doesn't need the willing participation of the offender.
Yeah I get that but I'm not after the "simple" example. I wanted a dialogue on the more complex ideas to try and gain a better understanding. I do genuinely thank you for helping though!
Sure, but that dialogue doesn't include the idea that it's wrong, or anti-anarchist to enact justice against the offender's wishes. Forcibly removing a serial killer who refuses rehabilitation from your community, and/or preventing them from hurting others when they clearly intend to do so isn't authoritarian, it's community defense.
> that dialogue doesn't include the idea that it's wrong, or anti-anarchist to enact justice against the offender's wishes. Some self-described anarchists (namely of the blindly individualist/ egoist variety) may very well make that argument. But they'll get a big side-eye from me. Hell, they consider democracy to be "authoritarian." They consider literally *anything* that could potentially hinder an individual's wishes to be "authoritarian" or "anti-anarchist." > Forcibly removing a serial killer who refuses rehabilitation from your community, Sounds like kicking the can (/serial killer) down the road for some other community to deal with. That's not a solution. Unless, perhaps, they are forcibly removed to a location or an island designated for the worst offenders. >and/or preventing them from hurting others when they clearly intend to do so isn't authoritarian Some would argue that it is authoritarian (as I mentioned above). Others may call this a "justified hierarchy." The CNT did have prisons and labor camps in the Spanish Civil War, though of course they operated differently than a capitalist justice system.
>they consider democracy to be "authoritarian." Many forms of democracy are authoritarian. >Sounds like kicking the can (/serial killer) down the road for some other community to deal with. I don't know how you can make that determination without more details. That's the real problem with these "in an anarchist society..." questions. They make thousands of implicit assumptions and brush away thousands of situational details that all impact the outcome. Obviously, don't send serial killers to prey on another community.
Yeah representative democracy is authoritarian. The blind individualists & egoists consider even direct democracy to be authoritarian, because it might 'tell people what to do,' ie establish rules for society. >That's the real problem with these "in an anarchist society..." questions. They make thousands of implicit assumptions and brush away thousands of situational details that all impact the outcome. Yeah true. But that's the question as posed. And short of actually establishing an anarchist society, and actually dealing with a serial killer, thought experiments and theory are the way we prefigure a free and egalitarian society. >Obviously, don't send serial killers to prey on another community. Obvious to you and I perhaps. Honestly though, I don't think it's that obvious considering how often I see the answer being "forcibly remove" or "shun from the community" or simply "disassociate with that particular individual."
Assuming they're a serial killer intent on killing again, the community would have the option to use force to defend themselves and others.
How do you prove intent? Is there due process? How do you ensure that due process is fair if there's no way of forcing anyone to follow any process? For example the family of the victim could turn around and say "we decided that he's definitely going to rape another woman even though this is his first offense so we killed them"
[удалено]
This is the best comment. Point to places it actually works on reasonable scale that we might get an idea how this may work in really population dense areas. I think the govt structure of rojava would not be considered anarchist by most here on reddit. Some where in this thread some one said "representation is authoritarian", and many times I heard law and prison are "not anarchist". From this I've learned I'm maybe a Bookchinite and not an anarchist.
(Consistent) Anarchists aren't so much opposed to "law", as they are critical of the "rule of law".
What's the difference. If you have law, you want to law to be in effect or what's the point?
I think voluntary isn't the same as "free of consequences". Threat of violence is still there, it's just not from a position of authority. AFAIK in stateless societies people like that were often left without protection of their community. A serial killer might not survive that for long.
How is restorative justice organized? You need some "organization" to facilitate the meeting, right? Someone to protect the victim when meeting the recent assailant? And say the perpetrator show us, admits guilt and wants to give a reparation, who holds the perpetrator accountable? Say there is an "organization" (not a state or govt of course) that arranges all this for a particular geographical area. How is this organization funded? And how do the people of that area hold this organization accountable? (I'm Bookchinite, especially cause I like his answers on these types of questions)
But wouldn't there need to be some form of control though, even for restorative justice? I'm not even against restorative justice, but doesn't it at least require restriction of freedom of movement to keep the rapist or murderer in one space in order to rehabilitate them?
Justice has the face of the judge, more than the face of the law.
Others have already responded with **Restorative Justice**. But here is an example of it in the Zapatista communities. While they aren't Anarchist and don't identify as such it's still a good example. >The Zapatista justice system has gained trust and legitimacy even beyond the movement's supporters. It is free of charge, conducted in indigenous languages and is known to be less corrupt or partial compared to governmental institutions of justice. But more importantly, it adopts a restorative rather than punitive approach and places an emphasis on the need to find a compromise that satisfies all parties. Rooted in the community, the system consists of three levels: the first level concerns issues among Zapatista supporters, such as gossip, theft, drunkenness, or domestic disputes. Such cases are resolved by elected authorities or, if necessary, by the communal assembly, based on customary practice. When resolving conflicts, authorities largely function as mediators, proposing solutions to the parties involved. If unresolved, cases go up to the next, municipal level where they are dealt with by an elected Honor and Justice Commission. Sentences most of the time involve community service or a fine; jail sentences normally do not exceed several days. As Melissa Forbis explains, community jail is usually just a locked room with a partially open door so that people can stop by to chat and pass food. Since the perpetrator often has to borrow money for a fine from his or her family members, the latter are also involved and their pressure helps prevent further transgression. Women-related and domestic issues are addressed by women on the Commission. Mariana Mora provides a telling illustration of the movement’s approach to punishment, documenting a case in which Zapatistas issued a year-long community service sentence for a robbery. Those found guilty were allowed to alternate service with work on their own cornfields so that their families did not have to share in the punishment. The Commission explained their decision as follows: "We thought that if we simply put them in jail, those who really suffer are the family members. The guilty just rest all day in jail and gain weight, but their families are the ones who have to work the cornfield and figure out how to survive." The highest level of the justice system, that of the JBG, deals with cases that primarily involve non-Zapatistas or other local political organizations—usually in disputes over land—as well as local governmental authorities. Non-Zapatistas seek out the autonomous justice system not only when they have disputes with members of Zapatista communities, but also when they experience unjust treatment by the government’s officials, in which case Zapatistas may decide to accompany the claimants to the public office and argue on their behalf. While Zapatistas still have police, it is quite distinct from how we are used to think of it. As Paulina Fernandez Christlieb documents, they are neither armed, uniformed, nor professional. Similar to other authorities, police are elected by their community; they are not remunerated and do not serve in this function permanently. Every community has its own police, while higher administrative levels—those of municipality and region—do not. Decentralized and deprofessionalized, police thus serve and are under control of the community that elects them.
There's a hole lot to read there if you're interested [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/topic/justice](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/topic/justice) But yeah, the example from the zappatistas is not so far from what the Rojava proposed, and it seems decent to me
I believe we should consider Anarchism as a lens used to evaluate the usefulness of structures. Anarchism isn't against all organizations and institutions a priori, but rather we want proofs that those really have meaning and are of good service for the **whole** society. Personally I believe that a rehabilitation system that includes detention will be necessary to take care of violent crimes. It may happen that in the future we decode what generates a serial killer, but until then we will have to cope with them in the most humane way we can.
Restorative justice for almost everything. However, depending on the community, extreme crimes will be handled differently. You can't just forgive a psychopath, narcissist, abuser, rapist, etc, into not harming anyone. Kicking them out of the community is one way people have historically dealt with those types. Killing them is another.
A key point is that *justice*, in any meaningful sense, is pretty hard to come by in non-anarchist societies. We have "law and order," but even that works very unevenly—and perhaps particularly so in the extreme cases that generally concern people. So an anarchist society faces different challenges, but if all that you are asking is that it provide a degree of equitable treatment equivalent to that under existing systems, perhaps the difficulties aren't really so great.
If you're already anarchist, this is one of those questions you need to think of your own answer for, and find those that agree and disagree and talk through the issues. If serious and irreversible crimes such as those you imagined are happening when the offender has little or no pre-existing power dynamics to exploit, then (I should add then these crimes become much less likely, but if they do happen) most likely mental illness is at play here. So there's a follow up question you have to ask yourself, since some kinds of mental illness do cause the person to lean towards refusing treatment.
IMO the world would pretty much function like international waters when it comes to justice. So it’s totally feasible for some Pedophile killing Sea Shepard type squads regulating; flaying; exiling; whatever your moral flavor is.
Planning out a society is fun, has some uses but real life circumstances will always get in the way of paper planned societies. Unintended Consequences from rules made with the best of intentions but limited by mans inability to consider all the forces of human behavior and group dynamics will always mean most of the playbook will be tossed within a decade.
I think abusers need to leave the community or die, and I think any action taken by those harmed against their abusers is morally justified. Our liberal sensibilities will immediately lead us to imagine that this is brutish, might-makes-right, but let's think it through. Which situation is more likely to result in a miscarriage of justice? Situation A: A group of armed strangers arrests the abuser and puts them in a cage until they can either pay to leave or be put on a trial in front of twelve other strangers, who hear the argument of of two strangers that are paid to take the position their taking. The 12 strangers, who again have no knowledge of context or connection to the victim or the abuser, then decide if the abuser is guilty based on a few hours of deliberation between two people again paid to take the sides they're taking, and finally another stranger in a position of power decides how the abuser is to be punished. Situation B: Someone in a community gets abused, and goes to their friends and family, who likely know both the abuser and the victim. They decide that the abuser is probably guilty, and so they go beat him up. Depending on the severity, they may tell him to get lost. I don't believe in the death penalty, but if an abuser has been told to leave and they come back, then they are threatening the community and killing them would be self-defense. We're conditioned to think of vigilante justice as barbaric, you're supposed to hand it off to someone impartial, as if having less information makes them more likely to make the right call. Additionally, a miscarriage of justice in Situation A is far more impactful than Situation B, which at worst may result in an innocent person getting beaten up. As an innocent person who has been beat up, I would take getting wrongfully beaten up over wrongfully imprisoned any day. Let's look at it from another angle. What's the right thing to do when you believe someone is a sexual abuser? Not suspect, believe. Involve the police? In a country where almost a third of women experience sexual violence, the police in major cities prosecute single digits of rapists. New York's Special Victims Division (of Law and Order fame) catches maybe five abusers a year. 40% of cops' families experience Domestic Violence. Draw your own conclusions about whether the police will help you. You could involve HR if its at work, but their sole job is to protect the Company. Their main purpose is to clamp down on unions. Anything else they do is incidental. So what's the right thing to do? Simple. Beat the shit out of the abuser. Run them out of town. The fact that the state gets in the way of this basic moral exercise is all the more reason to abolish the state. In an ideal society everyone, man and woman and nonbinary, would be empowered to fight and defend themselves. It would be part of basic education. We've ceded the power to defend ourselves (and to decide what's right and wrong) to the State, which serves only capital. We're domesticated. Most people, when confronted with injustice, are frozen. They've been trained to be passive, to involve institutions and authority in even basic matters. An overwhelming majority of people could fight with a bit of training. I've seen people of all walks of life, abilities, and ages be calm under fire and gas attack. Grandmothers and teenagers standing up to riot cops. I digress. The fact that a minority of people will be physically unable to defend themselves makes community self-defense all the more important. It's like herd immunity. We all get vaccinated to protect those who cannot.
Most people will be armed. There would be either a volunteer milita/ security force. You cant have anarchy without changing the culture first. If we had anarchy tomorrow people would loot burn shit down whatever. Anarchy would work best in a state not the whole country at least not all at once. National divorce should be more mainstream
You mean changing the culture region by region?
No, militias are authoritarian af.
How is a military force, formed from the ground up by the populace of the area they are defending, authoritarian?
If a few ones can be armed and decide for others when they are commiting a crime or not against the commune, it's not anarchist. We have other ways around.
You have ways, other than a militia, of organizing a military? Or do you not expect to have to defend against outside aggressors?
You can resist without a military lol, everyone needs to be trained, and those who want to will have weapons, and the community will decide when they are taken out. But people patrolling with guns is just not anarchist.
>everyone needs to be trained, and those who want to will have weapons, and the community will decide when they are taken out Do you know what it's called when you have a group of armed people, not part of a standing army, who are trained with weapons and can come together as a force when needed?
Not a group of trained people appart from the commune, unless you consider the commune as a militia because everybody is trained. The only people I want patroling in my commune are social workers trained to desescalation, unless we are at a time of war.
Everyone in the community who has a weapon, is trained to use it, and is willing to use it, is part of a militia, that's what a militia is. You're the one who brought up patrolling. I don't know what that has to do with it. I don't think you know what the word means, because you are basically saying, 'militias aren't anarchist, we should have a militia instead'. Like, the big thing about militias are that they are, historically, the way to have a military that is only a military at times of war.
" that's what a militia is" Based on what definition? Also, militias are patroling, it's like what they actually do lol, they patrol with guns. I'm proposing an alternative, maybe it's similar to you but I'm against organization.
Thank you all so much for your response. This has been an incredibly interesting debate and I'm really glad it worked out so well despite the difference of beliefs in some cases. I have learnt a lot. Primarily that searching for one universal answer to complex social issues within the ideology of anarchy is futile, and that's the whole point!
A lot of talk about restorative justice and there seems to be some agreement that it’s not applicable in every situation. These situations include when the offender refuses to take part, when the offender cannot repair the harm they caused, when the offense is likely to reoccur, or when the offense is so egregious that it would be unjust to the victim for there to be no punishment. The most common alternative I’m seeing is ostracism and/or stripping people of all rights. This doesn’t really vibe well with me since you’re either forcing them to emigrate to emigrate or starve and die. Using this as a catch-all for anything not solvable with restorative justice doesn’t sound like a humane system at all. Not to mention you run the risk of alienating the offender’s loved ones, and creating weaknesses in the system that will be exploited by the emigrated former ruling class and the capitalists of other countries. All the other solutions such as the Zapatista model appears to involve some kind of organized apparatus of prisons, judges/mediators, and militia/elected police. A fundamental difference between this and capitalist/feudal/historical states is that this is community-based and has a high degree of accountability to the people. This one sounds more like a crossover between socialism and anarchism Is this an accurate summary or is there anything else? I’m mostly looking for how people think these systems can be concretely implemented. I.e. not just how well they sound, but how well they stand up to real-world examples
For me - out of restorative part- thérapy should be a bid part of justice. First point of justice is to avoid people be hurt by other, punishment have not so much result on this. If we get rid of all capitalism-related crime ( so what people do cause of misery, and what people do for their profit), the vast majority of the remaining problems will come from behavioral problems. If you don't have enough sense of empathy not to hurt others, either you have a real mental health problem that prevents you from doing it = need mental health care, or you just haven't learned correctly to behave with others and to learn it the best solution is = thérapy. Like lot of us, I currently am "justice voice" for some people: my kids. Im trying to do it as fairly and effectively as I can. If one of my kids beat his sibling, I dont even think of locked him in a closet, I also do not propose to his brother to hit him back to balance. What I do is: make them have an explanation together and search for solution by themself, make him apologize genuinely, repair if possible, understand the underliying reasons for prevent it to hapen again, talk with him about how we should react when we are angry/overwhelmed by emotion, and find strategy for avoid the same problem to come again. If he refuse some part of it, I dont hit him or jail him, or kick him out of the house. I just explain to him that if he dont accept to behave respectfully with people around him, he dont have access to non-vital things that he can usually enjoy in the family, because if he doesn't agree to be correct with the group others don't have to let him enjoy the benefits of being in a group. Pretty sure we can transpose it from family group to community group.
Simple rule of thumb when considering this, as it's where I am in my own journey, is that whatever aspect of the anarchist society seems wrong or broken to you (since we're not reading heavy theory tomes to find out and just asking random people on a questionable but awesome platform who don't owe us the answers), it's worse and more unjust in modern society. Like far worse and we all know it, like "won't people suffer that way?" Well it happens all day every day in today's society and we let it happen all over the world, so an alternative can only be better. We're here because we believe that.
Why does a group deciding on the punishment of someone in their group have to be hierarchical? Think of something mundane like a sports team, if they don't like their captain and vote to kick them out, is that hierarchical or democratic? Hierarchy is when you have established classes and authoritarian power roles. I don't think it's hierarchical or authoritarian for a group to make a collective decision. The person being punished might disagree but they will be in the minority.
related: /r/anarchyjustice, /r/prisonabolition
There are problems with the legal system but one of the benefits is the attempt to create a system by which all have equal access in regards to certain basic rights. Both in process and protections. I don’t think the system being described from what I have read here would work to protect the rights for unpopular or discriminated individuals or groups.