Who's new
Who's online
Recent user registrations
Registered Users
Dealing with criminals
Fri, 05/02/2008 - 14:28 — jurisimprudent
I'll just throw this out there, having not given the matter much thought myself:
Is a functioning criminal justice system scalable?
I understand that the anarco-cap answer to criminal justice would all be based on an existing contractual understanding, and I find some of David Friedman's writing on polycentric, market-driven police/defense forces as a means of enforcing criminal law compelling.
But does any of that work if you live in a floating society of - say - 400 people? What do you do with the first serial child molestor who comes along? It's quite a burden for 400-odd folks to keep the guy jailed for 20 years.
I don't mean this question as a critique, so please don't answer with "we'll do whatever everyone contractually works out form the get-go." I'm sure that's the case . . . I'm just wondering if there are any ideas as to what form such a work-out would take.
Thanks.
not ancap
Hi Tannerpittman,
(and welcome!) When there are only 400 people Seastead will just fly a flag so what happens to the child molestor is up to the country whose flag we fly to decide, the same thing would happen if a child molestor is captured on a cruise ship. He would probably be in jail in his own country soon. Personally I don't think people will be in jail for so such a long time in an ancap society though because of the huge costs, but I think no one can tell exactly what will happen.
-Joep
silly forum
Sorry I'm getting these posts out of order somehow. I am trying to reply to your reply.
(By the way, thanks for the reply.)
oh . .
I see. I hadn't thought of that.
I obviously need to brush up on my maritime law. I had thought that flying a country's flag is tantamount to subjecting yourself to its sovereignty.
I obviously need to brush
I obviously need to brush up on my maritime law. I had thought that flying a country's flag is tantamount to subjecting yourself to its sovereignty.
That is the case, but doing so might be desirable initially. A group of a few people with hardly an internal economy might find 200 nautical miles a tad much to start with.
Personally, i think this is solved just fine by voluntary association. If someone commits a crime that warrants the end of said voluntary association, thats essentially the same as good old exile. Meaning you can go drift on the oceans by yourself, or find other people that do condone your behavior. Luckily, most nations dont care about voluntary association at all, so you can just apply for a passport anywhere on the world and wait to get rubber-stamped, no matter how many people you murdered.
Not sure if that is something we would get away with easily in practice, but in theory, im all for making people see the consequences of their nonvoluntary associations. It might make them consider the alternative.
exile
I had thought of exile before writing my original post. But if that is the maximum penalty the law can impose, then we would probably not realize the "deterrence" objectives of criminal law.
Anyway, you've answered my question. It does seem a little counter-intuitive, though, to accept that the engineering might be "scalable" but political institutions potentialy less so.
I'm going to re-read Friedman's book chapter on private prisons and involuntary servitude for payment of restitution to victims. It occurs to me that some of the solutions he proposes might indeed be scalable once the seasteading venture decides to shrug off another nation's sovereignty.
As for members of a
As for members of a community, im not too convinced of deterrence. Crimes of a nature that warrant exile are typically not of the kind that leave me with much confidence in the sanity of said person to begin with. Besides, there was an attempt at humor there: being exiled wont actually be a whole lot of fun, unless you like assuming a new identity and leaving all your material and immaterial posessions.
But deterrence is a good point with regard to people whom are not invested in a community. Crimes commited by a stranger are trickier, other methods will have to be thought of.
Personally, im not too keen on the deathpenalty. The only advantage i see is it being potentially cheaper, but i find the relative reversibility of imprisonment in case of error a much more compelling argument. I dont think cost will be much of an issue, personally.
Death penalty, etc.
Eelco -
I'm with you on not being keen on the death penalty, for exactly the reasons you describe.
As to your comment on deterrence, you're probably right that the "can't-associate-cause-with-effect" insane won't be deterred by harsh criminal penalties. But (and I should add that I'm a lawyer by trade) there's a pretty substantial body of literature that suggests that criminal justice penalties will deter the "can't-tell-right-from-wrong" insane.
Do as the Icelanders did: if
Do as the Icelanders did: if someone breaks the law and won't make amends, he's outside the protection of the law. Anyone can violate his rights without recourse to the courts.
If that's too brutal for your tastes, consider that when you're on the high seas, banishment would be pretty effective. If you're close to land, row the violator to shore and drop him off. If not, tell him he can either catch a ride back with the next supply ship or take his chances in the open ocean.
My guess is that in small, isolated communities crime would be very, very uncommon. It would be very difficult to get away with, and if your community turned on you in the high seas, they could easily cover up your disappearance.
"What do you do with the
"What do you do with the first serial child molestor who comes along?"
If the seastead does not have an immediate reason for extraditing him to land, the only realistic response would be to hang him, assuming he did molest a child. Seriously, if you're expecting anything else to happen you're deluding yourself. A 400 person community living more or less isolated and strapped for ressources would be pretty much in the same human situation as the villages of the West, so I see no rational reason to expect any fundamentally different way for them to handle crime.
On a more general note there would be no jail in a free society, save for some temporary holding cells or maybe even makeshift cells, for keeping perps locked down while the people get together and argue about what to do with them. As the community grows the division of labour would let a solution emerge that satisfies the needs and constraints the best, should it be a local judge or a set of aggreed-upon procedures.
Instead of re-reading Friedman's "machinery of freedom", may I suggest reading instead Bruno Leoni's "Freedom and the Law" ? This book is a must-read for everyone interested in the development of Right, Law and judiciary processes in free societies. Leoni is a jurist and has a whole lot to tell about natural right, a little something that David Friedman has completely overlooked in his book and which has shaped most of international right and of the law of the sea.
Freedom and the Law
Hey Jesrad - I will try to take a look at Leoni's book. Thanks for the tip.
At the risk of employing circular logic, I'd disagree with your proposiion that "there would be no jail in a free society," unless by "free" you simply mean "uninhibited."
I had always thought of the terms "free society" as meaning"free from tyranny," which I suppose is where most libertarians would also stop. I don't think that "free from prisons and jails" is what most of us have in mind.
Banishing
Initially, I suspect that seasteads will not have enough space to jail people. Instead, I suspect your average seastead community will only be able to shift the problem to some poor land based country that has more resources by ejecting the individual. If no land based country wants the ejected individual, then comes some interesting moral issues.
-Wayne
Re: Wayne's proposal
Wayne, if you're suggesting that a small seastead society would contract out prison services to a willing on-shore sovereign, then I think that's a very likely solution.
I will note that Jesrad is pretty sure I'm "deluding" myself in so concluding, which comment tells me I should give the matter much more thought. Jesrad is from France, so he probably has a keener nose for social philosophers deluding themselves than I.
Solution: Simple. Plank,
Solution: Simple. Plank, short, 1 each....Walk, long, 1 each. Problem: Solved.
RE; Solution: Simple.
Or as I like to call it "Enthusiastic deportation".
sure exile is a great idea.
sure exile is a great idea. but who would want to accept criminals. and for my ears it is pretty much ass driving bankrobbers to the airport and waving them off... not how i would do stuff. if they are to be exiled they are simply to be forced to walk the plank. end up in the ocean. how they survive from there on its upp to them. hopefully they can find a current that will take them back to land. but this is destroying the sceenery and quite a cruel way to end up. you might get eaten by sharks etc. so my idea is exile them. make them walk the plank. put concreete boots on them.
Heres another solution:
Slavelabour all great nations were built by slave use. (egyptian Romans Kings of europe used pessants as slaves. Kina USA Russia you name it.) if it was or is a great big country you bet it was built by slaves. why shouldent ours do the same.
tho i do not think we should "raid" and hunt for slaves. but when we have people who steal, cheat , kill, sabotage or childmolest. then we have a perfect opirtunity to sentence him to "slavehood" where he is to serve as a slave for Xperiod of time or for the rest of his life.
pretty easy concept. you dont have costly jailsystems. and the criminals now "serve and fear" the people instead of the other way around. put collars on them with a GPS and some explosives. if they go crazy start hurting people they get executed on the spot.
slaves can do anything from cleaning, working hard manual labour to working in sweatshops all depending on the crime they have done. during this time they will get no pay only food and a place to sleep. when the slave has full filled his time he can then return to socity much more adapted to it then a "prisoner" the exslave now even knows a trade and now even it might be possible to get payed to do the work and live a normal life. and never ever return to crime.
Punishment- No slavery!
Punishment of wrong-doers is a necessary evil of society. The minute you turn it into something that has a potential profit, people start looking for reasons to punish someone. Perverse incentives result in perverse outcomes. Slavery is wrong, no matter how you justify it. I'm more in favour of execution of a criminal by far than imprisonment. Any labour which is forced on a convict should be merely to support himself while incarcerated and defray the expense. The minute it starts being operated at a profit, it gets all screwed up. Witness speed limits and speed traps, traffic cameras, asset forfeiture, and eminent domain misuses, all in the United States today.
Isonomy and unanimous consent
If justice is the enforcement of isonomy (the identity of rights between people, or formal equality of rights), then slavery and jail are a fit punishment only for slavers / kidnapers, deprivation of asset for thieves, physical punishments for molesters and assailants, and execution for murderers. However, any form of punishment that is prefered by both the victim and the convict is immediately superior to this because it has unanimous consent of the concerned. Anything can be considered and proposed in this regard, including the convict putting himself to the service of the victim as a better deal, for him, than the expected punishment, then all the better. All such agreements can be rejected later, but in this case the original punishment applies, if the agreement can't be fixed.
Side-note: "slavery" implies the ownership of a person (which is absurd because the free will of that person is not detachable from him/her: a person is not alienable, a condition necessary for ownership transfer). A better term would be private service, as in "community service" but to the benefit of an individual.
Slavery exists
When you control another person through force and are "legally" or socially entitled to dispose of that person's time and person with no further consent or consequence, that person is chattel property. Slavery exists.
This is a much grimmer topic than people seem to treat it. Sorry.
Don't misinterpret what I'm
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying: I'm only stating why there is no way slavery could be right, in the ownership sense, under any circumstance whatsoever. And not that it can't exist.
Fair enough
I did indeed misunderstand you.
More reading suggestions coming
Sorry if my comment sounded harsh, I just think we can't afford any amount of delusion at any point during the design of seasteads for the sake of our potential future. Social dynamics is most probably my highest interest, I'll try to keep some reading suggestions coming, continuing onto www.cato-unbound.org/2007/08/06/peter-t-leeson/anarchy-unbound-or-why-self-governance-works-better-than-you-think/ by Peter Leeson. This man is too fond of Game Theory for my liking, but his historical reviews of the pirates of the Carribean sea are very recommended, for they detail exactly how those pirates solved the problem we're discussing here, in conditions that might prove comparable. Hint: the answer is not plank walking. And jail isn't either, because that's not what it was invented nor historically used for...
Locking up people away as a punishment (instead of as a cautionary measure for soon-to-be-tried suspects and soon-to-be-executed convicts) was meant for political or ideological opponents (rivals, famous troublemakers and impertinent writers, mainly) as a way to weaken their influence (where killing them would be counter-productive, making them martyrs for their cause or proving their point posthumously). The upkeep costs and immobilised capital for a jail are well beyond the benefits of keeping any other sort of people locked away, this is why the ever-strapped-for-cash governments of the past hardly used it. When government structure transitioned to nation-state (representative republics, social-democracies and parliamentary monarchies we have today, where the sovereign is shielded by near-absolute collective irresponsibility) the upkeep and upfront costs switched from being a burden to being a useful spending justification for strengthening the power of the state. In addition the prisoners can provide forced labour, which is an alternative (or a welcome complement, depending whom you ask) to taxation. In some cases they can also serve as reservoirs of thugs to unleash upon society in order to justify stringent policies. For these reasons, which have little to do with human rights, freedom, actual justice and all related things we might be interested in, this form of punishment was extended to every situation possible (the next step in this direction was inventing new crimes and ciphering the laws in order to artificially inflate the inmates count whenever desired). You should be able to spot that transition in your own country's history by observing the overall jail capacity over time: significant increases will be most always related to one or several of the state's benefits mentioned.
I may be wrong, of course, but that's what I learned from History books. These are the reasons why I do not believe a split second that seasteads would or should have jails, nor that they're very likely to outsource jailing. Jails make a lot of sense for governance monopolies, but they run entirely opposite to the stated purpose of dynamic geography.
Re: Jesrad's last comment
Thanks for the very thoughtful analysis! Now that you mention it, the History Channel was just running a show detailing how prisons didn't really come into their own in the U.S. until the 19th Century. Of course, the H.C. was light on the topic of whether they were socially useful or a mere tool for state aggrandizement
I'll read your link to the Cato Unbound discussion and then get back to you.
(And don't worry about sounding "harsh" - most American discussions could benefit from a little Gallic frankness!)
exile and deportation might
exile and deportation might work inte the beggining but not later on on a larger scale. becuse deportation would be sticking someone on a raft and sending them away when they have done a crime thats like giving a bankrobber airplane tickets... so in my mind deportation or exile is pretty much the same as a death sentance. both are fine ofc. put him on a small liferaft and look where the waves take him. or just snap on some cement shoes and see him dive in.
I have a great solution for this problem tho.
when you do a crime your appartment and all your belongings get frozen/sezed. and you become a slave. you are forced to work for free you can be sold to other seasteads work on boats what ever. you loose your citizenship and you become a merchendise. tho you still have some human rights such as place to sleep and food. but you pretty much work for nothing and if you do not work you get punished. you could put a collar on these "slaves" with GPS and maybe some kind of stun gun. you dont obey your handler and he presses a button and you get zaped. its used to learn dogs do tricks. why not the same with humans. after the slave has done his time the collar comes off and you are a free seastead citizen once again. small offences give you a week. rape murder etc give several years in slavedom.
The victim can get the offenders property an items. or the victim can get the offender him self. think about seeing someone try and steal your waterjet. but he then gets cought by some friendly seasteaders and you get to keep him for X weeks. making him paint your apartment block. then renting him out to paint your friends apartment blocks. during nite time you put him to sleep press a button and if his head moves 1 meter from that original location he gets zaped :-D sweet
The difference between exile and banishment
Revoid says we can contemplate using exile and banishment as punishments, and I'm inclined to agree. Just a precision about that: exile is useful when the convict is only guilty of not agreeing with community compromises but can't be blamed for any significant harm, because then it ensures there will not be any "regulatory deadlocks" where the perp's actions imply a different but plausible understanding of the law that is incompatible with the common understanding. For example see how libertarians are divided on the topic of abortion, they can be for or against it for the exact same reason because of an understanding difference. This is the sort of divide that mandates exile as a solution, in my opinion.
Banishment, historically, is much more serious than exile and consists in stripping the convict of all rights - basically making him a prey ("free game") to anyone. It's only fit, in terms of isonomy, for people who have irreparably denied other people's having rights (it was traditionally applied to unrepentant murderers in nordic countries). Revoid says the banishment could be temporary until the convict compensates for damages caused, that's a good idea but perhaps a little too harsh: someone who is willing to fix what he did wrong will need to have his rights ensured in order to function properly and succeed in fixing such damage. I think any compromise between termed slavery and blind faith that suits both the convict and the victim is fine, especially if they can be brought to an agreement with the help of a judge (who would only hold an advisory role - good-will is the proper way out of conflicts). This sort of compensatory system of punishment has been successfully used as a principle of justice in many civilisations (right now I'm thinking of the Igbos of Africa, but there are many others).
crime and punishment
Honestly, I don't see a reason for any punishment more severe than community service for non-violent crimes (misdemenor), or (in conjunction with house arrest) for crimes with an unintended damage/injury outcome (felony). For intentionally violent "capitol" (rape, murder, torture, etc.) crimes I prefer the "law of the rabid dog", just get rid of the scurge quickly, quietly, and with imediate prejudice (after a fair trial of course). In order to disuade career petty criminals I think 3 "misdemenors" = 1 "felony", 3 "felonies" = 1 "capitol" crime, and 1 "capitol" crime = "enthusiastic deportation" (just throw them overboard and wish them luck).
Chucking them overboard
Chucking them overboard would be a much cheaper solution!
Electrick Shock
Shock Collars are extremely effective
But punishment aside, how is it possible to ensure that the judgements are as fair as possible because in a small commnity if something happens, blind anger can sometimes rule out rational thought and inhibit the decision making process and in a community of 400 people, everybody gets to know every body else pretty well. So if someone is falsely accused of something he or she could be punished by the rest of the unthinking, mob like, community. Mob Mentality is a great thing dont yall agree.
A relatively good example of this is the myspace suicide case. While yes, the woman responsible does need to be punished, the process of punishment is being done by monkeys on crack. She was a cyber bully and so people post her information on myspace, this information was then used to harss her. When the prosecutors found that they could not actually criminalize Drew under current laws they tried to make it so that violating the terms of service of a website by posting false information is not just a civil suite but also a criminal act as well. If this passes then it would criminalize the desire for privacy because posting a false actual name for the sake of privacy would be a criminal act akin o computer hacking. as martin luther king jr. once said "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." this kind of thinking which is enhanced by close ties to a victim means that in a small community the chance for actual justice is neglible. How would it be possible to remedy this horrible situation.
I've been discussing this
I've been discussing this with some friends. So far we are leaning towards dividing it simply by petty crime(theft, minor assault, etc) and heinous crime(rape, murder, disco pants, etc). Petty crime could be handled by house arrest and labor alongside counseling with the victim(s) as a means of rehabilitation for working past the issues which lead to the crime. Heinous crimes could involve longer house arrest, much more work, and a rehabilitation program to help reintroduce the criminal safely within society. For those who make a career as violent criminals and show no inkling of attempting rehabilitation, they can be given the option of a lifetime of working while not locked into their room or death. The offender himself should be allowed to decide which of the two he prefers(I and my friends do not believe in forcing death upon a person in any circumstances but if they have to be sequestered from society indefinitely they ought at least be given the option). There trial(as I and my companions are anarcho-communists with the overall goal of eliminating class-based society) would be held by the community with the most logical person or persons being given the job of advocatus diaboli to argue on the person's behalf(presenting whatever evidence may be gained) and then, if the person is deemed guilty, argue for the least severe punishment of the offender. The advocate(s) would function as the communities conscience as a failsafe against mob mentality. But if the mob ever takes over or crime itself becomes so widespread as to make this not a feasible option, the community has failed and needs reformating anyway.
Small, homogenous
Small, homogenous commmunities tend to have far less crime.
Repatriation
“Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshiped.”
It gets complicated when
It gets complicated when they own a portion of the seastead. particularly if the Seastead flies a flag of convenience and the individual in question is not a citizen.
Repatriation is a good, solid, reasonable idea tho. At least in the first generation.
Funny
Spammers seem to be attracted to this topic in particular.
Entering a seastead with laws
For my part, it would seem imprudent to join a floating society from which i could not readily leave, where I do not know the members of the community, but the excepted punishment for violations of a code I may not have access to read in advance, is capitol. It would seem like a good idea for someone to create a website cataloging various sea-cities (sities). They could compare their laws, level of economic income, the areas they operate in (all of which the members of the various sities would be able to update, subject to editorial review by the webmaster) and even provide bandwidth for journal entries and videos of sea life in their particular community.
It is all very well and good to pontificate in advance, but the real laws will be made the first time adultery is witnessed by the spouse, or the first time an overprotective parent finds someone sleeping with their 14 year old (the age of consent in many countries)
Eh?
I think in a voluntary society, the punishment would vary depending on the living agreement. I don't think it makes sense to list punishments for a community that hasn't declared what it expects. Anarchy is not lawlessness.
Maybe one community would be fine with banishment, another with hanging, and perhaps, even one with monetary fines to pay for potential psychological damage of children. I mean, I'm actually for the last option, punishing the guy won't fix the children, seizing his money to fix the children actually helps fix the children.
Having said that, jailing someone doesn't seem viable, but a community may actually want to pay for something like that ---who knows.
Revolution starts in the mind.
Knowing that bad guys are
Knowing that bad guys are punished for doing bad DOES help children.
1. It fulfills the sense of justice.
2. It encourage righteous behaviour to avoid punishment
3. Removal of the perp increases the feeling of security in the community ( a perceptual point of view, but valuable, as societies are created in trust, and trust is a part of human capital).
4. #3 also ensures that they don't offend again in actuality.
Knowing that bad guys are
Knowing that bad guys are punished for doing bad DOES help children.
1. It fulfills the sense of justice.
2. It encourage righteous behaviour to avoid punishment
3. Removal of the perp increases the feeling of security in the community ( a perceptual point of view, but valuable, as societies are created in trust, and trust is a part of human capital).
4. #3 also ensures that they don't offend again in actuality.
Spacing a la Heinlein (not
Spacing a la Heinlein (not Herbert)? 1/3 ;)