Addison to Death!

[Tom Sawyer]

Hehe, he said penal. 

[Lloyd Danforth]

Eh, heh, heh!

[Free libertarian]

People love to present their ideal government solution to a particular problem. Now all you have to do is gang up with enough people to violently impose your solution on the rest of those who don't agree with it. Enjoy your little fantasies. That's all they will ever be. If your solution actually makes sense, it will never happen through an authoritarian monopoly. Sensible solutions and aggressive violent solutions are two very different things that do not overlap.

Unfortunately violence and murder happen. Yes, alot of it caused by "government" . Yet I don't advocate the Government or anyone for that matter initiate force or kill people. On the other hand I sure don't want people with a track record of murdering  to live amongst those of us who do not agress. We could ask murderers politely to stop killing people, but somehow I think that request might fall on deaf ears.   

Let's say for arguments sake there were no government. ln that event wouldn't the clan, the tribe or whatever group existed want at a minimum to make a murderer a banished outcast?
If there were no group, I as an individual don't want to kill or harm anyone, but faced with an unavoidable him or me situation...I'm thinking survival and I'm pretty sure I'd be able to sleep at night if I defended myself with lethal force.   

Dale what do you suggest should happen to Addison ?  What is your solution?


note - I agree with a previous comment that the death penalty for killing a cop smacks of an elite class and is pretty scary.   

[www]

The Danish have an interesting approach to murderers, they put them on an island for a maximum sentence of eight years, during which time they are almost never under lock and key, and are free to leave the island to go to work after a few years, in order to improve their readjustment to society.

It is my understanding that under international law persons can be put in jail only for the purpose of rehabilitation. I have heard of European countries, perhaps Denmark being one, refusing to extradite criminals to the US because no US prison meets universal standards of basic human rights.

It is common to hear the argument of locking people up or segregating them from society for the protection of society, but that is a very slippery slope - Guantanamo was used to round up hundreds of people suspected of being enemies of the US, many of whom were there only because someone else wanted the bounty for turning someone in. In general there is about 1% of society who never get along with the rest of society - bikers used to occasionally and probably still do brag about being "1%ers" on their leathers. The US, just for bad measure throws an additional 3% into prison, and has the highest rate of confinement on the planet.

The US has a horrendous habit of waiting until a crime has been committed to respond - countless abused women have been told, no ma'am we can't arrest him, but if he kills you call us... There is a book by Christopher Hibbert called "Roots of Evil: A Social History of Crime and Punishment", which when I first read it, I concluded that it said that police enforcement causes crime. When I reread it in paperback I'm not sure if they took that bit out or I had read into it only what I wanted it to say, because I couldn't find that bit. In any case it is an interesting history of crime and punishment, mostly from the perspective of England. I'll have to read it again.

[dalebert]

Dale what do you suggest should happen to Addison ?

It's none of my business what happens to him unless and until he attacks me, in which case I'd defend myself. Of course you should use lethal force to defend yourself if necessary, but not to punish. I'd have to learn the details first, but I'd participate in ostracism if I thought it was justified. I might also join with others to encourage him to make restitution and possibly even check himself into some humane institution if that's what it would take for him to regain the public trust.

What is your solution?

Withdraw support from any and all authoritarian monopolies. That's the first step to all kinds of solutions. Without the false security of police and state justice systems, more people would be armed and more violent criminals would die in the act or more likely be dissuaded from criminal behavior. I don't know the story on this guy yet, but I wonder if the incident would have happened at all without violently intrusive statist police forces. Statist culture encourages and rewards violence. It only punishes crime when it's in competition with the state's crimes. Lots of people understandably hate the police and some of those people have violent tendencies so incidents like this are to be expected until there is a radical shift toward a peaceful voluntaryist culture.

[Free libertarian]

Dale what if somebody like Addison attacks or kills somebody close to you? Is it your business then?
I agree during the actual act of violence all bets are off, it is just to defend yourself, I'd add it's also just to defend any other "innocent" being attacked.

I agree once the assailant/murderer is subdued, handcuffed or "in custody" putting him to death is a vengeful solution. It does undeniably ensure THAT person will never murder again though.

Restituion?  Works in some cases I suppose.  I'm not sure how it works in murder though...pretty hard to bring back the dead or pay an equivalent to the heirs for killing a loved one. How does a murderer provide restitution?

I agree your solution as a concept has merit.  The reality is "we" as a society aren't there yet.  You wonder if the incident would have happened if we had a different society.  It may not have , but again we have the society we have even though many of us are working in our own ways to improve it. So the question remains -  What should happen to Addison in the meantime?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Without government guys like Addison either wouldn't happen or would be nipped in the bud.  He is a product of the wellfare state.

[dalebert]

So the question remains -  What should happen to Addison in the meantime?

What would definitively answer your question? I think what you are going to have to face eventually is that nothing will definitively answer your question. There is no one out there with the moral authority to choose a punishment for him. Without the illusion of collectivism, it comes down to what are individuals willing to do when it takes getting their own two hands dirty. If he's truly a dangerous person and a threat to life, then if someone decided to use force to restrain him and keep him away from polite society, they would likely not face resistance. If there is considerable evidence to justify it to those who care about him, then they would likely support you in jailing him humanely (nothing like a U.S. jail) and they may even pay to support him or at least help to pay along with charitable organizations. It would likely be necessary for his own safety because someone is likely to kill him otherwise, possibly in an act of self defense or because we live in an imperfect world, in an act of revenge. Right now the state monopolizes the "justice" system and in so doing, it's ceased to be even a shadow of a system of justice.

[AntonLee]

let's put all criminals to death, after all, everyone's close to someone right?

[Hubbard]

If a criminal wrongs my family or breaks into my house odds are he will die.

[Hubbard]

Dale what if somebody like Addison attacks or kills somebody close to you? Is it your business then?
I agree during the actual act of violence all bets are off, it is just to defend yourself, I'd add it's also just to defend any other "innocent" being attacked.

I agree once the assailant/murderer is subdued, handcuffed or "in custody" putting him to death is a vengeful solution. It does undeniably ensure THAT person will never murder again though.

Restituion?  Works in some cases I suppose.  I'm not sure how it works in murder though...pretty hard to bring back the dead or pay an equivalent to the heirs for killing a loved one. How does a murderer provide restitution?

I agree your solution as a concept has merit.  The reality is "we" as a society aren't there yet.  You wonder if the incident would have happened if we had a different society.  It may not have , but again we have the society we have even though many of us are working in our own ways to improve it. So the question remains -  What should happen to Addison in the meantime?

Addison was a thug. It wasn't his upbringing. I was raised in the same situation. Hang the son of a bitch.

[jaqeboy]

Addison was a thug. It wasn't his upbringing. I was raised in the same situation. Hang the son of a bitch.

Will you join in the move to make the execution public? I've got a lawyer waiting for the right plaintiffs who want to see that!

[Jacobus]

Yes! Yes!

The State feeds on your hatred of criminals and desire to see coercive justice served!

[KBCraig]

From the politico perspective, I'm troubled that the only reason the death penalty was on the table, was because he killed a police officer. If it had been a shopkeeper or mugging victim trying to stop him from escaping with stolen goods, the death penalty would not have been an option. I do not believe my life is worth more than anyone else's, but the law says that it is: if someone murders me because of my job, they face the death penalty; if they murdered me because they didn't like my car, or if they murdered anyone else, the maximum penalty would be life. Even before I gave up on politics, that disparity troubled me.

From the anarcho/voluntaryist perspective, I do not have a solution for murderers. The direct victim can never be made whole; dead is dead. The indirect victims can be compensated, but only monetarily; it's not like they want the murderer to step into the role as husband/father/companion/provider or mother/wife/nurturer/provider.

Any restitution or punishment, like taxes, can only be enforced at the barrel of a gun. I don't know how anarchy reconciles the eschewal of force, with a demand of restitution. I understand the power of banishment, but true banishment is a slow-motion death penalty by proxy: if no one will feed, house, clothe, employ, or suffer the company of the one being banished, death is inevitable.

Death is certainly an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, but the moral authority to implement that penalty seems to belong to the victim using self defense to stop the perpetrator; if the victim does not survive, who then may impose punishment?

I remain conflicted on this issue, but open to a new perspective.

[AntonLee]

Yes! Yes!

The State feeds on your hatred of criminals and desire to see coercive justice served!

ha this is excellent