|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AC scenario!!!
Suppose that borodog & pvn manage to convince a huge amount of the population and we go AC, what happens to people already on jail?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC scenario!!!
They move to borodog and pvns house for some non-initiation of force.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC scenario!!!
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose that borodog & pvn manage to convince a huge amount of the population and we go AC, what happens to people already on jail? [/ QUOTE ] I imagine those that are ON jail will simply climb off. But, and I'm just guessing here because there's no "correct" answer, they would be released since no lawful authority exists to hold them. That is, if you don't count the victims families or the victims themselves. But because any DROs/Houses of arbitration wouldn't have existed when the crimes were commited and the victims couldn't have contracts at that time, all the criminals would have to go free. Cody |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC scenario!!!
No jail in AC-land? Well, are there laws? What is done with people that don't fit in with society? Exile?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC scenario!!!
[ QUOTE ]
No jail in AC-land? Well, are there laws? What is done with people that don't fit in with society? Exile? [/ QUOTE ] I'd assume there would be jail (although Niels always said imprisoning was bad so I'm not sure) but those people are in prison because of an unlawful authority (the state) and unjust laws (those ordered and enforced by the state). Because of this, it would seem unlikely that the ACists would want to keep people in jail because of state laws. Also, it's hard to justify "grandfathering" someone into prision. Cody |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC scenario!!!
[ QUOTE ]
I imagine those that are ON jail will simply climb off. [/ QUOTE ] lol [ QUOTE ] But, and I'm just guessing here because there's no "correct" answer, they would be released since no lawful authority exists to hold them. That is, if you don't count the victims families or the victims themselves. But because any DROs/Houses of arbitration wouldn't have existed when the crimes were commited and the victims couldn't have contracts at that time, all the criminals would have to go free. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I agree, but I'm just guessing too. I'd imagine there would be some transition where criminals with actual victims would have an arbitration hearing before being released, assuming their victim(s) were not already compensated. And it would make sense that their release might be supervised in some way by some agency working on behalf of the victims, to make an effort to ensure a good faith attempt to pay the required compensation (if the compensation was a large enough sum for that to be worthwhile). For all the drug users and other types of crimes that aren't actually crimes, I agree they would just flat out be released. Maybe I'm being nitty, but I just want to be clear that it wouldn't be like you flip a switch and now everyone who was in jail is now walking the streets with a clean slate. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC scenario!!!
[ QUOTE ]
For all the drug users and other types of crimes that aren't actually crimes, I agree they would just flat out be released. [/ QUOTE ] That's why I used "victims" because I, like you and most others, agree that drug use is a victimless crime. Cody |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC scenario!!!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] For all the drug users and other types of crimes that aren't actually crimes, I agree they would just flat out be released. [/ QUOTE ] That's why I used "victims" because I, like you and most others, agree that drug use is a victimless crime. Cody [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't disagreeing with you on drug users; I was just repeating you. I was disagreeing that criminals with victims would be released with no further penalty, as your post implied. Maybe I misread you. Obviously we don't get to AC overnight, so the OP is sort of goofy to answer. I was just pointing out that the criminals would probably be held subject to private arbitration, where some compensation would be determined. (And incidentally I would think there would need to be some compromise between what the perpetrator rightfully owes in a vacuum, and what he should owe considering he already spent X time in prison according to the state's method of justice. It isn't fair to the victim that they should get less compensation, but it also isn't fair to the perpetrator to make him pay the full amount when he already served a prison punishment. I would say the two parties would have to split the cost of the state injustice in some way that professional arbitrators determine is fair.) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC scenario!!!
[ QUOTE ]
I'd imagine there would be some transition where criminals with actual victims would have an arbitration hearing before being released, assuming their victim(s) were not already compensated. [/ QUOTE ] Much better than the status quo, where people who violate others' rights have a time out which is funded by the people they violated. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC scenario!!!
I am guessing that a private security firm would offer provide people the opportunity to buy a service to keep them imprisioned, and if it was worth it to pay them rather than be put in danger, people would do it. If enough people have an interest in something and want it done, a possible solution be developed.
|
|
|