Incarceration: Rehabiliate and Protect? Or Punish?

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By excluding uncivillized individuals from society, the average level of civility necessarily increases. Besides, who said anything about homelessness? It's litteraly impossible to be homeless in a libertarian society, since all property is owned. Homelessness = trespass.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't get this. Wouldn't this just mean that those criminals excluded from society would start living at the expense of those who are too poor or too stupid to get proper security?

Also, what would you do with those serial trespassers? Exclude them even more from society?

I only have a very vague idea about libertarianism and similar ideas, so these question are probably quite stupid, but please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such anti-social individuals would simply have a tremendous incentive to just clean up their act, since it would be the least costly and least unpleasant option.

Barring that, they would probably be transported beyond the frontiers of civilized society. Perhaps there would be charitable organizations to do it, or it might be handled by insurance companies. It's impossible to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I suppose the you'll a define an area as civilized society, draw a concrete border and guard it so the unwanted don't come back? Where would be the fontier on earth?
This obvioulsy cannot work..
Then why not group this unwanted pepole together in a smaller place and call it prison? Wouldn't it be much more efficient?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By excluding uncivillized individuals from society, the average level of civility necessarily increases. Besides, who said anything about homelessness? It's litteraly impossible to be homeless in a libertarian society, since all property is owned. Homelessness = trespass.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't get this. Wouldn't this just mean that those criminals excluded from society would start living at the expense of those who are too poor or too stupid to get proper security?

Also, what would you do with those serial trespassers? Exclude them even more from society?

I only have a very vague idea about libertarianism and similar ideas, so these question are probably quite stupid, but please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such anti-social individuals would simply have a tremendous incentive to just clean up their act, since it would be the least costly and least unpleasant option.

Barring that, they would probably be transported beyond the frontiers of civilized society. Perhaps there would be charitable organizations to do it, or it might be handled by insurance companies. It's impossible to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I suppose the you'll a define an area as civilized society, draw a concrete border and guard it so the unwanted don't come back? Where would be the fontier on earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not. Do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
This obvioulsy cannot work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So why attribute it to me?

[ QUOTE ]
Then why not group this unwanted pepole together in a smaller place and call it prison? Wouldn't it be much more efficient?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps they would. I already said as much. Did you skip that part just to rush to the bottom of the page and attack me?

[L'ennemi.]

NOt exactly.
but you did not come up with a better alternative to prison, except in the end with the "transported by the frontiers of civilized society.
I do get that you suggested a lot of other punishments or ways to establish justice. I don't want to discuss it , they might be better, I just don't care.
But in the end, you'll get some antisocials individuals who won't be dettered by your measures, and what do you do with those?
Prison or transported to the frontiers of civilized society.
Ok, since you argued that we can imagine a society without prison, tell me how the second example would work, and it what way it would be better than prison.
You've stated in this thread that you don't know, they'll might end up being prison anyway. I argue that it is certain. Unless we agree to simpky kill a large numbers of criminals.
And since you like efficiency, it's highly likely that they would be a standardization of punishment as it would be cost efficient and most criminals would end up in a prison.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rather those who walk among us who are law abiding only because of the consequences of crime are the ones to be considered the most despicable

[/ QUOTE ]
So if on-line poker was illegal punishable by death then those who didn't play only because of the consequences of the crime would be despicable?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely we can make a distinction between violent and victimless crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting thread.

Came back to this point though... Who do you suppose best determines the valuations for specific crimes? It cannot be the state, and in a liberal, non-centralized society, you would still have to administer the judgments. How would this be resolved then?

Seems slippery, from recent experience, if only because valuations of the relative "victimlessness" of a specific crime differ by society. Especially in a polyglot of diverse legal systems. What is considered a crime in one society may well be a minor trespass in another.

With regards to self-defense, which is a violent crime if carried out against an aggressive action, can this be said to be a victimless crime, or is there an injured party in the case that is due his/her own resolution?

Yes, I can see a case for isolating recidivists, especially ones who are predatory and prone to zero to little empathy towards the parties they offend. You wind up with something like Australia after a few generations.

In practice, I believe, there are also societies in which intellectual, if not practical expression of acts that would be considered inhumane by society are studied and explored in a controlled enviroment. These are certainly not prisons, but it cannot be said that they are completely within general society either.

With regards to the main currents of the argument, yeah, I see the general gist. Food for thought, certainly.