This has always been a question of mine - how would a communist state deal with homicides, robbery, thefts, burglaries, and other nuisance crime

  • glimmer_twin [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Bukharin on the subject from the perspective of the Bolsheviks after taking power

    When we come to consider the punishments inflicted by proletarian courts of justice for criminal offences which have no counter- revolutionary bearing, we find them to be radically different from those inflicted for similar offences by bourgeois courts. This is what we should expect. The great majority of crimes committed in bourgeois society are either direct infringements of property rights or are indirectly connected with property. It is natural that the bourgeois State should take vengeance upon criminals, and that the punishments inflicted by bourgeois society should be various expressions of the vengeful sentiments of the infuriated owner. Just as absurd have been and are the punishments inflicted for casual offences, or for offences which arise out of the fundamentally imperfect character of personal relationships in bourgeois society (offences connected with the family relationships of society; those resulting from romanticist inclinations; those due to alcoholism or to mental degeneration; those due to ignorance, or to a suppression of social instinct, etc.). The proletarian law-court has to deal with offences for which the ground has been prepared by bourgeois society, by the society whose vestiges are still operative. A large number of professional criminals, trained to become such in the old order, survive to give work for the proletarian courts. But these courts are entirely free from the spirit of revenge. They cannot take vengeance upon people simply because these happen to have lived in bourgeois society. This is why our courts manifest a revolutionary change in the character of their decisions. More and more frequently do we find that conditional sentences are imposed, punishments that do not involve any punishment, 'their chief aim being to prevent a repetition of the offence. Another method is that of social censure, a method that can only be effective in a classless society, one in which a social consciousness and a social sense of responsibility have greatly increased. Imprisonment without any occupation, enforced parasitism, the penal method so frequently employed under the tsarist régime, is replaced by the enforcement of social labour. The aim of the proletarian courts is to ensure that the damage done to society by the criminal shall be made good by him through the performance of an increased amount of social labour. Finally, when the court has to deal with a habitual criminal (one whose liberation after his sentence has been performed will entail danger to the lives of other citizens), isolation of the criminal from society is enforced, but in such away as to give the offender full opportunities for moral regeneration.

      • drhead [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Idk, that seems to introduce a potential for moral hazard. We definitely wouldn't want an incentive to broaden the definition of a "habitual criminal" if there's a need for dangerous jobs to be filled.

        • glimmer_twin [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          that seems to introduce a potential for moral hazard

          Uh oh better cancel the rev there’s a chance of moral hazard

          • Orannis62 [ze/hir]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Weird take to imply someone is criticizing the rev as a whole when they critique a specific post-rev policy

            • glimmer_twin [he/him]
              ·
              2 years ago

              I was attempting to be glib in implying that any post revolutionary scenario opens up the possibility for “moral hazards”. Any destruction of the preceding societal order opens up the space for abuse, just as the perpetuation of the current societal order opens up the space for the very same moral hazards. Turns out maybe just when human beings are involved in a system there is a chance of “moral hazards”.

              Weird take to bring moralism into the historical necessity of the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Was the bourgeoisie concerned with the moral hazard of overthrowing the divine right of kings?

              • Huldra [they/them, it/its]
                ·
                2 years ago

                Sure there will always be some moral hazards around but this sounds like the human nature argument of capitalism, if there are moral hazards you can identify in specific parts of a system, do you either just discard that observation as inevitable or good enough, or do you look for ways to minimize the dangers there?

                Just sounds like you're arguing with someone who is concerned over the morality of a revolution as a whole, instead of what the person actually said which is that specifically giving risky and dangerous jobs to criminals risks introducing an incentive to find more criminals for dangerous positions when spots are open(and, I would add, comes off as a kind of passive retributive justice, where instead of directly punishing a criminal you place them in a position where they are more likely to be "punished" by circumstance).

              • Orannis62 [ze/hir]
                ·
                2 years ago

                Weird take to bring moralism into the historical necessity of the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Was the bourgeoisie concerned with the moral hazard of overthrowing the divine right of kings?

                Again, everyone here agrees on that, stop grandstanding.

        • Huldra [they/them, it/its]
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think it might also end up not really working to reintegrate someone into the community, particularly dangerous jobs are not usually that open to the public to observe, and if they are deliberately filled with "habitual criminals" then that might create a bad reputation for people who have performed those jobs.

          I havent put an extreme amount of thought into it but it seems like it might work better to try and spread "community service" or whatever equivalent program this would be into as many appropriate workplaces as possible to not form a specific reputation of any one type of job as relegated to criminals, plus some jobs will be more immediately connected to the community and help build or rebuild a connection between someone that has done a crime and their community.

          Better IMO to provide incentives and respect for those who choose to do risky work, unless there is an immediate emergency need to fill those positions.

        • DrunkUncle [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Think of the moral hazard of capitalism needing workers to do dangerous jobs and therefore having an incentive to inflict poverty upon people until they are willing to risk their lives for a paycheck.

          That would be crazy.

          • Huldra [they/them, it/its]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Well yeah sure, but thats not exactly an excuse for introducing potential incentives to stamp people as habitual criminals in order to coerce into dangerous work.

            Everyone here is or should be already aware of the structural horrors of capitalism, its not exactly a dunk to throw that at someone who's offering a critique to a proposed alternative, no reason to settle for marginally better than current existing capitalism.

            • DrunkUncle [none/use name]
              ·
              2 years ago

              I wasn’t trying to dunk on anyone, just add to the conversation and topics to think about.