Ok, so this recent Trayvon Martin case got me to thinking. What if there was no prison for criminals to be sent too? What if we just tried them and even if convicted just let them go free?
In light of this case, I would say someone like Zimmerman might be in big trouble with some people. (AKA the black panthers). And we all get to save our taxpayer money.
But in reality, it seems like a very dangerous concept. Vigilantism and hitmen without recourse may be too easy for some.
Massive levels of violence, since that would be the only way to stop violent criminals. And there would be more violent criminals in the first place since they wouldn’t fear the police. Lots of political and religious violence as well, since assassins would have nothing worse than fines to fear from the authorities.
Basically, society would descend into warlordism. A society run by people who use violence to get their way, and who enforce order by killing everyone who disobeys.
Nah, you can still punish people without prisons. There’s corporeal punishment and also executions. I certainly don’t advocate such a system but it’s a system that existed for thousands of years. The modern concept of prison isn’t really all that old. What would even be the point of arresting someone, putting them on trial and sentencing them if they could not be imprisoned?
If people don’t feel as though the guilty receive a just sentence then the people will take matters into their own hands. Lynching would make a big comeback.
Exactly. Locking people up as a punishment for crime is a fairly recent concept. It’s only a couple of hundred years old.
For most of human history, you’d arrest people. give them a hearing, and then if they were found guilty you’d either execute them or give them a public beating and then release them.
Do you want us to offer up alternate systems of state-administered punishment that might replace imprisonment and discuss the potential effects?
Or
Discuss the potential effects if imprisonment as a state-administered punishment just up and disappeared one day?
In the former case, more fines and beatings and probably indentured servitude. In the latter, a widening spiral of mass murder, societal collapse, and a return to feudalism.
Are we just talking about prison buildings here? Because I could see us simply declaring all small islands to be points of banishment. That’s what mostly was done - not “you must die” but simply “you can’t live here.”
People would be tried just for simple public knowledge. And this would be more like say a budget cut where we don’t house all criminals anymore.
Everybody values personal responsibility, right? Well, there it is. Protect yourself if need be.
I understand people today probably couldn’t handle it, but isn’t it possible? It seems that there are fewer criminals out there coming from good, functioning families than the other.
Why bother? The typical killer in this scenario if you asked would probably just say “I did it and I’m glad. Here’s her head.” They’ll want you to know and be afraid, because fear is the only protection if the government won’t step in. If anything trials in such a society would be more likely to find that people have been lying and taking credit for kills they didn’t make.
No, “everyone” doesn’t. As far as I’m concerned it’s just a code phrase for “I’ve got mine, and I don’t care if the rest of humanity dies.” The “personal responsibility” types are the ones who would be driving through the streets hosing down random passerby with machine guns for fun in this scenario. Because if they can do so, that automatically means it’s justified, as far as they are concerned.
No. In the war of all against all, you are always outnumbered.
hmmmm maybe the debate should be around what people get locked up for. USA is a violent country compared to other 1st world countries and they have the highest rate of imprisonment.
So maybe just maybe not locking up 90% of the people who are locked up is not a bad thing??
Rate per 100,000 of population
1 United States of America 743
2 Rwanda 595
3 Georgia 539
4 Virgin Islands (USA) 539
5 Russian Federation 534
6 Seychelles 507
Yes, but can’t something be said for having good family values?
By the tone here, it seems like people would predict total societal collapse. But I know I ain’t going on a killing spree. I don’t think my friends would either because most people have values. If people are brought up in loving families chances are
They will be ok. Why is this so hard to grasp? (not anyone here personally, just in general)
In such a society, “good family values” would be “kill our enemies and make them know fear”. People in our real-world modern society can usefully live with principles of nonviolence because they live in a society where assault and murder are punished; not one where they are the only path to survival and prosperity
Well, what can be said about prisons? Absolutely nothing. They are a huge waste.
I’m of the opinion that most people are good at heart and have to be taught hatred. But what we have is a system that says, “if you do something we deem bad, our boys will take you away. But it’s ok for us to do bad cause we make the rules.” What kind of example are we setting?