The Abolition of Crime

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Originally posted by tcpip at The Abolition of Crime

I've been mulling in my mind for some months now the issue of crime and the State. I've been wondering whether it is actually possible to abolish crime, not just as a social pathology, but even as a category.

My thinking goes a bit like this.

a) First you get rid of all the victimless crimes, that is those which are self-regarding acts or acts whether the participants have given informed consent. This is a typical liberal perspective.

b) Then you get rid of all those crimes which a structurally derived. So by providing a decent welfare system and an economic system which distributes common resources fairly, you reduce the criminal propensity. This is something which many socialists, anarchists, and modern liberals advocate as well.

c) The third step however would be to convert crimes into civil law (common law) cases. I think there is a number of benefits of this. Firstly, victims could receive compensation from the perpetrators as restorative justice. Secondly, the burden of proof would be based on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. I would also argue for a income-based fines system as well, for dangerous actions which don't directly have a victim but have a risk premium (e.g., speeding, letting off fireworks in a crowded theatre etc).

As a whole, I believe the entire prison system could be closed down if these three items were introduced. Of course, there would be a small number of exceptions (e.g., the genuinely pathological) who are more fit for a psychiatric institution.

Does this sound viable?

(crossposted to the anarchists and socialists communities and to talk-politics)

(nota bene: Edited to fix a couple of formatting errors. No alteration to actual content)

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Of course, there would be a small number of exceptions (e.g., the genuinely pathological) who are more fit for a psychiatric institution.

I'm reminded of a cartoon in which a sign is being changed on a building from 'PRISON" to "HOSPITAL". And then there is the idea of having a decent welfare system to take away a lot of the structurally derived crime, when we have a hard time keeping Republicans from scrapping food stamps for the poor. Abolishing crime can seem utopian from where we are standing.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

There is, of course, among the bug-crazy ideology some rational concerns as well from which appeals can be addressed.

For example (a) does a welfare system reduce crimes against property? (b) Is there cost-benefits in that welfare provision (e.g., economic demand for commodity expenditure, social capital, crime reduction) that are greater than those related to harsher enforcement measures (e.g., public costs for prisons and police enforcement measures)? (c) What are the relative recidivism rates of imprisonment versus abolitionism?

Certainly the objective may seem utopian, but objectives should be. The important questions that are raised is whether there is a viable pathway to attain the objective.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You almost had me on board with 1 and 3. The problem is with 2.

Then you get rid of all those crimes which a structurally derived. So by providing a decent welfare system and an economic system which
distributes common resources fairly, you reduce the criminal propensity. This is something which many socialists, anarchists, and modern liberals
advocate as well.

This assumes economic motives for crime in the first world that I'm not really convinced we can prove. If crime were to go up while inequality allegedly rose, we wouldn't see significant decreases in crime over the last few decades (although the inequality numbers are far from concrete).

Getting rid of the victimless crimes (not really a liberal perspective except for marijuana) would probably do more to solve the second part than anything else, as it would wreck the black market and reduce-to-eliminate the need to commit crimes to fulfill the black market pricing.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The question of whether economic inequality and crime rates have a correlation is, of course, an empirical measure. I recommend Morgan Kelly The Review of Economics and Statistics Vol. 82, No. 4 (Nov., 2000), pp. 530-539, MIT Press, for a relatively recent review.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the bankers still go scot free.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Well, the bankers are a lot less likely to be willing to pay for Utopia, if they only get a one-way ticket to the guillotine, or a free lifetime stay in prison. I think the challenge is to get them to want to pay for Utopia. Why shouldn't they keep it all?

[paft.livejournal.com]

The idea of reducing the burden of proof for serious crimes like murder, assault, etc. makes me very uncomfortable, especially if prisons are going to be transformed into "hospitals." While I'm a strong advocate of rehabilitation in prisons, I'm not convinced that every criminal is mentally ill and the kind of psychiatric attention a wrongfully convicted prisoner be likely to get could make it especially hellish.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

For starters the prisons are not being transformed into hospitals. The vast majority of people who are in current incarceration would be subject to restorative justice, rather than punitive justice. The proposal does not assume that every criminal is mentally ill - quite the opposite.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Step B does not appear to be compatible with steps A or C.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I'd be hoping you could explain that further.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Like our brothers in Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Yemen, North Korea, and Somalia - Americans would never be willing to give up executions.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately I suspect this is a contributing factor. The flip side of punitive law enforcement is that a number of people in the industry enjoy applying it.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

1) Where does rape fit in? Certainly not "a", I hope no one thinks it's "b", so "c"? The rapist pays a fine, but doesn't go to jail?

2) Organized crime. Where do they fit in?

3) Petty thieves and drug addicts who want more than the welfare system gives them. Are they going to stop stealing? See "4"

4) How do you force people to pay a fine, especially those who's income are from crime? If there's no jail, what's the penalty for not paying the fine?

5) Government corruption. Police officers, judges, politicians, etc only have to worry about being fined and losing their job?

6) Domestic violence, bar fights, etc. The only penalty is fines? There are a lot of seriously violent people locked away in prison. Would we somehow be better off if they were out walking among us, paying fines every time they put someone in the hospital?

And all these people receiving welfare. How do they pay the fines? Does the welfare gives them that much extra spending money, or do they have to steal to get money to pay the fine?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Good questions.

1) Possibly (a) in some cases, especially given the some current legislative weirdness. In many cases (b) is, according to the data, the case. In many cases (c) would apply, keeping in mind that this is restorative justice, that is the victim would be the beneficiary. At the moment victim compensation is not an intrinsic part of the justice system, whereas it should be the core principle.

The proposal does admit that there is a percentage of people who are genuinely psycho-pathological, which means that neither restorative or punitive justice systems would reduce recidivism.

2) Organized crime would be quite unhappy with the proposal, especially how much they depend on (a).

3) Petty thieves would be required to engage in restorative justice. For drug addicts see (a) and especially current examples of Portugal.

4) I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in Australia typically a sheriff's office confiscates property if a fine is being paid through other means.

5) Not sure what you mean here.

6) See (1).

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

a) First you get rid of all the victimless crimes, that is those which are self-regarding acts or acts whether the participants have given informed consent. This is a typical liberal perspective.

The reason it is a "typical liberal perspective" is that the so-called "victimless crimes", like drug possession, prostitution and the like, are often used as conservative cudgels against liberals in attempts to gain elections, which they do, quite well. Sadly, under the current social paradigm (in the US, at least) prostitution is likely to remain not-victim-less, since the chief opponents are women (who fear their husbands straying) and the religious.

Given the number of religious warping all manner of political thought—and being warped by those using those thoughts as a wedge issue—I don't expect the victimless crime to go away anytime soon. Too much to gain from opposing it.

c) The third step however would be to convert crimes into civil law (common law) cases. I think there is a number of benefits of this.

Won't work, and it's been tried. The Scandanavian countries have pretty loose standards against crime as compared to the US, and they've had to re-criminalize some actions such as drunk driving. Sadly, the warping effects of addiction will make it impossible to remove the crime from society. Leaving it at least criminal will leave punishments in place, and allow the removal of drunks from the roads.

Finland (IIRC) went so far as to make a third drunk driving conviction worthy of life in prison, and that after tying the first few convictions to massive fines that were adjusted for income. For example, a first-time offender had to pay the Finnish equivalent of thousands; wealthier drunks paid first-time fines in the tens or hundreds of thousands, and this on top of the mandatory jail time.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Given the number of religious warping all manner of political thought—and being warped by those using those thoughts as a wedge issue

Well, yes. There are certain religious types who don't believe in secular legal standards at all.


The Scandanavian countries have pretty loose standards against crime as compared to the US, and they've had to re-criminalize some actions such as drunk driving

Sure, but the Finns take a pretty dim view of even slightly tipsy driving let along drunk driving. In many other cases they're willing to apply a day fine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine) system.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Reducing the burden of proof is insane. The vast majority of cases already result in guilty verdicts, why make that easier? Second, placing the burden on the individual to prosecute a crime is unjust.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Because the government has no lever on the innocent. You need to ensure that those in need of re-education are guilty of something if you are to intern them without their fellow proles raising a stink. ;)

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the ruling class isn't always interested in reducing crime, but more interested in reducing... competition.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

That's true. The State by definition claims a monopoly on legitimate violence.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

So what would a 'crime of passion' murder fall under? What about insider trading? Or those guys who snooker old people out of their money through various schemes?

[jockox3.livejournal.com]

A crime of passion murder is an interesting case. They're not almost by definition psychopathic. Recidivism is usually low. A fine that keeps the person working to pay the survivors or insurance agent of the victim for a good while coupled with the possibility as mentioned in an earlier comment of secure accommodation provided by their insurers in most cases should be sufficient (and again, better for the survivors than simply knowing the perpetrator is getting three square meals a day at their expense).

Your other two issues are fraud. They can be dealt with as torts with punitive awards. Prison ain't going to help Bernie Madoff make enough to restore his defrauded clients.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

First you get rid of all the victimless crimes

I think defining "victimless" is less cut and dried than is generally assumed, but other than that, OK.

So by providing a decent welfare system and an economic system which distributes common resources fairly, you reduce the criminal propensity.

Please show your work. Say what you want about Bernie Madoff, but he did not resort to crime because he didn't have recourse to a decent welfare system.

Secondly, the burden of proof would be based on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

Yikes! If someone is going to hold me culpable for a crime, I don't want the conviction to be based on "close enough." I like the idea of restorative justice, but if someone is raped or murdered, or hell, just assaulted, what is restorative of that offense? This is where "eye for an eye," came into play for our Mesopotamian ancestors. Since a large number of people who commit crimes have little or no income, basing the fine on income means some people just won't be able to pay. Then what? Confiscate their decent welfare? Sell them into slavery?

Does this sound viable?

Not in the world in which we live, no.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Please show your work.

There is numerous studies on the correlation between income, income equality, and criminal activity of which some have been cited in this thread. Sure there are people to whom it isn't a factor, but I'm looking at aggregate changes here.

what is restorative of that offense

Of course, whilst financial compensation (to cover stress, counselling etc) is only part of the process, a perpetrator to victim sincere apology - outside of the legal formalities - seems to be an important factor as examples from the UK (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jan/27/restorative-justice-confronted-rape) illustrate.

Then what? Confiscate their decent welfare? Sell them into slavery?

Community (or possibly individual) service orders do seem viable.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

This just sounds like a reversion to the honor and clan based justice of earlier human societies who lacked the administrative, social and technological capacities for public justice systems. Why don't we make it the responsibility of the victim's family to prosecute justice and get it over with?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Not quite weregild but certainly a historical example of restorative justice as an alternative that was preferable to punitive blood revenge.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Doesn't sound viable to me.

Getting rid of victimless crime is going to cause some extra crime with victims. Legalizing alcohol didn't exactly eliminate it's detrimental effect on society. Sure, making it illegal had some severe consequences, but making it legal did so as well. In the United States, the following are the percent of crimes where alcohol use by the offender was a factor: (http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/learn-about-alcohol/alcohol-and-crime)

•37% of rapes and sexual assaults
•15% of robberies
•27% of aggravated assaults, and
•25% of simple assaults

In addition, 31% of fatal traffic accidents were caused by drivers who were impaired by alcohol.

On balance, legalization makes sense for alcohol, and it probably does for marijuana as well, but it did not eliminate crime. I'm not so sure the same can be said for crack or heroin. There are plenty of recreational users of alcohol who can have a drink or two... or maybe a couple more, who don't end up destroying their lives and those around them. I'm sure there are recreational users of heroin, but I'd also expect that if heroin was as widely available as alcohol, there would be a lot more people suffering in different ways as a result.

I'd also question if a more equitable distribution of income is correlated to reduced crime. In the past two decades, inequality has increased while violent crime has decreased. Sure, people living in poverty, or really, relative poverty, are arrested more frequently, but there are plenty of examples where an increase of inequality didn't lead to an increase in crime. There are also plenty of others, including some of the most violent countries today, where violent crime increased while inequality was decreased.

Reducing corruption would seem to be a better way to go about this.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Legalizing alcohol didn't exactly eliminate it's detrimental effect on society.

I don't doubt those statistics for a moment, but it is also worth doing an compare-and-contrast with the criminal effects of when alcohol was illegal - and the same of course applies for other illegal drugs in contemporary society. I think that decriminalisation is a social positive.

I'd also question if a more equitable distribution of income is correlated to reduced crime. In the past two decades, inequality has increased while violent crime has decreased.

The correlation is there, but it certainly isn't the only contributing factor. As you say, corruption is another one.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

where's the rehabilitation?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

A fairly different topic, but arguably could be considered part of a move towards a restorative approach (at least among the non-psychopathic) rather than a punitive one, and certainly could be part of (b).

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Where does global warming fit in with all of this?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Somewhere between N0b@m@c@r3 and B3ngh@zi.

[flaming-goat.livejournal.com]

Or we could just burn all the criminals and get rid of them that way.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

This burn&flame thing that you keep doing kind of gets worn-out after the fifty-third time you do it, you know. Just for the record.

Why not try something about goats next time. ;)

[yelena-r0ssini.livejournal.com]

I've given this a bit of thought and honestly, it doesn't sound wholly viable to me. I like the idea of decriminalizing "victimless crime", and I like the idea of restorative justice for property crimes, but I don't think that it's possible for genuine restorative justice in cases of grievous personal harm to be reasonable. It smacks of the morally cheapest sort of economics to put a price on life or bodily integrity. And I still think there's a place for prison in society, to serve as a "time-out" for people who, for whatever reason, are not safe for others in their current state. Maybe they need to learn self-control, or practical life skills, or whatever, but there are people who pose a danger to the people around them but who aren't mentally ill or irredeemable psychopaths. I favor rehabilitation for offenders who are dangerous to others but I think that removing them from where they can do harm during the rehabilitative process is not necessarily a bad or an avoidable thing.

So in other words, I think the ideas you have are good ones which could drastically reduce the need for prisons and could improve how we deal with certain types of crimes. But I don't think they make for an optimal across-the-board solution.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the comments, and you're probably right that it could represent a general direction rather than a complete policy. I have consistently argued that there are certain sociopaths for whom it seems a income-fine based deterrence would not work, and whose criminal activity does not fall into the victimless category, and for whom no level of opportunity or social capital would make any difference. Such people are quite sick in the head and a danger to others.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

Those are all very positive ideas, as they reduce criminality and reduce potential crime. There is a definite correlation between income inequality and violent crime.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Yeah, for The Spirit Level. A remarkable and challenging good read.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I posted about this in a comment over in the political cartoon community so you may have not seen it there. But MIT's media lab has an fascinating paper on inequality as seen from Google street view (http://macroconnections.media.mit.edu/blog/how-to-measure-inequality-from-online-images/), using cities like Johannesburg, South Africa, London, Santiago, Boston, New York, Linz, and others. And they ask viewers, which cities look safer. You may find it as interesting as I did.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

So, stear clear of Maspeth if you're one of the tourists yes?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Fines have to be relative to income.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Absolutely! Otherwise, from what I have seen, it actually leads to an increase in offenses, as the perpetrators simple see it as a affordable price.

Rather like classic Indulgences.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I don't have any questions or doubts that are not already expressed in comments.

But I have to say I am very impressed that a post proposing ideas that are controversial across multiple ends of the political spectrum has resulted in actual discussion and relatively polite discussion at that. Many of the threads here are quite interesting and illuminating.

It is no small thing to inspire quality discussion and to maintain being informative and interesting with significant pushback. I think this deserves recommended status on that basis.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

And might I add that I think it's ridiculous that the United States strips voting rights from convicts after they served their time.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Very much so; that's state-based and for crimes which constitute felonies isn't it?

It is, of course, interesting to look at the social demographics of who this effects.