Crimes against soociety don’t exist, because society is not a person. So why do people use this term and enact policies on account of it? I believe the reason is that people want criminal behavior to be minimal in their land. So its not that there is a crime against society per se, but there can be criminals on the lose, and that can be dangerous to a lot of people. So what people confuse is punishment and restitution which is exclusively the responsibility of the victim, and the safety of the land.
An-caps I believe do not confuse the issue and rightfully give the victim complete control over the punishment of the criminal (limited by proportionality and the sense of justice of the community), but on the other hand allow the owner of the land to banish criminal and otherwise dangerous elements from his land. In fact I assume land owners will not even admit people who have been charged with serious crimes, let alone convicted.
I was previously a strong supporter of progressive punishment, that is, if you steal the first time you are punished slightly, the second much more severely, the third time extremely severely. I supported this because this what keeps dangerous people off the streets. A thief who stole 3 times despite the ever increasing punishment has to be put in jail for the rest of his life, because otherwise he is very likely to steal again.
I still support the same kind of progressive punishment in our current society, because we can’t simply banish people from the country. There is no prison colony I know of. However in the an-cap society I would not support such progressive punishment, because in the an-cap society we don’t need to confuse the issue of punishment with the issue of land safety as it is currently confused.
The idea of crime against society was the basis of “white collar crime”, a Progressive Era relic, under which businessmen are guilty until proven innocent.
First off, so long as prisons are state owned and operated, it is a burden to the taxpayer to put someone away. If we are working within the statist paradigm, it would probably be more cost effective to let serial thieves run free and let individuals and businesses pay for privavte security systems (guards, cameras, alarams) as they feel is necessary according to their own risk assesment.
The three strikes/progressive punishment model is most scary though because of what happens when individuals face their third strike. There is no disincentive against commiting more heinous crimes when you will spend life in prison regardless of whether you get caught for shoplifting or rape.
Statements like this: “I supported this because this what keeps dangerous people off the streets. A thief who stole 3 times despite the ever increasing punishment has to be put in jail for the rest of his life, because otherwise he is very likely to steal again,” are just scary naive.
I don’t see what is scary about this statement. If a thief indeed has no respect whatsoever for property of other people, and he is probably hard to catch so only restitution doesn’t scare him, and prison is only a place where he can learn new tricks, then slight level of punishment simply doesn’t deter him, and just placing more protection on businesses while at the same time letting people who you know will steal again run free and prepare their next crime is just silly.
“Society” “we” “us” are all euphemisms that the Prince uses to refer to himself. If you commit “treason” by, for example, printing the facts about the crimes the Prince has committed against some of the commoners or in an overseas war, the Prince cannot simply come out and say “I am executing him for telling the truth about the crimes I committed.” Instead, he says some bullshit like, “John Q has committed crimes against society and we, the people of Ruritania, do not have patience for traitors and turncoats… for this reason, John Q will now receive the sentence of death to be carried out by the executioners of myself, Prince Humperdink, duly authorized and appointed by almighty God in the sight of His Holiness the Bishop of Whatever.”
Then the Prince chops off John Q’s head for printing the truth, aka “treason.”
You are ignoring the fact that by equalizing the cost for third time theft with murder, there is no external pressure not to commit the latter if one is commiting the former. This statement has been empirically substantiated: districts with a 3 strike policy towards drugs or misdemeanors face an increase in violent crimes committed by 3rd time offenders.
If letting thieves run free means less damage to life and property then let them run free. If you would rather have more death, injury, and theft just to be tough on crime, then congratulations, you are the mayor of every major city in the US.
Color me confused… It’s better to let people who commit aggression “run free” rather than increase “death and injury” in order to protect ourselves from them? Am I missing something here?
I think you might have missed some of what I said (or I was unclear). I am arguing specifically against progressive punishment system within our present statist system. This means 1) the cost of holding prisoners is externalized onto taxpayers and 2) an increase in violent crimes commited by 3rd time offenders. This is not really up for debate as its pretty much an established fact.
Oh, and by “run free” I mean paying restitution as opposed to imprisonment, not getting off the hook completely.
Just wanted to vent this and it seems appropriate here… the Post Office is a crime against society… will someone braver than I take them on politically?
We have protection against spam email, phone calls, etc… but my entire mailbox is ever full of is SPAM mail. No protection at all.
I wouldn’t have a mailbox if it wasn’t a law!
And if you think you know the extent of their spamming, try to change your address online. First off, you have to pay them $1, like $1 does anything but give them your account info for them to spam you… second, they MAKE YOU accept a business offer in order to submit the request, spamming your personal info to businesses. Like any ‘get an ipad 2 for $1, just accept these offers’, now you have to accept the ‘offers’ from the post office to even get service!
I’m certain I’ll get more spam based on my move; the official notice was full of spam advertising offers.
Holey Crap! Why won’t anyone take on this organization?
They even know it’s all spam because they don’t even forward their spam to you at your new address… all of the junk mail that filled my mailbox doesn’t get forwarded… they admit they’re spammers!
Thanks.