repeat offenders with a gang of unknown supporters.>>>>
as Clayton has pointed out at least twice, these individuals would likely be killed while committing aggression against a person with legal standing, or their legal standing would be removed and they would cease to become a problem because of a bounty on their head. If you come up with a third option, then by all means launch a justice/security company with that as an option. But incarceration is vile, ineffective, and expensive and has no place in civilization.
Such people - also known as psychopaths - would either find their lives cut short or they’ll be forced to pay off their restitution debts. In the latter case, if imprisonment is necessary, so be it.
Imprisonment per se doesn’t seem to be a deterrent for the individuals you mention above. Otherwise, why would they keep landing in prison? But look at it this way. A repeat offender (assuming he’s been rightly convicted) will find it increasingly more difficult to get and hold a job, as well as other things he may want. In the limit, his repeated criminal offenses will render him utterly destitute. Obviously his ability to repay restitution debts would similarly become increasingly diminished. If he can’t make restitution immediately, then he’ll be forced to work until it’s been made.
Again, the idea I have is that, if a person can’t pay off the debt as a matter of course, then he’ll be forced to work until it’s paid. Psychopathic individuals, who’d just as soon “skip town” entirely than submit to such indentured servitude, would likely be imprisoned during the course of it. But note that this isn’t imprisonment for the sake of imprisonment - the point is to better ensure that the restitution debt is paid off.
The history of prisons, as we know them today, is very short going back only to the 19th century. For al of human history before the advent of prisons, how were criminals dealt with? They were generally either killed or fined. No one except a government would engage in the folly of paying to feed, clothe and house a known criminal for years on end.
But I think you’re confusing separate issues - one issue is security which I’ve addressed in the post above… prisons are a piss-poor way to enhance the security of a community. Rather than holding private owners responsible to secure their own property, we’re building a socialized fence and puting all the (supposedly) bad guys inside that fence. Of course, it would strike anyone as unjust to jail a petty thief for life, so we eventually let them back out again. But where’s the sense in that? If they really are a threat to the security of the community and the purpose of prisons is to make the community more secure, then they should be jailed for life, regardless of the size of their crime.
The other issue is the issue of property rights and justice… is it a crime to imprison someone? I think the answer is generally “yes” - except in limited circumstances that would be spelled out in a private law society, confining or impeding someone would be a serious offense. So, even if you could find people crazy enough to feed, clothe and shelter their aggressors for years on end, I doubt that it would stand up to legal challenge. No, you can’t confine someone as “punishment” for what they did. You either get a payment from them in the customary amount or, if they refuse to pay, they eventually are no longer recogized to have legal standing and become fair game to be taken out by a bounty hunter.
You keep ignoring the fact that feeding, clothing, sheltering and confining someone for years is costly. I don’t see that cost could be recouped, let alone exceeded (allowing the imprisoned to pay off his debt). Debtor’s prisons, for example, were not about punishing the person so much as pressuring the family to cough up the money to pay the debt. But this seems to me to be extortion so not sure how that could operate in a private law society.
I don’t think that ostracization is compatible with private law society unless we’re talking about some kind of gated community or other enclave where there exists a covenant or contract of some sort between the inhabitants. So, I see just two alternatives: pay a fine or be outlawed (hunted down and killed).
I think you’re neglecting the fact that the character of private law society would be quite a bit different than modern, Western society… it would be a lot more conservative. I don’t think most criminals would ever have much success… one or two offenses and that would be game over. It’s much less dangerous to be a criminal in modern society than in private law society.
justice is a private matter, and how justice is achieved should be decided solely by the victims themselves through private courts. society has no say in the matter, and if someone actually wants to send their aggressor to prison rather than seek restitution, then they can pay for it themselves. in the case where the victim is personally unable to seek out justice(i.e. murder), thats where families, insurance companies, and law firms working pro bono come in. they can seek compensation on their behalf. if the victim had a will prepared, then it will be executed as such. if the person had written that they wanted financial restitution, retribution through prison sentence, or even forgiveness for the murderer, that is their prerogative.
in a stateless society, reputation becomes invaluable. i think something similar to a credit score would come about-a trustworthiness rating or maybe a reputation score. it will have a record of all your encounters with the courts. for example, in the absence of the state, no one can be compelled to answer a subpoena. however, it will show up on your reputation score, and people will wonder why you didnt, and bring doubts about your character.
overall, letting people decide how they want justice to be served is much more preferable than to the current government monopoly that is extremely politically motivated in all its cases, where their “batting averages” are more important than actually discovering the truth.
Individuals would be insured with protection agencies. Each protection agency could agree, in theory, to use different courts with different laws. If the victim did indeed wish to have the perpetrator of a crime sent to prison, they would insure themselves with a protection agency who promised to go to a court which sentenced people to prison.
Insurance and protection are two different things, Volodya. Furthermore, the choice of court depends on agreement between the plaintiff (the alleged victim and accuser) and the defendant (the accused). With all due respect, what you’re describing sounds like geographically overlapping governments.
One insures themselves witha protection agency. If a crime is committed against the protection agencies client, it will pursue the criminal in the course of justice.
One can imagine an idealised bargaining process, for this or any other disput as follows: Two agencies are negotiating whether to recognize a pro- or anti-capital-punishment court. The pro agency calculates that getting a pro-capital punishment court will be worth $20,000 a year to its customers; that is the additional amount it can get for its services if it includes a guarentee of capital punishment in case of disputes with the other agency. The anti-capital-punishment agency calculates a corresponding figure of $40,000. It offers the pro agency $30,000 a year in exchange for accepting an anti-capital-punishment court. The pro agency accepts. Now the anti-capital-punishment agency can raise its rate enough to bring in an extra $35,000. Its customers are happy, since the guarentee of no capital-punishment is worth more than that. The agency is happy; it is making an extra $5,000 a year profit. The pro agency cuts its rate by an amount that costs it $25,000 a year. This lets it keep its customers and even get more, since the savings is worth more than enough to make up to them for not getting the court of their choice. It, too, is making $5,000 a year profit on the transaction. As in any good trade, everyone gains.
I am always a bit skeptical of the mythical reputation agencies theory. I just don’t see how its practical. Obviously a credit score is practical because a bunch of money is involved, but to go into a store and buy a pack of gum, it would seem kind of strange to require a certain reputation score for entry. Maybe in 20-50 years when you can just have it linked to some sort of id scanner than emminantes from your wallet, or even better, quick reading, non-invasive and accurate facial or retina scanners. Then whenever you go onto a peice of private property, you enter through the door, get scanned and instantly approved or denied based on your reputation score and that companies specific thresholds for reputation scores. But without that level of technology, it would just seem to cumbersome. Stores without it would attract more customers do to the convience plus not have to pay what I am sure would be a decent amonut of money to have the equipment, plus paying for yearly services fees to all the reputation agencies.
I also think that we can’t emphasize enough how much less crime there would be in general. All drug related crime would cease more or less overnight. Also, there would be a clearer path toward success without the government holding back the poor. It would be much more obvious to people that the way to get ahead in life would be to save and work hard. The ricer people are, the lower their time preference, and with a lower time preference, there is going to be less crime. I think you would mostly see crimes of passion, and even rarer crimes of psycho and socio paths.
I think that Murphy’s out on a limb on this one. In any case, he agrees that prisons could only exist by voluntary agreement and only if it was a profitable arrangement to all parties involved. I just think he overestimates the probability that such a situation could exist.
I don’t agree. If, for example, people refused to pay or were unable to, there would be no other option than prison. Forced labour would not work either, in my opinion, because criminals would realise that the firm needs them to produce enough to turn a profit. Large amounts of criminal would likely go on ‘‘strike’’.
Although I don’t necessarily think that this situation would occur; it is a possibility.
Why would one necessarily insure himself with a protection agency? Why would protection agencies necessarily offer insurance too, instead of just, you know, protection?
I agree with you though that the insurance company that pays out in the event of a tort would be highly motivated to pursue restitution.
The problem is that in most cases, the identity of the perpetrator is unknown. In terms of legal formalism, the identity of the perpetrator is always unknown until due process has run its course. In a criminal case, the legal process successively deals with the suspect, the accused, and the convicted or aquitted.
Insurance companies providing insurance would be beneficial in several ways.
First the market could be quite similar to heath in some respects. If, for example, someone was raped and they wanted restitution, it could be quite expensive to launch an investigation and find the perpetrator. For this reason, it would make sense to have insurance.
Also, the fact that insurance companies are one of the major losers when it comes to crime. When a car is stolen, who pays? When property is damaged due to vandals, who pays? When someone has to go to hospital due to stab wounds, who pays? Obviously, not all victims of crime will have insurance, but alot will.
Insurance companies would also minimise collateral - in, let’s say, a shoot-out with a criminal gang - because they would quite possibly damage a property that they insure, and as a result, reduce this property’s value and, thus, premium.
The safer areas would also be more lucrative, and as a result, property in these areas would be more valuable - increasing premiums.
Also, insurance companies have vast resources; which may be needed to start up a protection agency.
All of this would make it impossible for a criminal to insure themselves; meaning criminals would target fellow criminals and avoid insured individuals. This could quite possibly cause would-be criminals fear the concequences of committing a crime.
I find it odd for Austrians to use the word ‘insurance’ to describe what these companies do. Because you can have a very meaningful effect on the outcome, this is most certainly not insurance qua insurance, meaning pooling resources amongst people with an equally likely chance of randomness happening, with no previous knowledge of who exactly it will happen to. You can get your house insured against a tornado hitting it, or a flood whipping it out, but we wouldn’t call prepaid collision liability coverage ‘insurance.’
+1 Joe… I always refer people to that article and yet I find that a lot of people simply don’t “believe” it because they’re too used to the modern labeling of redistributory mechanisms as insurance (health “insurance”, car “insurance”, even social security “insurance” … you can eat enough to become a whale, go to the doctor and be declared “disabled” and then begin collecting SS.)
Some people live in areas where the probability of a tornado or a flood is higher than in other areas. It seems, then, by your definition of “insurance”, one can’t get his house insured against a tornado hitting it or a flood wiping it out.
Great