I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and was curious about other people's thoughts on the issue. I call it the Criminal Justice Industrial Complex because that's what it's become. The entire thing from the passage of laws and who lobbies for what in exchange for what, the court systems, court appointed attorneys vs expensive private attorneys and plea bargaining, the nickel and diming costs of being on probation or having a vehicular alcohol tester or your phone monitored or ankle monitors, court mandated counseling, all of which the suspect or perpetrator has to pay for. Combine that with some people being entirely let off the hook for serious violent crimes while others get 18 months in prison for something that hurt no one and deprived no one of property. The whole thing is a monstrous house of cards built on graft, shady contracts, money making schemes, votes for bribes, keeping hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats and low tier government employees in a paying job and having to justify budgets, and on and on. We don't have a 'justice' system. We have a leviathan with several million moving parts that all need to get paid, designed to suck people in, grind them up, drain them for everything they're worth, and spit them out......but only if they're not "special" in some way. Be the right race, gender, religion, know the right people, have enough favors or clout and you can side step all of that. Clearly it doesn't work. We have people rotting in gulags for years for standing outside a building while others set buildings with people in them on fire and had their cases dropped entirely. What we have isn't working, and it sure as shit isn't justice.
For me, I would consider three things. And I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise, I was just musing on it.
-
All crimes must have an injured party. That is not to say a victim per se, just an actual injured party. Shoplifting might not have a victim, but someone is losing because of the theft. They are the injured party. A crime that has no injured party should not be a crime. And that does not include orders of deviation from the victim. No more of this "well if you commit A, that means it becomes more likely that other people might do B, which means that it could also become more likely that C could happen, therefore A is illegal". If you commit an act, and no person was harmed, no property was stolen or damaged, there is no injured party.
-
You must have actually committed the crime, not just thought about it, intended to, wanted to, etc. Buying oregano from someone thinking it's weed shouldn't be a crime because the fact is, you bought oregano, not weed.
-
You must have mens rea. The criminal must be aware, or should reasonably have been aware that what they were doing is a crime. No more having 300,000 statutes on the books and then saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse". If a guy meets a girl who tells him she's 21, they meet at a bar, the doorman checks her ID, the bartender checks her ID and asks if she's really 21, and the guy also unobtrusively checks her ID and all see that it looks real and says she's 21, if it turns out she's 17 the guy should not be guilty of anything. There are a ton of other examples of shit that could fall into this like catching the wrong kind of fish that happens to be 1.5cm shorter than the law 2 days out of season being a federal felony.
I understand that this means a ton of people who are probably bad people would not get locked up for small shit. But the flip side is that I would also increase the penalty for committing the few remaining crimes drastically. I would have life in prison or the death penalty for a lot more things. Much longer prison time for things like assault and battery or robbery. I'm a big proponent of letting people do more or less what they want, but come down like an ocean-going cargo ship full of bricks on the people who really do evil shit on purpose.
This board has, or at least had, a pretty wild mix of viewpoints from hard libertarians to natsocs and in between, so I'm curious what people's thoughts are on a total revamp of law, crime, and punishment in the US.
A lot of criminal justice issues can be solved if we just deport criminal niggers. to where? Don't care.
Send them to Israel. They need some of that diversity they push on the rest of us.
Diversity is a strength. Weakening Israel by depriving it of blacks is anti-Semitic. I will not stand for that.
If they do not import millions of blacks, israel cannot survive.
this. diversity for all, including israel.
TND and the vast majority of the justice/prison system's problems are solved.
Canada has the second biggest landmass in the world, and much of it is arctic islands.
Wouldn't even need guards.
This. There is no magic system. Our current system would work for the most part but when it gets to where it is now you just have to start chucking people
Oh, here's another one. The government cannot charge a fee for, or take in part through tax, any judgment, settlement, compensation, or other award.
No more civil forfeiture either, that shit's just legalized robbery.
Incum-bent tax
I'd get rid of life imprisonment or any work-around that effectively does the same, such as 20 consecutive 10 year sentences. Anything that would currently merit a life sentence should instead be an execution.
Any thoughts on the strange dichotomy where it can take 27 years to execute someone who clearly deserves it and is clearly guilty, while other times someone gets executed and it's revealed the decade later that they were innocent because of some woman lied?
I would also add, I would use the death penalty for any officers of the Court who are found guilty of any malfeasance that led to misapplications of justice. A cop lies under oath? Capital punishment. A prosecuting attorney hides evidence from the defense? Capital punishment. And so on.
I'd be careful with that, we saw how they can screw with the system like with Trump.
I'm against any kind of life imprisonment or execution for nonviolent crimes with no deaths or maiming resulting from said actions.
Eliminate all prisons.
The entire criminal code is rewritten to have four levels of punishment:
Appellate relief is restricted to execution trials only, and state jurisdiction cases cannot be appealed into federal jurisdiction.
For all lesser crimes, in place of appellate relief, the convicted can sue for tort relief after the fact if they so choose.
So many criminals are legitimately stupid, as in borderline retarded, and as such they don't really grasp abstract punishments like long-term incarceration. They need to see a tangible, immediate punishment, like someone being whipped and/or publicly humiliated, in order for deterrence to actually register for them.
this.
over 90% of crime is committed by the same small percentage of the population. not even getting into the 13% memes because it's now even worse... a racial group that's 12% of the population commits over 70% of violent crime. 3 strikes laws were the most effective policing tool in the history of law enforcement. first timers take their lumps. but enough encounters with law enforcement, and there's no redeeming them.
we can chuck exile in as well.
But yes, prisons are the worst.
you know what, I agree. we should bring back flogging.
Public:
Humiliation
Flogging
Execution
Thieves lose their hands.
Intention matters, not for any deontological reason but because if someone attempts to commit a crime, they're likely to attempt to do so again and succeed. Being punished for an attempted crime will deter you from attempting the same crime again, just as being punished for committing a crime will deter you from committing that same crime again.
Excuse the double post, but I also think a lot of crime could be solved by making self-defense heavily protected and allowing people a lot of leeway to set up booby traps. Most criminals aren't nearly clever enough to bypass booby traps. Although there would need to be a way to indicate and/or disarm booby traps for emergency personnel.
I just deleted a huge rant about how private property owners should have absolute sovereignty on their land, including booby traps and lethal force. The word "trespassing" should instill instinctual, reactive fear in everyone and avoiding it at all costs should be a cultural and legal assumption.
Because of you, I'm now hearing that word as spoken by Keith David when he voiced Goliath the gargoyle.
"You are trespassing."
This needs to become the new 'Beware of Dog' sign.
I would read such a post, if you had the patience to write it out. I'm a big proponent of Castle Doctrine (the name is half of it) because defending your "nest" is so inherent to every living creature that demanding a human being not do the same strikes me as purposefully malicious. Is a man not entitled to the safety and security of his own domain?
In the mind of the communist, a man isn’t even entitled to his own domain. The removal of castle doctrine is just another step on the road to abolition of private property.
It was more ramble than anything.
Part of the justification for traps being illegal is that an innocent person, like a mail carrier, or an "innocent" person, like a trespassing neighbor who doesn't intend to break other laws, can trigger the trap inadvertently. These are clearly flimsy justifications to prevent you from defending your home against feds.
In the first case, fair enough, but A) why is the potential of harm illegal rather than the act of having trapped an innocent person and B) if you turn your lawn into a Vietnamese rice field, are you just going to be cool with a rando setting it all off? You're not going to cancel your mail for a while or put up a sign or something?
In the second case, it essentially decriminalizes trespassing. As long as they don't touch anything, anybody can just wander around your property, apparently. That's the kind of argument that an entity with a vested interest in uninterrupted snooping would make.
This case still blows my mind: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/montana-man-charged-with-shooting-teen-in-his-garage/
I don't see how the home owner did anything wrong. Sure, he maybe didn't identify his target before firing, but if the eurotrash hadn't trespassed, the homeowner would be peppering the walls of his own garage. Is that illegal? I'm against any law or system that prevents finding out after fucking around.
For the 'innocent person' you have a DMZ. Like the postbox, or a foyer, or the threshold of your door.
Anywhere else and FAFO.
how I would do it
Actually enforce the fucking law. Public intoxication, public indecency, shoplifting, and littering should all have immediate consequences all the time, not just when they are convenient. have a task force dedicated to hunting down people who participate in flash mobs, rioting, or political violence.
Remove laws that are arbitrarily enforced because everyone breaks them. For instance, literally everyone speeds when there isn't traffic. nobody should face consequences so long as they are going the speed of the traffic around them. tickets should instead be issued to people who significantly deviate from the traffic pattern, which is far more dangerous than speeding ever is.
Life sentences are instead executions, but executions are only carried out once the case is closed and the charged is definitively guilty. No more babysitting career criminals, murderers, or child predators.
I agree with number 1 of OP, a victimless crime should not be a crime. bear in mind the definition of victimless is very narrow. people who were put in danger from your criminal acts would be considered victims in this case, even if they never actually got hurt. this would ensure things like reckless driving, firing guns in crowded places for any reason other than self-defense, reckless use of fireworks during a fire danger season, etc would still have consequences.
while in the prison system, prisoners still get free food and shelter courtesy of the prison, but they can voluntarily work to reduce their sentence. things like community service, labor work, etc. this option would only be available to prisoners who are not at risk of making an escape attempt. the reason this is voluntary is to prevent slavery via the prison industrial complex.
prison food is edible and healthy, but there's no effort put into taste. thieves and rioters get to enjoy MREs for the duration of their sentence.
reduce the penalty for first offenses of low severity crimes, but heavily increase the penalty of second offenses. for instance, if you steal something less than $50 in value, the sentence should be that you have to repay that $50 with a significant interest. however, if you are caught stealing again, 5 years in jail instantly. no plea bargains, no weaseling if you get an expensive lawyer. this makes the iron fist of the law apparent, while allowing leeway for people who make honest mistakes.
politicians who abuse their station, embezzle money, or otherwise blatantly break the law, go to jail.
Proper MREs are fucking dope dude.
The 'humanitarian MREs' are super shitty and should be along the lines of what they get: rice, beans, lentils.
I would start by forcing judges, DAs, parole boards, and attorneys to assume some form of liability for the defendant if they give them a plea deal and they reoffend during a period of time they should have been in jail for whatever charges they dropped for the plea deal.
Plea deals are modified - a plea deal is no longer an intimidation tactic. The plea deal is not a 'negotiation', if the State comes with a plea deal it requires them to drop all charges they offer in the deal before presenting it. If this stops plea deals altogether, I'm okay with that too.
Vastly more crimes should be punished with execution. Burglary from a residence should be one of them. If we can shoot you when you're inside, we can shoot you when you're back outside. Just because I'm not home doesn't mean you wronged me any less. Car theft, too, just like we used to hang horse thieves. Drug dealing should also be execution - it's what they do in Southeast Asia and guess what, they don't have a fentanyl problem there.
Shoplifters lose hands at some point.
Illegal immigrants get their faces branded so everybody knows them when they see them. Multiple offenders lose their feet.
Exile should be reintroduced. For certain crimes, especially repeat offenders of low-level crimes, you can be sentenced to exile - all your citizenship documents are shredded. All your possessions are liquidated by the state. You're simply cast out to a random country with a facial brand.
Anyone giving succor to an illegal immigrant is a party to a crime, and anything they provided to them is considered evidence/criminal goods. If you let an illegal sleep on your couch, you lose your house. You employed them? Business is liquidated too.
Stop! I can only be so erect!
You know I have one thought but I don't know how you could achieve it. Public defenders are public servants to the state. We need public defenders who are separate from the state entirely. But again I don't know how you would pay for it short of indentured servitude or having rich benefactors.
The law should be simple enough that you can defend yourself and not need an advanced degree to navigate it. Law is complicated because it's written by lawyers for lawyers.
This is it, this is the big one.
It should be simple enough that an educated lay person should be able to defend themselves.
I accept this over independent public defenders.
This is great, but most people in such situations are still too emotional to help themselves.
I think public defenders should also get compensated with the salary of the prosecutor for any cases they win. Will stop prosecutors from being activist, as well as give the PD an incentive to not just jump through hoops. Prosecutors lose their salary for lost cases. PDs continue to get their standard salary for losses, as do prosecutors who win.
Lawyering shouldn't be for sale. You wanna make money, go into business, the law needs to be free from that bullshit.
All your examples are seem to have the same core of libertarianism that naively misses the good reasons why we do that.
Crimes can have victims that are potential, diluted, or too willing to be victims. Do you want to remove all bans on drunk driving or texting while driving, because that harms nobody (until someone is killed)? Nobody thinks they'll make the mistake. Is it okay to spew pollution into the air and water, such that any injured party can barely even be aware if they were injured? If the class of victim includes "everybody on the continent" how is that any different from And should jews be allowed to molest children as long as they convince them that it feels good so it's okay? If not, how is that different from drugs, where a victim is harmed but you think it shouldn't be a crime because it feels good and they are willing? (And before you say that kids can't consent, tbh, underage kids are probably more able to make intelligent decisions on sex than an addict is able to make on the topic of if they should do more meth.)
Failed attempts have to count, or people will be able to attempt doing illegal things until they succeed. Should trying and failing to assassinate someone not be a crime? As long as you don't hit a bystander, you get as many tries until you succeed, since shooting a gun and hitting nothing isn't a crime. What about trying to hire a hitman to kill your spouse? Anytime where a cop catches you, no crime happened so you have to go free. What about scams where 99.9% of your targets don't get scammed, so the only crime you can be charged for is when you succeed, even if you have to call 10,000,000 houses (which is totally legal, since no harm in calling).
If you allow ignorance to be a defense, then people will be incentivized to be ignorant. Is it okay for me to fumigate with lethal chemicals, if I just don't check who is in the building first or I use the wrong chemicals? I didn't know, so it wasn't a crime. What if I start a campfire and don't know how to smother it properly, causing a wildfire that destroys billions in land and kills thousands? It's okay because I'm so retarded, I guess. If I buy a dangerous dog that mauls a todler, is it okay because I saw worldstar videos that say this breed of dog is the best?
These tools in law are needed. It's bad that they've been perverted to bad ends, but the only solution is to replace the corrupt judeocracy with actual good stewards and enforcement of the law.
So tell us why they are needed and the good reasons. Don't just quote me and write two sentences that amount to "you're wrong because I said so".
Yes. However, any crime committed while drunk or high should carry 3x the penalty.
All your objections are fixed by parenting. If your parents are idiots, it shouldn't be on the rest of society to take a hit to their freedom for your dumb bloodline. This is exactly how we got here. As a corollary, no kids for dumb ass people. You should show the ability to raise children before you have kids.
First time failed attempts should not count. The point behind the laws should be to prevent any such attempts at all. Prevention beats cure. Second attempts with intent, can be considered for some form of punishment, but unless there is an actual crime, even 10,000,000 attempts should result in nothing. Maybe a prize if it's one person with that kind of volume.
Goes back to '2' and '1'. The government is a blunt instrument. Individuals with a personal stake should be tasked with utilizing fine instruments.
Segregation fixes most of it.
This incompetent DEI hire has been driving legal system changes around the world to any woke lawyers.
As we can see - her stats are wrong/based off her fantasies/feelings :
https://x.com/feelsdesperate/status/1818431157723091230
Crenshaw is the most influential academic of the last two decades. The community note is likely the first time she’s ever her stats checked.
government and police can't lie to you. Getting a confession by lying is an end-run around your right not to incriminate yourself.
no plea bargains. Plea bargains cause the government to overcharge to raise the risk of trial too high, taking away your right to due process.
government pays your defense as much as they pay their prosecution, if convicted they take this amount from your assets. Prevents lawfare where cases are won by bankrupting the defendant.
you can lie to police unless under oath (under oath you can remain silent even selectively). The reason we have the oath is because it's normal and expected for people to lie to protect themselves.
Niggers start off as "guilty until proven innocent."
hoo boy this might be long.... i think i will limit it to four.
1 sandbag corpo's/wealthy in court procedings trials involving them get the following applyed to them, they get a court appointed attorney reasonably fresh from law shcool (cut off 2-4 years), they cannot instruct the attorny beyond the start of the suit and must have no contact with them outside of the courtroom in public or private, lastly 1 month time limit to provent bankruptcy as goal. reasoning for this is to a limit the effectiveness of lawfare tactics and b an attempt to stop larger groups from just moneybaging their way to victory knowing they can just bankrupt their target with their vast resources.
2 copyright reform, throw all of the god damn disney crap into the nearst incenorator where it belongs. 70 plus years after the authors death is absurd it should be a flat 25, also a use it or loose it clause added to all copyrighted works and patents no more of this ea style hoovering up ip/patents and then squatting on it that harms the creative ecosystem and enable patent trolling fail this it goes public domain... speaking of harm scuttle the dmca while your at it.
3 term limits, judges should be rotated out every year (unless they are soctus) with a max of 3 terms this is an attempt to limit judical corruption with a revolving door aproach it will make bribery impractical.
4 jury improvments, the jury should be required to take, at state expense. a civics remedial course with case law examples included... said course must promently feature the concept of jury nullification as well. the jurior position also must pay the person stuck in it their standard hourly wage at time and a half if apllicable. if not they will recive min wage rates non taxable in both cases. this is an attempt to prevent filtering out juriors who know of jury nullification as well as an attempt to make it less likely for people to skip jury duty if selected.
none of these are great really but thats where i would start.
One idea I like is progressive copyright fees.
If you want to copyright a work, you pay $1 to the national copyright registry and submit a copy of the work for comparison purposes.
Each year you renew, the cost doubles. After ten years, this is only around $500, which is reasonable if you're making modest profit.
By year 25, it's around $16 million, and only worthwhile for the biggest properties.
This severely discourages copyright squatting and creates a self-financing regulatory body which can actually produce what is copywritten for comparison in lawsuits.
great idea. and where its self regulating like that its corruption resistant.
Some questions for you I would like some clarification on:
Regarding point 1, how would you handle driving while heavily intoxicated? Would you not consider that a crime until they have already hurt someone?
Regarding point 2 and 3, where do you draw the line? If someone didn't know murder was illegal and killed someone would that be a crime? If they killed someone without intending to by doing something they didn't know was illegal is that still a crime?
I am aware these seem like rather extreme and absurd examples but it illustrates what i feel is missing in your idea. They sound great but are a bit too vague and lead to some rather bizzare edge cases where common sense and morality would dictate that a criminal wrong was commited but perhaps it somehow isn't under your rule of law, depending on where you draw the distinction of what constitutes a crime.
I would argue for all three that we were promised a free country, not a particularly safe one. For drunk driving, if they didn't damage any property or hurt anyone, it wouldn't be a crime. Now the penalty for damaging property if drunk driving might be more than a decade in prison first offense, if you injure or kill somebody, death penalty. If you accept the premise that you can criminalize an action for everyone because for some smaller subset of everyone, some of those people might do something which then might lead to something else which then might lead to someone being harmed opens too dangerous of a can of worms. That's one of the chief ways we got so many superfluous laws in the first place. Once the state was allowed to take the authority to pass laws on everyone for their own "protection" because something bad might happen with some of them, we gave the state the authority to pretty much pass any law they want as long as they can come up with some explanation for how they could be preventing some bad thing that is at least theoretically possible. I simply don't recognize their authority to do so at all. If it makes the country a little less safe but a lot more free, I'm okay with it.
For ignorance of crime, I would keep in that it's not an excuse bit put a hard cap on the actual number pf laws (at least for felonies, civil is different). Misdemeanors and bylaws should have a warning system where warnings are tracked and cops can see what you've been told when the check your file, but first time offenses habitually get warnings so long as you promise not to do it again.
1 - Physical injuries > Financial injuries in terms of the punishment. No 'mental' injury should count, because that is subjective and begins the slippery slope.
2/3 - Need to be tightened down because it is too easy to turn this subjective.
4 - No crimes can be committed against an opaque organization. Only individuals (at the org is fine).
Also, no 'group' can be held responsible for a crime, only individuals, and this has to include every person in the hierarchy above the individual, all the way to the top. Meaning CxO always responsible. Welcome to non-DEI vetting and the impossibility of creating a scapegoat (unless the CxO is that). If top guy is guilty, then the board/oversight committee is also culpable. Ultimately those meant to be in charge must fucking bleed.
5 - All government entities that are guilty get atleast 3x the punishment of a citizen. Judges 5x.
Real libertarians; not the hippies with no understanding of Lysander Spooner, Mises, or Heinlein; have a point about how private (aka polycentric) law beats socialized law. The vastly simplified theory is that if an individual purchases law enforcement services directly, the police are incentivized to serve that individual instead of the state. This does not imply that implementation of privatized services isn't complicated.
This also goes along with other principles, such as an extreme rejection of positive rights. A person isn't entitled to due process just for breathing where he stands, just like he isn't to food and shelter. It's up to the localized polity to decide if that person is permitted to travel or reside there in the first place, and whether to provide due process (or other amenities) or to expel him.
This post makes it evident that current systems de facto fall far short of reasonable ideals. We have a constitution that codifies natural rights, and a populace that forgot that it takes toil (negotiation with neighbors, companies, and other polities) or blood to guarantee those rights. Other comments here provide good policies (including acknowledgement that cost-effective capital punishment is more just than prison in many cases), but don't fully address some root issues of why our judiciary is so contemptible.
Public executions.
Trial by combat for young WEF global leaders, corrupt politicians, Olympic officials and Pfizer execs.
Two enter the cage, only one may leave. 2min time limit and then the guards shoot you both anyway.
Once a victor is declared the guard still shoots him anyway.
Sponsored by My Pillow
I just wanted good, old fashioned hangings, but I like your style.
I think I would start with something that required law to be applied equally to generally competent adults regardless of their intersectional configuration. That applies to any facet of personhood, including politics. No more lawfare. It would need to be thought out more than that, but that's the core principle.
I was the victim of a crime a little while ago and I'd like to see the focus shift from punishing criminals to compensating victims.
I ended up being out several thousand dollars and, despite the guy being caught and convicted, I haven't seen a red cent. I don't care that he went to jail because he'd been to jail and kept committing crimes anyway.
I'm fully in favour of debtors prison for felons.
I'm primarily concerned with crimes against people. I firmly believe that breaking and entering, theft, etc should place your life at forfeit.
And by that, I mean the victim should be able to do with you as they please. If they catch you in the act, they can shoot you on the spot if they like, or they can keep you tied to a chair in their basement for a decade, cutting pieces off you every week and keeping you just barely alive.
In contrast, crimes without a victim shouldn't be crimes at all. I don't recognize the concept of contraband property, and I couldn't give a shit what drugs you are addicted to or how often you shoot up as long as you contain your problem to ruining your own life. The second you steal from someone else to feed your habit your life is forfeit.
I'd lile to bring back slavery as a form of restorative justice.