How would we detain someone suspected of a crime?

You must be logged in to create new topics.

How would we detain someone suspected of a crime?

  • Joseph Perrelli

    I have been stuck on this for weeks and its looking like a catch 22. If you detain someone without a states backing there is nothing preventing a counter charge of kidnapping, however on the flip side no one wants to let a potential criminal get away. Both a defense and a prosecution would need time to build a case and a reason to believe that the case can move forward, this wont happen if they think the suspect is going to run. This is more of an issue in the 1st few years of such a system after a while reputations will start to emerge for different dispute resolution services but what should be done until then?

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    • Mike Reid

      I think that if the state in a Western country were to disappear or devolve rapidly right now, before there are widespread market services for dispute resolution (and, I would say, a good culture of DIY dispute revolution, which we are now sorely lacking), it’s going to be a madhouse.

      That said, I think the real solution to unrepentant criminals in a free society is ostracism, not punishment. You just have to accept that some criminals will “get away” with crimes, but you can put a sufficient reputational black mark on their record such that you and your community will decide to refuse to interact with that person again (except perhaps if they make restitution). Given the presence of worldwide decentralized networks of communication, such a black mark could be a very powerful deterrent.

       

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        Joseph Perrelli

        I don’t think that ostracism is going to work in most cases. I could go in to why but that wasn’t the reason for my question in the first place and I would rather not get side tracked.

        You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        Account deleted

        I think the real solution to unrepentant criminals will be to lie in wait for them to strike again and exterminate them on contact when they do. After all, it would be self-defense, the world is a better place without unrepentant criminals in it, and there is no more effective deterrent to a behavior than to kill those who are trying to engage in it.

        You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

          Joseph Perrelli

          I don’t really disagree but once again not my question.

          You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      Properal

      If the suspected criminal is on someone else’s property it would not be kidnapping, it would be eviction.  They can’t be just evicted to the street because the street owner might sue for dumping suspected criminals on there property.  The suspects could be evicted onto their own property were they could be under house arrest, or they could be taken in by someone else.  Now if they are possibly dangerous those evicting could be liable for letting them go.  So the safest thing might be to take them to a facility that is qualified to take care of them. Those evicting the suspect may have to pay in advance to have the suspect taken care of if the suspect can’t pay or refuses to pay. If the suspect pays they could then chose the facility they would go too that meets the security level appropriate for their risk of violence.

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      Joseph Perrelli

      Alright I don’t feel like I am getting through here let me try again as I might not have been specific enough. I am trying to write something of an anarchist bill of rights. It is still unfinished so id rather not publish it here yet. If you were to say someone has the right to govern themselves but also acknowledge the fact there are things that should not be done like murder. What would you say is a persons right to a speedy trial while allowing for there detainment in a non hierarchical system? What I am at a loss to is how you would do this without someone higher on the chain saying hold this man until he can be tried.

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        Michael Bunch

        Joseph, in cases like this I look to history. I can’t recall exactly where, but I recall societies in Medieval Europe that can help with this problem. Private law in past societies could make rulings but typically did not have the ability to punish people nor did they imprison people. Typically they had the power to make a decision about punishment but they didn’t detain or jail people, nor did they require the accused to be present.

        You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

          Joseph Perrelli

          The elimination of hapis corpus is not a good idea. (no idea if I spelled it right.) Without it there is nothing preventing someone being tried and convicted without them even knowing they have been charged with a crime. There is a reason this concept has been around for several hundred years.

          You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

          • Michael Bunch

            What I am describing does not render trial by jury null. I’m saying that the court itself can proceed as usual, without forcing the accused to be jailed or even be present. You can have trial by jury without showing up yourself.

            You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

            • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      Properal

      In my example the suspect is not being held. He just is not welcome anywhere else.  Except in the case when a suspect is removed from there own property.  Yet this would only need to be done when the suspect was deemed dangerous.  This dangerous rating would have to been done by a third party respected by the various arbitrators in the area to avoid counter suits. I think a bill of rights might be used as a marketing tool by arbitrators.  They could promise certain basic rights as a way to win customers.

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      Toni Sopocko

      Seems like with today’s technology, you could easily monitor them with a tracking device.  Why restrict their movements at all, unless they’re incapable of abstaining from doing violence to others?

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        Joseph Perrelli

        Thats the 1st good idea I have heard. It provides enough of a stopgap for what I am working on. One thing I have intentionally left out is a right to privacy as it is a personal responsibility not a right. This will work. Once I finish the document I am working on I will publish it on liberty.me. I think it will end up being very useful.

        You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      Youliy Ninov

      ” If you detain someone without a states backing there is nothing preventing a counter charge of kidnapping, however on the flip side no one wants to let a potential criminal get away. ”

      In order to sort out the above problem all that is necessary is a set of laws regulating the work of the police and making police financially responsible for its wrong decisions. Note that the existence of monopolistic laws does not mean that they must be state imposed. They can be created by the private property (land) owners.

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      starrychloe

      Generally institutions impose a time limit that you can hold someone before charging them with a crime. Governments settled on 72 hours I believe? With competing agencies, they will negotiate holding times based on market demand. An agency that negotiates a 24 hours holding period might cost a bit extra, while discount agencies might offer a 7 day holding period. Probably nearly everything will be copied from common law, and changes will drift from there.

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        Youliy Ninov

        There is a better way. A market -based one. When the police carries the expenses for keeping the suspect in custody it will never be inclined to keep him long. It will try to get rid of him (send him to be judged and/or to jail) as soon as possible. It will do its best to asses the risk of him fleeing before the process and if this risk seems significant enough it will keep him in custody. By using the above way one does not need even to specify the maximum time of detention in the laws. Still, if one feels that the last is necessary one is free to do it.

        You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      Ken Jons-un

      Short answer: nothing. Nothing prevents a counter charge. So what is the crux of the matter?

      “This is more of an issue in the 1st few years of such a system after a while reputations will start to emerge for different dispute resolution services but what should be done until then?”

      What is done until then is what everWhat ever may be sensible and in some places and in others it will be sloppy (kind of like we have now?), and all of that that good and bad is the groundwork for how things are sorted out in the long run. I wouldn’t get so bogged down in this topic, you say it might take years. I differ, people want security pretty quick. After a couple of instances people begin to formulate something that works.

      Remember that if you take away all the victim-less crimes you are left with a focus on property and bodily crimes. A community isn’t going to dispute real crimes much, more on that below. But while the investigation is running you say? Well, how many thieves are actually caught in the act today? This isn’t likely to be a big change. How many murderers are caught in the act? Unfortunately they also run free for great lengths of time. Sometimes for ever.

      Are you personally going to contain someone for stealing your car stereo? Probably not. Your cost for feeding them will quickly be higher than the lost value of a used stereo.

      For serious crime like rape, murder, grand theft people will be inclined to confine the suspect IF they have one on hand. Now in this situation I think you have answered your own question, “no one wants to let a potential criminal get away”. Sure the rapists mother could protest that you are unjustly holding him, but all your neighbors will be on your side because you, or your security service, have “reasonable” evidence to hold this person. In essence this is done today. There are innocent people rounded up but they normally get out in a few weeks maybe months. (I know you aren’t expecting any utopia, what people in this group are advocating is something noticeably better, much freer in so many ways yet there is no perfection where humans are involved. There will be occasions where innocent people get hassled.) If the alleged’s mother has credible evidence or witnesses then they are going to quickly give their side in the investigation this helps you and them. Maybe they convince you to directly accept a bond in lieu of holding the accused (we do this today only the bond is given to the state). Bondsmen are already a private service, I think bondsmen should like to continue their services with or without the state but maybe in absence of monopoly force you could also directly pay them to ensure someone doesn’t leave town while the investigation goes on. A reverse bond if you will for those who don’t have prepaid protection or until protection services get fully online (a few weeks/months I imagine or years if you must). Don’t expect everything to be smoothly flowing after a few weeks or even years. We see basic rights cases disputed for years today, redlight cameras, DUI checkpoints, drug dog searches, 6th amendment, 4th amendment, et al. make their way to the supreme court even after 230 years of precedence.

      In the case of murder or large property crimes you have life or property insurance companies that are going to really be interested in recouping money if they can and/or preventing further victims (claims). Insurance companies already have mechanisms to resolve disputes between each other without going to court. They settle up all the time, the court is only for big cases and as a last resort.

      In all your catch-22 only exists in a quick collapse of the state. If the state is eroded away then it is very conceivable that all dispute, capture, investigation mechanisms are worked out in advance and transitioned in a timely order or fall into place piecemeal but still somewhat sensibly.

      Some time back I also thought about writing a guide for such an occasion as it might be needed. A “bill of rights” as you put it. Kudos if you work something up and ever better if it becomes widely adopted.

      “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” ~ Milton Friedman

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        Joseph Perrelli

        Toni’s idea solved my issue the tracking bracelet concept is not a violation of the document or the NAP. Even if some would call it a violation of the NAP its minimal at best. I have the solution I needed but I think that its very important this issue be beat to death as I feel like its one of the weakest arguments for anarchy. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

        You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

        • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

          Joseph Perrelli

          I also should say even this document isn’t designed to be a permanent fixture. It is only intended to preserve individual rights until the market is robust enough to do it on its own.

          You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      Dave Scotese

      “If you detain someone without a states backing there is nothing preventing a counter charge of kidnapping”

      The question presents this as a roadblock.  I think it is not a roadblock, but a solution.  An honorable person will risk being charged by his community with kidnapping if he reckons that detaining is better than not detaining someone.  Such reckoning is far too rare these days, and our transition away from acquiescence to coercive authority will require and motivate more of it.  But anyone who detains another person ought to be prepared for scrutiny and have some justification for violating the rights of the detained.

      You are thinking of defense and prosecution as the state creates them.  Defense does work that way – you don’t build it until you are aware that you’ll need it because someone is going to cry foul.  Prosecution, on the other hand, is motivated by the crime.  If you’re going to detain someone for a crime, you better already have your prosecution all laid out in your mind.  You can’t go around detaining people on mere speculation… unless you want to suffer the judgements of your community for kidnapping.

      My post here reflects what I would do regardless of the rights you describe in your paper, although it’s possible that my strategy may change if your paper justifies some kind of change.  For example, I would probably not bother to get and use some kind of tracking device if I felt that detainment was warranted, unless your paper describes a right to physical freedom that survives the kind of crime for which I would detain someone.  That’s just hard to imagine.  As for the tracking, I would LOVE to be tracked by all my friends if everyone understood the insidious and destructive nature of coercive authority and therefore recognized it as criminal in all cases as I do.

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Viewing 8 reply threads