Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurusx | Hacker News Reader

Sometimes I try to imagine life without prisons. It seems an inexorable part of the human condition: where society exists, punishment exists. It's a bit like trying to imagine all the foods we're missing out on by them not existing; it's easy to imagine a world without tomatoes, for example, and if you invert that thinking, you end up with all the foods we might have enjoyed if they evolved.

Is there any society with no judicial system? Or is it an absolute requirement of any group of people over, say, 10,000?

View on HN

We have to have a justice system - to protect the guilty.

If someone killed one of my children in the way that this man killed, I would kill him for retribution.

A justice system protects him from my wrath. And protects me from the wrath of his father once he learns his son is dead.

To add to your points - it puts a framework where both parties can engage in judicial review and present their case / defense.

Judicial system is amazing. What we need to do is to make it more precise by reducing false negatives and false positives.

Just because of a few failures of the justice system (the stories of failures you read in the news) does not justify getting rid of the entire system.

Revenge killings like that are not as frequent at all, even in cases where perpetrator walks free. Maybe you would do it, but majority of people simply don't.

Revenge killing is good movie plot, but not really the reality of western culture nor was for it reality in past.

Revenge killings are rare because perpetrators often don't walk away and if they do you might not walk away. There areas in my country where there are vendettas spanning generations.

Vendettas spanning generations are because your social status require it, not because it is universal emotional reaction to someone being killed three generations ago. That is about mafia dominance struggle.

Moreover, other phenomenon in low legal justice areas is that if you or your family is not powerful enough, you suck it up and shut up when someone more powerful kill your relative. Or even when equal does that, unless you are connected to one of mafias. The average person when they have relative killed in drunken auto accident wont kill in revenge.

Even criminal groups more often kill for profit or to get rid or witness then pure vengeance.

Earlier societies found it more cost effective to exile or kill people. But the least socially damaging option was to fine people, thereby lowering their social status.

Because lives were so important to the survival of the group, you couldn’t casually discard one.

So someone who murdered someone might pay a severe fine which would lower their social status to the point where they couldn’t have a family etc.

But yes, buying your way out of punishment was normal.

Should we go back to that, you think?

While on a family trip to Iceland, I read a translation of Njal's Saga. Granted, you have to read it in light of the fact that it wasn't written down until a long time after the events happened.

But it describes Iceland's ancient legal system in some detail. If you killed someone, you could be sued, tried, and fined. The fine went to the victim's family. What it looks like happened in practice was that the victim's family wasn't really satisfied that justice was done, and would conduct a revenge killing. Then the money would pass back to the other family again. The practical effect was that the entire saga is like a decades long blood feud, mediated by the court system.

Of course it was fascinating to read, especially since we were visiting places described in the saga, such as Thingvellier, where they met to conduct government and trials.

They had another system, where if you were utterly uncontrollable, they could vote you off the island by making you an outlaw, meaning that anybody could kill you without repercussion.

This was an amazing comment. Thanks for writing it. We recently visited Iceland but didn't hear anything like this. Lovely place.

I'm not sure how well this would work unless you also remove social programs designed to raise the standard of living.

It existed... in Europe was the 'Vendeta' system... this was in the Balkans (Albania), and parts of Italy.

You steal a sheep, I get something in return. You kill someone, you die... or someone else from your family is going to pay for it...

In some other places it was protecting your honor by duel, ettc... Pirates were hanged, together with members of the ship that mutinied. In some places people were exiled/shunned from the community

etc. etc.

As, you see, it was an eye for an eye, where death was a common punishment, then it was financial retribution, or banishment/exile

As you see, a world without prisons was a harsh one. If you were a weak person, without a large family, you were toast.

It seems like an extreme different from the current one. From the post: "In short, without direct access to the internet or fellow researchers [...]" - that seems like a really stupid limitation for someone who wants to be productive. Many countries could start with prisons which are not pure punishment. We even have "open prisons" in a few places.

Once we stop over-punishing, it could be easier to imagine plan for what no-prison world would look like.

It's interesting to consider that if we provided inmates with computers and a solid internet connection, they could potentially find remote work in the new virtual world and have a full-time job.

somewhat related: in Russia, mobile phones are illegal in prisons, but somehow ends up available to some inmates. Sizeable amount of scam calls from "banks" etc are coming from there. Problem isn't solved for many years, of course prison management tolerates if not directly profits from that, but yeah: internet and mobile connectivity will be used for crimes, unless something else in how prisons work would change as well.

The sad truth is, if that were the case, prisons would label what they do as prison labor and claim their wages or sell them connectivity and equipment at exorbitant prices. One upside is it would be a solid addition to their resume, but that’s after they find a company willing to hire ex-cons.

We would all be better off if prisons had rehabilitation and reintegration as their raison d'être, but with private prisons wanting to grow, I doubt that’ll happen any time soon.

There are widely different judicial systems, and many that differ from the method used in the US.

Prison and forced hospitalization can in some places be very similar with the goal being rehabilitation. The purpose is to establish when the person is safe to be released, and to build a program towards that goal. Norway and Sweden is often cited as using those methods heavily, with Sweden getting both praise and criticism because of the fact that sentences can be undetermined in length. A person is released when they are deemed safe, which is a bit subjective. For youths specifically, the punishment is even called youth rehabilitation, even if its located in a prison building.

In contrast here we got a 15 years old kid that got a minimum 12 year sentence. The similarity with a hospital is almost zero. Its questionable if the legal system care if the kid got better or worse from their time spent there.

During the 80s and 90s, Norway used an interesting old approach to youth rehabilitation. Put them on a old sailing boat and put it out to sea for a several months. A kind of floating prison since escape was basically impossible, and the risk of drugs being smuggled in was pretty low. On the boat they could either sit in their room if they wish, or learn team work by helping the crew run the boat. It is difficult to compare that to a regular prison, even if a lot of the aspects of prison is there.

The "generally understood" purpose of prison is for:

retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation

The US skews a more towards the retributive (i.e. "just punishment") than other jurisdictions. For example, the federal sentencing guidelines explicitly prohibit reduced sentences in order to facilitate rehabilitation (except drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs).

It's easy enough to imagine a society where prison has a significantly less retribution focused, instead focusing on how a criminal can be rehabilitated (education opportunities, community corrections orders e.t.c). Popular example being some Nordic prisons.

Not aware of a society without a judicial system.

About 1% of the population could be considered psycho paths.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4059069/

So there is a high probability of anti-social behaviour well below 10,000 people.

Without the threat of punishment, society would collapse. There are people out there who enjoy killing, torturing, raping and destroying other people. You would need to be heavily armed to go anywhere without risking your life. Without basic trust in each other (enforced by the threat of punishment) society doesn’t work.

Every society has a judicial system. They're all different, with some being very primitive with eye-for-an-eye violence while others have centuries of political procedures and massive infrastructure. They can also be layered, as the society within a prison has its own justice system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com