Say, about eight conspire to harass someone for racist reasons or someone bombs a plane for whatever reason and dozens are injured, not to mention family members of the dead? IIRC restorative justice involves the victims talking it out with the perpetrator, but here that would be a bit of a power imbalance. And one-on-one-ing with each one at a time from so many people would be, I think, tiring to the point of blocking catharsis.
Is it one-on-one for a few of the people who then convince the rest of their “people” (swap this word out with either “perpetrators” or “victims”), if you get what I mean? (in other words, is restorative justice with a few of the group enough for social propogation of the justice within the group, ergo justice with the whole group achieved?) Are we appointing some moderator power to somehow sort through the mess of such a session without making the larger side groupthink “they’re unreasonable and this is of no help” into leaving? Should the perpetrators be expected to one-by-one with each one at a time to achieve catharsis with that one, and vice versa?
(Why would they do it? Not sure. Remnants of racism before anarchism finishes dismantling such animosity? Unrealistic brain chemical deficiencies like extreme psychopathy or a psychotic episode that somehow lasts long enough to when victims start planning restorative justice? Or you can think of better motives.
I am aware that usually the true perpetrators lie in the factors that fostered the motivation but my question is what to do with the people under restorative justice. I am aware the restorative justice is not literally “one-on-one”; I’m using this term more broadly to refer to the associated conversation dynamics as compared to “large group vs the outnumbered”. I am aware that restorative justice is about common understanding and not justice through revenge, and the former is what I mean by “justice” here. I am aware that restorative justice is only one popular answer to justice under anarchism but I really like it and want to philosophize over how it’d work out, and couldn’t think of a better place than here, other than the dead-looking !anarchism101@lemmy.ca.
I am aware that I may be overcomplicating this…)
Edit: Corrected devastating word confusion. “transformative justice” now Ctrl+F, Ctrl-R’d with “restorative justice”.
The answer is “whatever creates the transformation”. You are overly focused on the method that is appropriate for one scenario and saying this won’t work in all scenarios. That’s true. You’re going to have study the field or find an expert if you want real answers. Given that this form of justice is still new in the Western world, it maybe that there are no answers and only hypotheses.
Note that I’ve corrected “transformative justice” by what I meant, “restorative justice”.
If restorative justice can’t fit this scenario as you mention, what do you personally think should be done?
I don’t know if restorative justice is applicable in your scenario. You would need to speak to a restorative justice researcher who does work on the cutting edge of restorative justice thinking. Remember, it’s a social process, not a packaged product.
IIRC transformative justice involves the victims talking it out with the perpetrator, but here that would be a bit of a power imbalance. And one-on-one-ing with each one at a time from so many people would be, I think, tiring to the point of blocking catharsis.
Sorry but thats wrong, check out some sources regarding this. In short, transformative justice seeks to transform the conditions and people that were responsible for the transgression. One-on-oneing is not a necessary part of this (but coild still be done). Also in concrete situations support groups for the victims are a typical concept, thag allow them to keep agency and empowet them.
Larger scale transformative justice processes could draw inspiration from community accountability and as an concrete example from the reconciliation process that is ongoing after the Rwanda genocide.
Whoops, I’ve gravely used the wrong word. I meant “restorative justice”…
I’ll check out these links!
Also checkout !abolition@slrpnk.net for more posts around related topics
-
neither judging, nor enforcing, is compatible with true-anarchism: both are BOSS-over-other.
-
pretending that anarchism removes prejudice … prejudice is fundamental to herds, to animal-packs, to tribes, anyone who insists that that isn’t pertinent in human-animal domain, is … not intelligent?
My favorite example of prejudice’s fundamental-wiring in identity-politics isn’t even in mammals, but wasps, in Panama: researchers from Exeter & Bristol universities, there, studying wasps, discovered that a wasp of THIS hive would kill in hive-defense any OTHER hive wasps ( of the same species ) who were attacking THIS hive ( they are violent, & competitive ) … but if the SAME wasp felt they weren’t contributing at THIS hive, then they’d lose their this-hive identity and go join some OTHER hive, adopting THEIR hive-identity! … One doesn’t even have to bother with chimp-packs, or gorillas, or herdbeasts, it’s the same behavior in insects!!
-
the community’s supposed to be an identifiable “someone” in such justice systems.
-
I’ve read that exactly as “it takes a village to molest a child completely, their body, their validity, & their life”, I’ve read that “community justice” among Indigenous People can simply convert individual-crime into whole-community-crime, molesting not-in-the-power-group lives, too. The impersonality of “White” style courts works at taking the judging from politics to objectivity, but the personalness of community-justice works at removing objectivity, leaving only subjectivity. Neither is the basis of Justice ( you can’t leave-out 1 “leg” of Justice, & still have it “walk” ).
BOTH objectivity AND subjectivity are requires, & having “justice” decided by the local-politics, only, runs-over Justice.
Go read some of the survivors’ accounts from community “justice” abuses among the American Indian peoples, & see how that … didn’t work out the way that ideology believed.
Counter to White law, however, there is a book by a woman, Priya Parker ( TED Talk https://www.ted.com/talks/priya_parker_how_to_come_together_in_a_meaningful_way ) which identifies that the arrangement & process of White court itself prevents good-results, & some community intentionally re-engineered their court to work right … & it did!
But it notes, explicitly, that while the most common outcome was less incarceration for the convicted, abusers-of-the-system got more, not less, sentencing.
- “the true perpetrators” being the motivations which anarchism, or ANY sociopolitical-process, would … erase??
Biological-diversity includes true-psychopaths. Jeffrey Dahmer ( spelling, sorry ), or Epstein, who murdered girls, who got others to murder girls, who ordered 330 tons of sulfuric-acid … probably for getting rid of bodies of girls … & it isn’t mere motivation in all cases, it’s a different category of brain-wiring in some cases that can be sooo extreme, that torture-murdering people is “funny” to them.
NO amount of “socialization” is going to undo their brain-wiring.
identifies that babies born into different cultures, turn into populations with particular distinct-differences in natures … certainly!
Socialization does influence the population’s-average-values, average-instinct, etc…
but individual variation independently exists, & sometimes it is sooo extreme that butchering-others’-lives-for-kicks is natural for some.
An exerpt from a book “Snakes in Suits” goes like this:
a guy who’d been in some kind of incarceration for having butchered-up someone, was well-behaved, so he was eventually let-out on a day-pass…
he butchered-up another human life
they were mad, which he found incomprehensible: why would anybody have any problem with him doing it if the last-time he’d done it “was ages ago!”
he COULDN’T UNDERSTAND why anybody would have any problem with that!
That’s one of the most-perfect evidences there is that socialization-solves-everything is a lie.
Worse, it’s a lie that kills people when it won’t accept-responsibility for controlling those who aren’t responsible to control themselves.
Letting that guy out on the day-pass, was an act of … irresponsibility, certainly, but it may also have been an act of intentional-incompetence?
Ideology “prohibits” that kind of nature from being actual, & if lives have to be killed, to not-know that that’s actual, well that’s “a small price to pay” for ideological-purity??
Psychopaths who find killing people to be funny exist.
Civilization either has to control that kind of behavior, XOR civilization is accessory-to-their-killings.
That’s objective.
Pretending otherwise doesn’t change facts.
I’m only presenting perspective!
I expect the majority of people to disallow at-least-part of what I say, if not all of it.
I don’t expect anybody to dig into Parker’s book on Gathering, to see what it really says.
I don’t expect anybody to actually read any evidence-based stuff on actual psychopaths, if that would violate their beliefs.
Constitutional-right-to-one’s-religion extends to political-beliefs: if someone wants to believe that vaccination is murder & dying-by-smallpox is “good”, & that’s their “religion”, then that’s their constitutional right, isn’t it?
Same with prejudices/religions/ideologies: all are constitutional-rights, aren’t they?
I find it absurd that anarchism prohibits all other political-regimes, while claiming that nobody is allowed to be its boss … but it must be the lord that disallows any & all competing political-regimes?? So anarchism’s the only allowed boss, then… I see…
I’m not expecting anything in this to “resolve” anything.
To me it’s a systems question: you can make an efficient civilization with maximal-reasonable-rights for a given population-density, on a given natural-ecology basis, XOR you can sabotage efficiency, sabotage the population, require pruning-of-most-lives to make no-rules work for the few remaining lives, etc, but … which system humankind chooses, that isn’t my business.
IF humankind enforces complete extinguishment in The Great Filter, throughout the rest of this century: that’s humankind’s choice, & if so, THEN that’s valid.
The ONLY thing I’m doing here is identifying perspective-points.
Discard every single one of them, & that’s right.
But if some of them get someone to perceive a more-complete-perspective, then THAT was the point.
Downvote away…
_ /\ _
neither judging, nor enforcing, is compatible with true-anarchism
Sorry, I tried to stress in the postscript that I know this process isn’t binding. I’m asking how this process should be used in this case.
I put your text into a summarizer to more easily read it.
Judging and enforcement are incompatible with true anarchism—they impose hierarchy. Anarchism doesn’t eliminate prejudice; prejudice is innate to herd behavior, whether in animals or humans. For example, wasps in Panama show this: they attack intrahive wasps but will switch hive allegiance if they feel they aren’t contributing. Similar behaviors exist across species.
Community justice often personalizes blame, risking turning individual crimes into collective ones—undermining objective justice. Neither pure objectivity nor subjectivity alone suffices; justice requires both. Relying solely on local politics distorts fairness. Historical abuses among Indigenous communities illustrate these failures. Priya Parker’s insights reveal that traditional courts often hinder meaningful resolution, though re-engineered systems can improve outcomes—usually reducing incarceration but sometimes increasing punishments for those who manipulate the system.
Biological diversity includes true psychopaths—individuals like Jeffrey Dahmer or Epstein—whose brain wiring makes them derive pleasure from violence and murder, impervious to socialization. Cross-cultural studies confirm that innate differences lead to extreme behaviors; socialization can’t erase such wiring. An anecdote from “Snakes in Suits” underscores that socialization isn’t a cure: a man who had murdered before easily did so again, highlighting the dangers of ignoring innate tendencies.
Civilization must control psychopathic behaviors; otherwise, it becomes complicit in their crimes. Pretending otherwise ignores reality. I merely offer perspectives—many will reject or ignore them. Laws protect religious and ideological beliefs as constitutional rights; so do prejudices. It’s absurd that anarchism claims to be without leaders yet seeks to prohibit all other regimes—effectively positioning itself as the ultimate authority.
This is a systems issue: societies can optimize to maximize rights within ecological limits or sabotage themselves for short-term gains. Humanity’s choices—such as risking extinction in the Great Filter—are theirs alone. My role is to present viewpoints; rejecting them is valid. If some perspectives lead to a deeper understanding, that’s the purpose.
Psychopaths who find killing people to be funny exist.
I offered that up as a possible motive. I’m not disputing that. Also, I disagree with your implications that psychopaths must be imprisoned and that prison is good socialization.
-
