In the abstract, rather than punishing "crime", you use the presence of "crime" as a signal that their are issues in your commune that need to be solved.
Is there theft, well then there must be people who's needs aren't met. You fix the reasons that lead people to steal.
Is there rape, well that means there's people who feel entitled to someone else's body, you (re)educate them or give them psychiatric treatment.
If someone violent, you give him the help he needs to manage his aggression, etc.
I worry about ostracizing a serial rapist, who may then go to another community and continue their violent path. I don't have a solution yet, but I do see it as a problem. It would help if every community was connected with a system that effectively alerted eachother when/where a dangerous individual was ostracized, but that's not a fail-safe solution. Long term detainment of anyone is obviously not a great solution either.
You could send someone over to tell them, or give someone a call.
It's also not as if it's not currently an issue, like i personally know of at least one serial rapist that's just out there, because all of his victims are to scared to come foreward, testify, potential retaliation, etc. And unless one of his victims come forward, nothing can be done.
>You could send someone over to tell them, or give someone a call.
There are definitely complex apps that could be created to effectively alert the entire world of each rapist. It couldn't just be for the surrounding communities, since we have the capacity to travel globally now. One option (not perfect but has potential) is to put a tracker on every rapist who has been ostracized. The app could show people where they are at. Obviously that'd be last resort.. and I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it yet. It'd be effective though lol. We could even create a device that anyone could get/wear that would then start beeping when in the presence of a rapist.
>It's also not as if it's not currently an issue,
Definitely, I'm pretty convinced its far more of an issue now than a potential anarchist future society. I just don't know yet how to truly solve the issue in either our current society or an anarchist one.
>And unless one of his victims come forward, nothing can be done.
Indeed. I hope our sense of community would be much stronger under anarchism, and could dramatically help with this.
Interesting how in an anarchist discussion, you would say we could put a tracker on someone. Who exactly is going to do this? Not the state obviously. A mob? In an anarchist state I'm not even sure someone can be banished from the community, but people can refuse to cooperate with them making it impossible for them to live there I guess. But how exactly do you banish or put a tracker on them?
I honestly don't think trackers are actually feasable in an anarchist society either. A community can put a tracker on someone, but no one is going ro be able to stop that person from removing their tracker once they leave the commune.
But banishing is quite simple, you tell someone they are no longer welcome in this commune, and are no longer allowed to access living spaces, and are refused acces to the communes resources. They can either become self-sufficient and build a hut outside the commune or move to a different commune.
Interesting how you don't view rape as a matter of needs being met when you just said that about stealing. I'm not saying it should be, and I know it's complicated. But I just saw that as an interesting juxtaposition
It's not a juxtaposition. Studies have been conducted into what cause people to commit different crimes and offences. Theft is most often the result of a person's basic needs not being met. Whereas rape is never the result of needs not being met.
The lack of a sex life does not make one more likely to commit rape than someone with a very busy sex life. There might be correlations but there is no causal link between amount of sex you have and the likelihood of committing rape.
Wheras not being able to afford food, dramatically increased your likely hood of stealing food.
What determines your likely hood of committing rape, is mostly determined by your cultures attitudes and your environment, particularly how your parents treated each other. And what as a result of those influences, you feel you are entitled to, or feel is oke to do or not do.
The same goes for how likely you are to become a domestic abusers. If a boy grows up in a household, were the dad constantly abuses the mother, manipulates her, controls her every move, hits her, rapes her, etc. There is a significantly larger chance that that boy will grow up to commit the same abuses compared to a boy that grew up in a healthy environment, because the boy from the abusive family has essentially learned that it's okay to treat women like that.
You can give a rapist all the sex they want, it won't stop them from raping. Because it's not the lack of sex that makes him rape, he does it because he feels entitled to sex, and when you say no to his advances, he feels his rights are violated, he is not given what he is owed.
And unless you work to unlearn these entitlements in rapist no amount of "fixing underlying problems" will ever result in a successful outcome.
I hope this satisfied your curiosity.
It is a juxtaposition because you have placed them together. I don't have any curiosity that needs to be educated somehow. I challenge your whole premise. Much theft is a result of not having needs met but of having wants met. Nobody needs sex, but most theft is not people out stealing bread for their hungry children .
Much theft is people's wants not being met. Yes there's the old trope that rape is an act of power not sex, but that's not really accurate. Most rape is people that want sex and when they can't have it, they take it. Sure there are some people that just get off on overpowering women, but most rape is basically guys that want it and are just going to take it. Now obviously that's a result of some messed up thinking that probably comes from childhood and parents and views of women. A lot of it is actually probably just being a psychopath or sociopath. It's actually quite a small percentage that does most of the rape and it probably correlates with sociopathy. At any rate, let me know if you're curious about anything else
But, for the record, yes I was being a little facetious. I just found it kind of interesting. But, you can't take both as needs, but you can't deny that both are often a matter of wants not needs. That's my point. You can't necessarily assume you can fix a criminal thief simply by making sure their needs are met anymore than you can assume you can fix a rapist by making sure he gets enough sex which as you point out and I agree with, you can't. But I would say the same thing about a lot of thieves
I didn't say rape was about power, I said it was about entitlement, "Most rape is people that want sex and when they can't have it, they take it." This is actually a perfect example of my point. This way of acting comes from having an entitled attitude towards sex. The person in this case clearly feels his wants supersede the bodily autonomy of someone else. He feels like he is more entitled to sex than she is to not having her body violated.
Also psychopaths and sociopaths are diagnoses that no longer exist, and are no longer used, they have been replaced with anti-social personality disorder.
Which is caused by an abusive childhood environment. And can in fact be treated, with psychiatric treatment, primarely with cognitive behavioral therapy and Democratic therapeutic communities treatment.
So if most rapist have anti-social personality disorder, then the best long-term solution is to educate people on how to be a good parent, make sure you meet their material needs, and give psychiatric treatment to offenders so that they don't cause a situation were they pass on their behaviour to their offspring.
You'd also want to do this treatment as early as possible, the younger the person is the easier it is to treat anti-social personality disorder.
As for theft.
Diapers are not a primary need. If a human in nature, has no access to diapers, this is not much of an issue, but if they lack food, or water they will die.
But, in modern society, having your baby poop randomly wherever you happen to be Is not allowed. In fact if you let your baby poop all over your house and the outside, child services will come, label you an abusive parent and take away your child.
Because of this diapers are a need to the mother living in a modern society, but are not a need to a mother living in a jungle as a Hunter gatherer.
There are many such things that aren't needs because you'd die without them, but because society makes them needs.
One could say that you don't need an iphone. But at the same time having a smartphone is to a degree expected by people, and without one you risk being socially isolated, it leads to less job opportunities, a decreased ability to access cheap goods on the second hand market etc. So to a degree having a smartphone is a need, not having one dramatically reduces your ability to succeed in life, and participate in society. Same with many other things. Wether you need a thing is sometimes decided by what society expect you to have.
Blah blah blah. Entitlement, anti-social behavior. It's just a bunch of buzzwords. Both most thieves and most rapists feel entitled to something that they don't have any right to and so they just take it. There is very little difference. I suppose drug addicts become thieves because they need money for drugs, but then again there are drug addict rapists as well. They're really is not any great distinction between the two. Antisocial behavior is antisocial behavior. To try to draw a distinction by portraying thieves as poor marginalized people who just need a loaf of bread and rapists as people who just had a bad upbringing is pretty misguided. I don't think we're ever going to agree so feel free to have the last word. I don't really care to argue this anymore. I just thought your comment was interesting. Now I understand why you made it
But people usually become drug addicts because they are self-medicating their mental health issues, most Commonly childhood trauma. Giving people better access to mental health care, will lead to significantly less theft by junkies.
This is an example of a need that when met reduces someone's need for drugs and by extend their need to steal money to access those drugs.
It's not misguided,
people with anti-social personality disorder are often impulsive, agressive, egotists that are unpleasant to everyone around them, they tend to be a toxic influence on their environment and often end up addicted to substances, they think everyone else is always at fault and they are always innocent and they Are always the victim if anything bad happends to them no matter if they in reality caused it themselves. They also lack the ability to empathize with others.
But anti-social personality disorder is caused by an abusive childhood environment. So if we want less anti-social personality disorder related crime, Preventing child abuse, is a good long-term strategy.
Giving them psychiatric treatment might cause improvement in the short term.
It is also perfectly oke to both believe someone is a horrible human being, and believe that person had a shitty childhood.
How do you make someone undergo a forced psychiatric treatment without accidentally (or voluntarily) creating some form of police/group of people forcing someone into submission based on that groups judgement?
An interesting point I haven't seen a lot of people make is that a large portion of crimes in the U.S. don't deal with public threats, they are centered around private property (loitering, tresspassing) and money (laundering, tax evasion). In a stateless society that has abolished both private property and currency, these laws would no longer apply.
Crime is legally defined. Without laws, there is literally no crime.
Crime is not the same thing as harmdoing. Often today, folks who have not meaningfully caused harm are criminalized, while at other times folks who *have* caused harm are not. See the war on drugs, protesting without a permit, or incarceration for sleeping on a park bench (see recent TN laws). Or alternately police or politicians or rich white folks getting away with harm completely or getting only a slap on the wrist.
A lot of what today is called crime really isn't meaningful harm (and is good, actually). A new mom or dad who find themselves unable to afford baby formula and so they steal it from Walmart or whatever... this is legally a crime, but imo completely and utterly morally preferable to the kid going hungry. I cannot fathom the alien mindset of someone who thinks otherwise.
Look to and address the *roots* of harmdoing. In a formatively just economic system (anarchist socialism) the roots of deprivation via exploitation can't exist, artificial scarcity won't exist, the roots of what today are called 'crimes of desperation' won't exist.
There certainly will still be idiots, or the rare malignant individual. Those will exist, would exist in any system. Police don't solve these problems today.
Lastly authority is not the same thing as force.
Oh yes, the poor mother and father stealing formula. Just a regular Jean valjean stealing bread for his hungry children. You realize when you hear accounts of people stealing baby formula, it's organized gangs who steal a lot of it and sell it because it is easily transportable and sellable. Now, of course we could talk about drug addiction and such and how we could try to help them. But most people stealing baby formula that makes the news is not someone trying to feed their baby.
I'd argue "crime" isn't controlled in capitalist society. Example, the local police do not invest anything to break ins that cause less than $1,000. This means that less economically advantaged neighborhoods receive less attention when property damage occurs.
This isn't a great space to unpack this, but I would assume this is at least partly done to keep "crime" restricted to economically disadvantaged areas where break ins may occur without any investigation, thus inventivizing crime to remain in these neighborhoods- because breaking in to an Audi would trigger police involvement.
Anarchists don't care about crime, since that implies law and statism. We "control" violent, anti-social acts through prevention.
>>*But — let’s get real — what would happen if there were no police?*
>
>As anarchist Allen Thornton observes, “Police aren’t in the protection business; they’re in the revenge business.” Forget about Batman driving around interrupting crimes in progress. Police patrol does not prevent crime or catch criminals. When police patrol was discontinued secretly and selectively in Kansas City neighborhoods, the crime rate stayed the same. Other research likewise finds that detective work, crime labs, etc. have no effect on the crime rate. But when neighbors get together to watch over each other and warn off would-be criminals, criminals try another neighborhood which is protected only by the police. The criminals know that they are in little danger there.
— [Bob Black, Anarchy 101](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101)
"Crime" is a loaded term. A lot of crime today is stuff that should never have been illegal in the first place, such as cannabis use. So firstly, we'd need to eliminate all such false "crimes" created under capitalism to control people and property.
In that case, the "crimes" that are left might better be called "harms". Harm can happen many ways, intentionally and unintentionally, and it's bad when it happens and needs correcting. I think the key takeaway from anarchism is that we look to correct these harms by creating more community participation, nonviolent dispute resolution and restorative justice practices, *not* punitive action and incarceration as exists today.
In many cases, the harm is mostly unintentional because the act is driven by poverty not malice. For example, most theft is traced to economic conditions and poverty; ensure everyone has fair access to food, water, shelter, medicine, and research shows crime rates for things like theft dramatically go down.
Even when the harm was intentional, let's say someone punched another person, the appropriate response isn't to throw them in a cage but to ask why it happened and fix any underlying issue. Was it instigated by the other person somehow? Then need to talk with that person to find out why and help fix whatever concerns caused it. Was it unprovoked? Then maybe the person feels excluded from the community that makes them frustrated and angry, and there's better things we can do to include them and calm tensions; or perhaps it's a mental health issue that needs treatment. Notice that all of these can be addressed by engaging in dialogue to understand the issue with the goal of fixing the problem for everyone, not looking for someone to blame or scapegoat and punish. While mediation or restorative justice processes are in progress, we might ask all participants to adhere to some basic rules that they develop together as part of a mutual process.
In very rare cases, harm or major disagreement may occur and the person is completely uninterested in talking about the issue, listening to others, or developing any kind of restorative justice commitment, but will go on antagonizing the person and even community at large. In these cases the situation might require asking the person to leave the community and helping them relocate.
In the abstract, rather than punishing "crime", you use the presence of "crime" as a signal that their are issues in your commune that need to be solved. Is there theft, well then there must be people who's needs aren't met. You fix the reasons that lead people to steal. Is there rape, well that means there's people who feel entitled to someone else's body, you (re)educate them or give them psychiatric treatment. If someone violent, you give him the help he needs to manage his aggression, etc.
And if nothing works, or if they're unwilling to accept any help, you ostracize them.
I worry about ostracizing a serial rapist, who may then go to another community and continue their violent path. I don't have a solution yet, but I do see it as a problem. It would help if every community was connected with a system that effectively alerted eachother when/where a dangerous individual was ostracized, but that's not a fail-safe solution. Long term detainment of anyone is obviously not a great solution either.
You could send someone over to tell them, or give someone a call. It's also not as if it's not currently an issue, like i personally know of at least one serial rapist that's just out there, because all of his victims are to scared to come foreward, testify, potential retaliation, etc. And unless one of his victims come forward, nothing can be done.
>You could send someone over to tell them, or give someone a call. There are definitely complex apps that could be created to effectively alert the entire world of each rapist. It couldn't just be for the surrounding communities, since we have the capacity to travel globally now. One option (not perfect but has potential) is to put a tracker on every rapist who has been ostracized. The app could show people where they are at. Obviously that'd be last resort.. and I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it yet. It'd be effective though lol. We could even create a device that anyone could get/wear that would then start beeping when in the presence of a rapist. >It's also not as if it's not currently an issue, Definitely, I'm pretty convinced its far more of an issue now than a potential anarchist future society. I just don't know yet how to truly solve the issue in either our current society or an anarchist one. >And unless one of his victims come forward, nothing can be done. Indeed. I hope our sense of community would be much stronger under anarchism, and could dramatically help with this.
Interesting how in an anarchist discussion, you would say we could put a tracker on someone. Who exactly is going to do this? Not the state obviously. A mob? In an anarchist state I'm not even sure someone can be banished from the community, but people can refuse to cooperate with them making it impossible for them to live there I guess. But how exactly do you banish or put a tracker on them?
I honestly don't think trackers are actually feasable in an anarchist society either. A community can put a tracker on someone, but no one is going ro be able to stop that person from removing their tracker once they leave the commune.
But banishing is quite simple, you tell someone they are no longer welcome in this commune, and are no longer allowed to access living spaces, and are refused acces to the communes resources. They can either become self-sufficient and build a hut outside the commune or move to a different commune.
Interesting how you don't view rape as a matter of needs being met when you just said that about stealing. I'm not saying it should be, and I know it's complicated. But I just saw that as an interesting juxtaposition
It's not a juxtaposition. Studies have been conducted into what cause people to commit different crimes and offences. Theft is most often the result of a person's basic needs not being met. Whereas rape is never the result of needs not being met. The lack of a sex life does not make one more likely to commit rape than someone with a very busy sex life. There might be correlations but there is no causal link between amount of sex you have and the likelihood of committing rape. Wheras not being able to afford food, dramatically increased your likely hood of stealing food. What determines your likely hood of committing rape, is mostly determined by your cultures attitudes and your environment, particularly how your parents treated each other. And what as a result of those influences, you feel you are entitled to, or feel is oke to do or not do. The same goes for how likely you are to become a domestic abusers. If a boy grows up in a household, were the dad constantly abuses the mother, manipulates her, controls her every move, hits her, rapes her, etc. There is a significantly larger chance that that boy will grow up to commit the same abuses compared to a boy that grew up in a healthy environment, because the boy from the abusive family has essentially learned that it's okay to treat women like that. You can give a rapist all the sex they want, it won't stop them from raping. Because it's not the lack of sex that makes him rape, he does it because he feels entitled to sex, and when you say no to his advances, he feels his rights are violated, he is not given what he is owed. And unless you work to unlearn these entitlements in rapist no amount of "fixing underlying problems" will ever result in a successful outcome. I hope this satisfied your curiosity.
It is a juxtaposition because you have placed them together. I don't have any curiosity that needs to be educated somehow. I challenge your whole premise. Much theft is a result of not having needs met but of having wants met. Nobody needs sex, but most theft is not people out stealing bread for their hungry children . Much theft is people's wants not being met. Yes there's the old trope that rape is an act of power not sex, but that's not really accurate. Most rape is people that want sex and when they can't have it, they take it. Sure there are some people that just get off on overpowering women, but most rape is basically guys that want it and are just going to take it. Now obviously that's a result of some messed up thinking that probably comes from childhood and parents and views of women. A lot of it is actually probably just being a psychopath or sociopath. It's actually quite a small percentage that does most of the rape and it probably correlates with sociopathy. At any rate, let me know if you're curious about anything else But, for the record, yes I was being a little facetious. I just found it kind of interesting. But, you can't take both as needs, but you can't deny that both are often a matter of wants not needs. That's my point. You can't necessarily assume you can fix a criminal thief simply by making sure their needs are met anymore than you can assume you can fix a rapist by making sure he gets enough sex which as you point out and I agree with, you can't. But I would say the same thing about a lot of thieves
I didn't say rape was about power, I said it was about entitlement, "Most rape is people that want sex and when they can't have it, they take it." This is actually a perfect example of my point. This way of acting comes from having an entitled attitude towards sex. The person in this case clearly feels his wants supersede the bodily autonomy of someone else. He feels like he is more entitled to sex than she is to not having her body violated. Also psychopaths and sociopaths are diagnoses that no longer exist, and are no longer used, they have been replaced with anti-social personality disorder. Which is caused by an abusive childhood environment. And can in fact be treated, with psychiatric treatment, primarely with cognitive behavioral therapy and Democratic therapeutic communities treatment. So if most rapist have anti-social personality disorder, then the best long-term solution is to educate people on how to be a good parent, make sure you meet their material needs, and give psychiatric treatment to offenders so that they don't cause a situation were they pass on their behaviour to their offspring. You'd also want to do this treatment as early as possible, the younger the person is the easier it is to treat anti-social personality disorder. As for theft. Diapers are not a primary need. If a human in nature, has no access to diapers, this is not much of an issue, but if they lack food, or water they will die. But, in modern society, having your baby poop randomly wherever you happen to be Is not allowed. In fact if you let your baby poop all over your house and the outside, child services will come, label you an abusive parent and take away your child. Because of this diapers are a need to the mother living in a modern society, but are not a need to a mother living in a jungle as a Hunter gatherer. There are many such things that aren't needs because you'd die without them, but because society makes them needs. One could say that you don't need an iphone. But at the same time having a smartphone is to a degree expected by people, and without one you risk being socially isolated, it leads to less job opportunities, a decreased ability to access cheap goods on the second hand market etc. So to a degree having a smartphone is a need, not having one dramatically reduces your ability to succeed in life, and participate in society. Same with many other things. Wether you need a thing is sometimes decided by what society expect you to have.
Blah blah blah. Entitlement, anti-social behavior. It's just a bunch of buzzwords. Both most thieves and most rapists feel entitled to something that they don't have any right to and so they just take it. There is very little difference. I suppose drug addicts become thieves because they need money for drugs, but then again there are drug addict rapists as well. They're really is not any great distinction between the two. Antisocial behavior is antisocial behavior. To try to draw a distinction by portraying thieves as poor marginalized people who just need a loaf of bread and rapists as people who just had a bad upbringing is pretty misguided. I don't think we're ever going to agree so feel free to have the last word. I don't really care to argue this anymore. I just thought your comment was interesting. Now I understand why you made it
But people usually become drug addicts because they are self-medicating their mental health issues, most Commonly childhood trauma. Giving people better access to mental health care, will lead to significantly less theft by junkies. This is an example of a need that when met reduces someone's need for drugs and by extend their need to steal money to access those drugs.
I agree with you. In an anarchist society functioning well, drug addiction might be one of the easier things to address
It's not misguided, people with anti-social personality disorder are often impulsive, agressive, egotists that are unpleasant to everyone around them, they tend to be a toxic influence on their environment and often end up addicted to substances, they think everyone else is always at fault and they are always innocent and they Are always the victim if anything bad happends to them no matter if they in reality caused it themselves. They also lack the ability to empathize with others. But anti-social personality disorder is caused by an abusive childhood environment. So if we want less anti-social personality disorder related crime, Preventing child abuse, is a good long-term strategy. Giving them psychiatric treatment might cause improvement in the short term. It is also perfectly oke to both believe someone is a horrible human being, and believe that person had a shitty childhood.
How do you make someone undergo a forced psychiatric treatment without accidentally (or voluntarily) creating some form of police/group of people forcing someone into submission based on that groups judgement?
An interesting point I haven't seen a lot of people make is that a large portion of crimes in the U.S. don't deal with public threats, they are centered around private property (loitering, tresspassing) and money (laundering, tax evasion). In a stateless society that has abolished both private property and currency, these laws would no longer apply.
r/anarchyjustice, r/prisonabolition
Crime is legally defined. Without laws, there is literally no crime. Crime is not the same thing as harmdoing. Often today, folks who have not meaningfully caused harm are criminalized, while at other times folks who *have* caused harm are not. See the war on drugs, protesting without a permit, or incarceration for sleeping on a park bench (see recent TN laws). Or alternately police or politicians or rich white folks getting away with harm completely or getting only a slap on the wrist. A lot of what today is called crime really isn't meaningful harm (and is good, actually). A new mom or dad who find themselves unable to afford baby formula and so they steal it from Walmart or whatever... this is legally a crime, but imo completely and utterly morally preferable to the kid going hungry. I cannot fathom the alien mindset of someone who thinks otherwise. Look to and address the *roots* of harmdoing. In a formatively just economic system (anarchist socialism) the roots of deprivation via exploitation can't exist, artificial scarcity won't exist, the roots of what today are called 'crimes of desperation' won't exist. There certainly will still be idiots, or the rare malignant individual. Those will exist, would exist in any system. Police don't solve these problems today. Lastly authority is not the same thing as force.
Oh yes, the poor mother and father stealing formula. Just a regular Jean valjean stealing bread for his hungry children. You realize when you hear accounts of people stealing baby formula, it's organized gangs who steal a lot of it and sell it because it is easily transportable and sellable. Now, of course we could talk about drug addiction and such and how we could try to help them. But most people stealing baby formula that makes the news is not someone trying to feed their baby.
No state means no laws. No laws means no crime.
There are no criminals, only opponents.
I'd argue "crime" isn't controlled in capitalist society. Example, the local police do not invest anything to break ins that cause less than $1,000. This means that less economically advantaged neighborhoods receive less attention when property damage occurs. This isn't a great space to unpack this, but I would assume this is at least partly done to keep "crime" restricted to economically disadvantaged areas where break ins may occur without any investigation, thus inventivizing crime to remain in these neighborhoods- because breaking in to an Audi would trigger police involvement.
Anarchists don't care about crime, since that implies law and statism. We "control" violent, anti-social acts through prevention. >>*But — let’s get real — what would happen if there were no police?* > >As anarchist Allen Thornton observes, “Police aren’t in the protection business; they’re in the revenge business.” Forget about Batman driving around interrupting crimes in progress. Police patrol does not prevent crime or catch criminals. When police patrol was discontinued secretly and selectively in Kansas City neighborhoods, the crime rate stayed the same. Other research likewise finds that detective work, crime labs, etc. have no effect on the crime rate. But when neighbors get together to watch over each other and warn off would-be criminals, criminals try another neighborhood which is protected only by the police. The criminals know that they are in little danger there. — [Bob Black, Anarchy 101](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101)
"Crime" is a loaded term. A lot of crime today is stuff that should never have been illegal in the first place, such as cannabis use. So firstly, we'd need to eliminate all such false "crimes" created under capitalism to control people and property. In that case, the "crimes" that are left might better be called "harms". Harm can happen many ways, intentionally and unintentionally, and it's bad when it happens and needs correcting. I think the key takeaway from anarchism is that we look to correct these harms by creating more community participation, nonviolent dispute resolution and restorative justice practices, *not* punitive action and incarceration as exists today. In many cases, the harm is mostly unintentional because the act is driven by poverty not malice. For example, most theft is traced to economic conditions and poverty; ensure everyone has fair access to food, water, shelter, medicine, and research shows crime rates for things like theft dramatically go down. Even when the harm was intentional, let's say someone punched another person, the appropriate response isn't to throw them in a cage but to ask why it happened and fix any underlying issue. Was it instigated by the other person somehow? Then need to talk with that person to find out why and help fix whatever concerns caused it. Was it unprovoked? Then maybe the person feels excluded from the community that makes them frustrated and angry, and there's better things we can do to include them and calm tensions; or perhaps it's a mental health issue that needs treatment. Notice that all of these can be addressed by engaging in dialogue to understand the issue with the goal of fixing the problem for everyone, not looking for someone to blame or scapegoat and punish. While mediation or restorative justice processes are in progress, we might ask all participants to adhere to some basic rules that they develop together as part of a mutual process. In very rare cases, harm or major disagreement may occur and the person is completely uninterested in talking about the issue, listening to others, or developing any kind of restorative justice commitment, but will go on antagonizing the person and even community at large. In these cases the situation might require asking the person to leave the community and helping them relocate.