What role, if any...

What role, if any, would there be for law(s) and the legal system/judiciary as an institution (as they exist today) in a socialist society?

This is beyond issues such as racial discrimination in criminal justice and others similar.

Attached: F W Maitland.jpg (220x294, 14.05K)

Other urls found in this thread:


I think the primary function of legal systems across history and especially under capitalism is to protect private property and as such all laws are derived from that starting point, so maybe the logical conclusion is that under socialism the legal system's primary function would be to prevent the existence of private property?

You would still need defense lawyers to defend people accused of crime

Trial by your peers too

But there may still be some limited function for private law in the protection of personal property, at least in relation to tort, where the offending conduct is not criminal. Or perhaps what is today considered tortious would become criminal in order to stringently preserve such interests, but this may be unjust in many circumstances.

In regards to a socialist nation (not a totally communism society - that legal system should be different again) I’m of the belief that a legal system based on inquisitorial concepts is more utilitarian and therefore more compatible with a socialist state than adversarial Court structures as seen in Common Law Countries like the U.S and U.K. It should be noted that the People’s Republic of China’s self proclaimed ‘socialist legal system’ is historically based on French and German civil law inquisitorial Courts.

The concept of defence solicitors (public defenders in the U.S) should be abolished as they are a parasitic bourgeois profession tied in with criminal elements.

Juries should also be abolished as anyone with personal and professional experience with them (in capitalist countries at least) knows that they are prone to being composed of idiots not capable of critical thinking who make decisions based off emotions (possibly a result of shitty education).


Attached: 05C5F2D4-E98F-4DEF-B9F8-756B60CEF1EB.jpeg (425x346, 19.68K)

Great response I bet you really know what you're talking about and aren't a clueless reactionary for making those proposals

You didn’t make any argument whatsoever how else was I going to respond?!

I asked you to elaborate on or clarify your points I didn't intend to make an argument


In regards to why I think defence solicitors are not needed; The general profession of lawyers became a popular profession during late feudalism as the bourgeoisie used them to settle disputes while working class people (in the first world) have not generally had the means to engage with lawyers until the latter part of the 20th century. Although I would argue the use of defence lawyers in adversarial court settings is imperative as a result of how system is set up (the person with the most money and best lawyer wins), an inquisitorial court system can function perfectly fine without the need of lawyers representing each side and still remain fair and impartial. Allowing a lawyer class in a socialist nation would likely lead to it forming a technocratic liberal elite which would eventually foster challenges to the revolution (see the late Soviet Union and the technocratic elite which sabotaged it).

In regards to Juries, they are typical of the adversarial system and I would argue a remnant of feudalism. It can be argued that citizens with no legal training, no educational requirement and diverse socio-economic backgrounds will likely make decisions based on emotions and tribalism. An example of this is the current obstacles that many prosecutors face in church related child sexual abuse cases and the abysmal conviction rate for such offences in the adversarial system (think Catholic jurors being in impartial as well as the endless amount of funding the Catholic Church can provide to protect Priests accused of sexual abuse). In the United States alone only 1 in 10 sexual assault proceedings result in convictions which is horrific for the victims and communities.

I never understood why at least the higher up members of the executive and judicative are not elected. Judges can get away with so much shit and often they can even make some bargain that insulates the criminal from any actual punishments, sachsesumpf is an example.

I should also always be possible to hold those in power personally accountable and not give them immunuity.

I can only answer for the judiciary, but the traditional popular justification them not being elected is impartiality. It is argued that if a judge were to be elected then they would either, through mandate or through the pressure to maintain office by reelection, be too concerned with public opinions and thus lack the impartiality necessary for fair, just and reasonable adjudication.

This principle is somewhat described by the House of Lords (now the UK supreme court) in the case of Ex parte, Venables. Basically the defendant was one of the murderers of Jamie Bulger, a toddler who was brutally murdered by the defendant and his co-defendant (at earlier trial) when both were only 10. It was a national scandal, with many calling for the boys to be imprisoned for life. The Home Secretary had the power to. after trial was completed and sentence given by the judge, increase the 'tariff' (mandatory time in prison before consideration for parole). The HoL held that the Secretary had wrongfully used his power to up Venables' tarrif based on public outcry, as in fulfilling this function he acts as a sentencing judge, who cannot be effected by matters such as public outcry.

Read Евгений Брониславович Пашуканис

Professional lawyering is an issue because it drives us toward legal codes that you need lawyers to understand, but the concept of a defender, someone whose job it is to ensure due process is followed is necessary.

My pet idea: Parliament (proportional) sets upper and lower bounds for penalties. Upper bound ratings are aggregated by deleting the lower half and taking the median of what remains, lower bound ratings are aggregated by deleting the higher half and taking the median of what remains. The people in a jury can vote for a lower penalty than the boundary or no penalty at all despite what the law says (jury nullification) and this jury decision is then binding; the jury can also vote for a penalty that exceeds the upper bound set by parliament, in that case the upper bound set by parliament counts as the verdict. When some regulation's boundaries get constantly broken by juries, that triggers a reconsideration of the law in parliament.

There won't be judges in the sense of an individual person deciding alone what the sentence is, the sortition-selected jury will do that by median vote, the role of the judge will change to just moderating and bringing up the relevant laws. Speaking of laws, they will exist as hypertext with bidirectional linking (bidirectional means that when one place A in the text links to another place B, a connection from B back to A is also established). The law text being electronic and easy to search means that the law can also be longer and less abstract than paper-based law.

they would be provided by market as security companies, as true socialism is anarchist

They would play plenty of roles, they'd maintain order, help give boundaries and a basis for socialist construction, repress counter-revolutionaries, and help guide socialist society.

Now, that's the short of it, but if you want an 800 page breakdown read this (written by the supreme prosecutor of the USSR!): archive.org/details/lawofthesovietst008593mbp/page/n6

Law enforcement didn't always exist like we think of it today, not even like town guards. It used to be when crime was afoot, you had a civic duty to apprehend the criminal. Same way you used to have a civic duty to form a bucket brigade in the event of a fire. If this is too anarchic for you, then I humbly suggest the wild west system of a sheriff elected by popular vote of the represented community, who deputizes people as needed.

Another major problem specific to "peace officers" today is that nobody knows how to de-escalate a situation. Believe it or not that used to be part of modern police training even, but it's been ignored in favor of militarization and encouraging itchy trigger fingers. De-escalation is a useful skill for any living person anyway, and conflict mediation/resolution should be part of basic education/socialization. If you're going to have people serve in a designated cop-like role, this should be a major factor in the selection at least.

Attached: commie cowboy.jpg (265x213, 16.29K)

I think Law Enforcement should ultimately evolve under socialism after a period of extensive political education and socio economic redistribution into a series of hyper ideological militias like the Red Guard during the cultural revolution in the People’s Republic of China.

they should literally be enlightened "peace officers" like masters of cognitive behavioral therapy who can talk people down out of anything. itd be easier to do this job "peacefully" if looming overly punishing outcomes and mandates to arrest were eliminated. you can kind of see the guilt and frustration of officers (in documentary footage, body cams, and live pd/cops style television shows) who are forced to carry out their job even when theyd like discretion to let things go. retributive justice doesnt make victims feel better really but the ideological strength of this assertion that it indeed does make families feel better motivates a huge amount of over regulation and oppressive lawmaking. its ironic really since judeo-christian values that supposedly back these laws do have new testament forgiveness and the like lingering there being used to critique it and historically christians can be tied to the rehabilitative model of prisons

the more rooty tooty shooty the cops are in modern times the worse they have it; their own psyches become strained with all the horrible shit they do for the state until they are mentally broken, psychotic tools for the state. the worse this gets, the more likely they are to fear the public, to support militarization, to foster antagonism and shoot first, de-escalate later