In a very dire or apocalyptic situation, are quick executions an acceptable way to deal with lawbreakers?

never heard of it
would you mind develop ?

>In a very dire or apocalyptic situation,
Implying you need to wait for this for executions to be the right answer

Clown question, bro.

The more appropriate question is "can you live with your decision?"

Slow executions are also acceptable.

>pretty much the only punishment that is gonna be cost effective
It's pretty cheap to kneecap someone or break their fingers, assuming the world isn't in a state where killing someone on the spot is necessary for safety's sake.

I unironically believe that publicly lynching and/or stoning, (their choice) extreme (murder, rape, etc.) criminals and putting moderate and low-risk criminals into forced labor camps for an amount of time proportional to their crime would be the ideal prison system, even more so after the collapse of society.

if you're an already instable society that is already fighting to survive, you don't want to keep around any assholes that doesn't play by the rule

Essentially, around 1000 BCE, all the major civilizations around the eastern Mediterranean implode within the space of a couple dozen years. Except the Egyptians but they take a serious hit from it. The word is still out on exactly why, but it appears to be the combination of several natural disasters in short succession followed by the arrival of a huge force of refugees/raiders who destroyed entire cities. A couple different languages go extinct and bronze working plummets among the surviving groups. The whole region from Greece down to Egypt takes almost six hundred years to recover to anywhere near its former glory.

Yeah, but it still leaves some amount of risk of them going on to repeat their crime or commit a different one. Far too high a chance really. It's why crippling punishments like that are relatively rare throughout history.

If you like being quickly executed.

>using a crisis as an excuse to abandon the rule of law
>exposing your own moral conviction as a cheap sanctimonious mask tossed away for conveniece
>weakening the very principles you claim to uphold

You're worse than the lawbreakers.

Forced criminal labor is entirely feasible in a post-society world, extreme criminals are publicly and gruesomely executed, discouraging further crime, and less severe criminals are given some semblance of rights if they behave themselves and dissidents are shot and/or publicly executed, further discouraging crime.

Obviously you'd need to tie their ankles together to prevent them from running, keep them in a communal barracks under an armed guard, constantly search them, and keep a few snitches on the inside, but it's entirely feasible, and extra hands are priceless when it comes to primitive farming.

He is still eating resources through.

Usually it'd be followed up with banishment, so they wouldn't be able to reoffend in the same place, and if someone came into your little commune or whatever with a gunshot wound in the back of the knee then you'd know pretty well what was up.

There is no reason for quick executions not to be a solution to lawbreakers now if they've earned it.

>a judge in Switzerland should act like a judge in Honduras
lolno

This. The second the bombs fall, zombies rise, or society falls apart I'm shaving off half my hair, dying it bright purple, and cobbling together some armor with biker gear and taking to the streets with a nailed baseball bat. Then I'm going to do every drug I can get my hands on.

>using a crisis as an excuse to abandon the rule of law

Yet he specifically says 'lawbreakers', which implies the existence of rule of law.

That's just asking for organized groups of bandits to form from people you've banished. Which will eventually just draw regular criminals to join them preemptively. Then you're gonna get organized crime competing with you.

>he believes the current laws are feasible in an apocalyptic environment wherein the government has collapsed and rule of law has by and large been replaced by anarchy

You get a free cookie. Its a good answer you presented.

>I want to be a raider from Mad Max 2

/hm/ plz go.

No, we should pay for a prison and put them in so they can eat, sleep and be taken care of, that'll teach them!

Well, as I mentioned, you have to be organized to a certain level to be able to carry out non-execution punishment shootings. If roving bands of fighting-aged males with criminal intent are that much of a problem then you may well just start shooting people on the spot, but it's not exactly a hallmark of progress.

Based elves.

Outlawry was a common punishment in medieval England. Bandits living in a wood, always living in fear of strangers, unable to approach settlements for fear of being cut down at any time and competing for meagre scraps with other desperate bandits, will never compete with well fed, healthy men, armed and armoured by a stable society.

The only time banditry became an issue in medieval times was usually during periods of unrest or warfare, and even then, the 'bandits' were more often bands of unemployed mercenaries rather than criminals, like the routiers in France during the Hundred Years War.

It should be noted that public humiliation is an effective punishment and deterrent in a social group. So long as the lawbreaker is a part of a small society something as simple as a few lashes would work for most crimes.

Of course, more serious crimes like rape and murder would have far more serious punishments.

>The word is still out on exactly why

S E A P E O P L E

Medieval England didn't have guns through. Gun change pretty much any 'they are weaker' argument.

Man, the Bronze Age was fucking wild.

To expand on the more serious punishments; if the people of your community have a strong bias against capital punishment you'll need to resort to exile. But you can't just send a murderer out to potentially harm someone else.

Cut off their trigger finger and brand them with their crime so that if they run into another group, they'll know what the criminal did.

You can't tell me a gang of malnourished rapists with four blown-out knees between the lot of them will be better at shooting and maneuvering than settled folks who understand they live in dangerous times.

Depends on how soon you can expect rule of law to be reestablished.

Poignant example: the visual novel Swan Song, wherein a few violent criminals are detained by the ad hoc society following a natural disaster. Works alright for a few days, until they inevitability escaped and killed again. Society quickly slips down the slope and moves from executing criminals, to crucifiying them, to crucifiying anyone that dissents against the violent populist leader.

Nah, still applies. Physical fitness and strength are still extremely effective force multipliers in modern dismounted combat. It's why physical standards for infanteers are universally higher than non-teeth units.

Plus, soldiers from a settlement large enough to have rule of law, will almost always be better drilled than a bunch of rapists and murderers who've been outlawed and are living in the woods.

Then don't have to maneuver. Just shot a random person who left the settlement or is hanging out for some reason and then take his stuff.

No joke. One guy is going into battle with a potted plant as a helmet.

user, if looting was hard work, niggers won't be doing it.

And then you get hunted down like a dog by the settlement's militia/warrior caste.

You are thinking that farming/mining is limited by land.
The reality is that its limited by manpower. The same is even true of industrial farming: If you don't start using land, you can't farm it.

Even if there isn't enough farmland, you are always in need of what is needed to expand the farmland: Irrigation ditches, collecting fertilizer, planting, harvest of existing farmland, making structures to store anything.

You would think. But to have guns, you would need ammo and guns. And maintenance equipment for said guns.
And the knowledge needed to do improvised repairs, as well as training usage.
So for this group of bandit to even exist, they are basically chokepointed into trading, since 1000 rounds of ammo isn't a lot in a 10 year period of active use.

At the same time, if Gun Banditry really was a issue, you are in the situation where armored cars with grenades or LMGs will be employed, so its not equal at all.
Guns are not the great equalizer. They are beaten by numbers, logistics, tracking, information and armored anything.

Nevermind that most fiction about the issue is set to what is basically The Wild West, but without city states or desire to farm city states.

We did that. For thousands of years. And in all that time, crime never stopped. It's almost as if crime has deeper, more nuanced causes than "criminals aren't scared enough".

No it doesn't, you can technically give a baby a gun and he will murder you if he press the trigger.

If you kick people out they will just become raiders and attack travellers or at any sign of weakness. And it wouldn't be like a Total War game, each unit cleanly standing near the other.

And you just shot them too. Any idiot with a gun can lay an ambush and take soldiers. Heck this happen in almost every guerrilla situation.

>crime never stopped.
what, it wasn't a foolproof solution? Well I guess we just have to abandon that idea completely!

People only get away with looting because the folks they're looting are either noguns or don't want to get sent to prison by some shitstick commie judge.

The trick is to kill them in horrifyingly cruel and unusual ways.

>you can technically give a baby a gun and he
>technically
>technically
>technically
Have you ever shot a gun? Shit, have you ever interacted with real people?

Outside their own neighborhoods, they don't.

I do work for a program that helps convicted felons pursue college degrees while they're incarcerated so they can complete their education by the time they reenter society, but as much as I personally hold that rehabilitation is a goal we should be striving towards being in our current prison systems there simply aren't the resources available in a post-apocalyptic collapse to support people who refuse to cooperate in spite of the circumstances.

Part of me wants to suggest exile over execution, but in effect the desired result is that I don't believe people who propagate severe crimes would have a place in society during an attempt to rebuild. There's no practical way to support a prison system, at the very least.

>several natural disasters in short succession followed by the arrival of a huge force of refugees/raiders who destroyed entire cities.

Back to /pol/ with your refugee bullshit, you have no power here

...

Where the fuck is someone who left without food or water gonna scavenge up a working weapon that can take out a militia using the best weapons an entire settlement has found and takes constant care of? Guns aren't equalizers that's a meme. Fights in modern times always swing in the favor of the best equipped group. Guns have made the gap even bigger then it ever was

>Shoot one farmer and steal his stuff
>Go back to camp
>Next day woods are swarming with militia
>Shoot at one
>Miss because not a US MARINE CORP SCOUT SEAL DELTA SNIPER who can hit mobile man-sized targets from 300+ metres with a shitty post-apocalyptic rifle
>Militia start to converge on the gunshot
>Try to bug out
>Slower than militia due to malnourishment, injury and illness due to living inna woods
>Everytime you shoot at one of them, the noose closes
>Figure you just have to keep clear until nightfall
>Stop to rest when it gets dark, but realise militia has dogs and are pursuing you in shifts
>Stray too close to a settlement friendly to militia, local shephard boy spots you and runs off
>Militia get informed by his father within a fewer hours
>Keep moving until drop from exhaustion
>Captured and taken back to settlement and messily executed as a warning
>Body displayed on edge of woods in case anyone else thinks shooting a farmer and stealing his clothes/packed lunch is a good idea

Guerillas are only successful against larger forces if they have the support of the local people and the men they're fighting don't. For an outlaw, the situation is the opposite, they have neither manpower/equipment nor the support of the people.

>He doesn't know about nomadic migration
>He doesn't know about nomadic siege

>large influxes of refugees/people in general don't cause problems

See:
-Russia in WW2
-Rome during mongol invasions of Eastern Europe
-Turkey, France, North Africa during Muslim campaigns pre 1000 AD
-Areas around Uganda and Rwanda within the last 20 years or so

Don't be an idiot, user. History has shown this to be a legitimate problem that no country wants to have to deal with.

Not even /pol/, just a dude who knows history

Hey guys, looks like you're both jousting each other's strawmen pretty effectively. Any chance you could just stop posting?

Execution isn't needed for every crime, but it's the surest way to prevent someone from causing further problems. Actually more useful for seditionists than criminals more generally, people rarely feel remorse for political crimes and exiling them potentially just gives your enemies a source of information on your town/tribe. It can also be used as a control tactic, reminding people that you have the authority to order someone killed.

Weregild is a good system for punishment when someone is still a contributing member of society- put a price on their crime, and they have to pay it back to the victim or the victim's heirs. Unlike maiming it tends to increase the overall productiveness of the society.

Slavery has been historically popular and works kind of like weregild, the labor of the criminal is now the property of the victim, but it's potentially much messier. People who would rather die than be slaves should probably be given that preference.

Implying Dredd isn't post apocalyptic.

>Physical fitness and strength are still extremely effective force multipliers in modern dismounted combat.
>No it doesn't, you can technically give a baby a gun and he will murder you if he press the trigger.

So you're saying a baby will perform just as well in a firefight as a physically conditioned, health adult male?

Are you retarded or is this a weak attempt at strawmanning and/or trolling?

You kick people out, they don't have access to the settlement's resources anymore and get hunted down like dogs whenever spotted.

If you've already suspended the state of law to the extent that you can execute people in the street, they aren't law breakers. They're threats or trying to take your stuff or scapegoats or whatever. Law doesn't apply. Contemporary state apparatus tends to have legal frameworks for the temporary suspension and reintegration of rule of law, but they tend to become normalized and used as more political terrain/that was the initial intention anyway.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.

I shot them both just to see if Konrad would be upset.

...

Why is public shame off the table as punishment? Putting people in pillories instead of hiding them away is more effective at reducing crime and is no less humane. It serves as a visual reminder to people other than the offender and denies said prisoner from getting coming off looking cool and "gangsta". A man in the stocks cant claim to be hard. He is a joke.

You could the impoverished criminals in jail where they get free food and shelter as a reward for their crime, or you could threaten to take away the one thing that they still value: their pride.

>So you're saying a baby will perform just as well in a firefight as a physically conditioned, health adult male?
>being this retarded
I'm saying that any idiot with a gun is a threat, different from a knife. Give a baby a knife and the maximum he will do is cut himself, give him a gun and he press the trigger, blam you are dead.

It's about threat you fucking retard.

Yes, and I have seen people shooting.

Any idiot can shoot a gun. Even through they are more likely to miss, there always the chance they may end hitting someone.

Hi newfriend, I can tell you've never actually read a Dredd comic because he views executions as a failure on the part of the state, and always prefers incarceration.

I say that the defect which is easily recognized is difficult to correct, for to do this it is not
enough to use ordinary means, as ordinary means are bad, but it is necessary to come to
the extraordinary, such as violence and arms, and before anything else to become Prince
of that City, and to be able to dispose of it as he pleases. And as the re-organization of the
political life of a City presupposes a good man, and the becoming of a Prince of a
Republic by violence presupposes a bad man; for because of this it will be found that it
rarely happens that a (good) men wants to become Prince through bad means, even
though his objectives be good; or that a bad one, having become Prince, wants to work
for good and that it should enter his mind to use for good that authority which he had
acquired by evil means.

Check out the discourses too, neat stuff. The prince was a tailored job application. A job he sucked at too.

You're strawmanning.

My point was that a settlement's militia will always be more militarily capable than a bunch of rapists and murderers living like hobos out in the woods.

The fact that a baby can accidentally itself with a handgun easier than a knife isn't relevent. Guns are a force multiplier of the degree you're implying only when the enemy doesn't have firearms themselves. Two men with guns will lose against eight men with guns ninety nine times out of a hundred, all other things being equal. Doubly so if the eight are well fed and rested and have better guns with more ammunition.

Superior numbers of fit, healthy men > A handful of desperate criminals riddled with disease and malnutrition.

I don't know how I can spell this out any simpler. Banishing or outlawing violent criminals is never going to result in you suddenly being unable to leave your settlement's walls, unless your settlement is 100% pacifist and doesn't believe in owning guns.

>My point was that a settlement's militia will always be more militarily capable than a bunch of rapists and murderers living like hobos out in the woods.
And my point is that those rapists and murderers can, even if their chances of winning are zero, still kill people before they are put down. You are literally creating a risk, even if you can beat them, to your settlement because muh feels.

>I'm shaving off half my hair, dying it bright purple, and cobbling together some armor with biker gear and taking to the streets with a nailed baseball bat
Sounds like Tumblr is already two steps ahead of you m8.

>because muh feels.

Unfortunately, humans do have emotions. Troublesome I know, but there it is.

Outlawry provides a pseudo-death sentence which can potentially be repealed provided he survives and future evidence exonerates him. This is not only morally more justifiable (which is important for anyone in a position of authority to maintain) but also placates family/friends of the offender and reduces the likelyhood of bloodfeuds breaking out over "your slut sister falsely accused by cousin of raping her! I'm going to murder your cousin in retaliation!" and shit like that.

I'm about as pro-refugee as you can get and even I can tell that had nothing to do with /pol/.

Yes. I played an LG paladin in one of my very first games, and in order to do it right I bought and read the whole Summa Theologica and just took notes on how my character should act.

Actually ended pretty well, and honestly I think anyone that wants to do proper LG outta read some of Aquinas' shit. Don't like the other two, but Plato for LN and Mein Kampf for LE also sound like fun ideas.

Crippling someone, you either leave a live enemy, or create a new dependent, or effectively kill them. Easier and more effective to deliver a beat down or execution. Or extra work duties.

Beccaria works pretty well for LG too.
I wonder if there is a pure philosphical/theological work that could exemplify an Evil alignment.

I dindu nuffin Clodius, stop trying to fuck with me

Max Stirner is NE to the core.
Inb4: it's CN.
Inb4: you cannot inb4 yourself

>If you CAN take it, it can be yours
>In D&D

>The state of politics.