• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Down Goes Silent Sam

Property crimes generally go unprosecuted because identifying the perpetrator(s) takes a ton of time and resources. In this case don’t cops have a pretty good idea who was involved since they were there?

You are also missing a point. Some of these people WANT to get arrested knowing it will give legs to their issue. Part of planned events like this is to get press coverage. A picture of a crumbled statue of someone no one outside of the community has ever heard of, may get cursory coverage. People getting arrested gets headlines and other people thinking of joining into propel the issue much father.

MHB and MDMH are wrong on many levels here.
 
DAs are political people. They don't want to lose the next election. Putting anyone in jail for taking Silent Sam down in Chapel Hill would be a terrible political idea. As I said, from personal experience, getting arrested at these events is often planned. There are lawyers and bondsmen on call. Effectively, this is often a goal. Your are totally offbase in including this in mass incarceration.

Although I completely agree with you about the unfairness and effectiveness of the system, the abolishing of prisons entirely is insane.

Re#3: Your answer is, you've never been anything but an internet warrior or maybe attended a couple of meetings.

Your first paragraph is problematic. You are completely ignoring the history of mass incarceration as politically motivated. You can't just say that putting a specific person in CH in jail for this singular act would be politically bad, and ignore the huge body of evidence that suggests mass incarceration is politically good for a lot of people. Also, there are many forms of direct action and protest. Protesting at the statehouse knowing one might get arrested with other activists is different than tearing down a statue.

I do not think abolishing prisons is any more insane than accepting a status quo.

Re: my personal history of activism, why is it necessary to make that accusation? If you met a 22 year old working class person tomorrow who had just began involvement in any political movement, would you dismiss or evaluate their ideas/perspective based off their history of protest?
 
Each event is unique unto itself. Until you understand this, you will continue to make mistakes.

READ what I post. I have stated close to half a dozen times, from beginning to end, the system is tragically flawed and needs to be fixed. To abolish prisons would allow predators to roam the streets harming and killing people who have no recourse.

To abolish prisons is the dumbest, craziest idea I have ever heard in the discussion of the judicial system.

What you do is condemn those who don't follow your dogmatic approach as supporting the other side. We listened to those who came before us to get some pointers. We still did many things our way, but did include some things. In post after post by you and mdmh, it's your way or the highway and you are never wrong. This dooms your issues.
 
Property crimes generally go unprosecuted because identifying the perpetrator(s) takes a ton of time and resources. In this case don’t cops have a pretty good idea who was involved since they were there?

That’s why I used the championship celebration example. Wouldn’t take that much to know who committed property crimes during the celebration.

I also don’t think property damage should be a crime unless it puts people in danger or prevents an individual from making a living. That’s what civil courts are for.
 
Each event is unique unto itself. Until you understand this, you will continue to make mistakes.

READ what I post. I have stated close to half a dozen times, from beginning to end, the system is tragically flawed and needs to be fixed. To abolish prisons would allow predators to roam the streets harming and killing people who have no recourse.

To abolish prisons is the dumbest, craziest idea I have ever heard in the discussion of the judicial system.

What you do is condemn those who don't follow your dogmatic approach as supporting the other side. We listened to those who came before us to get some pointers. We still did many things our way, but did include some things. In post after post by you and mdmh, it's your way or the highway and you are never wrong. This dooms your issues.

Accepting the status quo allows the State to roam the streets harming and killing people who have no recourse.
 
Accepting the status quo allows the State to roam the streets harming and killing people who have no recourse.

Are so dense that you can't even read the before the one you bolded:

"READ what I post. I have stated close to half a dozen times, from beginning to end, the system is tragically flawed and needs to be fixed."

Can you see it now? In what way did I say I was "accepting the status quo"?
 
Each event is unique unto itself. Until you understand this, you will continue to make mistakes.

READ what I post. I have stated close to half a dozen times, from beginning to end, the system is tragically flawed and needs to be fixed. To abolish prisons would allow predators to roam the streets harming and killing people who have no recourse.

To abolish prisons is the dumbest, craziest idea I have ever heard in the discussion of the judicial system.

What you do is condemn those who don't follow your dogmatic approach as supporting the other side. We listened to those who came before us to get some pointers. We still did many things our way, but did include some things. In post after post by you and mdmh, it's your way or the highway and you are never wrong. This dooms your issues.

1. What mistake am I making? I'm asking you to identify the mistake so that I can defend it.
2. Predators already roam the streets harming and killing people who have no recourse.
3. What about police abolition?
4. This last part, stop doing this. I'm politely trying to argue my point. I'm asking you questions and trying to respond to your specific points. This is how I'm trying to discuss the subject. I do not think I am dogmatic or condemning the other side. I'm not saying its my way or the highway. Nor have I made a claim that I am never wrong. You seem to be the one quick to condemn my position until you are satisfied I have met some other qualification.
 
Are so dense that you can't even read the before the one you bolded:

"READ what I post. I have stated close to half a dozen times, from beginning to end, the system is tragically flawed and needs to be fixed."

Can you see it now? In what way did I say I was "accepting the status quo"?

Just echoing MHB’s point that abolishing prisons is no more insane than accepting the status quo. I’d argue that abolishing prisons is actually less insane than doing nothing, which would mean it’s not the “dumbest, craziest idea you’ve heard in the discussion of the judicia system.”

I understand you advocate doing far more than nothing, and the specific reforms you advocate for might be the best ones, but on a scale from “do nothing” to “abolish prisons”, I’m confident the answer is far closer to the latter.
 
Scholars Explain The Racist History Of UNC's Silent Sam Statue


I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal. One hundred yards from where we stand [on Franklin Street], less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted an maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterward slept with a double-barrel shotgun under my head.


...just another protester prepared to face the consequences of his valorous actions.
 
1. What mistake am I making? I'm asking you to identify the mistake so that I can defend it.

A mistake is that it's wrong to arrest people for tearing down buildings/statues. It's a mistake to think that arresting people won't help the issue. It's also wrong to conflate an individual event with mass incarceration.


2. Predators already roam the streets harming and killing people who have no recourse.

This is a batshit crazy justification for abolishing prisons. Using that same logic, The Purge should be a 365 day a year documentary. We should have no laws since some aren't solved.

3. What about police abolition?

While I was asleep last night, did man become perfect? If not this is another batshit crazy idea. PDs definitely need more training and better people, but abolishing all police is insane.


4. This last part, stop doing this. I'm politely trying to argue my point. I'm asking you questions and trying to respond to your specific points. This is how I'm trying to discuss the subject. I do not think I am dogmatic or condemning the other side. I'm not saying its my way or the highway. Nor have I made a claim that I am never wrong. You seem to be the one quick to condemn my position until you are satisfied I have met some other qualification.
 
Last edited:
We should just abolish healthcare. So many problems would be solved.

No high costs of care, no inequalities of availability. No medical errors. NONE!


Damn.
 
Arguing a position at the left of RJ and numbers is not something you see everyday.
 
MHB, are you also against requiring kids to go to school because of institutionalized racism ?
 
A mistake is that it's wrong to arrest people for tearing down buildings/statues. It's a mistake to think that arresting people won't help the issue.

This is a batshit crazy justification for abolishing prisons. Using that same logic, The Purge should be a 365 day a year documentary. We should have no laws since some aren't solved.

While I was asleep last night, did man become perfect? If not this is another batshit crazy idea. PDs definitely need more training and better people, but abolishing all police is insane.

I have explained my position on why we should not support prosecuting this protestor. My understanding of mass incarceration is that a liberal belief in following law and order politics and the institution of setting "race blind" procedures for sentencing or prosecutorial discretion directly contributed to its explosion. From a book called the First Civil Right:

Democratic retreat from pro-civil rights carceral modernization is apparent in the transformation of their national party platforms since 1972. The 1972 Democratic platform endorsed felon re-enfranchisement, community-based rehabilitation facilities, and work-release furlough programs, and the 1976 platform promised "jobs, decent housing and educational opportunities [to] provide a real alternative to crime." The 1980 platform attributed crime and drug abuse to "the cumulative effect of joblessness, poor housing conditions and other factors." By 1984 however, the Democratic platform renounced "permissive liberalism" as the answer to crime and in 1988, Democrats embraced the drug war as a defense for "the security of our nation." By 1992, the Democratic platform echoed Nixon's 1968 pledge "to restore government as the upholder of basic law-and-order for crime-ravaged communities," adding that the "most direct way to restore order in our cities is to put more police on the streets." When President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with its 100,000 new police officers and its 60 new capital crimes, he lionized the enactment as "the toughest, largest, smartest Federal attack on crime in the history of our country. Adjectives in that order - tough, large, and then smart - marked Democratic priorities.

So when you and Numbers say "prosecute this person because they broke the law," you are implying that we can do this fairly in all cases, without considering all the economic and political decisions that go into the this great carceral machinery. It is naive to say that public political pressure is a constraint, but that constraint literally hasn't worked in stopping mass incarceration.

Abolition is not a new idea. Because you are unfamiliar with it, does not mean it is batshit crazy and should be dismissed. There also existed a time in our history before mass incarceration. Because it is difficult to imagine a world without these institutions, does not mean that we shouldn't try.

If you read about the 60s and 70s, you will find much different political perspectives on incarceration. "Nixon's 1973 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice recommended closing juvenile penal facilities, as well as a 10-year moratorium on prison construction. Many organizations endorsed sentencing guidelines as a mechanism to reduce incarceration. The American Bar Association, for example, supported tiered, non-carceral punishment, beginning with fines, restitution, and criminal forfeiture, jumping to community supervision and intermittent incarceration,..."

I don't have my Attica book with me, but I know that in the political fall out from the Attica riot, lawmakers from both parties acknowledged the failures of incarceration and recognized a world without prisons. Many of the Attica prisoners requested to see Republican representatives.

Your Purge comparison does not seem relevant. I'm not advocating for vigilante justice or the absence of laws.

Police abolition is also not new. The history of police reform has shown us that the more we think we can fix issues with more training and better people, the more we perpetuate the militarization of police. Budgets go up, but meaningful reforms are not made.
 
Thinking is flat is not new but is crazy.

Thinking climate change doesn't exist is not new but is crazy.

Thinking accepting gay people will lead to massive beastiality is not new but is crazy.

Reducing the number of people in prison is not abolishing prison. It's not even close. To abolish all prisons is batshit crazy. If you think gangs are bad in some places now, they would be everywhere without prisons.

Abolishing all police is also batshit crazy, would absolutely lead to widespread vigilantism and an explosion in crime. If you have no police, no vigilantes and no prisons, why have any laws? They can't be enforced. There's no possibility of punishment.

Just because something isn't new doesn't mean it makes sense.
 
Thinking is flat is not new but is crazy.

Thinking climate change doesn't exist is not new but is crazy.

Thinking accepting gay people will lead to massive beastiality is not new but is crazy.

Reducing the number of people in prison is not abolishing prison. It's not even close. To abolish all prisons is batshit crazy. If you think gangs are bad in some places now, they would be everywhere without prisons.

Abolishing all police is also batshit crazy, would absolutely lead to widespread vigilantism and an explosion in crime. If you have no police, no vigilantes and no prisons, why have any laws? They can't be enforced. There's no possibility of punishment.

Just because something isn't new doesn't mean it makes sense.

We have established that you think its crazy. Your post does not provide any substantive argument to my position.

What do you think it would mean to get rid of mass incarceration? What would be our goal? To reduce prison population by X%? To get back to a world average of incarceration rates?

At the 2017 DSA national convention, DSA passed a resolution to support prison abolition. I'm trying to find the text of that resolution.
 
So when you say "get rid of mass incarceration," you mean "apply the death penalty to most crimes," right ?
 
We have established that you think its crazy. Your post does not provide any substantive argument to my position.

What do you think it would mean to get rid of mass incarceration? What would be our goal? To reduce prison population by X%? To get back to a world average of incarceration rates?

At the 2017 DSA national convention, DSA passed a resolution to support prison abolition. I'm trying to find the text of that resolution.

i think we're saying that the prosecution of minor acts of vandalism is not really contributing to the problem of mass incarceration
 
I've given you reasons about why abolishing prisons would be crazy, but you ignore everything that doesn't agree with you.

If we get rid of sending non-violent criminals to jail (come up with programs) and provide medical treatment for drugs users, prison populations would drop dramatically. Obviously, mandatory sentences are counterproductive.

For those in prison, education and training should be mandatory.

I don't care that the DSA passed a resolution. It makes as much sense as passing one that people should be nice to each other, feed unicorns and leave their doors unlocked while they are on vacation.
 
Back
Top