• 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

i think we're saying that the prosecution of minor acts of vandalism is not really contributing to the problem of mass incarceration

I hope I've explained why I think it is. I don't know if I understand the argument for why it is not.
 
i guess i'd have to see some evidence our prisons are packed full of protesters and vandalism acts that were political in nature
 
i guess i'd have to see some evidence our prisons are packed full of protesters and vandalism acts that were political in nature

My argument is that a belief in law and order policing contributes to mass incarceration. Whether you think prisons are full of jaywalkers or drug addicts or murderers, or any variety of crime along a spectrum, is, i think, beside the point. They are undoubtedly full. They are undoubtedly full of people who should not be in them.
 
 
Exile, corporal punishment, execution.


Build that wall and send them criminals to Mexico!


MAGA!
 
So where should murderers go ?

One could argue that the only people who should be locked away are those that have been found to pose a danger to society through some sort of “due” process.

That involuntary commitment process (for lack of a better term) could be completely separate from the criminal justice system.

I don’t see much difference between a mental institution and a prison, so I wouldn’t consider that to be “abolishing prisons,” but it would be eliminating prison as an means of punishment for crime. Maybe that’s where MHb was going.
 
My argument is that a belief in law and order policing contributes to mass incarceration. Whether you think prisons are full of jaywalkers or drug addicts or murderers, or any variety of crime along a spectrum, is, i think, beside the point. They are undoubtedly full. They are undoubtedly full of people who should not be in them.

But you have repeatedly said you want to abolish prisons and the police, as if none of the people who are put in prison deserve to be there and the public would be safe without any police and no jails. That is an insane concept.
 
I'll get back to unanswered questions later when I have time, but for those of you that might be familiar with Michelle Alexander and The New Jim Crow, she was a reformist when she wrote it, but now supports abolition. If you have read the New Jim Crow, or watched 13th, I would recommend at least familiarizing yourself with the concept of abolition. I don't bring up Alexander as an appeal to authority. You can certainly disagree with abolition. But just like a renewed interest in socialism, an interest in abolition of both police and prisons will at some point enter more main stream discussion.
 
The idea that the penalties would be minimal is really pretty ignorant of the political landscape in NC right now.
 
Dramatic reform will become more main stream but not abolition.

Much of the articles I read about abolition have a focus on paying victims for the crimes they have endured. It's ironic for hardcore socialists to be so ingrained in capitalism for a solution. But please tell me how to pay a rape victim? The family of a murder victim?

Peter Salib talked on Vox about an arsonist paying 80% of his earnings to the owner of the building. Where does the money come from to feed, clothe, house, etc., those who lost their jobs in that building while an arsonist is on the streets? How can we be sure being free he won't burn down another building. Oh wait, there won't be any cops to catch him anyway.
 
I'll get back to unanswered questions later when I have time, but for those of you that might be familiar with Michelle Alexander and The New Jim Crow, she was a reformist when she wrote it, but now supports abolition. If you have read the New Jim Crow, or watched 13th, I would recommend at least familiarizing yourself with the concept of abolition. I don't bring up Alexander as an appeal to authority. You can certainly disagree with abolition. But just like a renewed interest in socialism, an interest in abolition of both police and prisons will at some point enter more main stream discussion.

Can you give us a definition of what you mean by “abolition”?
 
Dramatic reform will become more main stream but not abolition.

Much of the articles I read about abolition have a focus on paying victims for the crimes they have endured. It's ironic for hardcore socialists to be so ingrained in capitalism for a solution. But please tell me how to pay a rape victim? The family of a murder victim?

Peter Salib talked on Vox about an arsonist paying 80% of his earnings to the owner of the building. Where does the money come from to feed, clothe, house, etc., those who lost their jobs in that building while an arsonist is on the streets? How can we be sure being free he won't burn down another building. Oh wait, there won't be any cops to catch him anyway.

Write a check.

In general there a 5 reasons to punish people for crimes: Deterrence, Incapacitation (preventing someone from committing more crimes), Rehabilitation, Restitution, and Retribution.

I think there’s a good argument that the 5th reason is illegitimate, prison doesn’t contribute to the 4th, and doesn’t really attempt the 3rd.

That would mean there are only two good reasons to lock people up: Incapacitation and Deterrence. However, I think that in most cases there are better, or nearly as good, ways to deter people from committing crime and I don’t think the criminal justice system is the best way to determine who does and doesn’t need to be locked up to prevent them from committing more crimes.
 
Back
Top