The New Socialists

How do they accomplish such feats without electronic monitoring or risk-assessment algorithms?

"We call our model 'community release with support,'" Steinberg explains, "a simple version of release on recognizance supplemented by effective court reminders, referrals to voluntary social services, and client advocacy."

Ultimately, the Bail Project advocates that cash bail should not be replaced by other systems that coerce defendants into showing up for court, but by methods that actually help them show up for court. The organization's vision for whom these methods should extend to—whether high risk or low risk—is straightforward as well. As Steinberg puts it: "We believe everyone—regardless of wealth, race, and, yes, accusation—should be entitled to the same presumption of innocence and treated with respect and dignity."

Click to expand...

MHBDemon said:

I like how you just state this as fact. There really isn't a good argument for addressing harm in communities by caging people and subjecting them to extreme violence.

Rape is a good grounds to demonstrate that the numbers logic is flawed. Of 1000 rapes that occur, only ~5 are convicted. So when people say "what about the rapists" they are intentionally or unintentionally weaponizing the fear of sexual violence to criminalize people, without acknowledging that the current system fails in preventing sexual violence.

Click to expand...

RJKarl said:

This is a totally disingenuous number due to the fact close to 90% of sexual assaults are never charged.

Click to expand...

RJKarl said:

Also it is 5% not 5 in 1000 that are convicted.

Click to expand...

According to RAINN, only 5 out of every 1,000 rapes committed—that’s 0.5 percent—ends in a felony conviction. The Washington Post puts the figure at 7 out of 1,000, but pretty much everyone agrees it’s under 1 percent. We usually try to make sense of this painfully low number by noting that many rapes aren’t reported, which is true, but the crime is also notoriously under-investigated.

Click to expand...

MHBDemon said:

https://psmag.com/social-justice/what-should-replace-cash-bail

Click to expand...

Wakeforest22890 said:

I have no problem with shrinking the number of people held in pre trial detention but I don’t understand the argument in favor of full fledged elimination in certain cases (murder and rape for instance). Maybe I’m wrong on this but surely people charged with murder who were either placed into third party custody or tracked with GPS still have a heavy incentive to run away since....they face murder charges.

What is the alternative to detention for these cases?

Click to expand...

Be it resolved that DSA supports the demand for open borders;

Be it resolved that DSA supports the uninhibited transnational free movement of people, the demilitarization of the US-Mexico border, the abolition of ICE and CPB without replacement, decriminalization of immigration, full amnesty for all asylum seekers and a pathway to citizenship for all non-citizen residents;

Be it resolved that DSA develops political education resources to be shared with chapters across the country to deepen and broaden the understanding of the demand for open borders and how to fight for it. These efforts shall be made in coordination between the national Immigrants’ Rights Working Group, the International Committee, and chapters and members across the country working on issues of immigration justice and internationalism;

Be it resolved that DSA recognizes and reflects our support for open borders in our evaluations and endorsement of political campaigns.

Click to expand...

Though he never used the term socialism in his speech, Roosevelt’s anger at those who accused him of ideological motivations, of applying an economic theory that was anathema to the United States, exploded from the lectern. In line after line, the fiery president defended his actions as pragmatic responses to the real, glaring needs of a changing society. The rich who criticized him, who cloaked their greed in an affinity for capitalism, were dangerously missing his point. He knew the ideological threats of communism and of fascism were real, and were overtaking democracy in European countries. An etched-in-stone commitment to the status quo would be an invitation to extremists everywhere. By fulfilling the government’s obligation to assist its people, he was instilling confidence in the American system. He was vindicating the Founding Fathers.

Now, in a time of far less suffering and little sense of economic crisis, some Democrats are embracing the very title that Roosevelt shunned. It is, in their eyes, truth in packaging. Their proposals sound much like Roosevelt’s: using the power of the federal government to create a fairer society, in which essential services are subsidized by higher taxes on the wealthy. But unlike FDR, they say that, yes, these programs amount to socialism. The Republicans who inveigh against them aren’t misstating their intentions, as Roosevelt claimed. The GOP may be dead wrong to demonize them—to turn a benignly descriptive word like socialism into a scare word—but, yeah, they’re socialists in pursuit of a socialist platform.

Click to expand...

PhDeac said:

What reasonable political observers understand about socialism

1. Very few Americans are advocating for actual socialism. None of them are in positions of real power.

2. Republicans define anything they don’t like as socialism. Americans use that same definition when advocating for “socialism.”

3. People say they’re for “socialism” because Republicans carry out the interests of wealthy people to make sure capitalism only works for them.

Click to expand...

Wakeforest22890 said:

No surprise that the people calling everything socialist also use “political correctness” frequently.

Painting with these broad strokes allows Fox News to constantly add to their narrative.

Click to expand...

PINEAPPLE said:

The bottom line is that both sides are very comfortable using broad generalizations to characterize those who disagree with their political positions. For Republicans, the over-used term is "socialist". For Democrats, the over-used term is "racist". The fact is that most Democrats are not socialists and most Republicans are not racists, but as the rhetoric is constantly being ratcheted higher the temptation to make such inaccurate generalizations is hard to resist.

Each side really believes that its generalizations are factual and that the other side's generalizations are only imagined. This is why there is so little meaningful political discourse on these boards and/or across the nation in general.

Click to expand...