Police and Prison Abolition Thread

[MHBDemon]

Because no one on here is disagreeing with you w/r/t drug offenses. Thus, when employed here, the graphic is misleading at best.

Somewhere along the way our arguments got crossed, so it would help to clarify what you are arguing.

Everyone on here that provides some version of "well we just need to reform the system, not tear it all down" has to reckon with the history of reform and how we got to the point we are today. My contention is that we "reformed" to this point, and that calls to simply let non-violent drug offenders out of prison is not sufficient to reverse our course of mass incarceration.

[Jamison2Carter]

What do you mean by this? From an implementation standpoint there’s no reason the change has to be incremental.

I mean as a practical matter there will have to be. You're not going to persuade a critical mass of people to support your views from where we are now. Surely you realize that your views stand on the cliff of the political spectrum. I doubt they are widely held/supported (I've asked for the data on this in this thread and evidently said numbers aren't available). And that in and of itself doesn't make you wrong (although I don't share your views) and it doesn't mean you shouldn't advocate for what you believe, but that's just the reality of it.

[MHBDemon]

I mean as a practical matter there will have to be. You're not going to persuade a critical mass of people to support your views from where we are now. Surely you realize that your views stand on the cliff of the political spectrum. I doubt they are widely held/supported (I've asked for the data on this in this thread and evidently said numbers aren't available). And that in and of itself doesn't make you wrong (although I don't share your views) and it doesn't mean you shouldn't advocate for what you believe, but that's just the reality of it.

I don't think abolition of prisons is likely under capitalism, so yeah, I understand the practical limits of a revolutionary demand in our current political environment.

[RChildress107]

I mean as a practical matter there will have to be. You're not going to persuade a critical mass of people to support your views from where we are now. Surely you realize that your views stand on the cliff of the political spectrum. I doubt they are widely held/supported (I've asked for the data on this in this thread and evidently said numbers aren't available). And that in and of itself doesn't make you wrong (although I don't share your views) and it doesn't mean you shouldn't advocate for what you believe, but that's just the reality of it.

Got it.

[RChildress107]

Because no one on here is disagreeing with you w/r/t drug offenses. Thus, when employed here, the graphic is misleading at best.

Is there anyone on this thread who wouldn’t support legislation on the state and federal level to immediately release all individuals who were sent to prison for drug offenses?

I’m skeptical that everyone who has posted on this thread is actually in favor of that.

[Jamison2Carter]

Is there anyone on this thread who wouldn’t support legislation on the state and federal level to immediately release all individuals who were sent to prison for drug offenses?

I’m skeptical that everyone who has posted on this thread is actually in favor of that.

For schedule III- VI substances; pretty much. For people trafficking heroin, cocaine, meth - no. That would require a case by case analysis for me.

[RJKarl]

Drug dealers who committed violent acts need to stay where they are. Users, those who possessed and other non-violent drug offenders should be freed.

[DistrictDeacon]

That’s not quite what I said. Criminality has nothing to do with it.

My priority is getting everyone currently held in prison out of prison. If you think some of those people need to be involuntarily confined in some way then I would support a system that:

1. Only places people in involuntary confinement that meet the standard I mentioned earlier (serious, imminent threat to society; no less restrictive alternative to mitigate that threat, risk to society is > violence we are inflicting on that individual).

2. Only lasts for as long as the individual meets that standard.

3. Actively works to remove people from involuntary confinement as quickly as possible.

4. Makes the confinement only as restrictive as necessary (thinking mostly of visitors, internet and phone access, etc.).

5. Provides for humane living conditions (spartan but still humane).

But I’m fine releasing people before that system is in place, tbh.

So Rchill’s utopian society involves all but the worst murders roaming the streets free, and for the worst of the worst, they are provided free housing, internet and phone service.

[61raddeac]

So, one of us can just take out Trump?

[RChildress107]

So Rchill’s utopian society involves all but the worst murders roaming the streets free, and for the worst of the worst, they are provided free housing, internet and phone service.

No society would definitely still suck. Feel free to tell me which of those five points you disagree with. Or what points you would add.

[RChildress107]

I’d rather be a petty criminal in utopia than a blue collar working man here, as long as the government will let me have my Budweiser.

Lol on so many levels.

[ImTheCaptain]

So, one of us can just take out Trump?

Yeah, one freebie in Utopia

[HuskyDeac]

That’s not quite what I said. Criminality has nothing to do with it.

My priority is getting everyone currently held in prison out of prison. If you think some of those people need to be involuntarily confined in some way then I would support a system that:

1. Only places people in involuntary confinement that meet the standard I mentioned earlier (serious, imminent threat to society; no less restrictive alternative to mitigate that threat, risk to society is > violence we are inflicting on that individual).

2. Only lasts for as long as the individual meets that standard.

3. Actively works to remove people from involuntary confinement as quickly as possible.

4. Makes the confinement only as restrictive as necessary (thinking mostly of visitors, internet and phone access, etc.).

5. Provides for humane living conditions (spartan but still humane).

But I’m fine releasing people before that system is in place, tbh.

Ok, this makes sense to me. I don't agree with a fair amount of it, but that's fine. So who decides what constitutes an imminent threat in this system? And wouldn't that subjectivity suffer from the same institutional racism and inequality that you've referred to in the current system?

For the place of confinement, what does that look like? Refurbishing current prisons? Or house arrest? While I don't think criminals should be subject to physical/mental abuse while in confinement, I also think that their living conditions should be as basic as needed. If you're offering them affordable or free housing, meals, internet and visitors, that's better living conditions than many who don't commit crimes in their lifetime. That doesn't seem right and won't serve as any sort of deterrent, perhaps even promoting violence.

[RChildress107]

Ok, this makes sense to me. I don't agree with a fair amount of it, but that's fine. So who decides what constitutes an imminent threat in this system? And wouldn't that subjectivity suffer from the same institutional racism and inequality that you've referred to in the current system?

For the place of confinement, what does that look like? Refurbishing current prisons? Or house arrest? While I don't think criminals should be subject to physical/mental abuse while in confinement, I also think that their living conditions should be as basic as needed. If you're offering them affordable or free housing, meals, internet and visitors, that's better living conditions than many who don't commit crimes in their lifetime. That doesn't seem right and won't serve as any sort of deterrent, perhaps even promoting violence.

The system would be built from the ground up, which I think would allow us to put in checks from the beginning that prevent much of the institutional racism we see in our current system. To me that’s the biggest argument for abolition vs reform. Institutional racism is so ingrained in the system that the only way to get rid of it is to tear the whole thing down and start over. I wouldn’t let anyone currently involved in the criminal justice system anywhere near developing this new system.

Which brings me to your second paragraph. Nowhere in the five criteria I laid out do I mention crimes or criminals. It’s not a criminal justice issue, it’s a public health and safety issue. We aren’t making moral judgments, we are making threat assessments.

If you have a problem with people who pose an imminent danger to society living in better conditions than some people who pose no threat to society, then your focus should be on the latter and not the former.

[HuskyDeac]

Which brings me to your second paragraph. Nowhere in the five criteria I laid out do I mention crimes or criminals. It’s not a criminal justice issue, it’s a public health and safety issue. We aren’t making moral judgments, we are making threat assessments.

If you have a problem with people who pose an imminent danger to society living in better conditions than some people who pose no threat to society, then your focus should be on the latter and not the former.

I'm struggling to understand how you're going to deem someone an immediate threat to society if they haven't already been involved in a crime. That opens up an even scarier situation than our current criminal system. Throwing people in confinement for their potential for violence? It seems like that would drop facts and evidence in exchange for someone attempting to predict the future.

As to your second part, I completely agree and I am more concerned with the conditions of those who pose no threat. But if your position is to abolish prisons tomorrow there'd no longer be an economic deterrent to violence and instead a benefit for many. I was wondering how that is rationalized? Or is that not as big a concern as emptying the prisons?

[Shooshmoo]

I'm struggling to understand how you're going to deem someone an immediate threat to society if they haven't already been involved in a crime. That opens up an even scarier situation than our current criminal system. Throwing people in confinement for their potential for violence? It seems like that would drop facts and evidence in exchange for someone attempting to predict the future.

This keeps coming back to Minority Report. that's the only way this is going to work, guys, let's face it. Time to start talking actual solutions here - does any of this work without pre-cogs and hypersleep chambers? The clear answer is NO!

[BarcaDeac]

The whole abolitionist argument is undermined by the fact that motherfuckers like Trump and his family need to rot in jail while doing hard manual labor.

[RChildress107]

I'm struggling to understand how you're going to deem someone an immediate threat to society if they haven't already been involved in a crime. That opens up an even scarier situation than our current criminal system. Throwing people in confinement for their potential for violence? It seems like that would drop facts and evidence in exchange for someone attempting to predict the future.

As to your second part, I completely agree and I am more concerned with the conditions of those who pose no threat. But if your position is to abolish prisons tomorrow there'd no longer be an economic deterrent to violence and instead a benefit for many. I was wondering how that is rationalized? Or is that not as big a concern as emptying the prisons?

First bold: we already do this (mainly in the menatal health and terrorism context). And if the goal of prisons is public safety via incapacitation, then in theory we are attempting to predict the future for those who have been convicted of crime (though it’s pretty evident our criminal justice and prison system don’t even attempt to do this). I would imagine any system put in place would have a very high evidentiary bar.

Second bold: 1. I’m not sure I buy this. 2. We can address this economic incentive, if it exists, by focusing on improving conditions for those not in confinement.

[RChildress107]

The whole abolitionist argument is undermined by the fact that motherfuckers like Trump and his family need to rot in jail while doing hard manual labor.

I get that. But I’d rather take away all of his family’s property and then make him attend high society functions in NYC every week sans tupee.

[ChrisL68]

You’re not this dumb.

Have you not read his posts on Danny Manning over these years on the sports board?