Page 13 of 31 FirstFirst ... 38910111213141516171823 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 615

Thread: Police and Prison Abolition Thread

  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    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.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    What do you mean by this? From an implementation standpoint thereís 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.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamison2Carter View Post
    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.

  4. #244
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamison2Carter View Post
    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.

  5. #245
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    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 wouldnít support legislation on the state and federal level to immediately release all individuals who were sent to prison for drug offenses?

    Iím skeptical that everyone who has posted on this thread is actually in favor of that.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Is there anyone on this thread who wouldnít support legislation on the state and federal level to immediately release all individuals who were sent to prison for drug offenses?

    Iím 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.

  7. #247
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    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.

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Thatís 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 Iím fine releasing people before that system is in place, tbh.
    So Rchillís 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.

  9. #249
    So, one of us can just take out Trump?

  10. #250
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by DistrictDeacon View Post
    So Rchillís 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.

  11. #251
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    Iíd 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.

  12. #252
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,075
    Quote Originally Posted by 61raddeac View Post
    So, one of us can just take out Trump?
    Yeah, one freebie in Utopia

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Thatís 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 Iím 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.

  14. #254
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by HuskyDeac View Post
    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 thatís 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 wouldnít 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. Itís not a criminal justice issue, itís a public health and safety issue. We arenít 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.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Which brings me to your second paragraph. Nowhere in the five criteria I laid out do I mention crimes or criminals. Itís not a criminal justice issue, itís a public health and safety issue. We arenít 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?

  16. #256
    Scooter Banks

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    8,975
    Quote Originally Posted by HuskyDeac View Post
    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!
    Last edited by Shooshmoo; 01-18-2019 at 02:18 PM.

  17. #257
    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.

  18. #258
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by HuskyDeac View Post
    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 itís pretty evident our criminal justice and prison system donít even attempt to do this). I would imagine any system put in place would have a very high evidentiary bar.

    Second bold: 1. Iím 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.

  19. #259
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by BarcaDeac View Post
    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 Iíd rather take away all of his familyís property and then make him attend high society functions in NYC every week sans tupee.

  20. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    Youíre not this dumb.
    Have you not read his posts on Danny Manning over these years on the sports board?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •