Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 1234567813 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 615

Thread: Police and Prison Abolition Thread

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by MHBDemon View Post
    That over in KCK, the current police chief was literal partners with this shitbag, who worked on the force for 35 years and got up to captain:
    Sounds like a guy who should be in jail.

  2. #42
    for those interested, The Point magazine did their last issue around the theme "What is prison for?" with some pretty interesting entries: https://thepointmag.com/current-issue

    can share a log-in if anyone wants it

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    You are arguing semantics rather than the use of a specific, very defined word. If you aren't going allow murderers, rapists and others to be free, whether you call it jail, prison or anything else, they are being held away from the innocent populace. Thus, you haven't abolished holding certain people in spaces or facilities.

    As I mentioned earlier, Novas were good cars for the period and for the Central and South American market, but because they were called Nova, very few were sold. People couldn't get around the name. This has happened with other products throughout the years.

    Again, I'm not saying the goal is wrong. I'm saying the naming of it is. By choosing the wrong name when you might have momentum, you can delay or deny the results you desire.

    When you are trying to do something this radical (and needed), you put your entire movement at risk due to have a terrible name. Or even one that takes a lot of description. I don't know what that name is, but I do know calling it "abolition" does all but guarantee its failure.
    I'm doing the opposite of arguing semantics.

    There is a group of people who for generations now have identified as prison abolitionists. They have a constituency, a coherent ideology, and represent a growing movement on the left. You are welcome to tell prison abolitionists that they are wrong or that they should change their name, but to do so without acknowledging their existence and ideology just doesn't seem that productive to me. Why not engage with the substantive claims that prison abolitionists make about the system or help think through what a world without incarceration would look like? That seems to me to be a far more interesting conversation, especially on a thread dedicated to discussing this ideology. To each their own, though.

    You never answered my other question, though. Where did MHB post that he supports incarcerating murderers and other criminals?
    We're going to be good again.

  4. #44
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    MHB stated on other threads that certain people would still need to be kept away from society. He doesn't deny this.

    At no point did I say the group didn't exist. That's just wrong.

    What I have said is their branding will doom them. That word will not work.

    I have stated repeatedly that I agree with the concept of alternatives to warehousing in prisons.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    You need to get over your Pavlovian response to everything I post. Your obnoxious posts drive people away who basically support your desires. But you'll come up with an excuse rather than trying to discuss anything. It's always your way or the highway. In that case, the highway will always win.

    As to telling people to fuck off if they don't like your terminology, you are guaranteeing your failure due to your childish and boorish behavior. Your repeated words are no different than bigots like Steve King and Donald Trump if we don't goosestep your way.

    Working together progress will happen. Driving wedges between allies doom you.

    What process? The process from taking an idea or ideal from inception to reality means you have to deal with non-true believers and convince other people. There are millions of people who will hear the term "abolition" and immediately believe you want "The Purge" to exist 24/7/365 and will stop listening immediately. You will lose them.

    You already have to overcome the "opposition" you face in places like TX, FL, NC, TN. Using the term "abolition", you'll lose millions more in places that would support you.

    Decades ago GM was shocked that they weren't selling many Novas in Central and South America in spite of it fitting the market so well. They learned very few would buy a car whose name means "Not going" in Spanish.

    Tens of millions of people will not be interested in supporting something called "abolition".
    Hey man. Leave Steve King alone. I mean, his later work may have gotten repetitive, but The Stand is still the exemplar for excellence in the post-apocalyptic mini-genre.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Strickland33 View Post
    I'm doing the opposite of arguing semantics.

    There is a group of people who for generations now have identified as prison abolitionists. They have a constituency, a coherent ideology, and represent a growing movement on the left. You are welcome to tell prison abolitionists that they are wrong or that they should change their name, but to do so without acknowledging their existence and ideology just doesn't seem that productive to me. Why not engage with the substantive claims that prison abolitionists make about the system or help think through what a world without incarceration would look like? That seems to me to be a far more interesting conversation, especially on a thread dedicated to discussing this ideology. To each their own, though.

    You never answered my other question, though. Where did MHB post that he supports incarcerating murderers and other criminals?
    What are the actual numbers behind this? I mean, if you go from 1 to 2, technically you're growing. What percentage of the population identifies with the abolitionist ideology?

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamison2Carter View Post
    What are the actual numbers behind this? I mean, if you go from 1 to 2, technically you're growing. What percentage of the population identifies with the abolitionist ideology?
    Iím in Topeka for a lobbying day so not a lot of time. I donít know an easy way to quantify the total. DSA is close to 60k and the largest socialist org in the last 100 years. On a larger scale, this is not that big. But the national organization passed a resolution supporting police and prison abolition. I donít have any way to quantify other leftist orgs, but with the National Prison Strike, the rise of community bail funds and ending cash bail campaigns, the rise of organizing against new jails and prisons construction, the increase in organizing to remove cops from schools and end the school to prison pipeline, these all seem rooted in abolitionist theory. Iím not sure if BLM has formally endorsed abolition, but they are another group pushing the dialogue left on this issue.

    If that doesnít help, what information do you think would help put it in better context?

  8. #48
    There may not be any specific data. I was curious if there is/was. I work in criminal justice and haven't heard of abolitionists before or what they stand for (not intended to confer anything other than I don't know much about it). Criminal justice reform, generally, is a well-known and ongoing discussion. Things are inevitably heading towards many of the reforms that you probably would label under "traditional reformist" proposals. Some of the proposals I've read on this thread seems pretty out there. I'll be interested to read more of the specifics of what your alternatives are to cash bail, prison, etc. A lot of it already exists, I suspect, just not in the proportions or with the funding that you'd want.
    Last edited by Jamison2Carter; 01-15-2019 at 02:30 PM.

  9. #49
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    I have read this thread. Maybe I missed it, but I havenít seen a description of what the alternatives to prisons are for violent criminals. Can someone explain that in literal, and not theoretical, terms?
    Restitution to victims and/or society. Monetary or otherwise.

    Convicting people for violent crimes and then letting them go without any punishment would actually be a better system than the one we have now.

    A conversation about when to physically restrain people for their own or others safety, the process for making those determinations, and the appropriate methods of restraint belongs on another thread.

  10. #50
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Restitution to victims and/or society. Monetary or otherwise.

    Convicting people for violent crimes and then letting them go without any punishment would actually be a better system than the one we have now.

    A conversation about when to physically restrain people for their own or others safety, the process for making those determinations, and the appropriate methods of restraint belongs on another thread.
    That is crazy. Letting people go who commit violent crimes will entice them into creating more. If there is no punishment, there's no reason not commit armed robberies, rape, murder or assaults.

    Sounds like you want The Purge to be a documentary.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Restitution to victims and/or society. Monetary or otherwise.

    Convicting people for violent crimes and then letting them go without any punishment would actually be a better system than the one we have now.

    A conversation about when to physically restrain people for their own or others safety, the process for making those determinations, and the appropriate methods of restraint belongs on another thread.
    What evidence is there that letting violent criminals into society without incarceration would be better than the system we have now?

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    That is crazy. Letting people go who commit violent crimes will entice them into creating more. If there is no punishment, there's no reason not commit armed robberies, rape, murder or assaults.

    Sounds like you want The Purge to be a documentary.
    Thatís not really that true. Just like the GOPís scare tactics related to legalizing marijuana, just because there is not a huge retributive punishment for a crime does not mean all of a sudden everyone will start doing it. Iím not advocating abolishing of prisons, I think prisons are necessary and when run properly can serve to benefit society at large. But your reasoning for being against RChildress isnít based on concrete data.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    That is crazy. Letting people go who commit violent crimes will entice them into creating more. If there is no punishment, there's no reason not commit armed robberies, rape, murder or assaults.

    Sounds like you want The Purge to be a documentary.
    Link?

  14. #54
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    It's very concrete to think that having no punishment for violent crimes will be deleterious to public safety. It's not at all like the legalization of marijuana. There is massive evidence in the US and around the world that making pot legal or quasi-legal doesn't create more crime. I defy you to show me where allowing violent criminals to not be punished has done the same.

    By the way, please stop posting things I NEVER said because it fits your desires. In no way, shape or form did I ever say, " for a crime does not mean all of a sudden everyone will start doing it."

    It would be nice, if for once, you'd admit you made this up and were wrong for doing it. I'm not holding my breath.

    P.S. Don't say I said, "Sounds like you want The Purge to be a documentary" as your excuse. Clearly, that's sarcasm.

  15. #55
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,064
    Quote Originally Posted by AsesinoDeTortugas View Post
    Thatís not really that true. Just like the GOPís scare tactics related to legalizing marijuana, just because there is not a huge retributive punishment for a crime does not mean all of a sudden everyone will start doing it. Iím not advocating abolishing of prisons, I think prisons are necessary and when run properly can serve to benefit society at large. But your reasoning for being against RChildress isnít based on concrete data.
    I'm more curious about the data on MHBD's "organized states that have no constabulary"

  16. #56
    I could see an argument that says something something along the lines of "the criminal justice system as a whole does more harm than the violent criminals would should they never be incarcerated." I don't know that it's true, but I don't think it's wildly implausible.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by tiltdeac View Post
    I could see an argument that says something something along the lines of "the criminal justice system as a whole does more harm than the violent criminals would should they never be incarcerated." I don't know that it's true, but I don't think it's wildly implausible.
    I can't remember where I read it, but mass incarceration - or the aggressive policing that followed the initiation of the War on Drugs - is almost completely responsible for the gang epidemics in the United States in the 80s-90s and in Central American countries in 00s-present.
    We're going to be good again.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by AsesinoDeTortugas View Post
    Thatís not really that true. Just like the GOPís scare tactics related to legalizing marijuana, just because there is not a huge retributive punishment for a crime does not mean all of a sudden everyone will start doing it. Iím not advocating abolishing of prisons, I think prisons are necessary and when run properly can serve to benefit society at large. But your reasoning for being against RChildress isnít based on concrete data.
    I think it is a fair assumption to make that if theft was no longer huge retributive punishment toward robbery and armed robbery that the rates would go up dramatically. Same with rape and to a lesser degree murder, especially in MHB's ideal state of no police force.

    In this model why wouldn't people just go out and take what they wanted as theirs?

  19. #59
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,064
    it might work in a world of little to zero scarcity.

    crimes of passion are another matter

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by WFcatamount22 View Post
    I think it is a fair assumption to make that if theft was no longer huge retributive punishment toward robbery and armed robbery that the rates would go up dramatically. Same with rape and to a lesser degree murder, especially in MHB's ideal state of no police force.

    In this model why wouldn't people just go out and take what they wanted as theirs?
    A point of clarification:

    The interesting thing to think about is that there technically isn't anything standing in the way of psychopaths and sociopaths "taking what they wanted as theirs" (unless we're talking about GOP tax reform). Society and social norms really matter and, for the most part, do a better job of social control than the police. The police probably don't stop many violent crimes (or crimes of passion/opportunity), but they do investigate and sanction criminals for committing them.

    We consider it to be a fairly exceptional - or emergency - situation, for example, when people loot. You would think, given the state of everyday life, that such acts would be more common. Yet, they really aren't.
    We're going to be good again.

Posting Permissions

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