• 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!

Police and Prison Abolition Thread

you have to walk before you crawl. it's like MDMH suggesting McCaskill got destroyed by a MAGA candidate because a progressive didn't run for senate in MO. You have to erode away rather than just going all in.

And I'm asking you how that has worked in the past?

international-incarceration-rates.png
 
"i don't like this and it needs to be fixed!"

"ok, you might be right. what did you have in mind?"

"it's not incumbent on me to offer an alternative"

how life gets done !

You are smarter than this, hopefully.
 
Also, since the definition of a “violent” crime has come up, SCOTUS just had a decision broadening the definition to a degree that should shock all of you


Eh, that seems about right. The last two examples are violence. Mild for sure, but violent nonetheless.
 
I’m not sure that comparing slaves to violent murderers and rapists is the look you want, but you do you.

I'm not, but you know that. You see that chart above? Is the expansion of our PIC driven by a uniqueness of America to create more violent murderers and rapists than the rest of the world?
 
Bro, I don’t think anyone on this thread is arguing we need to keep incarcerating drug offenders. This type of post isn’t advancing your ball.

Bro, the expansion of the PIC is not entirely driven by drug offenders.
 
You are smarter than this, hopefully.

i dunno, people come to me every day and whine about x, y, or z and i tell them to come back with a solution and that seems to produce results more quickly and satisfactorily.
 
You’re not this dumb.

Yeah I guess I shouldn’t assume governments will do something with the abandoned prisons.

There are obviously things I would like to see in place to make the transition to a prison free society smoother for all involved, but the priority for me is closing prisons and I’m comfortable doing that even if those things are not perfectly in place.
 
I don't know what your point is or who you are talking to. Seems telling.

You want to abolish prisons, you have no ideas except prisons bad must be abolished. Your plan then means all prisoners are no longer in prison so they are in society. Yet if this no longer prison means they are only in society with you it seems you are apprehensive.
 
you have to walk before you crawl. it's like MDMH suggesting McCaskill got destroyed by a MAGA candidate because a progressive didn't run for senate in MO. You have to erode away rather than just going all in.

I’ll go on record and say I would absolutely vote for and applaud half measures in this area. But I’m not going to stop calling for total abolition because of them. Immediately releasing all non-violent drug offenders is basically the Claire McCaskill of prison reform. It doesn’t address the worst aspects or root causes of our prison system and mainly just serves as cover for moneyed interests to preserve the status quo, but I’m still voting for her over the alternative.
 
Also, since the definition of a “violent” crime has come up, SCOTUS just had a decision broadening the definition to a degree that should shock all of you


I would challenge you to think about this in the context of how reform is nearly impossible. This is a microcosm of the entire history of reform. A believe in the ability to create colorblind policies in an incredibly racist institution. Any reform is can be undone or reconstituted by the legal system under the false idea that we can create colorblind laws and a system to apply them fairly.
 
It seems to me most everyone is open to finding alternatives for non-violent criminals or violent criminals who pose no further physical risk to society (I think most would agree a crime like pick-pocketing doesn't necessarily need imprisonment). The sticking point are those criminals who are violent and do pose an immediate threat, the ones you yourself have said you're ok with involuntarily confining.

So you abolish prisons, what do you do with those criminals you're ok with involuntarily confining? If you want the same people who are currently in charge of the PIC to come up with the solution, you're probably going to be disappointed. I read a few abolition pieces last night and they ranged from being open to prison reform to more or less anarchy, so it appears there's no consensus in the movement. What do you favor? What is this involuntary confinement that you're ok with?
 
You want to abolish prisons, you have no ideas except prisons bad must be abolished. Your plan then means all prisoners are no longer in prison so they are in society. Yet if this no longer prison means they are only in society with you it seems you are apprehensive.

I don't understand which interaction prompted this discussion. What am I apprehensive about?
 
You want to abolish prisons, you have no ideas except prisons bad must be abolished. Your plan then means all prisoners are no longer in prison so they are in society. Yet if this no longer prison means they are only in society with you it seems you are apprehensive.

This would be wayyyy down on the list of things that make me apprehensive.
 
It seems to me most everyone is open to finding alternatives for non-violent criminals or violent criminals who pose no further physical risk to society (I think most would agree a crime like pick-pocketing doesn't necessarily need imprisonment). The sticking point are those criminals who are violent and do pose an immediate threat, the ones you yourself have said you're ok with involuntarily confining.

So you abolish prisons, what do you do with those criminals you're ok with involuntarily confining? If you want the same people who are currently in charge of the PIC to come up with the solution, you're probably going to be disappointed. I read a few abolition pieces last night and they ranged from being open to prison reform to more or less anarchy, so it appears there's no consensus in the movement. What do you favor? What is this involuntary confinement that you're ok with?

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.
 
What comes next is the prisoners all go free, governments tear down or repurpose the prisons, and no one else is ever sentenced to prison when convicted of a crime.

Ok. Well if that's what you have in mind 1) I'm personally offboard with that...I now more fully understand your position but simply don't agree (which is fine...it just is what it is), and 2) there's a lot of of incremental change that will have to happen before that's even on the radar, if ever. That's many years away, and in my mind, not worth focusing on when the incremental change, at least to me, clearly has to come first.
 
Ok. Well if that's what you have in mind 1) I'm personally offboard with that...I now more fully understand your position but simply don't agree (which is fine...it just is what it is), and 2) there's a lot of of incremental change that will have to happen before that's even on the radar, if ever. That's many years away, and in my mind, not worth focusing on when the incremental change, at least to me, clearly has to come first.

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