• 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!

BillBrasky Memorial Political Chat Thread

Deterrance is a rhetoric that exists to support the base of the state. Rehabilitation is an ethic that demands recognition of the true value of a human life.
 
Frosty said:
The emotionally and spiritually healing part never added up for me. Admittedly, I've never had a loved one killed in a violent crime, but I would think that spending 30 years hearing about constant appeals, pleas for clemency, and, ultimately, an execution would make it far more difficult to create the space necessary to heal.

And for the true sadists out there who want to maximize the suffering of the convicted, wouldn't locking someone away in an American prison be a far crueler fate? To be clear, I'm not trying to make the argument that executing people is the "humane" choice, but rather that our carceral system inherently inhumane and non-rehabilitative so maximizing one's time in it maximizes the suffering caused.

This is all besides the point that if the state is to have a monopoly on administering violence and the most extreme administration of this is ending life and there is ANY chance of them making a mistake in administering this punishment then they should not be allowed to execute anyone.
Click to expand...
the show Rectified is a pretty good argument against the death penalty, as well

eta:
 
Last edited:
The state requires an incarcerated population to function. Part of the rhetoric of deterrence (superstructure) is to make police and policing and prisons in relationship to us (i.e. citizens) seem like the only possible relationship.

If you're looking for a specific rhetorical example on ogboards dot com, then I'm thinking back to Biff et al. posting "send a librarian" after calls to rethink policing after four police officers murdered George Floyd.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Foucaultbirdstandup.jpg
Click to expand...
but in this case it explains the "positive" function of mass incarceration

without "positive" functions, most institutions would not exist (no matter how reprehensible or socially-harmful their negative functions are)
 
Strickland33 said:
but in this case it explains the "positive" function of mass incarceration

without "positive" functions, most institutions would not exist (no matter how reprehensible or socially-harmful their negative functions are)
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Institutions require resources to maintain, and need to have a purpose to support their cost. I don’t know that I believe the original purpose of incarceration was for the state to profit, but that’s certainly a factor that supports incarceration and encourages higher incarceration rates.
 
Kory said:
Discipline and Punish is a great intro read as far as critical theory goes, tbh. Lots of gore. Some banger points: Torture as a function of the state, explicating the Panopticon, docile bodies, etc.
Click to expand...
Plus it makes a convincing argument for moving punishment back into the public square a la stocks, tar and feathering, etc., which is cool.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
can't you say the same thing about any innocent person facing any kind of punishment, then
Click to expand...
Not exactly. There is some level of restorative justice that can be applied in situations where someone is, for example, wrongfully incarcerated. Like when you see wrongfully convicted people getting payouts relative to the amount of time they were locked up. Does it make them totally whole and undue all of the harm caused? No, but it's at least restorative to some degree.

When someone's dead they're just dead. No good place to start with that one.
 
I’m totally fine with the death penalty being abolished. I personally feel life in prison is much worse knowing that you’ll never have a moment of freedom again. Worse than death IMO.
 
DeacsPop said:
Michael Zack savagely, viciously and violently killed two women, each in their own home after meeting them at a bar. He had no remorse then, taking their lives from this earth of two women who had mothers and fathers and a full life ahead of them. His defense was being "intellectually disabled" something hard to believe even in his final statements.
As far as I am concerned he got exactly what he deserved. He totally confessed, sought appeals for years and will not be missed by this guy one bit.
Click to expand...
You suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top