3 ms·

One good way to “change the narrative” is to come up with arguments. I agree it would be nice to stop criminals from committing crimes in the first place, but

One good way to “change the narrative” is to come up with arguments. I agree it would be nice to stop criminals from committing crimes in the first place, but until we achieve that we need prisons. And once we achieve it prisons are a moot point. So it seems she should just focus on making criminals stop committing crimes, if she thinks that is possible. I don’t think she does believe that though, she’s probably not a complete fool

wahern 7y ago
Re-read the paragraphs about Spain and the middle-schoolers. It wasn't easy for me to immediately grasp the argument, but I think it boils down to that the way to reduce violence is for society to model a less violent path. Specifically those few paragraphs seem to be saying, 1) Spain has light sentences for murder. 2) Spain has a low murder rate. 3) Leniency in criminal justice begets less violence. 4) Imagine the most lenient system possible--no incarceration whatsoever. That may result in the least amount of violent crime.[1] Step #3 is I think the most contentious. Is leniency a cause or effect? In reality it's probably both. And I presume that Gilmore could provide much more sophisticated arguments that don't rely on there being a simple, unidirectional causal relationship. But my impression from the article is that the overarching emphasis is that there is some causal relationship and that by refusing to accept that it exists we perpetuate an inflated rate of violence. We can't productively get into the weeds of concrete prescriptions without first establishing the nature of the causal relationship. [1] Nowhere does the article imply the claim that all violent crime could be prevented. At least conceptually, it may be better to have a few Ted Bundys roaming freely than to construct a criminal justice system that molds many more people into gladiators. In any event, this would be a quantitive question and not something that is categorically foreclosed. Establishing that Ted Bundys exist and would kill doesn't resolve anything, so why require Gilmore to answer how she would prevent Ted Bundys from killing?
- Grustaf 7y ago
  The Vatican also has a low murder rate, and probably no prisons at all. If she can’t prove 3 then she has no argument at all, 3 is where the argument would be. Of course she needs to provision for violent criminals. They are one of the main reasons we need prisons, so if she wants to get rid of prisons she needs to have an alternative plan. She can’t just wave her hand and say they will magically disappear. Only very gullible people seduced by ideology would fall for that. If she can’t present an alternative, why would anyone care what she says?

wahern 7y ago

Re-read the paragraphs about Spain and the middle-schoolers. It wasn't easy for me to immediately grasp the argument, but I think it boils down to that the way to reduce violence is for society to model a less violent path. Specifically those few paragraphs seem to be saying, 1) Spain has light sentences for murder. 2) Spain has a low murder rate. 3) Leniency in criminal justice begets less violence. 4) Imagine the most lenient system possible--no incarceration whatsoever. That may result in the least amount of violent crime.[1] Step #3 is I think the most contentious. Is leniency a cause or effect? In reality it's probably both. And I presume that Gilmore could provide much more sophisticated arguments that don't rely on there being a simple, unidirectional causal relationship. But my impression from the article is that the overarching emphasis is that there is some causal relationship and that by refusing to accept that it exists we perpetuate an inflated rate of violence. We can't productively get into the weeds of concrete prescriptions without first establishing the nature of the causal relationship. [1] Nowhere does the article imply the claim that all violent crime could be prevented. At least conceptually, it may be better to have a few Ted Bundys roaming freely than to construct a criminal justice system that molds many more people into gladiators. In any event, this would be a quantitive question and not something that is categorically foreclosed. Establishing that Ted Bundys exist and would kill doesn't resolve anything, so why require Gilmore to answer how she would prevent Ted Bundys from killing?

Grustaf 7y ago
The Vatican also has a low murder rate, and probably no prisons at all. If she can’t prove 3 then she has no argument at all, 3 is where the argument would be. Of course she needs to provision for violent criminals. They are one of the main reasons we need prisons, so if she wants to get rid of prisons she needs to have an alternative plan. She can’t just wave her hand and say they will magically disappear. Only very gullible people seduced by ideology would fall for that. If she can’t present an alternative, why would anyone care what she says?