3 ms·

What do I do? Nothing. Did you see that part of my post? I really tried to emphasize that you go piece by piece and that harder pieces get addressed later. I'll

What do I do? Nothing. Did you see that part of my post? I really tried to emphasize that you go piece by piece and that harder pieces get addressed later. I'll be dead before anyone tries to figure out what to do with mobsters. But if you could find a way, almost definitely that way would be preferable to incarceration. That is why it's called abolition. The goal is to find ways to abolish every single category of incarceration.

mc32 6y ago
I guess my point is that I can imagine abolishing some categories, but not all bar some heretofore unavailable alternatives.
- tonystubblebine 6y ago
  There is a lot of research that people don't know about. And also a lot of people willing to do more research. So why limit your position here to just the solutions you can personally imagine?
tuesdayrain 6y ago
>you go piece by piece and that harder pieces get addressed later Sounds like diving head-first into something with significant short and long term consequences while refusing to plan for the actual end-game. Frankly the reason people haven't addressed the "harder pieces" of abolition yet is because there is no good alternative to prison. Some people are fundamentally dangerous to society and no amount of "please be nice" therapy or education will change them.
- tonystubblebine 6y ago
  What is the risk here? Break it down for yourself. I think either you are imagining a different process than I'm imagining or you'll find there are no short or long term consequences other than maybe some research money that gets spent verifying a dead end. If 90 years from now a set of experiments to find alternatives to incarceration for mobsters failed, that's not going to make people regret the first step of abolition which is probably decriminalizing drug possession. Or the second step, which is also well supported, which is eliminating cash bail.
  - nickff 6y ago
    It seems like you're setting a target that you have no actual plan to achieve. Perhaps de-scoping the project would have the twin benefits of appearing more reasonable to your audience, and allowing for the possibility of success.
    - tonystubblebine 6y ago
      The abolition movement does answer this which is that the reform movement has already been tested and failed. For illustration, can we say the easiest and most straight forward solutions eliminate 50% of incarceration? We've had incarceration rates in the US that were lower than that. When reformers say reform, they have to fight tooth and nail for 1% reduction. Even in New York State some simple bail reform got rolled back almost immediately after heavy PR by the police departments here. How do you go from 1% to saying, no, no, we actually meant 50x more reform than that? It just doesn't work. So, if abolition says 100% and it laters turns out that the theoretical healthy limit for a society is only 80%, well, nobody on the abolition side is going to be all that worked up about it.
      - nickff 6y ago
        If you were negotiating pricing with a single party, anchoring would work, but I think that's not what's going on here.
        watwut 6y ago
        But he has a point that attempts at small reforms failed for years. And it also seems to me that lately radicals can get their way somewhat, but "reasonable center" is not achieving anything or ends up being enabler for more powerful sociopath. It would be better if things were the opposite way, but they are not. It is imo the core reason for radicalisation of all involved sides lately.
HeroOfAges 6y ago
I think they should re-assess their goal. Abolishing every single category of incarceration is as realistic as finding a way to travel faster than light.
- tonystubblebine 6y ago
  It's a good exercise to look at who is currently in jail on a given night in the US and decide for yourself how much incarceration could be eliminated. I say the goal should be 100%, but it might take 100 years and might stall out before 100%. That's fine by me. But maybe you see this only as 50%. I'd be surprised if you did your own research though and came up with only 5%. Here's a good starting point of who is in jail and why. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

mc32 6y ago

I guess my point is that I can imagine abolishing some categories, but not all bar some heretofore unavailable alternatives.

tonystubblebine 6y ago
There is a lot of research that people don't know about. And also a lot of people willing to do more research. So why limit your position here to just the solutions you can personally imagine?

tuesdayrain 6y ago

>you go piece by piece and that harder pieces get addressed later Sounds like diving head-first into something with significant short and long term consequences while refusing to plan for the actual end-game. Frankly the reason people haven't addressed the "harder pieces" of abolition yet is because there is no good alternative to prison. Some people are fundamentally dangerous to society and no amount of "please be nice" therapy or education will change them.

tonystubblebine 6y ago
What is the risk here? Break it down for yourself. I think either you are imagining a different process than I'm imagining or you'll find there are no short or long term consequences other than maybe some research money that gets spent verifying a dead end. If 90 years from now a set of experiments to find alternatives to incarceration for mobsters failed, that's not going to make people regret the first step of abolition which is probably decriminalizing drug possession. Or the second step, which is also well supported, which is eliminating cash bail.
- nickff 6y ago
  It seems like you're setting a target that you have no actual plan to achieve. Perhaps de-scoping the project would have the twin benefits of appearing more reasonable to your audience, and allowing for the possibility of success.
  - tonystubblebine 6y ago
    The abolition movement does answer this which is that the reform movement has already been tested and failed. For illustration, can we say the easiest and most straight forward solutions eliminate 50% of incarceration? We've had incarceration rates in the US that were lower than that. When reformers say reform, they have to fight tooth and nail for 1% reduction. Even in New York State some simple bail reform got rolled back almost immediately after heavy PR by the police departments here. How do you go from 1% to saying, no, no, we actually meant 50x more reform than that? It just doesn't work. So, if abolition says 100% and it laters turns out that the theoretical healthy limit for a society is only 80%, well, nobody on the abolition side is going to be all that worked up about it.
    - nickff 6y ago
      If you were negotiating pricing with a single party, anchoring would work, but I think that's not what's going on here.
      - watwut 6y ago
        But he has a point that attempts at small reforms failed for years. And it also seems to me that lately radicals can get their way somewhat, but "reasonable center" is not achieving anything or ends up being enabler for more powerful sociopath. It would be better if things were the opposite way, but they are not. It is imo the core reason for radicalisation of all involved sides lately.

HeroOfAges 6y ago

I think they should re-assess their goal. Abolishing every single category of incarceration is as realistic as finding a way to travel faster than light.

tonystubblebine 6y ago
It's a good exercise to look at who is currently in jail on a given night in the US and decide for yourself how much incarceration could be eliminated. I say the goal should be 100%, but it might take 100 years and might stall out before 100%. That's fine by me. But maybe you see this only as 50%. I'd be surprised if you did your own research though and came up with only 5%. Here's a good starting point of who is in jail and why. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html