3 ms·

>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 consequence

>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.

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.