3 ms·

At face value I agree, but any time the answer seems easy or obvious, its worth pondering complexities. The following questions are not meant to prove a point o

At face value I agree, but any time the answer seems easy or obvious, its worth pondering complexities. The following questions are not meant to prove a point or be answered, the purpose is to showcase complexity: What if corrections costs are not due to malfeasance or inefficiency, but due to it being a jobs program for relatively unskilled labor? If we applied skilled labor to the problem, how would we deal with the displaced unskilled labor? What is the opportunity cost of training people for rehabilitating criminals rather than improving our professionals mental health/productivity or STEM training? Is the rehabilitation cost worth more than paying teachers more? It doesn't take long living in San Francisco to have your window bashed in or bike stolen. What would you do with those people? What would you do with unrepentant murderers and rapists? What would you do for people who derive social standing through violence? Clearly police and prison is useful to society. Clearly it would be ideal to turn criminals into tax paying, law abiding citizens. There is a cold blooded cost/benefit analysis that can be made. There is probably a rehabilitation cost that can be measured. If cost_of_rehabilitation > total_estimated_future_tax_revenues is it worth it? If we added several more factors to the equation, maybe good_will_cost, cost_of_incarceration, opportunity_cost, etc, I think everyone will agree there is a potential model that can be applied to the problem, even if it doesn't feel good to be so objective. I don't think we have a recipe for what rehabilitation looks like. Is it ethical to perform "rehabilitation" experiments on prisoners? What is the plan for training and the labor cost increase for skilled labor? What is the plan for creating a rehabilitation program? > Now you see what abolish prisons and police is. This phrase is meant to be provocative and energize a certain set of ideals (specifically being anti-authority). It doesn't appeal to moderates at all. The fact NPR and every other news source had to break it down for begrudging acceptance really hurts it's message. The message is justice for all, and if police are above the law, then there is no justice. If the color of your skin puts you at a higher chance of persecution, then there is no justice. If the culture someone grows up in is too poor or disadvantaged to meet basic needs for money or respect, and crime is the only or easiest way to fulfill them, then there is no justice. Our implementations of prison and police are poor. There is a very clear cultural problem. They need reform, not abolition. This phrase hinders reform because it's literal meaning is far from what it means when someone says it.

jfengel 6y ago
The fact NPR and every other news source had to break it down for begrudging acceptance really hurts it's message. Not necessarily. Provocative statements can drive engagement by the extremes without costing you the moderates. This has worked really well for the right wing in the US, whose moderates flocked to a candidate who often offended them and worked against their stated priorities, rather than vote for a moderate candidate from the other party. Moderation is good governance but often bad politics. It's boring, and people can't be enthusiastic about it. The left and right are not symmetric with respect to that, and it's hard to tell whether "defund the police" is a slogan that usefully shifts the Overton window or merely demoralizes the center-left. It is certain, though, that it doesn't really matter what it does to the center-right: they are very unlikely to vote for even the most centrist candidate from the nominally left wing party. So you could say that the fact that NPR has to explain it is more useful than more moderate measures that would get less airtime. It's nearly impossible to quantify that, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, either.

jfengel 6y ago

The fact NPR and every other news source had to break it down for begrudging acceptance really hurts it's message. Not necessarily. Provocative statements can drive engagement by the extremes without costing you the moderates. This has worked really well for the right wing in the US, whose moderates flocked to a candidate who often offended them and worked against their stated priorities, rather than vote for a moderate candidate from the other party. Moderation is good governance but often bad politics. It's boring, and people can't be enthusiastic about it. The left and right are not symmetric with respect to that, and it's hard to tell whether "defund the police" is a slogan that usefully shifts the Overton window or merely demoralizes the center-left. It is certain, though, that it doesn't really matter what it does to the center-right: they are very unlikely to vote for even the most centrist candidate from the nominally left wing party. So you could say that the fact that NPR has to explain it is more useful than more moderate measures that would get less airtime. It's nearly impossible to quantify that, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, either.