6 ms·

Don't forget her book "Are Prisons Obsolete?" https://www.amazon.com/Are-Prisons-Obsolete-Angela-Davis/dp/1583225811 https://www.amazon.com/Are-Prisons-Obsolet

Don't forget her book "Are Prisons Obsolete?" https://www.amazon.com/Are-Prisons-Obsolete-Angela-Davis/dp/1583225811 https://www.amazon.com/Are-Prisons-Obsolete-Angela-Davis/dp/...

choeger 5y ago
Simple answer, no they are not. There are people that need to be locked up to protect society. Think Breivik, or the psychopaths that eradicate whole families for their perverted pleasure. That being said, prisons as a punishment seem to scale very badly. I think that a prison sentence up to maybe a year or so is a very effective deterrent against crimes like tax evasion, theft, fraud, or domestic violence (if it is charged, that is). But beyond that, it seems to stop working. So the question is: Do we want to give up on the punishment part? Do we want to introduce even more draconian measures?
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > So the question is: Do we want to give up on the punishment part? Do we want to introduce even more draconian measures? If you read the book then you'd know that's what it's about. The title is written under the premise that prisons without punishment (and all their other negative qualities) are not prisons. It's a critique of prisons in the real world, not some abstract idea of prisons. The book's actually online [1] if $6.68 is too much. 1. https://collectiveliberation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Are_Prisons_Obsolete_Angela_Davis.pdf https://collectiveliberation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/...
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Prisons actually bundle punishment (which seems especially effective and worthwhile for shorter sentences) and isolation/protection (keeping criminals locked up even for longer timespans and thus literally preventing them from reoffending, which actually seems to be the key factor wrt. such longer sentences). So "prisons without punishment" could still be worthwhile and protect us from the most serious crimes. In many ways, being a prison inmate is punishment enough and the focus beyond that should very much be on rehabilitation that can benefit both the inmate and society as a whole.
- bserge 5y ago
  For those kinds of people, why not death? Quick and easy. Somehow keeping them in solitary like absolute animals is more humane?
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    The reason usually given by people (and even argued in liberal political philosophy) is that the possibility of wrongfully killing someone is not worth it. It's considered not only an injustice to the individual but also harms others effected by the loss of the person. I agree, but I tend to think life imprisonment can be as bad or worse. Imprisoning someone for life is in many places simply torture, so we're wrongfully torturing someone for the remainder of their life instead while the effects on others can't be that much less, in fact it could prolong their suffering. The question you have to answer in order to form your opinion is: Given that you are charged with a crime that you did not commit, would you rather serve life in prison (especially given the chance it could be a nightmare prison) or get the death penalty? Personally, I'd take the latter, as I see the former as torture.
    - bserge 5y ago
      Yeah, same. Life in prison just doesn't make sense to me, it's worthless at best and torture at worst. Just put a bullet in my head and be done with it. Also, is it possible that Breivik for example was wrongfully convicted? Something tells me the answer is "no".
- bitwize 5y ago
  This is Hackernews. The acceptable answer is: there's no such thing as evil, and criminals are just people underserved by social programs, so there is no justifiable reason to punish anyone.

Don't forget her book "Are Prisons Obsolete?" https://www.amazon.com/Are-Prisons-Obsolete-Angela-Davis/dp/1583225811 https://www.amazon.com/Are-Prisons-Obsolete-Angela-Davis/dp/...

choeger 5y ago

Simple answer, no they are not. There are people that need to be locked up to protect society. Think Breivik, or the psychopaths that eradicate whole families for their perverted pleasure. That being said, prisons as a punishment seem to scale very badly. I think that a prison sentence up to maybe a year or so is a very effective deterrent against crimes like tax evasion, theft, fraud, or domestic violence (if it is charged, that is). But beyond that, it seems to stop working. So the question is: Do we want to give up on the punishment part? Do we want to introduce even more draconian measures?

guerrilla 5y ago
> So the question is: Do we want to give up on the punishment part? Do we want to introduce even more draconian measures? If you read the book then you'd know that's what it's about. The title is written under the premise that prisons without punishment (and all their other negative qualities) are not prisons. It's a critique of prisons in the real world, not some abstract idea of prisons. The book's actually online [1] if $6.68 is too much. 1. https://collectiveliberation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Are_Prisons_Obsolete_Angela_Davis.pdf https://collectiveliberation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/...
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Prisons actually bundle punishment (which seems especially effective and worthwhile for shorter sentences) and isolation/protection (keeping criminals locked up even for longer timespans and thus literally preventing them from reoffending, which actually seems to be the key factor wrt. such longer sentences). So "prisons without punishment" could still be worthwhile and protect us from the most serious crimes. In many ways, being a prison inmate is punishment enough and the focus beyond that should very much be on rehabilitation that can benefit both the inmate and society as a whole.
bserge 5y ago
For those kinds of people, why not death? Quick and easy. Somehow keeping them in solitary like absolute animals is more humane?
- guerrilla 5y ago
  The reason usually given by people (and even argued in liberal political philosophy) is that the possibility of wrongfully killing someone is not worth it. It's considered not only an injustice to the individual but also harms others effected by the loss of the person. I agree, but I tend to think life imprisonment can be as bad or worse. Imprisoning someone for life is in many places simply torture, so we're wrongfully torturing someone for the remainder of their life instead while the effects on others can't be that much less, in fact it could prolong their suffering. The question you have to answer in order to form your opinion is: Given that you are charged with a crime that you did not commit, would you rather serve life in prison (especially given the chance it could be a nightmare prison) or get the death penalty? Personally, I'd take the latter, as I see the former as torture.
  - bserge 5y ago
    Yeah, same. Life in prison just doesn't make sense to me, it's worthless at best and torture at worst. Just put a bullet in my head and be done with it. Also, is it possible that Breivik for example was wrongfully convicted? Something tells me the answer is "no".
bitwize 5y ago
This is Hackernews. The acceptable answer is: there's no such thing as evil, and criminals are just people underserved by social programs, so there is no justifiable reason to punish anyone.