3 ms·

> If you want to curtail that practice to a greater degree than it is, you need to murder or expel people who do it, not just give them an official time-out and

> If you want to curtail that practice to a greater degree than it is, you need to murder or expel people who do it, not just give them an official time-out and then make life more difficult for them afterwards by reducing their employment options and curtailing their right to vote Interesting. Upstream you said that human rights was mostly a progressive issue, but this is a decidedly conservative, perhaps even regressive, approach. edit - later, I see that you refer to yourself as conservative > the safety of civilized people who participate in society in good faith needs to be violently protected from people who take advantage of them I associate civilization with staunch defense of the humanity and dignity even of the worst of us. It might for me even be the primary defining characteristic of the term. We could publically behead those who "take advantage", but then, that would be uncivilized. Medieval and barbaric, actually. Or, we could create the circumstances to enable atonement and redemption. A "time out", as you say, followed by a reintegration into society. The effects can be monitored for optimal outcomes, empirically. Use only the bare minimum violence necessary to maintain actual, real civilized society, constantly vigilant against its overuse

quacked 4y ago
I tried to imply the meaningless of labels by using quotes around "progressives" in this phrase: > The majority of people in the US who bother to care about human rights abuses and exploitation of vulnerable populations are "progressives". What I am interested in is an effective approach, regardless if it's considered progressive, conservative, regressive, old-fashioned, etc. I am tired of watching the primary discourse over human rights in the US play out between uneducated "conservatives" who would establish a Christian fascist state in a week if left to their own devices and naive "progressives" who think that violent criminals just need "access to resources" in order to civilize themselves. > Or, we could create the circumstances to enable atonement and redemption. A "time out", as you say, followed by a reintegration into society. The effects can be monitored for optimal outcomes, empirically. Sure, good luck with reintegrating a slaver into society with those they enslaved or a violent rapist into society with those they raped. I am not opposed to an atonement/reintegration cycle, but it needs far more rigorous severity than I've seen any "progressive" ever argue for.
- rendall 4y ago
  I'm from the US, live in Finland. From here, it really seems like the US needs to upgrade its prisons to be safe. Hard to meditate on atonement and redemption when you're in a constant struggle for survival. The implicit idea that rape for instance is a potential, extra-legal added punishment is outrageous.
  - quacked 4y ago
    I completely agree with you. As a matter of fact, I often say that if I had to pick one reform issue to support it would be to "make prison safe". Out of the people labelled "criminal" or "legally deviant" in the US, I believe there is a big split between people who could reintegrate given a safe prison sentence and people that I think need to be exiled or executed. If prison was safe for the prisoners we could absolutely use a "light touch" for some offenders. A lot of the worst damage to society, though, is orchestrated by chronic offenders who through whatever mix of genetics and environment have developed a set of beliefs and motivations that I think are unacceptable to keep around. To quote the example from the original article, forcing someone to commit crimes under pain of punishment or death simply isn't someone I have any interest in rehabilitating. Second-order organized crime is almost always worse for society than first-order crimes of passion or need.
    - aerostable_slug 4y ago
      > If prison was safe for the prisoners we could absolutely use a "light touch" for some offenders. We do that already. Level 1 yards (in California-ese) are quite safe and filled with white collar criminals, fraudsters, drunk drivers, drug-dealing doctors, etc. Some facilities don't even have perimeter fences. The safest are the fire camps, because nobody there wants to get kicked back to general population (these inmates voluntarily work as wilderness firefighters). OTOH, Level 4 yards are filled with murderers serving life sentences and the like. As a visitor or staff, you can't even go on the yard without wearing stab-resistant armor. Some particularly troublesome inmates don't even get yard time — they exercise in cages or isolated rec areas, never leave their cells without full shackles, and are never escorted by fewer than 2-3 correctional officers (depending on the facility). They are strip searched every time they leave their cells. That kind of treatment is generally "earned" by one's behavior on the inside, with few exceptions — we sometimes treat convicted spies (e.g. Ames, Hanssen) like this as a deterrent to others contemplating betraying their loyalties.

quacked 4y ago

I tried to imply the meaningless of labels by using quotes around "progressives" in this phrase: > The majority of people in the US who bother to care about human rights abuses and exploitation of vulnerable populations are "progressives". What I am interested in is an effective approach, regardless if it's considered progressive, conservative, regressive, old-fashioned, etc. I am tired of watching the primary discourse over human rights in the US play out between uneducated "conservatives" who would establish a Christian fascist state in a week if left to their own devices and naive "progressives" who think that violent criminals just need "access to resources" in order to civilize themselves. > Or, we could create the circumstances to enable atonement and redemption. A "time out", as you say, followed by a reintegration into society. The effects can be monitored for optimal outcomes, empirically. Sure, good luck with reintegrating a slaver into society with those they enslaved or a violent rapist into society with those they raped. I am not opposed to an atonement/reintegration cycle, but it needs far more rigorous severity than I've seen any "progressive" ever argue for.

rendall 4y ago
I'm from the US, live in Finland. From here, it really seems like the US needs to upgrade its prisons to be safe. Hard to meditate on atonement and redemption when you're in a constant struggle for survival. The implicit idea that rape for instance is a potential, extra-legal added punishment is outrageous.
- quacked 4y ago
  I completely agree with you. As a matter of fact, I often say that if I had to pick one reform issue to support it would be to "make prison safe". Out of the people labelled "criminal" or "legally deviant" in the US, I believe there is a big split between people who could reintegrate given a safe prison sentence and people that I think need to be exiled or executed. If prison was safe for the prisoners we could absolutely use a "light touch" for some offenders. A lot of the worst damage to society, though, is orchestrated by chronic offenders who through whatever mix of genetics and environment have developed a set of beliefs and motivations that I think are unacceptable to keep around. To quote the example from the original article, forcing someone to commit crimes under pain of punishment or death simply isn't someone I have any interest in rehabilitating. Second-order organized crime is almost always worse for society than first-order crimes of passion or need.
  - aerostable_slug 4y ago
    > If prison was safe for the prisoners we could absolutely use a "light touch" for some offenders. We do that already. Level 1 yards (in California-ese) are quite safe and filled with white collar criminals, fraudsters, drunk drivers, drug-dealing doctors, etc. Some facilities don't even have perimeter fences. The safest are the fire camps, because nobody there wants to get kicked back to general population (these inmates voluntarily work as wilderness firefighters). OTOH, Level 4 yards are filled with murderers serving life sentences and the like. As a visitor or staff, you can't even go on the yard without wearing stab-resistant armor. Some particularly troublesome inmates don't even get yard time — they exercise in cages or isolated rec areas, never leave their cells without full shackles, and are never escorted by fewer than 2-3 correctional officers (depending on the facility). They are strip searched every time they leave their cells. That kind of treatment is generally "earned" by one's behavior on the inside, with few exceptions — we sometimes treat convicted spies (e.g. Ames, Hanssen) like this as a deterrent to others contemplating betraying their loyalties.