4 ms·

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 hu

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.
    - rendall 4y ago
      I don't agree with punitive solitary confinement, but yes it's great that some prisoners in the US do not experience unrelenting, unmitigated hell.
- aerostable_slug 4y ago
  FWIW, PREA [0] has made a major impact on sexual assaults in American prisons & jails. It is really taken very seriously at the facilities I've visited (for work purposes). In fact, I've seen the allegations made by a clearly mentally ill person taken seriously and investigated, though the statement was obviously a work of fiction and the product of a deranged mind. Some units have dedicated "PREA Phones" to facilitate anonymous tips, and inmates with tablets can report via an app. Also, mentally ill inmates are (at least in California) generally put into their own housing units to prevent predation by the rest of the population. They have access to medication but cannot be forced to take them. [0]: https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/about/prison-rape-elimination-act https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/about/prison-rape-elimina...
  - rendall 4y ago
    That's a marvelous development.
rendall 4y ago
> good luck with reintegrating a slaver into society with those they enslaved or a violent rapist into society with those they raped. I forget what this fallacy is, and I cannot be arsed to look it up. False dichotomy? The choice is not atonement and redemption OR reintegrating slavers and violent rapists into society alongside their victims. If you think that way for real, no wonder you think the only real option is death or exile.
- quacked 4y ago
  All right, then take an example. Recently in a town I'm near, a young man kidnapped his girlfriend's adoptive parents with her knowledge, attempted to rob them, took them to a nature preserve and shot them dead. He had a long history of theft and assault and was proud of his crime. The state elected to give him a life sentence. (That's just exile except now someone has to take care of him the entire time.) From your point of view, what are the other options here?
  - rendall 4y ago
    Presumably, you want to reduce the instances of nitwits perpetrating atrocities upon their neighbor, yeah? That is your end goal? And we're pretending here that the only input available to us in order to get the outcome of reduced nitwit-perpetrated atrocity is that of criminal penalties? Ok, I'll play. First, understand that we now live in an era of unprecedented personal safety. Death from homicide-by-nitwit is generally less likely now than at any time in the past. Obviously not true in specific situations like adopting a murderous nitwit, but it's true in general. So, if we're accepting the premises so far, then whatever we have now is better than the past. Second, understand that throughout history "death or exile" were the only real criminal punishments ever meted out, discounting "torture or mutilation". It's not like it's a radical idea you have there. Even the arguing style of bringing up the most horrific shit possible and using it to argue for harsher punishment in general is not new. In fact, it's basically used every single time someone advocates for => Imprisonment as a genuinely sincere attempt to redeem criminals is pretty radical, and I would argue has not been tried with conviction, so to speak, in the US. Wherever it's genuinely practiced, crime is low. Still, even prison-as-deterrence- through-horror is a step up from medieval-era death-or-exile. Why, if your goal is reduce crime, would you seriously advocate for returning to methods used during a time of more crime? Ok, I think I'm done here. Know that I promise to read and think carefully about whatever you write in response, but I will probably not reply.

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.
  - rendall 4y ago
    I don't agree with punitive solitary confinement, but yes it's great that some prisoners in the US do not experience unrelenting, unmitigated hell.
aerostable_slug 4y ago
FWIW, PREA [0] has made a major impact on sexual assaults in American prisons & jails. It is really taken very seriously at the facilities I've visited (for work purposes). In fact, I've seen the allegations made by a clearly mentally ill person taken seriously and investigated, though the statement was obviously a work of fiction and the product of a deranged mind. Some units have dedicated "PREA Phones" to facilitate anonymous tips, and inmates with tablets can report via an app. Also, mentally ill inmates are (at least in California) generally put into their own housing units to prevent predation by the rest of the population. They have access to medication but cannot be forced to take them. [0]: https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/about/prison-rape-elimination-act https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/about/prison-rape-elimina...
- rendall 4y ago
  That's a marvelous development.

rendall 4y ago

> good luck with reintegrating a slaver into society with those they enslaved or a violent rapist into society with those they raped. I forget what this fallacy is, and I cannot be arsed to look it up. False dichotomy? The choice is not atonement and redemption OR reintegrating slavers and violent rapists into society alongside their victims. If you think that way for real, no wonder you think the only real option is death or exile.

quacked 4y ago
All right, then take an example. Recently in a town I'm near, a young man kidnapped his girlfriend's adoptive parents with her knowledge, attempted to rob them, took them to a nature preserve and shot them dead. He had a long history of theft and assault and was proud of his crime. The state elected to give him a life sentence. (That's just exile except now someone has to take care of him the entire time.) From your point of view, what are the other options here?
- rendall 4y ago
  Presumably, you want to reduce the instances of nitwits perpetrating atrocities upon their neighbor, yeah? That is your end goal? And we're pretending here that the only input available to us in order to get the outcome of reduced nitwit-perpetrated atrocity is that of criminal penalties? Ok, I'll play. First, understand that we now live in an era of unprecedented personal safety. Death from homicide-by-nitwit is generally less likely now than at any time in the past. Obviously not true in specific situations like adopting a murderous nitwit, but it's true in general. So, if we're accepting the premises so far, then whatever we have now is better than the past. Second, understand that throughout history "death or exile" were the only real criminal punishments ever meted out, discounting "torture or mutilation". It's not like it's a radical idea you have there. Even the arguing style of bringing up the most horrific shit possible and using it to argue for harsher punishment in general is not new. In fact, it's basically used every single time someone advocates for => Imprisonment as a genuinely sincere attempt to redeem criminals is pretty radical, and I would argue has not been tried with conviction, so to speak, in the US. Wherever it's genuinely practiced, crime is low. Still, even prison-as-deterrence- through-horror is a step up from medieval-era death-or-exile. Why, if your goal is reduce crime, would you seriously advocate for returning to methods used during a time of more crime? Ok, I think I'm done here. Know that I promise to read and think carefully about whatever you write in response, but I will probably not reply.