3 ms·

> When they say the prison cells would ideally be eliminated, they're not talking about a magical society in which rape and murderer no longer happen. They're

> When they say the prison cells would ideally be eliminated, they're not talking about a magical society in which rape and murderer no longer happen. They're talking about releasing rapists and murderers without locking them up. That's the ideal they're striving for. In general, when you're presenting your opponent's ideas as this level of two-dimensional magical thinking, you probably haven't engaged with the ideas enough to have this strong of an opinion about it. The prison abolition movement has been around for a long time, and has indeed grappled with the idea of "but what if someone murders someone?", which is indeed the absolute first question someone arrives at when considering prison abolition.

lupusreal 3y ago
If you don't have prison cells, then you don't have incarceration of murderers. If that isn't what they intend then they should say so upfront. Instead they prefer to avoid the issue and whine about people bringing it up (what you're doing.)
- roughly 3y ago
  There's an entire philosophical, legal, and structural framework the prison abolition movement is working in that you've got absolutely no basis in. This is like asking whether drug legalization advocates are advocating that drug dealers get off scot-free - the premise of the question is silly within the frame of the discussion. You're trying to position this like a "gotcha" question, which is why nobody's bothering to engage with you - because you haven't bothered to engage with the issue in any serious way yourself.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    Again, you whine about me bringing it up without bothering to explain why I'm wrong. Even if you give murderers the Anders Breivek treatment with a cushy apartment style prison cell complete with gaming consoles and arts and crafts sessions, that's still a prison cell. You can dress it up to make it pretty, but he's still locked up, taken out of society, which is what both he and society deserves. If that is what is meant by the abolition of prisons, then it should be called prison reform instead. Prison reform I can get behind, but that's not what is actually being proposed. That's the motte the prison abolition radicals fall back on when challenged, not what they're actually calling for.

lupusreal 3y ago

If you don't have prison cells, then you don't have incarceration of murderers. If that isn't what they intend then they should say so upfront. Instead they prefer to avoid the issue and whine about people bringing it up (what you're doing.)

roughly 3y ago
There's an entire philosophical, legal, and structural framework the prison abolition movement is working in that you've got absolutely no basis in. This is like asking whether drug legalization advocates are advocating that drug dealers get off scot-free - the premise of the question is silly within the frame of the discussion. You're trying to position this like a "gotcha" question, which is why nobody's bothering to engage with you - because you haven't bothered to engage with the issue in any serious way yourself.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  Again, you whine about me bringing it up without bothering to explain why I'm wrong. Even if you give murderers the Anders Breivek treatment with a cushy apartment style prison cell complete with gaming consoles and arts and crafts sessions, that's still a prison cell. You can dress it up to make it pretty, but he's still locked up, taken out of society, which is what both he and society deserves. If that is what is meant by the abolition of prisons, then it should be called prison reform instead. Prison reform I can get behind, but that's not what is actually being proposed. That's the motte the prison abolition radicals fall back on when challenged, not what they're actually calling for.