5 ms·
Excellent article until we get to this: "[T]he first question any prison abolitionist needs to answer is what we’re supposed to do with violent criminals. An i
by m0nty 12y ago
Excellent article until we get to this:
"[T]he first question any prison abolitionist needs to answer is what we’re supposed to do with violent criminals. An important part of that answer has to be that we must simply put up with an increased level of risk in our daily lives."
Good luck selling that idea. It drifts off-topic in any case, since up until then the article is mainly about prison reform and (for the most part) non-violent offenders themselves becoming victims of violent inmates. But wholesale release of violent offenders back into the community? It won't happen, and no politician who hopes to get elected will touch that message with a 10-foot pole.
Reading on:
"Prison abolitionists should be ready to advocate a massive expansion of the death penalty if that’s what it takes to move the discussion forward"
So now you're determined to alienate people on both the left and the right, on the dubious notion that violent offenders should be released, but the most violent should be executed?
- api_or_ipa 12y agoIf you put aside political left and rights, then the arguments seem to be a bit more justifiable. At least, the author isn't sticking to party talking points and making new arguments. I think what the author is saying is that prisons are, by them selves, a bad way to encourage reasonably low and sustainable crime rates. Wherever possible, criminals should be "punished" by out-of-prison solutions and rehabilitation. The author is pushing the point of executing everyone as an almost rhetorical argument. If you want to imprison so many people, why not simply kill them?
- m0nty 12y agoI suppose I'm using left and right as short-hand for progressive and authoritarian, but it's a bit clumsy and not that much shorter. It's an excellent article, but even if it is just a rhetorical position (re-reading, I accept it could be) I think it poisons the debate to the extent that nobody will engage with it. If you really want to argue in favour of releasing murderers and violent criminals from prison, it will be branded a "murderer's manifesto" and the debate is basically over. So talk about reforming the mostly futile drug laws, three-strike laws, etc, before anything else.