bail inaccessibility and thee expansion of pre-trial incarcerations are tactitcs to push people into taking pleas so civilian prosecutors can get their numbers up and politicians can take credit.
at least that's one argument I've seen proposed
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Prison and Police Abolition Resources and Discussion OT
- Thread starter Terra Torment
- Start date
at least that's one argument I've seen proposed
OP
OP
Did you read any of the linked resources, podcasts, or arguments? Do you assume that prison and police abolitionists want to abolish police at the snap of a finger?
Watching this thread with interest. Prison reform and police reform are two passions of mine, I can see so many areas where we can improve the system. I don't think prisons should be abolished but should certainly be humane environments where rehabilitation and education are paramount. I don't agree that police should be abolished but as others have said, the role of a police officer should be way more tightly defined. There should be a significant clear line in criminal law dilineating violent offenses from minor non-violent offenses (with the understanding that severe non-violent offenses, like certain blue-collar crimes, can still be extremely hazardous to vulnerable populations).
I'd go so far as to say that arrests for anything other than violent offenses should be terminated as soon as a suspect is identified. The information would then be turned over to the courts for due process (and apprehension, in the case of Failure to Appear warrants). Violent offenders would be immediately arraigned and lodged in humane facilities only if they are deemed a harm to self or others or a flight risk.
In theory, a police agent should be called only to enact justifiable force on behalf of society/ the government (to confront violent individuals in public, intervene in domestic violence, apprehend the dreaded serial killers everyone is worried about). Dealing with traffic enforcement, ordinance violations, non-violent misdemeanors? Those should be specific roles for other specific agencies and agents.
To get to that point will take a lot of effort and investment in technology, infrastructure and training, but it's doable within a single generation.
I'd go so far as to say that arrests for anything other than violent offenses should be terminated as soon as a suspect is identified. The information would then be turned over to the courts for due process (and apprehension, in the case of Failure to Appear warrants). Violent offenders would be immediately arraigned and lodged in humane facilities only if they are deemed a harm to self or others or a flight risk.
In theory, a police agent should be called only to enact justifiable force on behalf of society/ the government (to confront violent individuals in public, intervene in domestic violence, apprehend the dreaded serial killers everyone is worried about). Dealing with traffic enforcement, ordinance violations, non-violent misdemeanors? Those should be specific roles for other specific agencies and agents.
To get to that point will take a lot of effort and investment in technology, infrastructure and training, but it's doable within a single generation.
Ok, we can do this so long as anything important gets spun off into its own thread going forward. This is an important issue and I don't want important information or developments getting hidden or buried in an OT.
Last edited:
Prison abolition is super important, particularly in a country like the United States.
It's not a well-known fact, but the penitentiary system is a uniquely American invention born from a religious group. This is a rather mild description of Philadelphia's historic Eastern State Penitentiary, a place designed in order to induce penitence in criminals housed therein. This was accomplished through the use of total isolation-- prisoners were not allowed to see other people at all, and only had a Bible to read. The Wikipedia article goes into further punishments that developed over time at Eastern State. The prison is laid out in panopticon style (as is still common to this day) such that guards can observe the prisoners without themselves being seen.
I think those who oppose prison abolition don't properly understand just a) how recent our modern prison system actually is and b) how its origin point and practices are steeped in deeply regressive ideas on what justice actually is. Prisons in the US aren't redeemable, in my opinion, because they're just evolutions on the same blueprint. Look at what's happening in Riker's right now. The largest prison strike in our history took place a whole four years ago. There's fellow human beings trapped in there still demanding their rights.
It's not a well-known fact, but the penitentiary system is a uniquely American invention born from a religious group. This is a rather mild description of Philadelphia's historic Eastern State Penitentiary, a place designed in order to induce penitence in criminals housed therein. This was accomplished through the use of total isolation-- prisoners were not allowed to see other people at all, and only had a Bible to read. The Wikipedia article goes into further punishments that developed over time at Eastern State. The prison is laid out in panopticon style (as is still common to this day) such that guards can observe the prisoners without themselves being seen.
I think those who oppose prison abolition don't properly understand just a) how recent our modern prison system actually is and b) how its origin point and practices are steeped in deeply regressive ideas on what justice actually is. Prisons in the US aren't redeemable, in my opinion, because they're just evolutions on the same blueprint. Look at what's happening in Riker's right now. The largest prison strike in our history took place a whole four years ago. There's fellow human beings trapped in there still demanding their rights.
I don't think this follows at all. Why should they be in prison? Are there other options available rather than prison? Which rules? What's the purpose of putting people in prison in the first place?
Incidentally, YouTuber donoteat01 did an interesting video discussing the history behind and of the Eastern State Penitentiary while modeling it for his "Franklin" series in Cities Skylines. While he doesn't explicitly discuss the moral cost or necessity of the American prison system, he does bring up some of the interesting aspects of the architecture of the project, how the "separate system" was meant to function in the penitentiary and what it was meant to promote, and how this system, while it would remain influential in future prison designs, would actually fall out of strict practice in favor of systems that would ultimately be even more punitive and focused largely on optimizing the ability of the prison to exploit the labor of the imprisoned.
I saw this quote on Twitter. Not sure where it came from but it's fairly apt.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Either way I do hope we come up with a much better system.
I read your OP in its entirety including all of the quotes, given it's length I think that is about the best you can hope for. I didn't see anything addressing this specific issue. People aren't going to give up their guns willingly.
I also disagree with the notion that crime will just disappear (or disappear to the extent that we no longer need police) if we eliminate poverty. Human greed and selfishness is relative, even billionaires continue to covet more. Even if you eliminated poverty and the conditions that breed crime, crime would still occur. In any case, I also fundamentally disagree with the assertion that such a utopia is even possible. Until automation is actually able to fully take care of all basic human needs, this conversation is pointless. We're still many decades away from that... and that's being optimistic.
No one said this. No one is saying all crime will vanish as a result of removing the conditions that begets crime. If you bothered to engage the OP you would know this.
We've clearly already identified a marketing problem. It's not about "abolition" even though that word keeps getting used, it's about reformation. Maybe let's just stop using that word.
No one said anything about a Utopia. All these steps are to make the world as best as it can be for everyone.
Also this image sums it up. Not saying op is a Marxist or whatever but I was just reading the book this is from the other day.
Last edited:
OP
OP
No there absolutely is a difference
Beyond Reform: Abolishing Prisons | Maya Schenwar | TEDxBaltimore
The United States has the highest imprisonment rate in the world. But is the problem simply that too many people are incarcerated--or is incarceration a prob...
www.youtube.com
No there absolutely is a difference
Beyond Reform: Abolishing Prisons | Maya Schenwar | TEDxBaltimore
The United States has the highest imprisonment rate in the world. But is the problem simply that too many people are incarcerated--or is incarceration a prob...
This video is literally skirting semantics though. She is talking about reform because she does realize that something has to fill it. It's a matter of what you expect "prison" to be. Forcing anyone to do things they don't want to is a still violent, dirty cells may be especially egregious but community service, or forced therapy sessions are just on the lesser end of the spectrum. All that matters is which options you pick but coercion in the name of keeping the peace will always exist. Everyone entering the topic understands that, which is why posing "abolition" as the top billing isn't accurate or requires a large amount of explanation of the specific definition and a lot of asterisks. If you want to be successful, keep it simple.
YEP. The billionaires also don't get punished for their crimes anyway! They just put some of their wealth into sustaining the system so they can't be held accountable, either by bribing the people tasked with enforcement or to lobby to make the stuff they want to do legal.
People need to remember that the law is not a code of ethics; it's a system by which acceptable targets for state violence are identified.
I did engage, my perception of the OP was colored by these specific comments:
These suggest that by eliminating poverty we will eliminate (most) crime that requires police. That is unbelievably naive, as it assumes most humans are "good" deep down. Humans are opportunistic by nature -- there will always be those who exploit weakness in the system for their own gain. Eliminating police creates a major weakness in the system, even if done gradually. Particularly in the United States where gun ownership is so ridiculous, and the early days of any of these suggested policies would only increase that stupid level of ownership. You don't need a statistical model to know that. Look at how we reacted to coronavirus.
Sorry, but there is no conceivable scenario where American cultural sentiment changes to such a radical degree that the elimination of police would be feasible or beneficial.
That said, these:
Are all great goals that we can and should work towards achieving. Success in these areas will not reduce crime to such a state that police are no longer necessary, however. I am sure a large reduction in their numbers would be possible due to less activities being criminalized, which should result in the officers that remain being of higher quality, but they will still be necessary.
Your argument relies on prescriptions of what you determine human nature to be and is therefore flawed as "human nature" is infinitely complex and seemingly ever changing. It's naive on your part to assume you narrowed down what the nature of man is.
The OP has refused to address key criticisms though. When someone brings up the fact that violent criminals will always occur, it is waved away as something that would have to be looked at later once others things are dealt with.
If you get rid of the ability of the state to commit violence (through policing) then you give that ability to other groups which are potentially less accountable, like religions and gangs, or outside forces.
I agree with much of the goal of this thread, bit it's also very naive. It can be summed up as:
- Eliminate poverty (without a good explanation how the Haves will relinquish power to the Have Nots without violence)
- Increase alternative power structures (without explaining how existing power systems can be dismantled without violence)
- ...
- Profit (in the form of peaceful utopia)
I agree that almost all non-violent criminals could be released, but until the major criticisms of this ideology can be addressed, it is not mature enough to meet reality, or to be taken seriously.
I may have only been around 3 decades and change, but I've seen enough. There is history to consider, and also common sense. Eliminating poverty won't stop kids from being cruel to each other. It won't stop the myriad other factors that can cause someone to become disturbed. Even if my perception of human nature is flawed, environmental factors that breed violent criminals will continue to exist in perpetuity. Though some of those environmental factors indicate that my perception of human nature isn't so flawed.
Last edited:
It's inherently contradictory -- given that people are not inherently good and opportunistic, what justification is there to trust the police? Opportunism means people will become cops in order to get social conferral granted on their use of violence. The now-infamous line the cruelty is the point has a lot to do with why many people become cops; they're bullies who seek a protected status.
I'm not arguing that eliminating poverty means human beings are gonna lose the capacity for being dicks to one another. However, as many many studies from criminologist and sociologist show, we do know that poverty is a huge indicator for crime and eliminating it will lead in a massive societal downtrend in crime. Mind you this is arguing that crime won't ever happen because we alleviate poverty only saying that crime will trend down.
edit: once that's achieved what need will there be for policing and jails to the extent of which we see today?
The primary battle that you will end up fighting is threefold: A) laws must be easy to understand and made generally difficult to violate. Following that, new technologies must make it so that B) enforcement of those laws is equitable and as non-violent as possible. Third, punishment for violation of those laws needs to be C) humane and rehabilitative.
I envision a legal environment where everyone knows what the laws are and they are generally easy to obey, for example, "don't assault your domestic partner" is an easy law to understand and abide by. Enforcing that law would be done by an initial response from police officers to enact necessary violence on behalf of the state to disrupt the violation (i.e. going inside the house and detaining/subduing the assailant), using technology to do so as non-violent and efficiently as possible (which means investing in tasers, OC sprays, other less-than-lethal means etc, which allow for as minimal use of force as necessary). And then finally, post-arrest and due process, if rehabilitation is needed, the arrestee spends their sentence in a humane facility which encourages the betterment of the offender and society (less playing spades on the bunks all day and rapes in the showers at night, and more classrooms and tutors and formal job training).
This is somewhat(?) close to our system as it is now- cops and prisons would still be a part of the system- but the inhumanities would be minimalized as much as is reasonable. And heavy investments in technology, passing good legislature, and rebooting the prison system would be needed. At some point obviously you do need to take away someone's liberty for certain offenses.
I envision a legal environment where everyone knows what the laws are and they are generally easy to obey, for example, "don't assault your domestic partner" is an easy law to understand and abide by. Enforcing that law would be done by an initial response from police officers to enact necessary violence on behalf of the state to disrupt the violation (i.e. going inside the house and detaining/subduing the assailant), using technology to do so as non-violent and efficiently as possible (which means investing in tasers, OC sprays, other less-than-lethal means etc, which allow for as minimal use of force as necessary). And then finally, post-arrest and due process, if rehabilitation is needed, the arrestee spends their sentence in a humane facility which encourages the betterment of the offender and society (less playing spades on the bunks all day and rapes in the showers at night, and more classrooms and tutors and formal job training).
This is somewhat(?) close to our system as it is now- cops and prisons would still be a part of the system- but the inhumanities would be minimalized as much as is reasonable. And heavy investments in technology, passing good legislature, and rebooting the prison system would be needed. At some point obviously you do need to take away someone's liberty for certain offenses.
To the extent we see today — no, of course not. I expressed as much in one my replies. The premise of this thread is police abolition though, not force reduction.
Even reduction is putting the cart before the horse though. Let's work on eliminating (or at least reducing) poverty first.
I think talking about poverty is a different conversation from talking about prison abolition. Requiring this thread to be about eliminating poverty before it can have the conversation of prison abolition is unfair. Furthermore both conversations can be had
I conversations like these it's important to remember (especially in America given the capitalization of the prison system) the carceral state does much to push people into poverty and deprivations.
You can't just improve society around prisons at a certain point. Especially when they are profitable.
You can't just improve society around prisons at a certain point. Especially when they are profitable.
OP
OP
Some good news:
Alexis Martin, former sex slave serving life sentence for murder, is freed - Rolling Out
Alexis Martin, a sex trafficking survivor serving 21 years to life in prison after her conviction for murder, has been freed by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine.
rollingout.com
OP
OP
Woman shot and killed by Kentucky police in botched raid, family says
Louisville police officers forced their way inside and "blindly fired," killing Breonna Taylor, according to a lawsuit.
www.nbcnews.com
This story is absolutely horrifying. It is a nightmare come true. The idea of people walking into your house and spraying bullets at you and it being just completely normal and okay is not acceptable. I do not believe the police should be allowed to do these no-knock raids. If they really need to catch someone, one they can make sure that the person is not already in custody for one. But they could also just arrest someone when they are out in public. Rading someone's house is a recipe for tragedy. Fuck the pigs.
OP
OP
I work in a prison in canada and it sucks. If they shut them all down Id be broke but probably have more job satisfaction.
Regardless if someone can be managed in a minimum here I believe they can be managed in the community. Maximum security offenders I cannot see from my experience.
I see you suggest a slower process which is good. I believe crime prevention starts with social determinants of health but social determinants are not enough to keep people safe at least not as society is today.
Regardless if someone can be managed in a minimum here I believe they can be managed in the community. Maximum security offenders I cannot see from my experience.
I see you suggest a slower process which is good. I believe crime prevention starts with social determinants of health but social determinants are not enough to keep people safe at least not as society is today.
OP
OP
jordan on Twitter
“Who is this serving? Who is this protecting? https://t.co/IK8DkwLLUT”
twitter.com
Given the current events I thought this was relevant. A montage of police attacking protestors without provocation.
I think it's worth quoting this in here.
This is a great thread, and an issue I've been very passionate about for a long time now. Looking forward to reading/watching/listening to the resources in here that I haven't seen yet. Thanks to everyone posting them, and great job on the OP Terra Torment.
OP
OP
Well who would I call if I was being stabbed to death?
I've got some bad news. The police, as they are now, are not obligated to protect you. As we have seen with their rampant brutality against peaceful people at the protests, that is not their role.
The courts have spoken.
www.youtube.com
I've got some bad news. The police, as they are now, are not obligated to protect you. As we have seen with their rampant brutality against peaceful people at the protests, that is not their role.
The courts have spoken.
Why The Cops Won't Help You When You're Getting Stabbed
Ever wondered what it's like to stop a psycho on a killing spree? It isn't as awesome as you'd think. SUBSCRIBE HERE: http://goo.gl/ITTCPWJoin us Mondays, Tu...
www.youtube.com
I thought this was interesting, in theory, but there were still a few things that were not addressed that left me feeling a bit unsatisfied.
I guess there's an underlying assumption that entirely new communities would be formed consisting of like-minded individuals. Of course, that would not do much for people born after the fact, but it's better than nothing.
Maybe I just don't have enough faith in humanity, but my main concern would be the tyranny of the majority becoming more concentrated in a community without adequate protections. I can foresee cliques forming where a ruling family ends up upsetting the power balance. Domestic violence or extermination of "undesirables" plainly accepted due to whatever values are held by the community. Empowered neighborhood watches who may police with an even more arbitrary (and corruptible) set of rules. Laws being applied based on who is well-liked or well-connected.
So in many ways, much of the same, just potentially more extreme (in either direction). I don't see a secure path towards accountability. I guess I just have a sense of distrust towards communities in general in the absence of systematic protections, and how oppressive they can be if you are unable to escape. (Maybe that's in part due to how fiction tends to portray smaller communities, especially in terms of race or religion.)
How would you imagine a "ruling family" even establish itself though? Genuinely curious. Do you think that this family of say racists would not be recognized by other neighborhoods and not be placed in rehabilitation settings or just tossed from society? To assume that racism would somehow overcome the will of hundreds or thousands in a neighborhood or surrounding neighborhoods would probably fall into the belief that racism is inherent to humans, rather than socially taught. Since these neighborhood protectors live within the neighborhood, they are themselves subject to the neighborhood itself. Someone could be removed from the position or removed from the neighborhood entirely.