what's the end goal here Zohran. 'Socialism' (actually social democracy) but with a roving gang of armed and organized fascists that we just ignore? are we just going to kick the issue of systemic racism down the road because it's "woke 1" to even talk about, until it becomes a powder keg again? this is the actual internal DSA white chauvinism contradiction that MSM are clawing to find but they won't use it as a real wedge because it'd increase the salience of Defund again

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You seem to be convinced that there’s some magically bad crime that would make me turn on a dime and say, “oh, of course, those people should be tortured forever.”

one thing I am convinced of is that we can invent a non-torturous way of removing someone from society to protect people from them. The fact that a serial killer's rights are restricted and they're not allowed to leave a building doesn't mean our post-abolition institution includes all the other things that are wrong with modern prisons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    i agree with this, i think justice for the victims (if any) would necessitate at least moving the perpetrator out of the town/ area where things happened. In a society where housing was a right, something like indefinite house arrest with occasional parole review would be an appropriate ‘strictest’ level of punishment. Every existing prison needs to be torn down though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    there's a lot of logistical problems in preventing people from having the opportunity to re-offend and whatever the solution is we need to not create systems where staff or admin abuse of their wards or of the inmates harming one another freely

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Is it post-abolition if you're restricting someone's rights and confining them to a building, even if you do so in the most humane possible way?

    I would say no. I think it does us no favors to talk in terms of abolition and then describe what is at bottom a very nice prison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    yes, if we dismantle the current system whatever is built after is post-abolition.

    if you have a repeat serial offender you have to restrain them, kill them, or let them hurt people. One or two of those are obviously not acceptable, so are you going to have capital punishment or are you going to figure out a way to separate someone from their victim pool in a humane way that doesn't carry the baggage of institutional racism etc?

    abolition doesn't mean you never have custody of someone, it means the current carceral system is abolished.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Calling that "abolition" strikes me as a really poor way to communicate a good idea, especially in an environment where one of the main criticisms of AES states is "this is just a dictatorship with red aesthetics." You immediately have to explain to people that you don't mean abolish abolish, and it will feel like a bait-and-switch. I think a lot of self-described abolitionists would strongly disagree with defining abolition that way, too.

    When people talk about abolishing the death penalty, they don't mean making executions fair and humane, they mean no more executions. Same for abolishing slavery: see all the leftist criticism of the 13th amendment's carve out for prisons. We should either mean it or say something more precise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments