True, of course the article you linked to, by reiterating the currently acceptable dogmas as if they were objective truths, goes a long way towards making them problem worse.
They got the object level way wrong, abolition of prisons is a very very stupid idea.
Let’s look at the article itself to see some of its most grievous flaws:
For example, the article admits that an “explosion in the incarcerated population [] has occurred over the past 40 years”. However, it fails to note that that implies that something must have occurred over the last 40 years that caused this explosion and thus the solution should involve figuring out what changes have lead to this explosion and undoing them. The article instead going in the direction we have been going only more so.
Later the article quotes Tony Papa of Drug Policy Alliance, and says he spend 12 years serving an “unjust sentence”, but fails to specify in what way the sentence was “unjust”. Was he wrongly convicted, if so the problem is that and not the existence of minimum sentences. However, one gets the impression from the authors lack of interest in the question (or for that matter in what crime Tony Papa was incarcerated for) that the use of the word “unjust” is BS in Frankfurt’s sense.
So your above comment considers abolition a “currently acceptable dogma”? That doesn’t seem true, it’s still well out of the Overton Window.
The article isn’t doing analysis as much as advocacy, but it isn’t really trying to convince. Its purpose seems to be to motivate people already convinced to actually do something, or to spread awareness of a position (again, without arguing for it). Both are valid, and complaining about it not being rigorous enough seems to be missing the point.
However, it fails to note that that implies that something must have occurred over the last 40 years that caused this explosion and thus the solution should involve figuring out what changes have lead to this explosion and undoing them.
The obvious answer is “drug laws and mandatory sentences”, and the article does propose to do away with them.
Also, the specific proposal is
Abolition would end the death penalty and life sentences, and push the maximum number of years that can be served for any offense down to ten years, at most.
which is (as the article fails to mention but should have) similar to some European countries, so can’t be too terrible.
Later the article quotes Tony Papa of Drug Policy Alliance, and says he spend 12 years serving an “unjust sentence”, but fails to specify in what way the sentence was “unjust”. Was he wrongly convicted, if so the problem is that and not the existence of minimum sentences. However, one gets the impression from the authors lack of interest in the question (or for that matter in what crime Tony Papa was incarcerated for) that the use of the word “unjust” is BS in Frankfurt’s sense.
15 to Life, published in 2004, is an autobiographical account of Papa’s experience with the New York criminal justice system and anti-narcotics laws under which he was sentenced to fifteen years to life imprisonment for a first time drug offense.
The unjustness is clearly the belief that drug laws are unjust, which is also something the article takes for granted and assumes the reader does as well.
to spread awareness of a position (again, without arguing for it)
Well, you have to at least formulate that position sensibly. From a glance at the article, it seems to like the idea of the abolition of prisons. The immediate question that comes to mind is “and replace them with what?” Without even a hint of an answer, it’s not much of a position.
Long-term prisons are a relatively recent idea, but I’m not sure going to pre-prison practices would be all that great since they tended to be centered on “oh, just hang him”.
Here’s this less radical proposal (no death sentence plus 10 year max), which is feasible
Thinking the more radical position might be ideal (or believing in 1) will help one come to conclusions such as those in 3, which are steps in the right direction
“10 years max” is a position. The fact that the author presumably believes more (it’s not that clear what they do believe, which is a weakness) doesn’t make what they do directly advocate “not a position”.
Recall your original quote. It strongly hints that we should be interested in “real solutions” even if they are not politically feasible. So in the linked article I expect to find a politically infeasible “real solution”. And it’s there—the author repeatedly mentions abolition of prisons. I have to assume that it’s intended to be that infeasible thing which we ought to want regardless.
It’s not clear from the article whether they would get rid of prisons tomorrow if it were politically possible. They may believe that an ideal world would not have prisons but getting rid of them overnight would be bad.
Not having a plan for getting rid of prisons or what to do instead isn’t a problem, because they aren’t advocating for that.
The fact that the author presumably believes more (it’s not that clear what they do believe, which is a weakness) doesn’t make what they do directly advocate “not a position”.
In that case what does he mean by “Having prisons is undesirable”?
It’s possible that they would agree that the immediate outcome of abolishing prisons would be bad (in the same way that the immediate outcome of abolishing slavery hurt some people) and they might even agree that they shouldn’t be abolished all at once. It’s not clear that they wouldn’t agree, anyway.
The actual statement just means that a utopia wouldn’t have prisons.
It’s not clear they would disagree with that. But if we think prisons are suboptimal, we’re more likely to support measures that reduce them. I think this is what is meant by
Abolition makes sense, though, only if we see prisons as a site of injustice in and of themselves.
and
In abolishing prison, we force ourselves to answer the difficult question: How do we provide safety and security for all people?
and
An abolitionist framework makes us consider not only reducing mandatory minimums but eliminating them altogether. An abolitionist framework would call for us to decriminalize possession and sale of drugs. Abolition would end the death penalty and life sentences, and push the maximum number of years that can be served for any offense down to ten years, at most.
With these reforms in place, we as a society would have a huge incentive to rehabilitate those in prison, and we would ensure the incarcerated are capable of socialization when they are released. And without being able to depend on prison as a site of retribution, we would have to find new ways to address things like gender-based violence, sexual assault, and domestic violence. And we could then start making the kinds of investments in alleviating poverty that Gottschalk calls for.
But we can’t do that so long as prison exists as a fail-safe.
In other words, abolishing or severely reducing prisons would force us to come up with other ways to ensure safety, and the author can’t imagine one worse than prisons.
But if we think prisons are suboptimal, we’re more likely to support measures that reduce them.
Suboptimal relative to what. I would prefer replacing them with mote corporal and capital punishment, but somehow I doubt that’s what you want. Judging by what you latter wrote, you seem to prefer “replacements” that not only won’t help with the problem prisons are designed to solve but create their own problems.
In abolishing prison, we force ourselves to answer the difficult question: How do we provide safety and security for all people?
Yes, it’s amazing how any question can be made “difficult” by refusing the answer for no good reason.
In other words, abolishing or severely reducing prisons would force us to come up with other ways to ensure safety, and the author can’t imagine one worse than prisons.
See my comment above on corporal punishment. If you abolish not just prisons but all punishment for crimes, then people start taking the law into their own hands. If the law won’t punish someone for committing crimes against me, it won’t punish me for retaliating.
If the title of the article is at all indicative of its contents, the author is an even bigger moron then I thought. Hint: the communists tried instituting full economic equality, didn’t turn out so well.
Edit: reading the article it is about as stupid as I expected. For example, the author says:
However, more frightening than [the shooting itself] is the fact that nearly every night since the shooting there has either been a police car, parked across the street with its lights flashing, or two cops posted outside my building, right at the steps, standing guard.
He never gives a rational reason why this is more frightening, the closest he comes is listing some well publicized incidents of cops shooting blacks (many of which were justified by the actions of the black in question). However, notice that the original shooting occurred in his apartment complex, whereas the police shooting were reported by the media from all over the country. This suggests that the former are much more common and the author is false alieving otherwise due to a media distortion filter.
I was going to go over the rest of the article this way, but now that I think about it, a good exercise for you to improve your rationality would be to go over the rest of this article looking for the remaining fallacies, biases, and idiocies. (It’s not a particularly hard exercise.)
An abolitionist framework makes us consider not only reducing mandatory minimums but eliminating them altogether. An abolitionist framework would call for us to decriminalize possession and sale of drugs.
It’s interesting that he calls for decriminalization and not for legalisation. Very odd for someone who calls for not focusing on what’s politically possible.
In other words, abolishing or severely reducing prisons would force us to come up with other ways to ensure safety, and the author can’t imagine one worse than prisons.
The Sharia calls for cutting off hands of thieves instead of putting them in prison. Is the author clueless, doesn’t know that and lack imagination or is he in favor of cutting of hands because it’s less bad than putting people in prison?
The way to signal LW ingroupness would be to say “signaling progressiveness”, but that does cover it fairly well.
I suspect the logic is roughly that our current prison system (imprisoning people for 12 years for a 1st time drug offense) is bad in the direction of imprisoning far too many people, so opposing our current prison system is good, so opposing the current prison system more is even better, and the most you can oppose the prison system is to support abolishing all prisons.
(actually there might be something of an argument to be made that in order to fight a policy way too far to one side of good policy, it can be useful in some cases to overcompensate and bring a policy too far to the other side into the discussion, although I think in a politically polarized environment like the US that’s bad overall- the overwhelming majority people who hear such an argument will be people who were already convinced of a decent policy and will be sent too far to one side by it, while the people who actually would have their beliefs brought closer to a good policy by hearing the counter-narrative either won’t hear it, or will use it to strawman the opposition.)
Long-term prisons are a relatively recent idea, but I’m not sure going to pre-prison practices would be all that great since they tended to be centered on “oh, just hang him”.
I’d be for it, or for corporal punishment more generally. However, somehow I doubt that’s what either ike or Mychal Denzel Smith have in mind.
“which is (as the article fails to mention but should have) similar to some European countries, so can’t be too terrible.”
Judging from Wikipedia (which of course is subject to correction), Norway has an ordinary 21 year maximum, but it can be increased indefinitely if they think the person is a danger to society. Some other countries, but not very many, have a 25 year maximum. Most other countries that have a maximum have 30-50 years.
None of these, not even 25 years, is reasonably similar to a 10 year maximum.
The obvious answer is “drug laws and mandatory sentences”, and the article does propose to do away with them.
Moving towards drug legalistation works a lot better since it’s proponents focus on what’s politically possible with medical marijuana legislation then focusing on the maximum position of abolishing all prisons.
Often advocates have a hard time with being pragmatic. The original quote is saying you shouldn’t be too pragmatic, but the opposite lesson is true as well.
Often advocates have a hard time with being pragmatic.
I think, translated into a normal language, this means “Have no clue what they are talking about”. An alternative translation is “Should not be allowed withing six feet of sharp objects”.
Its purpose seems to be to motivate people already convinced to actually do something,
In other words to motivate idiots to act on their stupidity.
or to spread awareness of a position (again, without arguing for it).
What exactly is “spread awareness” supposed to mean? It seems to mean “convince people using dark arts”.
The obvious answer is “drug laws and mandatory sentences”, and the article does propose to do away with them.
Drug laws have been around a lot longer than 40 years. As for mandatory sentences, they were introduced because crime was reaching unacceptable levels. So I don’t think repealing them is a good idea without addressing the issue that made them necessary.
which is (as the article fails to mention but should have) similar to some European countries
The same European countries that have given up enforcing any sense of order in large parts of their major cities.
By the way, if you want to deal with some of the actual politically untouchable issues that make the problem unsolvable, you can start by looking at the correlation between race and violent crime.
As for mandatory sentences, they were introduced because crime was reaching unacceptable levels. So I don’t think repealing them is a good idea without addressing the issue that made them necessary.
The 60′s did have an increase in crime but crime rates are lower than before that time.
The sourcing there is weak and questionable at best. That people assert that areas are “no-go” is pretty different than there being a genuine lack of any sense of order, and that’s even before one looks at the issue of whether this is any different from some areas simply being higher in crime than others.
I am not making claims about “any sense of order”, but going by what I read European police lost control of some chunks of its territory.
Take Calais. Here is a sympathetic account which is actually a kinda-detective story: a body in a wetsuit washes up on Norway’s shore and people are trying to figure out who-what-why. The clues lead to an immigrant camp in Calais and, well, it’s pretty clear that the French state lost control there.
I am not making claims about “any sense of order”, but going by what I read European police lost control of some chunks of its territory.
In this context that’s what relevant, since VoiceOfRa talked about “European countries that have given up enforcing any sense of order in large parts of their major cities.” If you aren’t talking about that then how is it a relevant response?
In other words to motivate idiots to act on their stupidity.
Couldn’t you criticize all advocacy on the same basis?
Spread awareness mean “make more people aware that position X exists and has advocates, even if they don’t agree”.
Re mandatory sentences, the ones for drug crimes were enacted because drugs crimes were increasing? Then if you concede that drug laws are wrong, those sentences shouldn’t happen either.
The same European countries that have given up enforcing any sense of order in large parts of their major cities.
Mychal Denzel Smith
True, of course the article you linked to, by reiterating the currently acceptable dogmas as if they were objective truths, goes a long way towards making them problem worse.
Are you saying they got the object level question wrong, or that abolition is politically possible right now?
They got the object level way wrong, abolition of prisons is a very very stupid idea.
Let’s look at the article itself to see some of its most grievous flaws:
For example, the article admits that an “explosion in the incarcerated population [] has occurred over the past 40 years”. However, it fails to note that that implies that something must have occurred over the last 40 years that caused this explosion and thus the solution should involve figuring out what changes have lead to this explosion and undoing them. The article instead going in the direction we have been going only more so.
Later the article quotes Tony Papa of Drug Policy Alliance, and says he spend 12 years serving an “unjust sentence”, but fails to specify in what way the sentence was “unjust”. Was he wrongly convicted, if so the problem is that and not the existence of minimum sentences. However, one gets the impression from the authors lack of interest in the question (or for that matter in what crime Tony Papa was incarcerated for) that the use of the word “unjust” is BS in Frankfurt’s sense.
So your above comment considers abolition a “currently acceptable dogma”? That doesn’t seem true, it’s still well out of the Overton Window.
The article isn’t doing analysis as much as advocacy, but it isn’t really trying to convince. Its purpose seems to be to motivate people already convinced to actually do something, or to spread awareness of a position (again, without arguing for it). Both are valid, and complaining about it not being rigorous enough seems to be missing the point.
The obvious answer is “drug laws and mandatory sentences”, and the article does propose to do away with them.
Also, the specific proposal is
which is (as the article fails to mention but should have) similar to some European countries, so can’t be too terrible.
Not mentioning something doesn’t mean lack of interest. He’s mentioned as being from the Drug Policy Alliance, and sure enough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Papa
The unjustness is clearly the belief that drug laws are unjust, which is also something the article takes for granted and assumes the reader does as well.
Well, you have to at least formulate that position sensibly. From a glance at the article, it seems to like the idea of the abolition of prisons. The immediate question that comes to mind is “and replace them with what?” Without even a hint of an answer, it’s not much of a position.
Long-term prisons are a relatively recent idea, but I’m not sure going to pre-prison practices would be all that great since they tended to be centered on “oh, just hang him”.
The article claims that
Having prisons is undesirable
This is not feasible right now
Here’s this less radical proposal (no death sentence plus 10 year max), which is feasible
Thinking the more radical position might be ideal (or believing in 1) will help one come to conclusions such as those in 3, which are steps in the right direction
“10 years max” is a position. The fact that the author presumably believes more (it’s not that clear what they do believe, which is a weakness) doesn’t make what they do directly advocate “not a position”.
Recall your original quote. It strongly hints that we should be interested in “real solutions” even if they are not politically feasible. So in the linked article I expect to find a politically infeasible “real solution”. And it’s there—the author repeatedly mentions abolition of prisons. I have to assume that it’s intended to be that infeasible thing which we ought to want regardless.
It’s not clear from the article whether they would get rid of prisons tomorrow if it were politically possible. They may believe that an ideal world would not have prisons but getting rid of them overnight would be bad.
Not having a plan for getting rid of prisons or what to do instead isn’t a problem, because they aren’t advocating for that.
In that case what does he mean by “Having prisons is undesirable”?
It’s possible that they would agree that the immediate outcome of abolishing prisons would be bad (in the same way that the immediate outcome of abolishing slavery hurt some people) and they might even agree that they shouldn’t be abolished all at once. It’s not clear that they wouldn’t agree, anyway.
The actual statement just means that a utopia wouldn’t have prisons.
Motte and Bailey? So there no problem with having prisons in today’s day and age because our society is very far from utopia anyway?
It’s not clear they would disagree with that. But if we think prisons are suboptimal, we’re more likely to support measures that reduce them. I think this is what is meant by
and
and
In other words, abolishing or severely reducing prisons would force us to come up with other ways to ensure safety, and the author can’t imagine one worse than prisons.
For what it’s worth, the same author wrote https://www.thenation.com/article/abolish-police-instead-lets-have-full-social-economic-and-political-equality/.,
Do you think the author is suffering from a severe lack of imagination or he is lying through his teeth?
Suboptimal relative to what. I would prefer replacing them with mote corporal and capital punishment, but somehow I doubt that’s what you want. Judging by what you latter wrote, you seem to prefer “replacements” that not only won’t help with the problem prisons are designed to solve but create their own problems.
Yes, it’s amazing how any question can be made “difficult” by refusing the answer for no good reason.
See my comment above on corporal punishment. If you abolish not just prisons but all punishment for crimes, then people start taking the law into their own hands. If the law won’t punish someone for committing crimes against me, it won’t punish me for retaliating.
If the title of the article is at all indicative of its contents, the author is an even bigger moron then I thought. Hint: the communists tried instituting full economic equality, didn’t turn out so well.
Edit: reading the article it is about as stupid as I expected. For example, the author says:
He never gives a rational reason why this is more frightening, the closest he comes is listing some well publicized incidents of cops shooting blacks (many of which were justified by the actions of the black in question). However, notice that the original shooting occurred in his apartment complex, whereas the police shooting were reported by the media from all over the country. This suggests that the former are much more common and the author is false alieving otherwise due to a media distortion filter.
I was going to go over the rest of the article this way, but now that I think about it, a good exercise for you to improve your rationality would be to go over the rest of this article looking for the remaining fallacies, biases, and idiocies. (It’s not a particularly hard exercise.)
It’s interesting that he calls for decriminalization and not for legalisation. Very odd for someone who calls for not focusing on what’s politically possible.
The Sharia calls for cutting off hands of thieves instead of putting them in prison. Is the author clueless, doesn’t know that and lack imagination or is he in favor of cutting of hands because it’s less bad than putting people in prison?
Welling judging from the other article by the same author ike linked to, he is either a total idiot or at least “plays one on TV”.
He means that he is progressive and compassionate and forward-thinking and stands up to the man and stuff.
The way to signal LW ingroupness would be to say “signaling progressiveness”, but that does cover it fairly well. I suspect the logic is roughly that our current prison system (imprisoning people for 12 years for a 1st time drug offense) is bad in the direction of imprisoning far too many people, so opposing our current prison system is good, so opposing the current prison system more is even better, and the most you can oppose the prison system is to support abolishing all prisons.
(actually there might be something of an argument to be made that in order to fight a policy way too far to one side of good policy, it can be useful in some cases to overcompensate and bring a policy too far to the other side into the discussion, although I think in a politically polarized environment like the US that’s bad overall- the overwhelming majority people who hear such an argument will be people who were already convinced of a decent policy and will be sent too far to one side by it, while the people who actually would have their beliefs brought closer to a good policy by hearing the counter-narrative either won’t hear it, or will use it to strawman the opposition.)
From comments at Marginal Revolution: “People will only tolerate so much bad policy before they start demanding bad counter-policy”.
I’d be for it, or for corporal punishment more generally. However, somehow I doubt that’s what either ike or Mychal Denzel Smith have in mind.
“which is (as the article fails to mention but should have) similar to some European countries, so can’t be too terrible.”
Judging from Wikipedia (which of course is subject to correction), Norway has an ordinary 21 year maximum, but it can be increased indefinitely if they think the person is a danger to society. Some other countries, but not very many, have a 25 year maximum. Most other countries that have a maximum have 30-50 years.
None of these, not even 25 years, is reasonably similar to a 10 year maximum.
Moving towards drug legalistation works a lot better since it’s proponents focus on what’s politically possible with medical marijuana legislation then focusing on the maximum position of abolishing all prisons.
Often advocates have a hard time with being pragmatic. The original quote is saying you shouldn’t be too pragmatic, but the opposite lesson is true as well.
I think, translated into a normal language, this means “Have no clue what they are talking about”. An alternative translation is “Should not be allowed withing six feet of sharp objects”.
Which European countries do you believe to have a maximum of ten years?
I said similar, not identical.
In other words to motivate idiots to act on their stupidity.
What exactly is “spread awareness” supposed to mean? It seems to mean “convince people using dark arts”.
Drug laws have been around a lot longer than 40 years. As for mandatory sentences, they were introduced because crime was reaching unacceptable levels. So I don’t think repealing them is a good idea without addressing the issue that made them necessary.
The same European countries that have given up enforcing any sense of order in large parts of their major cities.
By the way, if you want to deal with some of the actual politically untouchable issues that make the problem unsolvable, you can start by looking at the correlation between race and violent crime.
The 60′s did have an increase in crime but crime rates are lower than before that time.
Such as?
Wikipedia
Some areas by the Eurotunnel in Calais, France come to mind, for example. Sweden seems to have problems, too.
The sourcing there is weak and questionable at best. That people assert that areas are “no-go” is pretty different than there being a genuine lack of any sense of order, and that’s even before one looks at the issue of whether this is any different from some areas simply being higher in crime than others.
I am not making claims about “any sense of order”, but going by what I read European police lost control of some chunks of its territory.
Take Calais. Here is a sympathetic account which is actually a kinda-detective story: a body in a wetsuit washes up on Norway’s shore and people are trying to figure out who-what-why. The clues lead to an immigrant camp in Calais and, well, it’s pretty clear that the French state lost control there.
There’s a difference between losing control and “giv[ing] up enforcing any sense of order”
In this context that’s what relevant, since VoiceOfRa talked about “European countries that have given up enforcing any sense of order in large parts of their major cities.” If you aren’t talking about that then how is it a relevant response?
In the context of “given up enforcing”.
The enforcement and penalties were rewritten in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act. I’m not sure what your point is here.
Couldn’t you criticize all advocacy on the same basis?
Spread awareness mean “make more people aware that position X exists and has advocates, even if they don’t agree”.
Re mandatory sentences, the ones for drug crimes were enacted because drugs crimes were increasing? Then if you concede that drug laws are wrong, those sentences shouldn’t happen either.
Which country are you talking about? Norway has a maximum, and does better than the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Norway/United-States/Crime
I haven’t studied this in depth, but where’s the argument that the US’s prison system has led to better outcomes?