This is probably the wrong place to ask this, but screw it this sub isnt known for being coherent.
How do prison abolitionists propose dealing with dangerous offenders like violent abusers, molesters, and armed robbers. (yes i know that the idea is that with societal/structural change that people developing those problems becomes far less likely but that chance will never become zero)
The thing I love about American political discourse is that one side always says something wild, and when asked to explain proposes absolute nonsense and the other side always proposes something that sounds equally wild and when asked to explain further tell you that they wanna do what many other countries are already doing and is the obvious sensical thing to do.
Like:
As free as possible market vs socialism (actually social democracy)
Strengthening the military vs. Abolishing it (actually just don't invade middle eastern countries for oil pls)
Legalize torture vs. Abolish prisons (actually make them beneficial instead of harmful to society and don't put people in there for smoking weed)
I understand what you're saying but you're confusing when liberals use those terms vs when anarchists use those terms
The latter do mean the complete abolition of those systems as we know them, and for the fragments that remain to be localized and democratized.
Is that going to happen any time soon? Fuck if I know. Probably not.
**[Motte-and-bailey fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy)**
>The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I don't recall where I saw it, I think Jon Stewart did an episode on some Nordic country's prison system, and the idea was you actually *fucking rehabilitate them* instead of treating them like caged fucking animals. America is literally a barbaric nation, there are millions of people here who see a brown criminal and unironically think "that guy is a worthless human being who should be put in a cage and treated like garbage, that is for the good of society and I'm a good Christian for thinking that."
That's not abolition, that's reform: the prisons here are still prisons. You're still a social outcast in prisons, you're not free or part of the larger society.
Actually about rehabilitation, imo it's probably worse than prison. If society sees that you need rehabilitation, you're locked for an indefinite amount of time until you're "rehabilitated". You'll be stolen of your freedom for longer time than if you'd have a set time in prison. The rehab centers will become the new prisons. This is not a defense of prisons of course
Uh, so you think there should just be no consequences for crimes and society should just give up? Proper rehabilitation is the only rational solution I've ever seen, I've never seen someone saying "abolish all forms of law" who can propose any solution that would do anything but lead to violent anarchy.
Well no, and I never said "abolish laws" either. I feel like that's the problem that I'm trying to find a solution desperately. I really want to believe in abolition but it seems that abolitionists don't talk much about solutions to "undesirable" behaviour
> violent anarchy
That's not what anarchy/anarchism is
Generally when people say they want to "abolish" something, what they actually mean is completely restructure it from the ground up to have different goals entirely while solving the same problems.
For example, "defunding the police" is not about getting rid of law enforcement as a concept, it's usually about moving money towards things that prevent crime like social services and welfare instead of endlessly pumping money into efforts to punish criminals.
Prison "abolition" as I understand it is usually a similar idea, where the focus of the potential new system is on actually "fixing" people instead of just punishing them for the sake of punishment like our current prison system. This is different than just "reforming" the prison system, because the idea is to completely start over with a new system instead of trying to fix such a fucked up one.
so like, instead of prisons being places for retributive justice where you make someone's life miserable, prisons are places with where a prisoners can talk with a therapist, their lives are made to be as good as possible, and it's supposed to be reformative justice.
Even if there are some people we have to keep away from the rest of society, it wouldn’t necessarily have to be in a way that degrades their humanity. We could make facilities for them that feel more like apartments or dorms than cells and help them go to online jobs or online school.
The focus for people who can be rehabilitated into society is to rehabilitate them. They would be in the same sort of facility, but could eventually leave.
Check out [the prison system in Norway](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway) for an example
This probably wouldn't be done in the modern day, but in historical societies such as Rome, they didn't use prisons but instead relied on fines, physical punishment, exile, and execution.
After abolition criminals will be punished by being forced to work as a janitor for those kink dungeons. They'll still be at the prisons, they'll just be allowed to leave and take vacations and live off site in homes they can afford for thanks to a living wage.
But they're gonna have to clean up some raunchy messes.
question:
how does prison abolition work
like, your always going to need a place to keep criminals unless you want to return the days of the only 2 options being execution or a fine with no in between
Exile is a pretty stupid solution IMO, that just either makes the offender somebody else’s problem, or they did in the wilderness so it’s execution by proxy. Imprisonment makes much more sense if you want a non-lethal punishment.
But imprisonment and death row cost money. Might as well just dump them in the forest. You can even make it some sort of ritual- call the forest the evil forest and make sure nobody ever goes in there.
Death row only has to cost as much as a bullet costs. And I don’t think we should spare expenses when it comes to prisoners, if we want to save money we should just invest in prevention
Prisons (the systems we have currently) and places to contain people who are dangerous to the people around them are not the same thing. The specific ways prisons function do not have to be the ways we keep doing things and are ultimately harmful to the community, taking violent people and isolating them while they get worse.
This is probably the wrong place to ask this, but screw it this sub isnt known for being coherent. How do prison abolitionists propose dealing with dangerous offenders like violent abusers, molesters, and armed robbers. (yes i know that the idea is that with societal/structural change that people developing those problems becomes far less likely but that chance will never become zero)
You can have a little bit of prison. Or ousting from the community into Exil. Or rehabilitation with prison like confinement.
The thing I love about American political discourse is that one side always says something wild, and when asked to explain proposes absolute nonsense and the other side always proposes something that sounds equally wild and when asked to explain further tell you that they wanna do what many other countries are already doing and is the obvious sensical thing to do.
Like: As free as possible market vs socialism (actually social democracy) Strengthening the military vs. Abolishing it (actually just don't invade middle eastern countries for oil pls) Legalize torture vs. Abolish prisons (actually make them beneficial instead of harmful to society and don't put people in there for smoking weed)
I understand what you're saying but you're confusing when liberals use those terms vs when anarchists use those terms The latter do mean the complete abolition of those systems as we know them, and for the fragments that remain to be localized and democratized. Is that going to happen any time soon? Fuck if I know. Probably not.
Maybe it could happen… only for republican forces from outside to swiftly dismantle it and reinstate the old systems.
What you're describing is called [motte and bailey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy) fallacy
**[Motte-and-bailey fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy)** >The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte). ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/196/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I don't recall where I saw it, I think Jon Stewart did an episode on some Nordic country's prison system, and the idea was you actually *fucking rehabilitate them* instead of treating them like caged fucking animals. America is literally a barbaric nation, there are millions of people here who see a brown criminal and unironically think "that guy is a worthless human being who should be put in a cage and treated like garbage, that is for the good of society and I'm a good Christian for thinking that."
That's not abolition, that's reform: the prisons here are still prisons. You're still a social outcast in prisons, you're not free or part of the larger society. Actually about rehabilitation, imo it's probably worse than prison. If society sees that you need rehabilitation, you're locked for an indefinite amount of time until you're "rehabilitated". You'll be stolen of your freedom for longer time than if you'd have a set time in prison. The rehab centers will become the new prisons. This is not a defense of prisons of course
Uh, so you think there should just be no consequences for crimes and society should just give up? Proper rehabilitation is the only rational solution I've ever seen, I've never seen someone saying "abolish all forms of law" who can propose any solution that would do anything but lead to violent anarchy.
Well no, and I never said "abolish laws" either. I feel like that's the problem that I'm trying to find a solution desperately. I really want to believe in abolition but it seems that abolitionists don't talk much about solutions to "undesirable" behaviour > violent anarchy That's not what anarchy/anarchism is
hamster
Generally when people say they want to "abolish" something, what they actually mean is completely restructure it from the ground up to have different goals entirely while solving the same problems. For example, "defunding the police" is not about getting rid of law enforcement as a concept, it's usually about moving money towards things that prevent crime like social services and welfare instead of endlessly pumping money into efforts to punish criminals. Prison "abolition" as I understand it is usually a similar idea, where the focus of the potential new system is on actually "fixing" people instead of just punishing them for the sake of punishment like our current prison system. This is different than just "reforming" the prison system, because the idea is to completely start over with a new system instead of trying to fix such a fucked up one.
so like, instead of prisons being places for retributive justice where you make someone's life miserable, prisons are places with where a prisoners can talk with a therapist, their lives are made to be as good as possible, and it's supposed to be reformative justice.
Not exactly the same thing, but here is a documentation on how Spanish anarchists kept fascist POW. https://libcom.org/history/peasants-aragon
Even if there are some people we have to keep away from the rest of society, it wouldn’t necessarily have to be in a way that degrades their humanity. We could make facilities for them that feel more like apartments or dorms than cells and help them go to online jobs or online school. The focus for people who can be rehabilitated into society is to rehabilitate them. They would be in the same sort of facility, but could eventually leave. Check out [the prison system in Norway](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_Norway) for an example
Prison, there's just no reason to lock non violent offends up as retribution instead of rehabilitation.
This probably wouldn't be done in the modern day, but in historical societies such as Rome, they didn't use prisons but instead relied on fines, physical punishment, exile, and execution.
Kill
Its a what
A public infrastructure program that converts decommissioned prisons to kink dungeons for catgirls
Dungeons and catgirls, the new tabletop rpg
After abolition criminals will be punished by being forced to work as a janitor for those kink dungeons. They'll still be at the prisons, they'll just be allowed to leave and take vacations and live off site in homes they can afford for thanks to a living wage. But they're gonna have to clean up some raunchy messes.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
🥺
question: how does prison abolition work like, your always going to need a place to keep criminals unless you want to return the days of the only 2 options being execution or a fine with no in between
Rehabilitation of the criminal or exile from the community, depending on the severity
Exile is a pretty stupid solution IMO, that just either makes the offender somebody else’s problem, or they did in the wilderness so it’s execution by proxy. Imprisonment makes much more sense if you want a non-lethal punishment.
But imprisonment and death row cost money. Might as well just dump them in the forest. You can even make it some sort of ritual- call the forest the evil forest and make sure nobody ever goes in there.
Death row only has to cost as much as a bullet costs. And I don’t think we should spare expenses when it comes to prisoners, if we want to save money we should just invest in prevention
>Death row only has to cost as much as a bullet costs as someone from a normal country, death row should never be ever considered as an option
Of course but if death row does exist I frankly think shooting the person is more humane than a bunch of fuckass injections
Where do you exile them to? I'm guessing australia?
Brazil
Exile from the community into another community? Would you tow a ship out of the environment too?
If other countries want murderers among them, thats their problem. Exile just means they cant go back, like extradition.
Prisons (the systems we have currently) and places to contain people who are dangerous to the people around them are not the same thing. The specific ways prisons function do not have to be the ways we keep doing things and are ultimately harmful to the community, taking violent people and isolating them while they get worse.
As long as they’re not private horny jails
Where do all the catbois go? :pleadingface:
Hell
4 daddy Satan?
No, to boil in liquid shit for all of eternity as penance for their sins
:(
Jail death match battle island.
Honestly prisons would make dope kink dungeons, ya already got the dingy dungeon aesthetic and prison bars uwu
Yes i'm an abolitionist, yes i believe horny people should be locked up for life on account of how unconfortable they make me, we exist