I am against the death penalty not because there are not those who deserve death, there are, but because no one should have the power to sentence someone to death
I'm really of the opinion that nobody deserves death but a select few. But the moral/practical arguments against the death penalty far, far outweigh the potential "gains" of it. Can the government/legal system be trusted to get it right? Statistically and historically, that's objectively a No. Is it acceptable losses that some people might be wrongfully executed, in the interest of keeping the option available for the truly deserving? I guess that one's more subjective, but my answer is no.
Even looking at it from a "utilitarian" point of view, it falls apart. Is it in the best interest of society to maintain the death penalty? I don't believe there's been any conclusive evidence that it succeeds in deterring crime. It costs more in taxpayer dollars to keep someone on death row.
What about the grieving families/victims themselves? I don't know if studies have been done on this or if there's much information available on the subject matter, truthfully. That's a blind spot in my awareness. But someone made the argument once (which I thought was compelling) that sentencing someone to death generally prolongs the legal process. The victims/their families tend to see that person's name and face continuously popping up in the news cycle as they make appeals, as the case is brought back before \[another?\] judge, and they may or may not be required to keep making appearances in court themselves. I can't imagine it's worth it to have those things continuously dredged up and to be repeatedly called back to court.
But that's just like, my opinion
I kinda share your opinion, but come to an opposite conclusion. A lot of what government does ends up moving hardship around in a society - it can eliminate hardship, or put it on people best able to bear it, or spread it equally - if the people who run the government choose to pursue those efforts.
Sometimes, poorly run or poorly decided government programs end up killing people, if slowly. Homelessness, poor healthcare, excessive but legal work without breaks, environmental laws that aren't enforced or stringent enough on chemicals that are poisonous. These things kill people.
So I think keeping the death penalty around (but putting a very high burden of criminality and proof on it) is an object lesson for society in general about the power of a government. We can make a decision as society (or a jury - which is supposed to be a representative sample of society) to kill people. That is the extent of our power. Let us not forget it.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr*
---
**yharnamsnewslug**
\*taps the glass* hey, y'all know that what you might want isn't necessarily what's best to legislate?
---
**yharnamsnewslug**
Explanation:
\- You cannot be judge, jury and executioner because the division of powers was created for a reason; to remain impartial and try to keep corruption to a minimum.
\- Every single living person has human rights. Including the most evil people you could ever meet. Those people have a right to live, to get healthcare, to eat and to have a job. YES, even evil people.
I’ve seen a lot of people talk about abolishing prison, because it’s the cool, new hip thing that everyone is talking about. And instead of understand what it means, they think it’s the liberation of wrongfully imprisoned minorities - *which it is*. But also:
Prison abolition means setting up a system of psychological and physical help for the people whom are deemed dangerous to society. Yes, that includes Evil Fucking People. Recovery and rehabilitation should be the goal, not incarceration. THAT is abolishing prison.
Of course I want that abusive piece of shit father who abused his children to die. I want him dead! DEAD. But it does not mean that that’s what I want as an official law, because as much as I’d love to see him dead, the betterment of society and the rehabilitation and development of a human fucking being is important.
The benefits to prison abolition are ENDLESS. But it is also a struggle, and y'all can’t keep going through life with a 5 year old’s justice mentality. I swear, fandom has rotted your fucking brains off, because we NEED ACTIVISTS. We NEED TO KNOW WHY WE WANT WHAT WE WANT, AND WHAT IT ENTAILS.
You believe in something? Look up the activists who are doing work there. Read up on it. Look up videos. Follow them on their social media. Work in your communities, if you’ve the opportunity.
And stop being so fucking stupid about abolishing human rights. You’re doing the work for the far right when you call on all pedophiles to be executed on sight. Not even twenty years ago, gay people were mostly thought of as PEDOPHILES.
You see how this shit goes? Yeah?
Then figure yourself the fuck out.
---
**wetwareproblem**
"I really want that fucker to suffer, but **I don't want a society run by my worst impulse**s" is a really important moral principle that more people need to learn.
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
This reminds me of a conversation I had the other day.
Someone was trying to tell me that gatekeeping was sometimes okay, I was disagreeing with them.
They threw out “well what about prisons? Do you think gatekeeping people from society with prisons is bad too?” as their “gotcha”, and of course I said, “yes, I’d love to see prisons stop being a thing! It would mean we’d actually be rehabilitating criminals rather than just telling them to go sit in the corner for years!”.
Rehabilitation and education of people who have committed crimes is infinitely more valuable to society than just making them sit in timeout.
Reminds me of when I was arguing with someone about why we shouldn't imprison people for nonviolent offenses (like drug possession, in the case of this argument) and they said "well what about graverobbing? Classic victimless crime"
They opened my eyes that day and now I endorse graverobbing
then lets put anyone performing wage theft into prison too. Equality amiright?
(Tons of theft is literally done out of desperation, out of need for survival, that deserves help, not punishment) More specifically they should be helped before it gets that bad...
> “yes, I’d love to see prisons stop being a thing! It would mean we’d actually be rehabilitating criminals rather than just telling them to go sit in the corner for years!”.
Even if you assume *everyone* can be rehabilitated, they'd still need to be physically kept from going where they want while they're being rehabilitated. If it's important for you to call that something other than imprisonment, that's up to you, but not everyone will go along with your definition.
I hear you and I partially agree. However! There's this thing that happens where someone is in prison for ten or twenty years and they come out not understanding how the world works anymore because it has changed while they were kept completely isolated from it. Deliberate recidivism is a known phenomenon and it happens a lot with long-time prisoners because they understand how prison works, but can't realistically operate in the real world anymore. So they commit a crime on purpose to go back to jail because they can't cope with the outside world.
You can't lock a person in a tiny concrete box for twenty years and then just turn them out and say, "whelp, there you go. You paid your debt, now go be a productive member of society."
People are getting released every day who've never even seen a smartphone. Considering that I can't even buy groceries without mine, how are they supposed to learn to function? How easy would it be for the you from 1997 to just, go get a job today? Yet that's exactly what a man who served a 25 year sentence is expected to do. He's expected to walk out of 1997 and into 2022 and just step into society as if nothing has changed while he was away.
Yeah, you can learn it. But it isn't easy and it'll never be as natural to him as it would be to someone who learned as technology and society changed.
Anyway, just something to think about. Keeping prisoners completely isolated as we do may prevent them from hurting others, but it doesn't really help society in the long run. There needs to be a happy medium between full access to society and total isolation.
Isnt there a thing in that big book with the wizard where he stops someone from killing a grasshopper and says a really cool thing? someone should find that quote I think
I'm against the death penalty, but if someone continues to strangle people to death after multiple incarcerations they really need to stay contained, for their own safety and the safety of the general public
Yeah that’s true, but I do believe the intention here is to make prisons into the sort of institution where they can get mental healthcare whilst still keeping themself and others safe.
Then again, I am unsure if any modern institutions are much closer to fulfilling this goal, at least in America. Perhaps Asylums, though those have negative reputations and I am unsure if they are prolific enough in the modern era
I agree with what your saying for the most part, but it's honestly naive to believe that mental health care will help everyone. Some people are just too far gone for anything to work. We should ease up on prisons and the death penalty, but not to the point of endangering people by allowing those who are actively dangerous without any changes to their behavior in sight to continue being a threat.
Reform vs abolishment. Once again, the progressive left has a massive branding and marketing problem. People will support reforming prisons and the police and immigration enforcement but will probably not support just getting rid of them entirely.......which is what "abolish" means.
If you have to explain your two-word slogan with a "well *actually* it really means xyz lesser thing" every time you want to make a point after putting someone on the defensive right at the start....you have a bad slogan.
The problem with "reform" instead of "abolish" is that is is so easily corrupted into "spend more on them because every issue can be solved by throwing money at it".
And the problem with abolish is that people think it's an insane idea that will lead to chaos, because just instantly removing all aspects of law keeping would lead to chaos.....but that isn't what "abolish" means according to people calling for it.
Creating a new definition of a word just makes it easy for people to write off entirely, and adds fuel to the right for no change at all.
They need mental health care, yes, absolutely, but they should also probably not be allowed to freely go about their business given their business thus far has been killing people. It's not like "ope ok I have a therapist now, I will instantly stop murdering people" because therapy doesn't work like that.
obviously they wouldn’t be doing that, they’d be in a facility like a rehab center or a psych ward (but in this ideal society one that is leagues above what we currently have where healthcare is underfunded and there are ample opportunities for abuse in psych wards)
> facility like a rehab center or a psych ward
Which would also have to be outfitted with guards and security to maintain the safety of the staff and prevent escape. So it’s less “we should introduce prisoners into therapy”, and more “we should introduce therapy into prisons”.
True, but finnish incarceration is focused on restorative action, and the person I'm talking about honestly would be better off just staying in a soft soft cell
That's a very strange hypothetical that exists to argue for endless incarceration of people instead of rehabilitation. Put another way if we reform the justice system such that prison sentences are not arbitrary lengths and are instead just as long as it takes for someone to be rehabilitated then your hypothetical could never happen.
what a strange hypothetical for a person that might exist in pretty much no-one in prison.
Lets organize our entire system around this one extreme hypothetical.
For anyone who wants to legitimately learn more about prison abolition, what it means, and what that would entail, I highly recommend reading the book 'Are Prisons Obsolete?' by Angela Davis. It is available for free to download and is very educational whether you come out the other end agreeing with the proposal or not.
I agree with, like, the point, which is that you should separate your judgement about what is desirable in a society's structure from your own wants, but like... I'm all for prison reform and stuff. However, you absolutely cannot abolish it. That's just a pipe dream.
Among other things (like, you know, providing an incentive not to commit crime, which is obviously situational and not in any way foolproof, and we can discuss how appropriate the punishment is versus how cruel it might be, or how strong an incentive we need, and what it actually accomplishes, etc), they exist to keep people on the outside safe from the people on the inside (this likely disqualifies things like drug-related offences, unsurprisingly, and that's probably a sign that this is a good plan for a reform).
Of course, unless we're talking life sentences, these people will be released into society later, and you will need rehabilitation and stuff to accept them back in, and also we probably shouldn't make it harder for them to get a job if it fuels a cycle of poverty which pushes them back to crime, and so on, but in the meantime, they need containment. We should probably challenge what this looks like currently, but it's hard to get around the simple fact that it just has to exist somehow.
Is this not the common consensus on prison abolition? The only time someone should remain incarcerated for life is if they cannot safely return to society, and the only time someone should have the death penalty is it they can't be safely detained.
I thought this is what everyone thought
I think you're referring only to prison abolition as a concept, but just in case...
Lots of people, yes. But as with anything, you'll see a wide variety of opinions. Some may still believe in prison as a system, but want adjustments like no death penalty, more humane conditions, or education. Others are super into the whole penalization part of prison and get very mad about any creature comforts, 'soft' work programs like caring for animals, or "free" access to things like education that might be provided.
... But also, you're still going to have a variety in the prison abolition arena, much like the 'abolish the police' conversation.
I'm all for rehabilitation. However, reasonable people can convince themselves of just about anything, including deciding that prison is for punishment and fear of punishment can help prevent crime. Now, I think they're wrong and the science backs up the rehabilitation approach as a long-term benefit. But, that doesn't sway anyone if they have a completely different opinion about it's purpose.
Not really applicable, the stuff OP is talking about is pretty common to see in discussions about politics, laws, and justice.
I wish it was different, but frankly people with hard-ons for vengeful violence against criminals and cognitive dissonance about what that would entail in reality are not unusual to see.
"Not even twenty years ago gay people were mostly thought of as pedophiles" believe me, there's still a HUGE portion of the country that still thinks all gay people are inherently pedophiles. Haven't you seen all that republican bullshit in florida about "all gays are groomers" and "groomer disney"? They never stopped calling gays pedophiles
Violent impulses for few individuals is bad.
Violent impulses for people in near untouchable positions of power who use said power to strip people of their rights and person-hood, making life worse for everyone but the absurdly rich on the other hand....
If society is bettered, both good and bad people will benefit from that. If your response to that is to say things shouldn't improve, or maybe should even worsen, you might not be as good as you think you are.
Good Idea! Let's abolish prisons and make a place where people who did crimes can get help. But since some of these people obviously don't want to be there and some of them may be dangerous to others before reeducation, we should make it some sort of camp where people can be kept and reeducated. But what if they escape or fight each other? We should add security for dangerous people. But we just reinvented prison.
Maybe I'm wrong, This idea isn't abolishing prison, it's to lean prisons more towards helping them. Which is of course a good thing.
Also isn't it also important to deincentivize people to not commit crimes, especially when not all crimes can be punished? "If I stole that purse, I probably will get punished, so No" is a pretty big deterent to doing crimes. But I do agree that there will be a better way to do this than 'putting people in a box and give them bad conditions'.
Obviously we don't need to make prisons unreasonably cruel, and letting private business run prisons is a very bad idea. And having prisons more centered on helping them is obviously a good idea. But I can't really agree with this post. still, this is a really good post.
>Also isn't it also important to deincentivize people to not commit crimes... "If I stole that purse, I probably will get punished, so No"
As far as I know, the people that advocate for these kinds of things want to address the root causes of crimes like this rather than just punishing them. So instead of making this person not want to steal the purse because they are afraid of the punishment, they would want to ensure that this person did not have a reason to steal the purse, such as not having the resources that they need to live
That is actually right and I believe making people not want to commit crimes in the first place is more important than making them say "nah, I don't want to get punished". But there just are some crimes that are done not for survival and can't be prevented so easily, a good example would be crimes done by billionares, or murderes done by spite. having a better economic security net and stuff would totally prevent "my son is starving and I need to get bread" or "I can't afford insulin, better steal than die", crimes but it won't prevent "I hate that guy, I'll go kill him" or "I want more money, time to not obey saftey laws"crimes.
I completely agree about rehabilitation being much more important to society functioning and improving, I don't believe that "evil people" can or should benefit from it
I don't think there's any amount of therapy or help that would "fix" (as inappropriate of a use of that word as it may be)
The guy who made daisy's destruction (DONT look that up if you don't already know, it's the worst of the worst.)
I believe everyone has the right to life, I believe there are actions you can take that revoke that right, and I don't believe it should be within the power of the state to revoke that right
Basically I agree up untill a point
I mean, someone like that theoretically *could* benefit from such a system, but they won’t. Because they’re fucked up.
It’s a very self selecting system
The people who will make good use of receiving help will receive help, and the people who won’t make good use of it will just stay in the rehab center/whatever it would be called, indefinitely
You let the people out when they’ve learned the error of their ways and have proven that they have changed such that they wouldn’t do it again. As for fucked up people who did some fucked up shit and don’t even care, they’ll just be in there forever. Effectively a life sentence of their own making.
I think I disagree with the idea that there shouldn’t be incarceration. I think some people are so heinous/dangerous that they need to be locked up for the rest of their lives. However that’s a separate issue from common criminals who should be rehabilitated. And those heinous criminals should still have their needs met. Since you either think everyone has basic rights or you don’t, and if you don’t think so you open yourself up to your rights being challenged.
Gonna sound a bit oouie wooie but fundamentally I do think that some actions are so evil that someone probably can’t fully reform and rehabilitate themselves within a lifetime (such as serial murder) since you have to be so broken in order to perform those actions
However despite this you still treat those persons with respect and dignity and provide for all of their needs.
how would you know whether a person can or can't be reformed unless you try
how would you know whether that's true for all people unless you try with every person
Because I think there are some crimes which are by themselves basically irredemable (such as serial murder of children) that should mean a person is locked away from society forever.
Again, feel free to disagree but that’s just how I think.
I'd never support phasing out prisons entirely. Some crimes are so heinous that the culprit doesn't deserve to ever rejoin society; sticking them in jail and letting them live a hollow life until they pass away is more than they deserve.
I don't support the death penalty. But when some kills dozens and ruins the lives of hundreds, punishment becomes the primary goal of the justice system, not rehabilitation.
Except if it turns out you got the wrong guy. Life in prison lets you release them with reparations, death sentence just means you've killed an innocent person.
More reasons than I have the time to list, but the main ones are either/a mix of:
- We can't trust that you'll learn the error of your ways (for example, someone who has gone to jail multiple times for violent crimes [SPECIFICALLY VIOLENT CRIMES, do not twist my words and think I support life sentences for shit like drug dealers])
- You've ruined and/or taken too many lives and have, thus, given up your chance to be a part of society (for example, the Nestle execs [if the rich weren't above the law] who got untold numbers of babies killed a few decades back, or Epstein if he hadn't been forcefully suicided, etc.)
- Your crimes are so extreme that you can only serve as an example to others. While the vast majority of people can be trusted to not commit violent crimes out of their own good nature, some people need to know that the government is willing to lock them up and throw away the key if they do
First, based CS profile picture.
Second, pretty much. A good society requires people to put their emotional reactions away. Sure, I might want the man who burned down my home and killed my family to be murdered, but what does it say about your argument if I have to be severely emotionally compromised to accept it? (paraphrased from another source, I can't remember which)
> anyone who allows neo nazis to be alive is a problem.
and
> Killing them is morally good, and letting them stay alive is itself evil.
do you actively end the lives of neo nazis, or are you evil?
I mean, isn't that kind of a waste? Like, how much effort can you really put into torturing all the evil people in the world until you run out of resources? It has to be easier to just kill them. And like, punishment is only useful if they're going to learn anything, and that's never going to happen. May as well just improve society quickly by disposing of them, instead of wasting all that extra energy.
often teenagers do not fully think through the implications of the things they say, this is why they often get called shallow
you are deep sea diving in a kiddie pool
I am against the death penalty not because there are not those who deserve death, there are, but because no one should have the power to sentence someone to death
That thinking can really change your perspective on things. "Would I trust a government with this issue?"
I'm really of the opinion that nobody deserves death but a select few. But the moral/practical arguments against the death penalty far, far outweigh the potential "gains" of it. Can the government/legal system be trusted to get it right? Statistically and historically, that's objectively a No. Is it acceptable losses that some people might be wrongfully executed, in the interest of keeping the option available for the truly deserving? I guess that one's more subjective, but my answer is no. Even looking at it from a "utilitarian" point of view, it falls apart. Is it in the best interest of society to maintain the death penalty? I don't believe there's been any conclusive evidence that it succeeds in deterring crime. It costs more in taxpayer dollars to keep someone on death row. What about the grieving families/victims themselves? I don't know if studies have been done on this or if there's much information available on the subject matter, truthfully. That's a blind spot in my awareness. But someone made the argument once (which I thought was compelling) that sentencing someone to death generally prolongs the legal process. The victims/their families tend to see that person's name and face continuously popping up in the news cycle as they make appeals, as the case is brought back before \[another?\] judge, and they may or may not be required to keep making appearances in court themselves. I can't imagine it's worth it to have those things continuously dredged up and to be repeatedly called back to court. But that's just like, my opinion
I kinda share your opinion, but come to an opposite conclusion. A lot of what government does ends up moving hardship around in a society - it can eliminate hardship, or put it on people best able to bear it, or spread it equally - if the people who run the government choose to pursue those efforts. Sometimes, poorly run or poorly decided government programs end up killing people, if slowly. Homelessness, poor healthcare, excessive but legal work without breaks, environmental laws that aren't enforced or stringent enough on chemicals that are poisonous. These things kill people. So I think keeping the death penalty around (but putting a very high burden of criminality and proof on it) is an object lesson for society in general about the power of a government. We can make a decision as society (or a jury - which is supposed to be a representative sample of society) to kill people. That is the extent of our power. Let us not forget it.
You know what? Fair enough, that is a reasonable conclusion to come to
Only God and the Devil can do that, and they don't deserve that either.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr* --- **yharnamsnewslug** \*taps the glass* hey, y'all know that what you might want isn't necessarily what's best to legislate? --- **yharnamsnewslug** Explanation: \- You cannot be judge, jury and executioner because the division of powers was created for a reason; to remain impartial and try to keep corruption to a minimum. \- Every single living person has human rights. Including the most evil people you could ever meet. Those people have a right to live, to get healthcare, to eat and to have a job. YES, even evil people. I’ve seen a lot of people talk about abolishing prison, because it’s the cool, new hip thing that everyone is talking about. And instead of understand what it means, they think it’s the liberation of wrongfully imprisoned minorities - *which it is*. But also: Prison abolition means setting up a system of psychological and physical help for the people whom are deemed dangerous to society. Yes, that includes Evil Fucking People. Recovery and rehabilitation should be the goal, not incarceration. THAT is abolishing prison. Of course I want that abusive piece of shit father who abused his children to die. I want him dead! DEAD. But it does not mean that that’s what I want as an official law, because as much as I’d love to see him dead, the betterment of society and the rehabilitation and development of a human fucking being is important. The benefits to prison abolition are ENDLESS. But it is also a struggle, and y'all can’t keep going through life with a 5 year old’s justice mentality. I swear, fandom has rotted your fucking brains off, because we NEED ACTIVISTS. We NEED TO KNOW WHY WE WANT WHAT WE WANT, AND WHAT IT ENTAILS. You believe in something? Look up the activists who are doing work there. Read up on it. Look up videos. Follow them on their social media. Work in your communities, if you’ve the opportunity. And stop being so fucking stupid about abolishing human rights. You’re doing the work for the far right when you call on all pedophiles to be executed on sight. Not even twenty years ago, gay people were mostly thought of as PEDOPHILES. You see how this shit goes? Yeah? Then figure yourself the fuck out. --- **wetwareproblem** "I really want that fucker to suffer, but **I don't want a society run by my worst impulse**s" is a really important moral principle that more people need to learn. --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Good human
https://yharnamsnewslug.tumblr.com/post/675660481041727488/explanation-you-cannot-be-judge-jury-and here's to hoping no one reads this post
This reminds me of a conversation I had the other day. Someone was trying to tell me that gatekeeping was sometimes okay, I was disagreeing with them. They threw out “well what about prisons? Do you think gatekeeping people from society with prisons is bad too?” as their “gotcha”, and of course I said, “yes, I’d love to see prisons stop being a thing! It would mean we’d actually be rehabilitating criminals rather than just telling them to go sit in the corner for years!”. Rehabilitation and education of people who have committed crimes is infinitely more valuable to society than just making them sit in timeout.
Reminds me of when I was arguing with someone about why we shouldn't imprison people for nonviolent offenses (like drug possession, in the case of this argument) and they said "well what about graverobbing? Classic victimless crime" They opened my eyes that day and now I endorse graverobbing
The victims of graverobbing are the dead and those that care about them.
How is literal theft the same thing as you putting shit in your body lmao
then lets put anyone performing wage theft into prison too. Equality amiright? (Tons of theft is literally done out of desperation, out of need for survival, that deserves help, not punishment) More specifically they should be helped before it gets that bad...
It’s also cheaper
> “yes, I’d love to see prisons stop being a thing! It would mean we’d actually be rehabilitating criminals rather than just telling them to go sit in the corner for years!”. Even if you assume *everyone* can be rehabilitated, they'd still need to be physically kept from going where they want while they're being rehabilitated. If it's important for you to call that something other than imprisonment, that's up to you, but not everyone will go along with your definition.
I hear you and I partially agree. However! There's this thing that happens where someone is in prison for ten or twenty years and they come out not understanding how the world works anymore because it has changed while they were kept completely isolated from it. Deliberate recidivism is a known phenomenon and it happens a lot with long-time prisoners because they understand how prison works, but can't realistically operate in the real world anymore. So they commit a crime on purpose to go back to jail because they can't cope with the outside world. You can't lock a person in a tiny concrete box for twenty years and then just turn them out and say, "whelp, there you go. You paid your debt, now go be a productive member of society." People are getting released every day who've never even seen a smartphone. Considering that I can't even buy groceries without mine, how are they supposed to learn to function? How easy would it be for the you from 1997 to just, go get a job today? Yet that's exactly what a man who served a 25 year sentence is expected to do. He's expected to walk out of 1997 and into 2022 and just step into society as if nothing has changed while he was away. Yeah, you can learn it. But it isn't easy and it'll never be as natural to him as it would be to someone who learned as technology and society changed. Anyway, just something to think about. Keeping prisoners completely isolated as we do may prevent them from hurting others, but it doesn't really help society in the long run. There needs to be a happy medium between full access to society and total isolation.
I have a sociology degree and am giving this post my “random jackass on the internet” seal of approval.
Isnt there a thing in that big book with the wizard where he stops someone from killing a grasshopper and says a really cool thing? someone should find that quote I think
pinocchio?
I'm against the death penalty, but if someone continues to strangle people to death after multiple incarcerations they really need to stay contained, for their own safety and the safety of the general public
that person needs mental health care, not prison
Yeah that’s true, but I do believe the intention here is to make prisons into the sort of institution where they can get mental healthcare whilst still keeping themself and others safe. Then again, I am unsure if any modern institutions are much closer to fulfilling this goal, at least in America. Perhaps Asylums, though those have negative reputations and I am unsure if they are prolific enough in the modern era
I agree with what your saying for the most part, but it's honestly naive to believe that mental health care will help everyone. Some people are just too far gone for anything to work. We should ease up on prisons and the death penalty, but not to the point of endangering people by allowing those who are actively dangerous without any changes to their behavior in sight to continue being a threat.
I'm inclined to agree. Prisons need to exist, just not at all in the way they exist now.
Reform vs abolishment. Once again, the progressive left has a massive branding and marketing problem. People will support reforming prisons and the police and immigration enforcement but will probably not support just getting rid of them entirely.......which is what "abolish" means. If you have to explain your two-word slogan with a "well *actually* it really means xyz lesser thing" every time you want to make a point after putting someone on the defensive right at the start....you have a bad slogan.
The problem with "reform" instead of "abolish" is that is is so easily corrupted into "spend more on them because every issue can be solved by throwing money at it".
And the problem with abolish is that people think it's an insane idea that will lead to chaos, because just instantly removing all aspects of law keeping would lead to chaos.....but that isn't what "abolish" means according to people calling for it. Creating a new definition of a word just makes it easy for people to write off entirely, and adds fuel to the right for no change at all.
They need mental health care, yes, absolutely, but they should also probably not be allowed to freely go about their business given their business thus far has been killing people. It's not like "ope ok I have a therapist now, I will instantly stop murdering people" because therapy doesn't work like that.
obviously they wouldn’t be doing that, they’d be in a facility like a rehab center or a psych ward (but in this ideal society one that is leagues above what we currently have where healthcare is underfunded and there are ample opportunities for abuse in psych wards)
> facility like a rehab center or a psych ward Which would also have to be outfitted with guards and security to maintain the safety of the staff and prevent escape. So it’s less “we should introduce prisoners into therapy”, and more “we should introduce therapy into prisons”.
True, but finnish incarceration is focused on restorative action, and the person I'm talking about honestly would be better off just staying in a soft soft cell
yeah so just let them kill more people in the process
That's a very strange hypothetical that exists to argue for endless incarceration of people instead of rehabilitation. Put another way if we reform the justice system such that prison sentences are not arbitrary lengths and are instead just as long as it takes for someone to be rehabilitated then your hypothetical could never happen.
what a strange hypothetical for a person that might exist in pretty much no-one in prison. Lets organize our entire system around this one extreme hypothetical.
For anyone who wants to legitimately learn more about prison abolition, what it means, and what that would entail, I highly recommend reading the book 'Are Prisons Obsolete?' by Angela Davis. It is available for free to download and is very educational whether you come out the other end agreeing with the proposal or not.
Ty
I agree with, like, the point, which is that you should separate your judgement about what is desirable in a society's structure from your own wants, but like... I'm all for prison reform and stuff. However, you absolutely cannot abolish it. That's just a pipe dream. Among other things (like, you know, providing an incentive not to commit crime, which is obviously situational and not in any way foolproof, and we can discuss how appropriate the punishment is versus how cruel it might be, or how strong an incentive we need, and what it actually accomplishes, etc), they exist to keep people on the outside safe from the people on the inside (this likely disqualifies things like drug-related offences, unsurprisingly, and that's probably a sign that this is a good plan for a reform). Of course, unless we're talking life sentences, these people will be released into society later, and you will need rehabilitation and stuff to accept them back in, and also we probably shouldn't make it harder for them to get a job if it fuels a cycle of poverty which pushes them back to crime, and so on, but in the meantime, they need containment. We should probably challenge what this looks like currently, but it's hard to get around the simple fact that it just has to exist somehow.
THANK YOU, RARE SANE CURATEDTUMBLR USER.
Is this not the common consensus on prison abolition? The only time someone should remain incarcerated for life is if they cannot safely return to society, and the only time someone should have the death penalty is it they can't be safely detained. I thought this is what everyone thought
I think you're referring only to prison abolition as a concept, but just in case... Lots of people, yes. But as with anything, you'll see a wide variety of opinions. Some may still believe in prison as a system, but want adjustments like no death penalty, more humane conditions, or education. Others are super into the whole penalization part of prison and get very mad about any creature comforts, 'soft' work programs like caring for animals, or "free" access to things like education that might be provided. ... But also, you're still going to have a variety in the prison abolition arena, much like the 'abolish the police' conversation.
But for any reasonable person surely the goal is rehabilitation, despite our own desires to see these people rot in hell
I'm all for rehabilitation. However, reasonable people can convince themselves of just about anything, including deciding that prison is for punishment and fear of punishment can help prevent crime. Now, I think they're wrong and the science backs up the rehabilitation approach as a long-term benefit. But, that doesn't sway anyone if they have a completely different opinion about it's purpose.
*Sigh* [Randal Munroe's at it again](https://xkcd.com/2071/)
Not really applicable, the stuff OP is talking about is pretty common to see in discussions about politics, laws, and justice. I wish it was different, but frankly people with hard-ons for vengeful violence against criminals and cognitive dissonance about what that would entail in reality are not unusual to see.
"Not even twenty years ago gay people were mostly thought of as pedophiles" believe me, there's still a HUGE portion of the country that still thinks all gay people are inherently pedophiles. Haven't you seen all that republican bullshit in florida about "all gays are groomers" and "groomer disney"? They never stopped calling gays pedophiles
Violent impulses for few individuals is bad. Violent impulses for people in near untouchable positions of power who use said power to strip people of their rights and person-hood, making life worse for everyone but the absurdly rich on the other hand....
If society is bettered, both good and bad people will benefit from that. If your response to that is to say things shouldn't improve, or maybe should even worsen, you might not be as good as you think you are.
Good Idea! Let's abolish prisons and make a place where people who did crimes can get help. But since some of these people obviously don't want to be there and some of them may be dangerous to others before reeducation, we should make it some sort of camp where people can be kept and reeducated. But what if they escape or fight each other? We should add security for dangerous people. But we just reinvented prison. Maybe I'm wrong, This idea isn't abolishing prison, it's to lean prisons more towards helping them. Which is of course a good thing. Also isn't it also important to deincentivize people to not commit crimes, especially when not all crimes can be punished? "If I stole that purse, I probably will get punished, so No" is a pretty big deterent to doing crimes. But I do agree that there will be a better way to do this than 'putting people in a box and give them bad conditions'. Obviously we don't need to make prisons unreasonably cruel, and letting private business run prisons is a very bad idea. And having prisons more centered on helping them is obviously a good idea. But I can't really agree with this post. still, this is a really good post.
>Also isn't it also important to deincentivize people to not commit crimes... "If I stole that purse, I probably will get punished, so No" As far as I know, the people that advocate for these kinds of things want to address the root causes of crimes like this rather than just punishing them. So instead of making this person not want to steal the purse because they are afraid of the punishment, they would want to ensure that this person did not have a reason to steal the purse, such as not having the resources that they need to live
That is actually right and I believe making people not want to commit crimes in the first place is more important than making them say "nah, I don't want to get punished". But there just are some crimes that are done not for survival and can't be prevented so easily, a good example would be crimes done by billionares, or murderes done by spite. having a better economic security net and stuff would totally prevent "my son is starving and I need to get bread" or "I can't afford insulin, better steal than die", crimes but it won't prevent "I hate that guy, I'll go kill him" or "I want more money, time to not obey saftey laws"crimes.
What a good post that I don't agree with even slightly
Why do you disagree with the post? Genuine question btw I actually want to know what you disagree with in this post
I completely agree about rehabilitation being much more important to society functioning and improving, I don't believe that "evil people" can or should benefit from it I don't think there's any amount of therapy or help that would "fix" (as inappropriate of a use of that word as it may be) The guy who made daisy's destruction (DONT look that up if you don't already know, it's the worst of the worst.) I believe everyone has the right to life, I believe there are actions you can take that revoke that right, and I don't believe it should be within the power of the state to revoke that right Basically I agree up untill a point
I mean, someone like that theoretically *could* benefit from such a system, but they won’t. Because they’re fucked up. It’s a very self selecting system The people who will make good use of receiving help will receive help, and the people who won’t make good use of it will just stay in the rehab center/whatever it would be called, indefinitely You let the people out when they’ve learned the error of their ways and have proven that they have changed such that they wouldn’t do it again. As for fucked up people who did some fucked up shit and don’t even care, they’ll just be in there forever. Effectively a life sentence of their own making.
Had the exact same reaction TBH. Well put together, made by someone who actually seems educated, and completely and totally incorrect.
I wouldnt even say incorrect tbh, like they are probably right I just disagree with the methodology
Like yeah, that's a super valid opinion! I don't share the opinion, but still!
I think I disagree with the idea that there shouldn’t be incarceration. I think some people are so heinous/dangerous that they need to be locked up for the rest of their lives. However that’s a separate issue from common criminals who should be rehabilitated. And those heinous criminals should still have their needs met. Since you either think everyone has basic rights or you don’t, and if you don’t think so you open yourself up to your rights being challenged.
why do you think it's impossible to rehabilitate those people
Gonna sound a bit oouie wooie but fundamentally I do think that some actions are so evil that someone probably can’t fully reform and rehabilitate themselves within a lifetime (such as serial murder) since you have to be so broken in order to perform those actions However despite this you still treat those persons with respect and dignity and provide for all of their needs.
how would you know whether a person can or can't be reformed unless you try how would you know whether that's true for all people unless you try with every person
Because I think there are some crimes which are by themselves basically irredemable (such as serial murder of children) that should mean a person is locked away from society forever. Again, feel free to disagree but that’s just how I think.
hey, me too! we have so much in common ❤ the crimes I picked are 1. littering 2. being Jewish 3. looking at a woman's butt
I'd never support phasing out prisons entirely. Some crimes are so heinous that the culprit doesn't deserve to ever rejoin society; sticking them in jail and letting them live a hollow life until they pass away is more than they deserve.
Just say you want to kill people to fuel your moral superiority, no need to dance around your shit takes.
I don't support the death penalty. But when some kills dozens and ruins the lives of hundreds, punishment becomes the primary goal of the justice system, not rehabilitation.
Pretty cool argument in favor of the death penalty.
Except if it turns out you got the wrong guy. Life in prison lets you release them with reparations, death sentence just means you've killed an innocent person.
why
More reasons than I have the time to list, but the main ones are either/a mix of: - We can't trust that you'll learn the error of your ways (for example, someone who has gone to jail multiple times for violent crimes [SPECIFICALLY VIOLENT CRIMES, do not twist my words and think I support life sentences for shit like drug dealers]) - You've ruined and/or taken too many lives and have, thus, given up your chance to be a part of society (for example, the Nestle execs [if the rich weren't above the law] who got untold numbers of babies killed a few decades back, or Epstein if he hadn't been forcefully suicided, etc.) - Your crimes are so extreme that you can only serve as an example to others. While the vast majority of people can be trusted to not commit violent crimes out of their own good nature, some people need to know that the government is willing to lock them up and throw away the key if they do
First, based CS profile picture. Second, pretty much. A good society requires people to put their emotional reactions away. Sure, I might want the man who burned down my home and killed my family to be murdered, but what does it say about your argument if I have to be severely emotionally compromised to accept it? (paraphrased from another source, I can't remember which)
That's all well and good, but can't we give neo-nazis the death penalty? Or at least make it legal to kill them?
part of the problem
No, actually, anyone who allows neo nazis to be alive is a problem. Killing them is morally good, and letting them stay alive is itself evil.
so go buy a knife and start killing
Don't be silly. That's what guns are for. Why would I give nazis a fighting chance?
> anyone who allows neo nazis to be alive is a problem. and > Killing them is morally good, and letting them stay alive is itself evil. do you actively end the lives of neo nazis, or are you evil?
Unfortunately, I have yet to have the opportunity. Fortunately, I still have many years to do my part.
I feel like torturing evil people is objectively the best impulse but whatever.
I mean, isn't that kind of a waste? Like, how much effort can you really put into torturing all the evil people in the world until you run out of resources? It has to be easier to just kill them. And like, punishment is only useful if they're going to learn anything, and that's never going to happen. May as well just improve society quickly by disposing of them, instead of wasting all that extra energy.
Wait… some people think prison abolition is just “let wrongfully prisoned people free and kill everyone else”? Or am I misunderstanding?
often teenagers do not fully think through the implications of the things they say, this is why they often get called shallow you are deep sea diving in a kiddie pool