this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
38 points (88.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43939 readers
777 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think it's possible to abolish prisons for all crimes. But why does a thief or a drug dealer (or worse, just a drug user) need to be in prison? What about the nature of their crimes necessitates imprisonment as a reasonable method of corrections?
If the point is stopping people from reoffending, prisons don't do that. Like objectively. Recidivism in the US is super high, and going to prison predicts increases in the severity of crimes people commit.
So, what reduces recidivism? Eliminating the factors that drove them to crime in the first place. So, you monitor them closely - house arrest, assigned social/case workers, etc. Like a more robust parole system for nonviolent offenders. With enough surveillance, you can reduce the likelihood of reoffence by making the chances of getting caught much higher. This enhanced monitoring would be temporary.
For violent offenders and more serious criminals, maybe prisons are still necessary. But they don't have to be dehumanizing and can provide necessary health/psychiatric, educational, social, and job skills training.
You could make the corrections system more effective by making society easier for criminals to reintegrate into. If you're a felon and you can't find work because you're a felon - how are you going to afford to live within the confines of the law? Step 1) jobs programs for felons with a path to eliminating non-violent offenses from your record as it relates to work with exceptions as necessary. Step 2) improve the education system to prevent people from turning to crime and to help give former criminals relevant job skills to earn an honest living. Step 3) provide healthcare to people - having access to healthcare for mental and addiction-related conditions is super important to reduce crime.
Basically - prison abolition isn't about just letting rapists and murderers go free with no consequences. Instead, people in favor of prison abolition are typically in favor of reducing the societal pressures to commit crimes and preventing reoffense.
In short, prison abolition isn't about abolishing prisons?
Bad name choice in my opinion, as it immediately makes me think: what a dumb idea. There will surely always be people beyond a point of no return.
This is kind of like saying being anti-war is a dumb idea because there will surely always be wars fought in defense. Being anti-war isn't necessarily being an absolute pacifist. It's about opposing war and striving towards a future where war is a relic of the past. Everybody understands this, but struggles to apply the same logic to other topics.
Striving for intentionally utopian and impossible ideals is a great idea, actually, as long as you recognize it for what it is. I'm a prison abolitionist. Ultimately what I strive for is a society that doesn't need prisons. I don't know if total prison abolition is possible, but worst case scenario, we get as close as possible. What's so bad about that?
Similarly, I'm a communist, in the classical anarchist sense: abolition of state, class, and money. Are these things possible? Maybe not. In fact, probably not, at least not in any timeframe where humanity will be recognizable to us, as it would require true peace between all people and absolute post-scarcity in every way available to everyone. But worse case scenario, we get as close as possible.
Ultimately, adopting a utopian ideal is a recognition that the struggle to do better never ends. We're never "done". There's no end of history. Even if we do somehow achieve it, it must be maintained.
People don't go: England is polio free, yet there's people with polio.
Perhaps this method of communication is something that will have to adapt. It disengages a lot of people who otherwise would share the same goals.
I don't follow. We regularly refer to polio as being "eradicated", even though there have still been documented (but exceptionally rare) cases of polio transmission even in western countries over the last couple decades. That actually sounds like a perfectly apt comparison for the goals of prison abolition, just not in the way you intended.
I would love to be proved wrong, and see the sources describing recent polio cases in england!
Would indeed be apt!
A direct case was not reported in the UK in recent years, but evidence of very likely polio transmission was found in sewage samples two years ago:
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/polio-virus-found-in-uk-sewage-samples-risk-to-public-low
A similar situation happened in New York where an actual case was found a month later:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/polio-found-new-york-wastewater-state-assesses-virus-spread-2022-08-01/
The short of it is, when vaccination rates fall, Polio can be reintroduced via transmission of the live virus found in the oral vaccine, usually taken in poorer countries. If someone were to take the oral vaccine and then immediately travel to a country with lessening vaccination rates, like is currently happening in the west due to the spread of right-wing conspiracy mongering, the live virus still in the vaccinated individual has a low but not zero chance of propagating to the unvaccinated or immune-compromised population there. Samples containing these vaccine-derived viruses are found a few times per year in most places, and it's a weaker virus so often it leads to no symptoms, but in very rare instances it does take hold with the expected effect:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON366
Despite individual cases of polio turning up, either via direct reporting or evidence found elsewhere, it would still be correct to describe polio as being "eradicated" in these countries, at least currently. Nobody is confused by this or demands reclassification of the status of polio.
So, none. Traces by RNA amplification in sewages. But there very well might be a right wing conspiracy.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/06/22/1106711204/polio-found-in-u-k-for-the-first-time-in-nearly-40-years-heres-what-it-means
Not an active case, but it has been detected in recent times.