Page 228 of 5011 FirstFirst ... 1281782182242252262272282292302312322382783287281228 ... LastLast
Results 3,406 to 3,420 of 75153
  1. #3406
    Uncanny Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    31,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Again, that's a lot of "What If?..." trying to justify that you could take policing out of the equation in most situations.

    When people are being killed in the current lay of the land? You've got to ask yourself why you wouldn't want to take them out of every potential situation that you could.
    Yes, but that's what government does. They predict WHAT IF's and create sollutions ahead of time to address them.

    WHAT IF there's a fire? We have the fire department in place. WHAT IF someone gets in a car accident? We have parmedics. Police work the same way

    Which isn't to say it isn't unfair to try and lower the scope of the police department. I frankly think it's very fair to argue TOO MUCH is demanded of them. They have to do a million different things because it's easier and cheaper to just have the police to do it. Make other agencies and group take the burden off the police ... I think in the long run everyone benefits from that. But make no mistake ... police ARE needed.

  2. #3407
    Uncanny Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    31,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maine Starfish View Post
    first of all, with adequate funding and training there’s no reason why a crossing guard can’t be as effective as a police officer at directing traffic.

    second, the main concern is ending police brutality and systemic racism so bringing up concerns about crossing guards directing traffic pales in comparison, obviously all these different aspects of policing and who and how to replace them will have to be addressed, but I’m not sure why the assumption is that no one’s going to address them when they create the community led force to replace the disbanded police department
    Crossing guard with proper training works provided people actually listen to the crossing guard. It's when some people DON'T that the police are unfortunately needed. Ideally you would need LESS police.. but especialy for large emergencies they would still be needed.

    And I DO assume the people will address the different aspects of policing and how they can be replaced. I frankly support the notion of other government agencies taking up some of the responsibilities that fall on the police department. I thing governments ask WAAY to much of them. My point is simply that they cannot be replaced entirely. Again, my posts were in direct response to the diagram about a world with no police. It's not realistic, and I'm sure even places like Minneapolis understand that. You may need to create a new and better police force, but you obviously still need police.

  3. #3408
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    Yes, but that's what government does. They predict WHAT IF's and create sollutions ahead of time to address them.

    WHAT IF there's a fire? We have the fire department in place. WHAT IF someone gets in a car accident? We have parmedics. Police work the same way

    Which isn't to say it isn't unfair to try and lower the scope of the police department. I frankly think it's very fair to argue TOO MUCH is demanded of them. They have to do a million different things because it's easier and cheaper to just have the police to do it. Make other agencies and group take the burden off the police ... I think in the long run everyone benefits from that. But make no mistake ... police ARE needed.
    In a very limited sense.

    The bulk of what they do can be handed to/converted to other arms of government/public service.

    Once you have the "Easier..."/"Cheaper..." option even starting to kill people who are selling loose cigarettes or passing a bad twenty, you have to ask yourself why you aren't looking to take them out of as many of those situations as possible. Never mind when they are regularly taking lives in those situations.

  4. #3409
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    In a very limited sense.

    The bulk of what they do can be handed to/converted to other arms of government/public service.

    Once you have the "Easier..."/"Cheaper..." option even starting to kill people who are selling loose cigarettes or passing a bad twenty, you have to ask yourself why you aren't looking to take them out of as many of those situations as possible. Never mind when they are regularly taking lives in those situations.
    How often do you think the United States has Eric Garner/ George Floyd style situations?
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  5. #3410
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    How often do you think the United States has Eric Garner/ George Floyd style situations?
    Simple...

    Enough times to take the police out of as many of those sorts of scenarios as possible.

    The exact number becomes a complete non-issue once that reality comes to pass.

  6. #3411
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,819

    Default

    Okay, briefly, ideas from various things I’ve read or simple decisions I’ve made about what a “remodeled” police force would look like. Feel free to offer and feedback, positive, negative, or flabbergasted. This is strictly trying to think of parameters, police-exclusive functions, and possible replacements/de-escalations.

    - The Crime Scene Investigating apparatus and infrastructure can’t be replaced; personal and material there are likely to be carried over. However, transparency, capability and overwatch are things that could be reviewed for possible improvement - the country needs more professional coroners (at least the stats in that Last Week Tonight episode seemed to argue that pretty well), while the prosecutorial arm of this aspect of law enforcement can always use clear eyed observation to prevent abuse, negligence, or incompetency. Still the general function here would be maintained.

    - There are a number of Police duties and responsibilities that, in certain areas, could easily be trusted to largely unarmed, non-aggressive LEOs or technology: traffic violations and misdemeanors have no need for firearms save in extraordinary circumstances, and arguably the one real reason o think of arming LEOs in these cases is because we live in an armed country. To put it bluntly, stronger and stricter gun control laws would lesson the impetus behind having a traffic cop or even a patrolman armed; it may be a logistically improbable view for now, and may be a moral point that would require responsible compensation for the risks that would remain in a still armed country, but it should be soldiered on a community by community basis. We’re not the UK... but the comparative decrease in instances of police-involved slayings is something to aspire to (yes, I know they’re not perfect either, and I’m talking best case scenarios and ideal situations here).

    - Manpower and information gathering are also aspects of police work for which personnel could theoretically be kept for without issue in that regard, and simply downgraded from the “warrior“ mentality. An army of paperwork gatherers and information sources is valuable. However, in some communities and areas, it is possible that community members could serve the function, or that fewer personal are needed if there exists genuine trust between the community and the LEO.

    - There *is* still a need for an enforcement arm - there will always be some situation where muscle is needed. However, the proliferation of arguably unnecessary and hyper-aggressive SWAT teams across the country is not the way to do it. Again, there may be something to perfecting the current system in a manner similar to the action squads of the UK - smaller but more effective and more nuanced squads of trained operators *only* called for when absolutely necessary. Here, there may be something to using strategies of the actual armed forces - the soldiers and veterans with experience in the “hearts and minds”/respect area of military work, particualrly regarding what de-escalation tactics and strategies they know, could be invaluable here.

    -Overall... an evaluation of the needs a community has if *trust is established* needs to be pursued. When communities have witnesses willing to come forward to testify, see officers as allies instead of enemies, and experience safety instead of paranoia, there is a lessened need for shows of force, patrols, and manpower.

    However, most important of all...

    - THERE PROBABLY ISN'T ONE SINGKE ANSWER FOR EVERY COMMUNITY. There are some communities that may need heavily decreased police presence and a much greater community contribution in order to heal divides and overcome distrust. There are also probably a few where trust and buy-in is strong enough that it needs to only be reviewed and advised. And there may at times need to be more trained and force-capable enforcement in areas where the status quo is unacceptable and needs to be changed... but the goal should always be for de-escalation and cooperation.
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  7. #3412
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    Yes, but that's what government does. They predict WHAT IF's and create sollutions ahead of time to address them.

    WHAT IF there's a fire? We have the fire department in place. WHAT IF someone gets in a car accident? We have parmedics. Police work the same way

    Which isn't to say it isn't unfair to try and lower the scope of the police department. I frankly think it's very fair to argue TOO MUCH is demanded of them. They have to do a million different things because it's easier and cheaper to just have the police to do it. Make other agencies and group take the burden off the police ... I think in the long run everyone benefits from that. But make no mistake ... police ARE needed.
    Yes.

    Because even non police are not perfect...

    Crime will need preventing, investigating, etc.

    Patently America needs a very different police force..one that aims to police by consent rather than by force, but it needs police.

  8. #3413
    Mighty Member 4saken1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    "A man drove through 11th and hit a barricade. He exited his car and flashed a gun. The police say they have the man in custody and have the gun. They asked for anybody who is hurt to come to the barricade. A man was on the ground on 11th and Pine. He’s up now."

    https://twitter.com/chaseburnsy/stat...33325440462848

    I guess if you're white and do this, it isn't a death sentence.
    Pull List: Barbaric,DC Black Label,Dept. of Truth,Fire Power,Hellboy,Saga,Something is Killing the Children,Terryverse,Usagi Yojimbo.

  9. #3414
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Many props to the passion for change here, but trying to initiate change by discussing this with conservatives whose entire raison d’etre is to keep things the way they are is literally like talking to a brick wall. They have yet to accept that police brutality and systemic racism is even that much of a problem.


    I’ll admit I am curious as to their stance on the rights of Hong Kongers though.
    Last edited by sammy_hansen; 06-08-2020 at 12:44 AM.

  10. #3415
    Astonishing Member Electricmastro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    And I'm sure that thought will be terribly comforing to the people of Minneapolis while their city goes to hell without a police department there to help maintain it.

    The plus side being the rest of the country will learn very quickly exactly why we need a police department. So it'll do more good than harm in the grand scheme of things. Assuming of course Minneapolis actually goes this route.
    While I still believe in the idea that it’s possible for police departments can reform for the better, despite what some naysayers are saying and the origins of the police in the past, the past also shouldn’t be an excuse negate positive change. That said, I’m also willing to be open to the idea that it can be possible for citizens to responsibly manage criminals themselves, provided they consistently dedicate themselves to working at it for the best. I suppose it could go either way at this point.

  11. #3416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    How often do you think the United States has Eric Garner/ George Floyd style situations?
    Without a quantity, the answer you're looking for is, "FAR TOO F***ING OFTEN."

    Norway's cops go a decade without killing ANYBODY. America's cops do it multiple times a day.

    If nurses can restrain patients without using a chokehold, a cop should be able to.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  12. #3417
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    With the Orishas
    Posts
    12,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    Okay, briefly, ideas from various things I’ve read or simple decisions I’ve made about what a “remodeled” police force would look like. Feel free to offer and feedback, positive, negative, or flabbergasted. This is strictly trying to think of parameters, police-exclusive functions, and possible replacements/de-escalations.

    - The Crime Scene Investigating apparatus and infrastructure can’t be replaced; personal and material there are likely to be carried over. However, transparency, capability and overwatch are things that could be reviewed for possible improvement - the country needs more professional coroners (at least the stats in that Last Week Tonight episode seemed to argue that pretty well), while the prosecutorial arm of this aspect of law enforcement can always use clear eyed observation to prevent abuse, negligence, or incompetency. Still the general function here would be maintained.

    - There are a number of Police duties and responsibilities that, in certain areas, could easily be trusted to largely unarmed, non-aggressive LEOs or technology: traffic violations and misdemeanors have no need for firearms save in extraordinary circumstances, and arguably the one real reason o think of arming LEOs in these cases is because we live in an armed country. To put it bluntly, stronger and stricter gun control laws would lesson the impetus behind having a traffic cop or even a patrolman armed; it may be a logistically improbable view for now, and may be a moral point that would require responsible compensation for the risks that would remain in a still armed country, but it should be soldiered on a community by community basis. We’re not the UK... but the comparative decrease in instances of police-involved slayings is something to aspire to (yes, I know they’re not perfect either, and I’m talking best case scenarios and ideal situations here).

    - Manpower and information gathering are also aspects of police work for which personnel could theoretically be kept for without issue in that regard, and simply downgraded from the “warrior“ mentality. An army of paperwork gatherers and information sources is valuable. However, in some communities and areas, it is possible that community members could serve the function, or that fewer personal are needed if there exists genuine trust between the community and the LEO.

    - There *is* still a need for an enforcement arm - there will always be some situation where muscle is needed. However, the proliferation of arguably unnecessary and hyper-aggressive SWAT teams across the country is not the way to do it. Again, there may be something to perfecting the current system in a manner similar to the action squads of the UK - smaller but more effective and more nuanced squads of trained operators *only* called for when absolutely necessary. Here, there may be something to using strategies of the actual armed forces - the soldiers and veterans with experience in the “hearts and minds”/respect area of military work, particualrly regarding what de-escalation tactics and strategies they know, could be invaluable here.

    -Overall... an evaluation of the needs a community has if *trust is established* needs to be pursued. When communities have witnesses willing to come forward to testify, see officers as allies instead of enemies, and experience safety instead of paranoia, there is a lessened need for shows of force, patrols, and manpower.

    However, most important of all...

    - THERE PROBABLY ISN'T ONE SINGKE ANSWER FOR EVERY COMMUNITY. There are some communities that may need heavily decreased police presence and a much greater community contribution in order to heal divides and overcome distrust. There are also probably a few where trust and buy-in is strong enough that it needs to only be reviewed and advised. And there may at times need to be more trained and force-capable enforcement in areas where the status quo is unacceptable and needs to be changed... but the goal should always be for de-escalation and cooperation.
    I agree with practically all these suggestions. I don't support entirely doing away with the police because some form of policing is inherently necessary.

    I think the most critical factor here is that whatever form policing takes place, it needs to involve more community influence.

    The US police force is still operating like they did during the segregation era and that sh!t needs to stop cold. Lots of minority communities are policed like war zones.

    Then the justice system needs to be addressed too. Lots of black people have records for minor offences and felonies like fighting in public or even selling weed, the consequences of these offenses should be lessened. It doesn't make sense that a young man of 16 can get into a scuffle in school and lose his right to vote and access to certain jobs for the rest of his life, that in and of itself breeds a lot more crime because a lot of these people simply don't have options anymore.

  13. #3418

    Default

    On this date in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of the current U.S. House Representative from Washington’s 8th Congressional District, Dave Reichert, a former police officer who fell all over himself to take credit for catching the Green River Serial Killer (in spite of botching the case for years until the murderer’s body count was approaching triple digits), and for using over-aggressive tactics on protesters at the 1999 World Trade Organization conference that led to the situation escalating into “The Battle for Seattle” (where he abandoned his post when cameras showed up to chase after looters). Reichert ran sexist campaign ads against Darcy Burner in both 2006 and 2008, has been caught on tape joking about Hillary Clinton falling to her death out of a plane, and told fellow Republicans they should “be worried about Barack Obama stealing money out of your wallets”. His voting record is widely conservative, including votes against Dodd-Frank, against regulating offshore oil rigs after the Deepwater Horizon incident, voting against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and consistently voting against the Affordable Care Act (lying about its success whenever he gets the chance). Oh, and Reichert, always quick to defend police violence and extend unconditional support for law enforcement, as an ex-cop himself, celebrated National Police Week in March 2016 by taking to the floor of the House to give a speech called “Blue Lives Matter”, a deliberate slap in the face at the “Black Lives Matter” movement, because of course he did. Dave Reichert decided to retire from office in 2018, rather than face down the Blue Wave

    On this date in 2019, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled Nick Miccarelli, a former member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives who served District 162 in that body from 2009-2018. It wasn’t Miccarelli’s voting record that stood out to us so much, with your basic Republican support for anti-choice regulations, voter suppression efforts with unnecessary Voter ID laws, and opposition to firearm regulations. Now, where Nick Miccarelli really drew our attention was the series of allegations brought against him during his career as a legislator. A fellow Republican member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Tarah Toohill, got an order of protection against Miccarelli, citing two separate incidents where he threatened her life. In one, in 2012, he pulled a gun on her. In another, in 2014, he threatened to crash a car both were in where he was speeding at 100 MPH. A legislative aide also reported being sexually assaulted by Miccarelli. and while retaliating against the woman who reported him having raped her, Miccarelli allegedly decided to attempt to silence her in the most classy of methods… revenge porn, naming his accuser and providing nude photos of her to media outlets. He refused to resign even though politicians from both sides of the aisle called on him to do so, because he’s enough of a motherf***er that he still wanted to finish out the last few months of his term and qualify for his benefits as a legislator. That proved difficult, though, considering Toohill had a restraining order against him, he was yanked from all his committee assignments, and he was about as much of a pariah as someone could be. Nick Miccarelli’s career is over, and we’re going to be ready to hand anyone the largest hammer we can find should he attempt to pop up in a game of MeToo Whack-A-Mole in a couple years. As his career is now decidedly over, we will retire his profile at this time and take a look at another kooky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 877-45, since this was established in July 2014.)



    Kelly Loeffler

    Welcome to what is the 877th original profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, where we’ll be discussing the current sitting U.S. Senator from Georgia Kelly Loeffler, who is probably unlikely to be that for more than the next six months. She became Senator Loeffler back in January of 2020, with her previous experience in politics being “nothing” and her husband being the head of the NYSE while she was the owner of the WNBA team the Atlanta Dream. This appointment was not without controversy in Republican circles, as Donald Trump wanted his sycophantic lackey Doug Collins to be named the next Senator from Georgia, but the vote-stealin’ wonder, Gov. Brian Kemp picked Loeffler based on thinking from stalwarts within the Republican Party, who thought having a good female Senator would help them win back votes from women in the Georgia suburbs in 2020 to hang onto this Senate seat, and not see it flipped blue.

    Loeffler started trying to garner some favor with the Trump administration by coming out in favor of his stupid f***ing vanity project, the border wall, and it seemed like maybe she could coast into a permanent seat on the Senate. There was just one problem with Kemp and the mainstream GOP’s thinking… Kelly Loeffler doesn’t really seem to have any ethical compass, whatsoever, and within six weeks after being sworn in, she went to a Senate Intelligence hearing on Covid-19, learned that the country was f***ed, and then she and her husband just coincidentally started to immediately make million-dollar stock portfolio adjustments that seem almost certainly to be motivated by the upcoming pandemic. In other words, she violated the STOCK Act, and was insider trading, because pulling money out of tourism and putting it into tele-working is an AMAZING coincidence. She and other Republicans who got caught using a public health crisis as a money-making venture are now facing calls to resign, but we’re not thinking she’s going anywhere as the GOP want as many butts in Senate seats to try to rubber-stamp unqualified judges onto the bench between now and the end of the year.

    Kelly Loeffler seems doomed in the 2020 elections. Even if some miracle, she survives the primary to end up in a run-off election (current polling has Loeffler placing fourth of about twenty candidates) The only strategy she seems to have is casual racism, and to blame the spread of Covid-19 on China.

    Alas, we might not hardly get to know her as a Senator, and we’re totally fine with that. 
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  14. #3419
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Prison Abolition Should Be the American Dream

    In her 2003 book, Are Prisons Obsolete?, scholar and activist Angela Y. Davis wrote, “Prison abolitionists are dismissed as utopians and idealists whose ideas are at best unrealistic and impracticable, and, at worst, mystifying and foolish.” Those who oppose prison-industrial complex (PIC) abolition partially see it as a fantasy that can’t be realized. “This is a measure of how difficult it is to envision a social order that does not rely on the threat of sequestering people in dreadful places designed to separate them from their communities and families. The prison is considered so ‘natural’ that it is extremely hard to imagine life without it,” Davis writes.

    But activists and organizations have been imagining life without prisons for decades. The Prison Research/Education/Action Project’s 1976 pamphlet “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists” laid out the pillars of abolition: “moratorium,” “decarceration,” and “excarceration.” “Moratorium” calls for an end to the building of prisons, jails, and detention centers; “decarceration” works to have nonviolent offenders released from prison; and “excarceration” involves diverting people away from interacting with law enforcement through decriminalization. In 1997, Davis and City University of New York professor Ruth Wilson Gilmore cofounded Critical Resistance, an international organization that aims to dismantle the pic by using these three pillars. A year later, 3,500 people convened for a three-day Critical Resistance conference to discuss the limitations of the PIC in the United States.

    Other organizations with similar goals have also been erected: Decrim NY wants to decriminalize sex work in New York City and in the state and decarcerate sex workers. The Black Youth Project 100 uses a Black, queer, and feminist lens to work toward the liberation of all Black people, including those who are currently incarcerated. No New Jails NYC calls for an end to the building and funding of new prisons and jails in New York City. All of these organizations are working toward a common goal: ending the pic.

    Justice Is Not Served

    The United States incarcerates more people than any other country, with 2.2 million adults in prisons or jails at the end of 2016. Nearly 60,000 children under the age of 18 are also incarcerated in juvenile jails or prisons, and about 10,000 more children are held in adult jails or prisons. Citizens pay the high price for this system because our tax dollars are funneled into policing and incarcerating the people in these systems—predominantly Black and Brown people. This is by design. Slavery legally ended in 1865 with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, but the language of this amendment still allowed slavery as punishment for a crime. The carceral system revived slave labor, allowing the United States to continue disenfranchising and enslaving incarcerated Black people. Now almost every aspect of Black and Brown people’s lives is affected by the carceral state—from extra surveillance and imprisonment to disenfranchisement upon release. The entire system is built to maintain white supremacy, which remains the status quo in the United States.

    “It might be challenging to envision a world without policing or imprisonment because we’re constantly being told that these systems are natural [they’re not] and have always existed [they haven’t],” says Mohamed Shehk, the national media and communications director of Critical Resistance. Though some Americans have difficulties imagining a world without police or prisons, communities who don’t rely on the PIC do exist. Shehk says the Palestinian village where his mother grew up doesn’t have a police force. Problems there are resolved by “bringing in the elders of the community to come up with a resolution.” In 2011, the indigenous Purépecha town of Cherán banned political parties, gangs, and police. Since then, they boast the lowest murder rate in the entire Michoacán region, which is historically one of the most violent regions in Mexico. What’s more, since Cherán abolished the corrupt police force, they haven’t had a single kidnapping.

    Some communities within the United States are also accustomed to policing themselves. Shehk says it’s “important to remember that many communities don’t call the cops because of rightful mistrust.” He also points out that “you can also visit Beverly Hills or the Golden Triangle or the other elite, wealthy, white neighborhoods of this country to see what a community without police or prisons looks like.” When a student at an elite private school in Orange County, California, is found with weed in their backpack, teachers don’t call the police—and there isn’t an active police presence within the school itself. Instead, teachers call the student’s parents, believing it’s an issue that can be solved within the family. Black and Brown students, on the other hand, are funneled from school into the criminal justice system in what is commonly known as the school-to-prison pipeline. These students are increasingly accused of crimes, suspended, or reported to the police compared to their white counterparts, which often creates a lasting connection with the carceral state.

    Reducing interaction with law enforcement would allow students the space to make mistakes and learn from them, and would encourage teachers to build better relationships with parents. It also moves resources away from metal detectors, surveillance equipment, and onsite police and toward quality educators, better school supplies, and extracurricular activities. “Policing exists to manage the consequences of inequality in ways that benefit those people who are creating the inequality,” says Alex S. Vitale, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College and author of the 2017 book The End of Policing. “The decision to use police to manage the problems of the poor is inherently unjust in most circumstances and actually racist because this burden so falls most heavily on communities of color.” Many wealthy white communities have already abolished police forces because they don’t want the criminal justice system solving their intercommunal problems. Why is this option not available to all of us?

  15. #3420
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    280

    Default

    What Does Abolition Look Like?

    Abolitionists are often asked to explain what will happen to people who commit murder or rape if police and prisons are abolished. Shehk responds with a similar question: “What are we doing now with people who commit those harms?” Some of the high-profile assault stories that surfaced during the #MeToo movement, including Chanel Miller’s rape at the hands of Brock Turner and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony of her assault by Brett Kavanaugh, revealed that survivors of sexual harassment and assault aren’t being protected by this system. Instead, the criminal justice system protects and maintains agents of the patriarchy, including students like Turner, police officers, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, and presidents.

    Since the United States locks people up at a higher rate than any other country, you’d assume this “would be the safest place, virtually free of harm or violence,” Shehk says, but that’s obviously not the case. The president of the United States and two Supreme Court justices have been accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault on multiple occasions. Less than 1 percent of rapes result in the incarceration of the perpetrator, while at least 89 percent of survivors face emotional and physical consequences. Often the rapes reported to police aren’t even investigated, considering the 200,000 rape kits the federal government estimates are sitting—submitted, yet unopened—in police storage. That’s not justice.

    Murder clearance rates aren’t much better, with police reportedly solving only about 60 percent of murders. When the victim is Black—as the majority of homicide victims are—the clearance rate declines to the lowest of any other racial group. In communities that are particularly disenfranchised, those rates can be in the single digits. These figures don’t instill much faith in law enforcement’s efficacy. Believers Bail Out (BBO) is an organization hoping to combat this disparity. It’s a community-led effort to bail out Muslims who are being held in pretrial incarceration and ICE custody. BBO is also working to abolish the use of cash bail, which Dania Daoud, a Palestinian Muslim woman organizer with BBO, describes as an “incremental but necessary step to abolishing prisons overall.”

    Daoud says we must “come to terms with the fact that the state, through police and prison perpetuates sexual harm. Not only are Black and Brown women, queer folks, and trans folks, vulnerable to sexual violence while in jail and prison, they’re also criminalized and imprisoned for escaping violent relationships under what’s known as ‘accountability laws.’” Prisons become sites of sexual violence, where people are violated every single day. Kristina “K” Agbebiyi, a social worker who also organizes with Survived & Punished, points out that incarcerated people “are assaulted daily by prison staff, medical professionals, and sometimes other people on the inside. This happens in blatant ways like rape but also more subtle ways like invasive strip searches, people being forced to shower in front of others, [and] even people being denied menstruation products.” How can we look at the prison system as just and fair when that very system perpetuates the harm it’s meant to stop?

    We have to analyze the conditions that lead people to commit murder or rape and change those conditions to change the outcomes. As Vitale puts it, “serial killers don’t just fall out of the sky.” According to him, treating criminalization as the only option for deterrence is one of the reasons nothing is done to help children or teenagers who, despite the threat of prison, still exhibit violent tendencies. That violence might be prevented through robust social services, mental healthcare, and support systems. Shehk also lists “restorative and transformative justice practices, healing circles, or community accountability models” as examples of nonpunitive ways of addressing harm. “Rather than trying to cage away the problem, one key part of these models is an attempt to address the root cause of the harm and to change the conditions in which it occurred so that it doesn’t happen again,” he says. “Many of these are informed by Indigenous practices, and all of them seek to uplift the humanity of the parties involved.”

    This type of change takes time, but that shouldn’t stop us from working toward it every day. In Washington, D.C., for instance, ordinary citizens can hold the city accountable for protecting the rights of the houseless population by personally overseeing houseless encampment cleanups. In New York City, you can participate in Swipe It Forward actions to protest the crackdown on fare evasion. You can circulate the phone numbers of mental-health services among your friends and family so they’re equipped to call for help if they see someone in crisis. No step is too small.

    Some suggest that reforming the current system is a feasible alternative to abolishing it, but previous attempts have proven unsuccessful: In 2002, New York City famously augmented the stop-and-frisk program, which allowed the NYPD to target people who they deemed “suspicious”—mostly Black and Brown people. When they abolished the policy, crime fell, suggesting it wasn’t effective for anything apart from perpetuating racism. Though New York implemented policies to curb stop-and-frisk in 2013, the NYPD is still targeting Black and Brown people. There’s also been a recent push to abolish private prisons, but this doesn’t even begin to repair the damage created by the PIC. Less than 10 percent of all incarcerated people are held in private prisons, so abolishing private prisons isn’t nearly as effective as abolishing the entire system.

    Prison abolitionists believe that dismantling the PIC is the only way forward because stop-and-frisk and private prisons are just a part of a larger system that surveils, polices, prosecutes, sentences, and incarcerates Black and Brown people. Shehk argues that we shouldn’t “improve a machine that was built to wage war on our communities by ‘fixing’ it through reforms.” Instead, abolitionists want to “break down the PIC until it’s completely dismantled.” Mass incarceration costs $182 billion a year, when considering policing, court costs, and the operating costs of prisons and jails—and it doesn’t even effectively deter crime, achieve justice for victims, or rehabilitate perpetrators. Rather than funneling money into the PIC, the United States could fund an education system that invests in mental-health services instead of policing and surveillance. We could use those billions of dollars to finance living accommodations for houseless people and provide them with mental healthcare and drug rehabilitation as needed. This money could be used to train crisis intervention teams or violence interrupters to deal with escalated situations.

    The possibilities are endless, if we allow ourselves to dream bigger than criminalization and bondage. “Being an abolitionist is the most realistic position because it is based in statistics and logic along with empathy and respect for human dignity,” says Agbebiyi. To Daoud, “over-policing creates a system of engineered conflict and perpetuates harm. As such, she—and others at BBO—believes that abolishing prisons must be coupled with radically caring for your community in many forms, including cop-watching and bystander intervention. The dream of abolition is being realized every day by people working for a more equitable world. “If you’re doing work to advocate for a living wage, that’s abolitionist work. If you’re doing work to advocate against environmental racism, that’s abolitionist work. If you’re working to make sure folks have access to affordable healthcare, that’s abolitionist work,” Agbebiyi says. Moving abolition from a fantasy to a reality is going to happen incrementally, but we can certainly make it happen. Vitale confirms this, saying, “Abolition is embedded in tons of movements all over the country and it’s happening right now.”

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •