A is for Abolitionist
August 15, 2004 11:44 AM Subscribe
Well, I just get pissed off that the police waste large ammounts of time and money locking up potheads. These people, in my experience, do little danage but to their own attention span and the twinkie aisle at the local supermarket.
Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it does less harm than alcohol, and yet it is the drug we put the most effort into stamping out.
I say we lock up more violent offenders and fewer marijuana users. Sure, heroin and coke and all that stuff is pretty bad, give the dealers some time in the pokey, but give the users treatment.
I dunno, I dont do drugs of any kind, it just kind of pisses me off that drunk drivers that kill people usually don't go to jail, and murderers and rapists are getting out on parole and we are wasting so much prision space on the nonviolent.
The question we need to ask is not does marijuana do no harm. It does harm. The question is does incarceration of these people do more harm than leaving them be. I say it does. Not only to them, but to their families and to society. Prisions aren't without their costs.
Think about this. If you are in favor of jail time for marijuana, you are in favor of, in a perfect world, anyone that has ever smoked dope spending some time in the pokey. If you have ever tried it that means you should turn yourself in for your year in the slammer. Same goes for your kids, your wierd uncle, the checkout guy at the quickie mart, your mechanic, or even your parents. You are wishing jail time on all of them.
We lock far too many people up for far too many trivial things.
posted by jester69 at 1:44 PM on August 15, 2004
Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it does less harm than alcohol, and yet it is the drug we put the most effort into stamping out.
I say we lock up more violent offenders and fewer marijuana users. Sure, heroin and coke and all that stuff is pretty bad, give the dealers some time in the pokey, but give the users treatment.
I dunno, I dont do drugs of any kind, it just kind of pisses me off that drunk drivers that kill people usually don't go to jail, and murderers and rapists are getting out on parole and we are wasting so much prision space on the nonviolent.
The question we need to ask is not does marijuana do no harm. It does harm. The question is does incarceration of these people do more harm than leaving them be. I say it does. Not only to them, but to their families and to society. Prisions aren't without their costs.
Think about this. If you are in favor of jail time for marijuana, you are in favor of, in a perfect world, anyone that has ever smoked dope spending some time in the pokey. If you have ever tried it that means you should turn yourself in for your year in the slammer. Same goes for your kids, your wierd uncle, the checkout guy at the quickie mart, your mechanic, or even your parents. You are wishing jail time on all of them.
We lock far too many people up for far too many trivial things.
posted by jester69 at 1:44 PM on August 15, 2004
Prison, which is more of a training ground for violent criminals,...
Exactly. It makes bad criminals better criminals, plus pretty much ruins their life afterward. If prisons actually helped people learn skills, or to get themselves educated, it'd be a good thing. And with the new faith-based prisons (ugh!), there's no real improvement in sight.
posted by amberglow at 2:12 PM on August 15, 2004
Exactly. It makes bad criminals better criminals, plus pretty much ruins their life afterward. If prisons actually helped people learn skills, or to get themselves educated, it'd be a good thing. And with the new faith-based prisons (ugh!), there's no real improvement in sight.
posted by amberglow at 2:12 PM on August 15, 2004
I think people who do nonviolent crimes (stealing, for instance) should have to do heavy restitution instead of jail time. Like, maybe up to seven times what they stole or something...point being that locking them up doesn't do the victim of the theft a darn bit of good.
Locking up violent criminals on the other hand is more about protecting the public from their violence...
posted by konolia at 3:29 PM on August 15, 2004
Locking up violent criminals on the other hand is more about protecting the public from their violence...
posted by konolia at 3:29 PM on August 15, 2004
The question we need to ask is not does marijuana do no harm.
The government's latest campaign claims that it does more harm than ever.
posted by homunculus at 4:09 PM on August 15, 2004
The government's latest campaign claims that it does more harm than ever.
posted by homunculus at 4:09 PM on August 15, 2004
What would the restitution be, for the crime of getting high?
posted by bashos_frog at 4:37 PM on August 15, 2004
posted by bashos_frog at 4:37 PM on August 15, 2004
Two hours searching for an elusive White Castle while suffering from the munchies?
posted by me & my monkey at 4:39 PM on August 15, 2004
posted by me & my monkey at 4:39 PM on August 15, 2004
Gah. Eating at White Castle would be punishment enough.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:44 PM on August 15, 2004
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:44 PM on August 15, 2004
It's pretty obvious what the personal interest level here is based on.
I have to say that I am ideologically close in principle to many of the abolitionists, but I just can't tell what a good replacement would be for prison. There is just no way that prison could be eliminated altogether. Society wouldn't allow it.
What's the alternative?
posted by norm at 8:07 AM on August 16, 2004
I have to say that I am ideologically close in principle to many of the abolitionists, but I just can't tell what a good replacement would be for prison. There is just no way that prison could be eliminated altogether. Society wouldn't allow it.
What's the alternative?
posted by norm at 8:07 AM on August 16, 2004
great resource. thanks for the link (and thanks to NYT for covering this).
What's the alternative?
norm, i'd guess a lot of us feel the same way. (i haven't read through that whole huge handbook yet, but) i think that the "abolitionist" movement wants to restrict prison to a last resort, which would hopefully cover all of the dangerous criminals.
i suppose it all depends on how "dangerous" you think most criminals are. unfortunately, the ones who decide that question are often on the payroll of a massively rich prison system or have the most to lose if some of these criminals are not locked up (specifically, drug delears as they relate to the tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol industries).
posted by mrgrimm at 10:47 AM on August 16, 2004
What's the alternative?
norm, i'd guess a lot of us feel the same way. (i haven't read through that whole huge handbook yet, but) i think that the "abolitionist" movement wants to restrict prison to a last resort, which would hopefully cover all of the dangerous criminals.
i suppose it all depends on how "dangerous" you think most criminals are. unfortunately, the ones who decide that question are often on the payroll of a massively rich prison system or have the most to lose if some of these criminals are not locked up (specifically, drug delears as they relate to the tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol industries).
posted by mrgrimm at 10:47 AM on August 16, 2004
The desired result is "incarceration of the few" as in Chapter 7 of Instead of Prisons.
I personally would not object to humane incarceration of sex criminals and violent psychopaths.
However, surely we can find other ways of dealing with those who comit drug offences and crimes of property (e.g. stealing).
posted by xowie at 11:21 AM on August 16, 2004
I personally would not object to humane incarceration of sex criminals and violent psychopaths.
However, surely we can find other ways of dealing with those who comit drug offences and crimes of property (e.g. stealing).
posted by xowie at 11:21 AM on August 16, 2004
The desired result is "incarceration of the few" as in Chapter 7 of Instead of Prisons.
I have to admit being pretty well taken aback when reading the part on rape and other violent sexual crime. (Chapter 8, new responses to victims) I mean, sure, exploding the myths about how rape victims didn't provoke the assault is good, but what message do we give victims of violent crimes if we tell them that we sympathize for their plight but oh, I guess we're going to reduce or remove the only real way to punish the perpetrators?
I think part of this problem I'm having with this is one of terminology. I know the term "abolitionist" has important historical cachet, but the authors here are not advocating actual abolition of the prison, just a prioritization. And I am sure that a prison that includes all violent criminals will remain a terrible, terrible place (probably worse) than what we have now. Our current prison system is a school of crime, an international tragedy, a disease vector, and above all else, ineffective for its stated purpose, but I fear playing into the hands of the political right by couching a new prison reform movement in the guise of abolition.
posted by norm at 12:42 PM on August 16, 2004
I have to admit being pretty well taken aback when reading the part on rape and other violent sexual crime. (Chapter 8, new responses to victims) I mean, sure, exploding the myths about how rape victims didn't provoke the assault is good, but what message do we give victims of violent crimes if we tell them that we sympathize for their plight but oh, I guess we're going to reduce or remove the only real way to punish the perpetrators?
I think part of this problem I'm having with this is one of terminology. I know the term "abolitionist" has important historical cachet, but the authors here are not advocating actual abolition of the prison, just a prioritization. And I am sure that a prison that includes all violent criminals will remain a terrible, terrible place (probably worse) than what we have now. Our current prison system is a school of crime, an international tragedy, a disease vector, and above all else, ineffective for its stated purpose, but I fear playing into the hands of the political right by couching a new prison reform movement in the guise of abolition.
posted by norm at 12:42 PM on August 16, 2004
« Older The Ultimate Gaming Table | Down wit porn, what? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I have a cousin who is locked up in state prison. He was put away around the age of 20 and given a 30-40 year sentence (pretty much life). I dont want to go into the details of the crime but he wasnt an evil kid just really confused. He and I grew up together. He definitely had an excessive need for rebellion but nothing that couldnt have been tamed. He was a bit jekyll and hyde-ish and could be really funny and gentle at times.
Ayways, my point is that he was a bad kid but not beyond rehabilitation. He was going through a really rough phase in life and might have worked his way through it if someone had taken the time to be patient with him. Instead, he just got thrown in prison where his world-view has if anything become more warped. When my family last went to see him he had this frightening hollow look in his eyes - I'll admit to being a bit scared of him. And I certainly never want to experience the kinds of things he's experienced in prison.
Now, I'll admit I have no idea how he could possibly function in society. But I do think David could have been saved. Prison, which is more of a training ground for violent criminals, doesnt seem like it was the right solution.
posted by vacapinta at 12:09 PM on August 15, 2004