GE Morton wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2021, 11:52 pmWhile a substantial fraction of prison inmates --- mainly drug offenders --- are not victimizers, they are not the majority.
Please provide your sources for this claim. Please list the percentages with sources for all three of the following:
1. percentage of inmates in USA who are charged or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. violent offenders)
2. percentage of inmates in the USA who are
not charge with or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. non-violent offenders)
3. percentage of inmates who are "victimizers", according to your definition of victimization, but not violent (i.e. non-violent victimizers)
If you do not mind, please provide all three percentages with sources.
In theory, #1 and #2 need to equal 100%, and #3 needs to be less than #2 since #3 is a subset of #2.
GE Morton wrote: ↑February 20th, 2021, 10:08 pm
The approach chosen will depend on what one thinks is the purpose of a criminal justice system. Why do we have one?
[Emphasis added.]
Scott wrote:The question of why we have one is very different than why we might want one. The former question addresses primarily the motivation of the violent person(s) (i.e. the imprisoners) as well as the reason for that violent person's success (i.e. the fact that prisons do currently exist) in implementing their goals (e.g. to make profit) which in modern politics is arguably perhaps best summed by the words violent plutocracy. The second question is more pipe-dream-oriented, and thus more philosophical, which in turn runs the risk of becoming prescriptive where the first question is inherently a matter of the descriptive.
GE Morton wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2021, 11:52 pm
You seem to be buying into the leftist myth...
No, I am not a leftist. I was not commenting with or on leftism, but rather on the potential problems of your question itself and the potential fallacies that would result if we do not clearly distinguish between the question of why we have the current prison system that exists and why it is the way it is (a descriptive question) versus why we might want one at all if we even do.
I am not a leftist, but as I wrote in my topic
Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man, I think the idea of a benevolent dictator (or worse a mob of humans acting together as a big government) is a pipe dream.
I am not a leftist, but I believe it is very clear that the political system and government in the United States is plutocratic, violently so of course. Do you not agree?
GE Morton wrote: ↑February 20th, 2021, 10:08 pm
The approach chosen will depend on what one thinks is the purpose of a criminal justice system. Why do we have one?
Scott wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2021, 4:57 pm
The question of why we have one is very different than why we might want one. The former question addresses primarily the motivation of the violent person(s) (i.e. the imprisoners) as well as the reason for that violent person's success (i.e. the fact that prisons do currently exist) in implementing their goals (e.g. to make profit) which in modern politics is arguably perhaps best summed by the words violent plutocracy. The second question is more pipe-dream-oriented, and thus more philosophical, which in turn runs the risk of becoming prescriptive where the first question is inherently a matter of the descriptive.
For example, as Frederick Douglass escaped slavery, it would be a very different question for him to wonder why slavery did exist at that time, than if and why he might want (or not want) slavery to exist at all in some hypothetical future or hypothetical alternative reality that is presumably a more utopian version of the society that actually existed at the time.
The two different questions may seem to converge together to the degree one assumes the violent rulers of society are benevolent (e.g. that one is living under a benevolent dictator) and/or that society is already as utopian as practically possible, but I believe we can all easily agree such assumptions are very mistaken.
GE Morton wrote: ↑February 20th, 2021, 10:08 pm
I fail to see how that answers the question, "Why do we have a criminal justice system? What is its purpose?"
The post of mine you quoted is not meant to answer 'the question' because the question itself appears to be fallacious. What you have quoted is meant to show that the question is at best unclear. It appears to fallaciously conflate two very different questions. There are two very different questions that could be asked, and it is not clear which one you are meaning to ask, and thus there is at least the risk that they get fallaciously conflated.
1. Are you asking a
descriptive scientific question about why the status quo happens to be the way it is (i.e. why prisons happen to exist at the moment), which would be analogous to Frederick Douglass asking why slavery exists while he is escaping?
2. Or are you asking a
philosophically hypothetical question (with potentially prescriptive answers) about why you and I might want something (in this case prisons) to exist or not, which would be analogous to Frederick Douglass asking himself if and why he might want (or not want) slavery to exist at all in some hypothetical future or hypothetical alternative reality?
LuckyR wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2021, 2:08 pm
First, society prosecutes criminals, not victims.
That's not true.
The first part generally tends to be true. In other words, generally, yes, the government prosecutes alleged criminals, ipso facto. However, even in regard to that clause, it is worth nothing that
government and
society are not identical. Likewise,
alleged criminals and
actual criminals are not identical.
However, the claim that society does not prosecute victims is false--even if we isolate our consideration to people who are guilty of the crimes of which they are charged. It's worse than merely false because not only do victims get prosecuted, but also then the prosecution itself is an act of victimization.
When witches were burned at the stake, who were the victims?
Were those prosecuted by the Sondergericht victims or not?
Between 1956 and 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times. Was he not a victim?
When a pacifist marijuana smoker is arrested by armed men, convicted of criminal marijuana possession in court, and then sentenced to prison, is that pacifist not a victim?
Inquinsitive_mind wrote: ↑February 27th, 2021, 5:28 am
Both psychiatric hospitals and prisons are necessary for a society to function. There are those who commit crimes due to mental illness and there are those who commit crimes because they believe that other’s lives and property are meaningless or less meaningful than their own [...]
I'm not sure the dichotomy you are proposing exists. Can you rephrase and explain your claim that prisons are needed and what they are needed for, specifically regard to the dichotomy in
the OP between:
1. Non-violent non-victimizers
2. Incidental Victimizers (i.e. people who only committed criminal victimization in an extenuating circumstance in which most of us would commit such victimization, such as a starving person stealing food)
3. Mentally Sick People (i.e. people who have some kind of psychological abnormality causing them to be significantly more prone to committing victimization)
Which of those three groups are the one(s) from which you want to see people imprisoned? And do you want to see all people in that group imprisoned or just some?
that makes a lot more sense. Sorry for misunderstanding!