That's fantastic, thanks! The original article doesn't really tackle the subject of prison abolition, just that TPM want it. That email tells me a lot about how the system would work.

It didn't take much to convince me, but now I'm a fan of this approach (ok, to be fair I was already keen on a better system than putting all the minor criminals in a big group together to reenforce the behavior). Unfortunately we wouldn't see societal results within a couple of election cycles so it's hard to see how this could actually become reality without the risk of getting cut at the next government change. But this is the kind of future-thinking policy I like to see.

[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seriously? Because one of the big advantages of prisons is that these people aren't being "managed in the community", they're kept away from the community for our safety.

[–] Dave 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, seriously.

Remember, our society created these people because of the existing structure . The idea is not to let them out tomorrow, it's to work towards this as an end goal. As an example, Scandinavia already has murderers rehabilitating by being carefully monitored while being integrated with the community.

Also, we start out on the journey with a rough idea of how we think it will go. 100% chance it will not go exacly to plan, but we respond to change, and the end goal is feasible even if we have to adjust the path as we learn.

And lastly, what does it cost to put someone in prison? It's well over $100k a year per person. We could hire personal security details for everyone based on risk, and the cost would come out the same. Some people would need a couple of bodyguards, some would need one, and most would only need checkins more like parole.

The issue is that if you catch someone dealing weed and put them in prison, you make all their friends convicts. They lose their job (and almost any chance of ever getting another). You make their kids grow up with one parent, and you make your partner struggle to raise their kids on their own. This changes the path their life is on, and their kids.

If you instead got everyone to stay in the community (to start with, just those convicted of nonviolent offenses), they can keep their job, be there for their partner and kids, keep most of their friends.

Over time this changes the cycle producing criminals, cuts out a gang recruitment channel, and raises kids less likely to commit crimes themselves. It's a multigenerational change. Each step would not be a big jump, but I think an end goal of having no prisons is feasible. If it's truly not, we would work that out over the next few decades as we worked towards it. The worst thing that can come out of trying is a lower crime rate with a small number of very dangerous people still needing to be locked up.

Plus we have private companies running prisons, who very much don't want to see the cycle broken.

And I just want to reiterate that we don't just stop locking people up overnight. It's likely decades of small steps.

[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is an absolutely massive jump from "let's not lock up stoners" to "let's not put murderers in prison" though.

Which definitely won't backfire at all.

[–] Dave 3 points 1 year ago

The idea is to have it as an end goal. When all the non-violent prisoners are integrated in society and breaking the cycle, it may not seem like such a big jump. Plus, we will simply have a lot less violent criminals if people aren't locked up with others who think it's appropriate behaviour. Having a person that murdered someone living in a house with a 24/7 security detail isn't really that farfetched - and in 20 years is probably even more feasible, with newer technology.