| | |
|
NicoGurianFirstEssay 7 - 01 Apr 2015 - Main.AbdallahSalam
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | COMMENT (Henry Ross) - Nico argues convincingly that a propensity to "split" our individual selves (and society) into "law-abiding citizen" and "felon" drives mass incarceration. I think we should keep that hypothesis in mind in when thinking about the practical advice Abdallah is seeking. Assuming that Nico's identification of the splitting phenomenon as the source of the problem is correct, I see several questions that need answers before we can start talking about specific legislative policies. (1) Is our concern that people subconsciously split themselves into good and bad? (2) If that is the concern, is there anything we can do to prevent splitting? As Jack's psychoanalyst discovers in Something Split, making people aware of their split nature may not produce good results either. (3) Or is the concern instead with how people subconsciously distinguish between good and bad when they inevitably do split (e.g., "I'm not the kind of bum who would smoke marijuana")? After all, this type of self-delusion might sometimes be desirable (e.g., "I'm not the kind of person who would rape") (4) Shouldn't we be more concerned about the "splitting" that drives recidivism? Or at least, isn't presenting the issue that way more palatable than telling "law-abiders" about their own mens rea? Nico, you seem to suggest that recidivism results from those whose prison experiences facilitate splitting in the opposite direction (e.g., "I'm locked up, so I'm a felon for life"), yet your essay focuses on the psyche of the law-abiders. (5) Is the law powerful enough to redefine our (the law-abiders' and the felons') subconscious categories of good and bad (e.g., will people stop thinking marijuana is bad if we stop imprisoning people for it)? If deterrence theory is a hoax, we may be skeptical of the ability of the law to influence our thinking in this regard too. (6) Sweden, pre-Reagan America, and many others seem to have promoted splitting in a socially desirable direction without having to lock away two or three million inmates as foils. Do places with less of an incarceration problem have less of a "civil war" (in Judge Day's words) going on, and is that because the criminal laws don't feed it? I've gone on too long already...
A quick word on the original premise--are Nico's divisions and Judge Day's similar "civil wars" the direct outgrowth of psychological, subconscious splitting at the individual level? I think Eben expressed some skepticism about this idea a couple weeks ago, and I hope we can give it a closer look in class sometime soon.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Comment (Abdallah Salam): After I read your response Nico, I wondered whether you felt equally comfortable about the different available theories of punishment - desert/retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and correction - and if not whether this might be a useful starting point for you to determine what actual punishments you want to keep and which you want to reject. It seems that you think that some form of deterrence and incapacitation is good, at least sometimes, so maybe you want to keep the punishments that are based on these forms of justification but want to eliminate any "extra" punishment supported on desert/retribution or correction grounds? By the way, I just posted on the class webpage a few articles, two of which might be of interest to you: "Prison Planet" and “The high cost of calling the imprisoned” | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |