BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


What is the point of prison?

 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
gozer the destructor
16:26 / 09.04.02
The situation you refer to is an invasion, which is a violent act to begin with, hardly a simple disagreement, and as regards 'you'll never take me alive copper!" I still fail to see the relevance, how does it become an option?

I appologise if my reiteration appears trite but we are, as vic reeves sang, 'Born free' we have to be if authority, laws, general terms of understanding between people are concepts generated by thought then the starting block is an absence of these and infinite, absolute freedom-this is built upon by standards of respect for people that becomes a society. I hate to repeat myself so perhaps I should speak louder next time, (I believe this is where I say natch )

Exile and prison are opposites, prison you keep someone in-exile you keep someone out
 
 
Dao Jones
22:18 / 09.04.02
The situation you refer to is an invasion

No, it isn't. You don't own anything, remember? You tore down capitalism. So it's just me exercising my freedom.

as vic reeves sang, 'Born free' we have to be

I hate to break it to you, but Vic is not a great political thinker.

if authority, laws, general terms of understanding between people are concepts generated by thought then the starting block is an absence of these and infinite, absolute freedom

No, the absence of these concepts is not some Platonic blank page on which authority writes injustice. That's an idealised load of hogwash. The absence of these concepts is a mammalian dominance dynamic which has little or nothing to recommend it as 'freedom'.

The 'total freedom' you posit is no more desirable, however - it is amoral, disconnected, almost pre-mentation, and fills the same position regarding oppression that pure chance fills in respect of determinism: in removing all obstacles to action, you make the concept of freedom meaningless.

-this is built upon by standards of respect for people that becomes a society.

For 'standards of respect' read 'unwritten rules'. It's a cop out.

Exile and prison are opposites, prison you keep someone in-exile you keep someone out

Fatuous distinction. Both are about defining the space a given person is permitted to occupy and setting limits on whom they may interact with. Both are about denying access to a society and its goods as a punishment for infraction of the rules. In fact, a prison could almost be defined as a place of internal exile. Apart from that, the difference is about which side of the line you're standing on. Does the circle enclose this smaller piece of land or that larger one? Is this prison or exile which keeps me from my family?
 
 
YNH
06:35 / 10.04.02
Not that watching you goad someone else isn't any fun, but isn't it about time you started working for consensus? Gozer might be right about freedom being natural and Dao might be right about what that means for the winter newborn after a summer of famine...

Anyway, why don't the two of you describe a constitutional anarchy for me; and include provisions for individuals who don't want to be constitutional anarchists but demand the T-shirt anyway.
 
 
gozer the destructor
08:07 / 10.04.02
OK Dao, it looks like me mams shouting teas ready, let's sum up and hit a new thread.

Correct me were I go wrong.

You say that freedom is a concept that requires boundaries and rules, I don't disagree when it comes to society and any society that is grounded on individualistic foundations of 'do what you please' is asking for confrontation. Civilisation requires us to be able to express ourselves freely so as to evolve ideas and concepts, working to improve the experience of every individual that chooses to partake within that society and reap the benefits that are attained. When someones actions are in direct opposite to those (working to destroy the quality of social experience purely for self gain) then punishment could be argued from a moral perspective. However, attacking someone simply to gain a position of power, therefore oppresion, over others must be fought against whereas a desire to eat and be sheltered is the right of all: property is theft.
 
 
Dao Jones
10:34 / 10.04.02
You say that freedom is a concept that requires boundaries and rules

No. I say that 'freedom', if it means anything other than a confusion of warring biological and selfish imperatives, refers to a complex construct of social constraints and consituitive rules. Not that 'freedom requires rules', but the rather more counter-intuitive 'freedom is rules'. The very idea of freedom is a posteriori. The thing itself is created, not natural.

When someones actions are in direct opposite to those (working to destroy the quality of social experience purely for self gain) then punishment could be argued from a moral perspective.

'Moral perspective'? Is that a 'natural' thing as well? Is morality another of these mysterious found objects of yours? But never mind that - it's as much a practical issue. The effects of their actions damage the collective and the individual interest, and wash away the security of the whole society.

However, attacking someone simply to gain a position of power, therefore oppresion, over others must be fought against

Is it always so clear-cut? I doubt it. What about irreconcilable differences of perspective on what makes the collective and individual good? This is where Utilitarianism falls down - both the political Left and Right believe they are generating the 'greatest good for the greatest number' - the difference lies in the emphasis and the lines of demarcation. You don't escape the questions of conventional politics in this model, alas.

whereas a desire to eat and be sheltered is the right of all: property is theft.

'Be sheltered'? By whom? There's no authority. Does every individual have a duty (such implying a rule, formalised or not) to shelter others? Or do you mean that everyone has a right to desire these things?

The 'point of prison' was our starting point: I say that prison exists to exclude those who are seen to have violated the constituitive rules of a society. Those rules being in many cases iniquitous, prisons can be a tool of injustice. However: the notion of exclusion is not in itself an evil - indeed, it is a necessity to preserve (even create) freedom, as are the basic rules (and 'rights', and their corollaries, 'duties').

New thread...
 
 
gozer the destructor
10:45 / 10.04.02
OK, so your criticising when I agree now?

As regards moral perspective, no it is not natural, it is a construct of society and civilisation and therefore if that is what we are talking about then I hardly thought I would need to elaborate an explanation of that, as regards the greatest good I would leave that to a democratic vote. and ok 'have' shelter no 'be' sheltered, a slip of the finger.
 
 
Dao Jones
11:22 / 10.04.02
A revealing slip, and actually 'have shelter' is no better. This shelter will come from somewhere. Unless it is provided, it will have to be made by the individual. This 'freedom', too, must be constructed - in the simplest sense.
 
 
gozer the destructor
11:36 / 10.04.02
Shall we move to the other thread now? I shall allow you to have the last say...
 
 
Dao Jones
13:00 / 10.04.02
"Allow"?
 
 
Ganesh
13:29 / 10.04.02
Completely side-issue, but waaay back, Gozer suggested that those whose behaviour was seen as anti-social (the defining of which is, in itself, problematic, and certainly isn't best summed up as "harmful to self and others") were (by which I think he meant 'should be') best 'rehabilitated' medically within the community rather than in prison. He also proposed that the majority of those in prison had been imprisoned for 'political' reasons rather than sustainedly 'anti-social' behaviour.

There are problems with these statements. Firstly, factually, I'm unsure whether the second stands up to scrutiny. I don't currently have access to a forensic psychiatry textbook (in a bloody Internet cafe) but I'm pretty sure a sizeable minority - if not a majority - of male prisoners fulfil diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (if we're tacitly accepting mental health definitions).

Secondly, while I generally agree with the assertion that 'rehabilitation' is best achieved in situ, individuals who've been diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder are notoriously difficult to change, behaviourally. There is, however, some evidence for the efficacy of therapeutic communities - institutional settings, either voluntary or involuntary (under either criminal or mental health legislation), in which behaviours are addressed outwith the rest of society. This tends to give the lie to the theory that in situ rehabilitation is always best.

Anyway. Back to the Dao/Gozer mudfest.
 
 
gozer the destructor
13:55 / 10.04.02
Well that get's us back on topic really doesn't it, what is anti-social behaviour, who decides? What is non-justifiable violence?With regards to the stats I can only go off my own experience, I have to do visits to Brixton Prison as part of my job, and the experience of my friend who went to Sutton.

I think it neccesary to define what is meant by anti-social behaviour before possible actions or 'cures' are discussed...
 
 
YNH
03:59 / 11.04.02
It's just as subjective as 'freedom,' gozer; and I think Dao has been, in hir oft meandering fashion, attempting to point that out. Even and anarchist society might have tenets of expected/common behavior. Your own explorations in this thread led to the condemnation of 'murder' and 'rape.' Anti-social behaviors are those counter to the stated aims/tenets of the social context which is under discussion: in lay terms, "We don't do that."

Now, what is to be done, if anything, regarding individuals who do that; and how do you justify what is done according to the internal logic of your social context? Oh, and throw in why this is better than any other possible solution.

Next time, on Workshopping the Revolution!
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply