| |
CalebGreigFirstPaper 4 - 13 Aug 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
| | Conclusion
Investing in public defender programs, easing the requirement of proving discriminatory purpose (in addition to impact) in Equal Protection claims (Washington v. Davis), and reforming assistance programs will protect and promote the reintegration of felons into society. This social enfranchisement will curtail the number of felons returning to prison, consequently decreasing the number of Blacks and Latinos behind bars—an integral step in combating this apparently unassailable racism. | |
> > |
I don't understand the theory of the revision here. I asked in the
comments last time for more realism and clearer statement of the
social situation. But the revisions make slight effort in that
direction. We do not live in a society that regards rehabilitation
as a goal of criminal justice. We imprison in order to incapacitate
on a very wide scale, intentionally. We are holding a large number
of young men, overwhelmingly poor, undereducated, underemployed,
disproportionately from disfavored ethnic communities, who would
otherwise be in the street, challenging our ability to maintain
social stability. Our "stability maintenance" policy requires us to
spend a larger proportion of our social surplus on imprisoning young
men with little to lose than any other society on earth. Of course
we also disfranchise them and put significant obstacles in the way of
their recovering democracy. The point of the system is that it
maintains social stability by discouraging what Aristotle called
"democracy": rule by the poor.
Yet the essay counterfactually assumes that we are socially committed
to rehabilitation, and that Equal Protection doctrine can be
immensely expanded in its power, reversing the rule in Washington
v. Davis, merely by referring to the central order-keeping policy
of our oligarchy as "racism." This is not reality. Nor would it be
sufficient to say we "ought" to be a democracy ruled by the poor,
that we "ought" to send more Black men to college than to prison,
that we "ought" to redistribute wealth so that 1% of the population
no longer owns 40% of everything, and so on.
One route here is to describe the situation accurately, without
proposing anything. Another is to propose politically feasible minor
ameliorative changes, showing how they can be brought about in the
actual political environment we have. A third is to describe a
solution to the problem: a method for accomplishing democracy, that
is, rule by the poor, despite the "stability maintenance" system of
the current oligarchy. Unfortunately, that would be socialism, so
it's not allowed.
| | \ 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.
|
|
| |