> In a statement, the department’s attorney, Jason Dare, called the reporting “baseless.” The Rankin County jail, he wrote, “is one of the cleanest and best-run jails in Mississippi, with jailers never having been found to use excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
That's not much of a defense. All he's saying is they haven't been convicted yet.
Slavery never ended in the US. And I imagine that the racial make-up of the inmates subjected to this treatment will surprise no one. Deconfederalization is 150 years late, but we can always get to it. Changing that state flag was a start. (In 2020. In 2020!)
Very bad racially-motivated atrocities are perpetrated today. Characterizing that as "slavery never ended in the US" is trivializing a much, much worse past regime.
It is both technically (because of the penal exception in the 13th Amendment) and substantively (mass incarceration and penal slavery were adopted as policy directly and almost immediately as a replacement for chattel slavery, and have spread from their original geographic domain since) accurate, it doesn’t trivialize anything.
One of the great opportunities to improve politics in this country would be to increase our moral dynamic range, to be able to hold in our heads that slavery was very bad, for profit prisons are very bad, and slavery was much worse.
I think the way it ends up working is you’re a sort of very cushioned, comfy (in the US upper middle class, that is) slave not to a boss, but to the entire class of bosses. Sure you could quit, but you’d have to work somewhere or you’d suffer horribly. A shitty set of options created by someone else is what coercion is.
but if you no longer work for your boss, why should he pay you? in fact, how could he pay you? if the value your work should create has not been created?
do you want to force him to pay you? would that not just be the same thing in reverse?
does that mean that everyone should be paid by everyone?
I’ve lived in a couple of countries where I continue to get healthcare and higher education and more when I’m not working. It’s very nice. Not surprisingly those countries are at the top of the most livable countries/cities in the world, while countries that don’t are not even in the top 50.
Why is it ok to force someone to pay for fighter planes, moon missions and freeways but not for food and healthcare?
Slavery also existed long before chattel slavery. Just because you have some rights doesn't automatically make it not slavery, Roman slaves had protected rights too, but were still slaves. Indentured servitude is also just another way to say slavery and yet that didn't give full rights over slave's children.
Yes it is still certainly debatable, but to so easily dismiss the entire idea and the person proposing it is foolish and privledged.
Prison should altogether be banned for non-violent crimes, in favor of monitored house arrest, allowing only medical and legal outdoor visits. At least this should be an option for whoever can afford it. In prison there is bad food, bad healthcare, slave labor, occasionally torture, and exposure to bad people and ideas that perpetuate crime.
Practically speaking, even the option to be home bound if you have a home, apartment, or willing caretaker could be a serious blow to the prison industrial complex, and the incentive structures that allow these guards to commit horrific abuse.
The rich and the poor alike are forbidden from sleeping under bridges!
Everyone has exactly the same opportunity to invest in the stock market and make high returns!
Y'know, aside from the pesky fact that a large percentage of Americans have no savings—not because they are feckless and irresponsible with their money, but because wages have not risen to match expenses over the course of several decades.
And the pesky fact that poverty among marginalized groups is disproportionately much higher than among able-bodied white men.
Yes, truly everyone has exactly the same opportunities in this great country of ours!
So if you commit financial crimes and have a massive mansion, you get to just be at home and order door dash, plot your next scam, have visitors. Even without the amazing house it's already way less bad than even COVID restrictions. That's not a punishment
The if you can afford it bit makes makes it even more likely that rich and powerful aren't appropriately punished for their crimes.
Maybe improve the prisons instead so everyone has a proper chance at rehabilitation.
I think we should improve prison conditions, but we still need prisons to keep criminals from reoffending and serve as a deterrent. Non-violent crime isn't victimless and we want to decrease it, not increase it.
In fact, there's plenty of evidence that prison is, in many cases, a net negative, as it takes people who committed crimes of opportunity or poverty and turns them into either hardened criminals who see it as a lifestyle, or people who have no choice but to commit crimes to survive, as we treat them as nonpersons and shut them out of society.
Ideally, I agree. Along with other freedom limitations depending on the crime (corruption should prevent you from actively managing your money/assets).
The issue is what to do for people without a house. But in a perfect society, you're right. We still are not there yet, so working on improving the current systems should be preferred.
> In a statement, the department’s attorney, Jason Dare, called the reporting “baseless.” The Rankin County jail, he wrote, “is one of the cleanest and best-run jails in Mississippi, with jailers never having been found to use excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
That's not much of a defense. All he's saying is they haven't been convicted yet.
Mandatory archive.is link: https://archive.is/Mf0O7
Slavery never ended in the US. And I imagine that the racial make-up of the inmates subjected to this treatment will surprise no one. Deconfederalization is 150 years late, but we can always get to it. Changing that state flag was a start. (In 2020. In 2020!)
Very bad racially-motivated atrocities are perpetrated today. Characterizing that as "slavery never ended in the US" is trivializing a much, much worse past regime.
It is both technically (because of the penal exception in the 13th Amendment) and substantively (mass incarceration and penal slavery were adopted as policy directly and almost immediately as a replacement for chattel slavery, and have spread from their original geographic domain since) accurate, it doesn’t trivialize anything.
One of the great opportunities to improve politics in this country would be to increase our moral dynamic range, to be able to hold in our heads that slavery was very bad, for profit prisons are very bad, and slavery was much worse.
The 13th amendment explicitly provides a carve out (“as punishment”) for slavery/involuntary servitude. We still allow slavery in the USA.
This incident took place at a prison, the “as punishment” space that allows the state to enslave American citizens.
Slavery has never ended overall.
The last I knew I was working for a company that powers their cogs earning millions whereby I get a pittance.
Modern day slavery isn't forced unlike previous generational eras sure, but we still get ripped off for the sake of forced living.
I’ve got plenty of complaints about how capitalism works in practice. But the “force” bit is pretty fundamental to slavery, I think.
My boss has never beat me up.
Only ever made passive aggressive comments.
I think the way it ends up working is you’re a sort of very cushioned, comfy (in the US upper middle class, that is) slave not to a boss, but to the entire class of bosses. Sure you could quit, but you’d have to work somewhere or you’d suffer horribly. A shitty set of options created by someone else is what coercion is.
True, but if you stop working you’ll have no healthcare, and pretty soon no place to live and nothing to eat.
It’s indirect, but it’s still force.
That is stretching the definition of words into realms to which they do not belong.
Force is measured in newtons.
but if you no longer work for your boss, why should he pay you? in fact, how could he pay you? if the value your work should create has not been created?
do you want to force him to pay you? would that not just be the same thing in reverse?
does that mean that everyone should be paid by everyone?
I never understood this sort of reasoning.
I’ve lived in a couple of countries where I continue to get healthcare and higher education and more when I’m not working. It’s very nice. Not surprisingly those countries are at the top of the most livable countries/cities in the world, while countries that don’t are not even in the top 50.
Why is it ok to force someone to pay for fighter planes, moon missions and freeways but not for food and healthcare?
Are you suggesting nobody should pay taxes?
Right, I agree that the lack of force basically makes it not slavery… maybe by definition?
When your employer starts selling your children you can call it slavery, until then take it to Bluesky dude
Slavery also existed long before chattel slavery. Just because you have some rights doesn't automatically make it not slavery, Roman slaves had protected rights too, but were still slaves. Indentured servitude is also just another way to say slavery and yet that didn't give full rights over slave's children.
Yes it is still certainly debatable, but to so easily dismiss the entire idea and the person proposing it is foolish and privledged.
Prison should altogether be banned for non-violent crimes, in favor of monitored house arrest, allowing only medical and legal outdoor visits. At least this should be an option for whoever can afford it. In prison there is bad food, bad healthcare, slave labor, occasionally torture, and exposure to bad people and ideas that perpetuate crime.
Why should prisoner who can afford it get better conditions? To me there should be equality. Treat everyone the same in punishments.
I agree with you on the ideal of equality.
Practically speaking, even the option to be home bound if you have a home, apartment, or willing caretaker could be a serious blow to the prison industrial complex, and the incentive structures that allow these guards to commit horrific abuse.
I'd expect that removing everyone with resources to fight back against horrific abuse would make the abuse far more horrific, not less.
It is equal opportunity. As per the proposal, if the person cannot afford it, the state arranges for their residence, which specifically is prison.
Will this residence be the same quality as the highest quality residence currently employed to imprison someone?
Ah, yes, "equal opportunity".
The rich and the poor alike are forbidden from sleeping under bridges!
Everyone has exactly the same opportunity to invest in the stock market and make high returns!
Y'know, aside from the pesky fact that a large percentage of Americans have no savings—not because they are feckless and irresponsible with their money, but because wages have not risen to match expenses over the course of several decades.
And the pesky fact that poverty among marginalized groups is disproportionately much higher than among able-bodied white men.
Yes, truly everyone has exactly the same opportunities in this great country of ours!
So if you commit financial crimes and have a massive mansion, you get to just be at home and order door dash, plot your next scam, have visitors. Even without the amazing house it's already way less bad than even COVID restrictions. That's not a punishment
The if you can afford it bit makes makes it even more likely that rich and powerful aren't appropriately punished for their crimes.
Maybe improve the prisons instead so everyone has a proper chance at rehabilitation.
I think we should improve prison conditions, but we still need prisons to keep criminals from reoffending and serve as a deterrent. Non-violent crime isn't victimless and we want to decrease it, not increase it.
There are better ways.
In fact, there's plenty of evidence that prison is, in many cases, a net negative, as it takes people who committed crimes of opportunity or poverty and turns them into either hardened criminals who see it as a lifestyle, or people who have no choice but to commit crimes to survive, as we treat them as nonpersons and shut them out of society.
true but most victimless crime is non violent
Ideally, I agree. Along with other freedom limitations depending on the crime (corruption should prevent you from actively managing your money/assets).
The issue is what to do for people without a house. But in a perfect society, you're right. We still are not there yet, so working on improving the current systems should be preferred.
CA started to do this and crime got much worse. No thanks.
So many more people hide out in their homes since covid, anyway. It wouldn't seem like much of a punishment to them.
For a not insignificant chunk of the population, staying inside your house is not a deterrent to crime.