Jump to content
Rhizome

Aff: prison reform

Recommended Posts

discuss. I am pretty sure that despite a few prisoners being rich a majority just aren't. Also, foucault yadda yadda anarchism yadda yadda prisons bad judge yadda yadda.

 

discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anarchism

 

Please elaborate?

 

And, what is the social service? If you are talking about foucault, he says that the prison is disconnected from the rest of society, after they break the "social contract," they are no longer part of society.

So if social service is something which enhances society, I think, at least from what I've read of Foucault, he would not consider this a social service.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually....with the exception of the person in prison who has a) a successful ongoing business venture (aka small business owner whose business didn't get taken by the government) B) lucrative stocks/investments.

 

I think the "intent" of plan is to help those in poverty. Sure there's no brightline on intent, but court based notions of intent still exist and provide a decent and informative precedent here.

 

For instance, even if you gave money to a poor neighborhood in the inner city--that would be untopical under interps that exclude prisons.

 

Also, even if they aren't actually poor...they are certainly living in poverty. Most prisons earn something like .50 an hour....despite the minimum wage. (don't get me wrong, i'm fine with this given we pay 40K or more to keep each prison inside)

 

Third, you could specify that it just applied to "those living in poverty in prisons"

 

As a side note....i think this T violation has to be written as a forced choice. Either you have an aff that applies to people outside my definition of "living in poverty" OR you link to my "poverty" K.

 

Of course this aff could have decent critical ground if the T became too much of a question.

 

Advantages:

• Rape

• AIDS

• Demumanization

• Possibly 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual)

• Re-cidivism/Cycle of Violence

• Rights

• Morality

• Racism

• Poverty

• Education/mental health (possibly stigmitization)

• Biopower, Katrina metaphor

• Critique of realism

• GOP crime and control = bad, fear mongering (critiquy...gives critical offense and allows you to critique disads)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are good articles on giving ex-cons jobs as a social service or reintegrating back into society

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucalt thinks prisons are good - he was on a prison board of executives before he died. Although he criticizes the state, he sees it as a way to maintain order and be decisive sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Foucalt thinks prisons are good - he was on a prison board of executives before he died. Although he criticizes the state, he sees it as a way to maintain order and be decisive sometimes.

there are many-many other Foucaultians who say prison is bad. I am also 90% sure that Foucault is down with prison reform but not the current state of prisons. James could correct me if i am wrong though.

 

Please elaborate?

 

And, what is the social service? If you are talking about foucault, he says that the prison is disconnected from the rest of society, after they break the "social contract," they are no longer part of society.

So if social service is something which enhances society, I think, at least from what I've read of Foucault, he would not consider this a social service.

 

@Anarchism -

 

nearly every anarchist i've read that has a little bit of credibility thinks prisons are bad and that dissolving prisons = the first step toworods inevitable anarchist revolution.

 

@foucault - the social service would be public health or something a long those lines and it should target those who live in poverty in prisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foucault thinks prisons are bad. From the interview, Remarks on Marx:

"When the book [Discipline and Punish] came out, various

readers--particularly prison guards, social workers, etc.--gave this

singular judgment: 'It is paralyzing. There may be some correct

observations, but in any case it certainly has its limits, because it

blocks us, it prevents us from continuing our activities.' My reply is

that it is just that relation that proves the success of the work, proves

that it worked as I had wanted it to. That is, it is read as an experience

that changes us, that prevents us from always being the same, or from

having the same kind of relationship with things and with others that we

had before reading it. This demonstrates to me that the book expresses an

experience that extends beyond my own. The book is merely inscribed in

something that was already in progress; we could say that the

transformation of contemporary man is in relation to his sense of self. On

the other hand, the book also worked for this transformation; it has

been, even if in a small way, an agent. That's it. This, for me, is an

'experience-book' as opposed to a 'truth-book' or a 'demonstration-book.'"

pp 41-2.

 

I've never heard of Foucault being on a board of prisons, but would totally be ok with evidence to the contrary. (I have read two biographies of Foucault, and would think this would be a big thing to leave out). On the other hand, I do know that Foucault was the founder of the prison information group (Groupe d'Information sur les Prisons or GIP). The GIP sought to publish the works of Prisoners themselves about prison conditions, and in general provide a public voice for those that had been denied the public sphere so completely. Let us look at what Foucault and Deleuze had to say about this whole enterprise (Deleuze was a member of Foucault's GIP), in their celebrated conversation "Intellectuals and Power":

 

DELEUZE: Precisely. A theory is exactly like a box of tools. It has nothing to do with the signifier. It must be useful. It must function. And not for itself. If no one uses it, beginning with the theoretician himself (who then ceases to be a theoretician), then the theory is worthless or the moment is inappropriate. We don't revise a theory, but construct new ones; we have no choice but to make others. It is strange that it was Proust, an author thought to be a pure intellectual, who said it so clearly: treat my book as a pair of glasses directed to the outside; if they don't suit you, find another pair; I leave it to you to find your own instrument, which is necessarily an investment for combat. A theory does not totalise; it is an instrument for multiplication and it also multiplies itself. It is in the nature of power to totalise and it is your position. and one I fully agree with, that theory is by nature opposed to power. As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular point, we realise that it will never possess the slightest practical importance unless it can erupt in a totally different area. This is why the notion of reform is so stupid and hypocritical. Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be representative, who make a profession of speaking for others, and they lead to a division of power, to a distribution of this new power which is consequently increased by a double repression; or they arise from the complaints and demands of those concerned. This latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that questions (expressing the full force of its partiality) the totality of power and the hierarchy that maintains it. This is surely evident in prisons: the smallest and most insignificant of the prisoners' demands can puncture Pleven's pseudoreform (5). If the protests of children were heard in kindergarten, if their questions were attended to, it would be enough to explode the entire educational system. There is no denying that our social system is totally without tolerance; this accounts for its extreme fragility in all its aspects and also its need for a global form of repression. In my opinion, you were the first-in your books and in the practical sphere-to teach us something absolutely fundamental: the indignity of speaking for others. We ridiculed representation and said it was finished, but we failed to draw the consequences of this "theoretical" conversion-to appreciate the theoretical fact that only those directly concerned can speak in a practical way on their own behalf.

 

FOUCAULT: And when the prisoners began to speak, they possessed an individual theory of prisons, the penal system, and justice. It is this form of discourse which ultimately matters, a discourse against power, the counter-discourse of prisoners and those we call delinquents-and not a theory about delinquency. The problem of prisons is local and marginal: not more than 100,000 people pass through prisons in a year. In France at present, between 300,000 and 400,000 have been to prison. Yet this marginal problem seems to disturb everyone. I was surprised that so many who had not been to prison could become interested in its problems, surprised that all those who bad never heard the discourse of inmates could so easily understand them. How do we explain this? Isn't it because, in a general way, the penal system is the form in which power is most obviously seen as power? To place someone in prison, to confine him to deprive him of food and heat, to prevent him from leaving, making love, etc.-this is certainly the most frenzied manifestation of power imaginable. The other day I was speaking to a woman who bad been in prison and she was saying: "Imagine, that at the age of forty, I was punished one day with a meal of dry bread." What is striking about this story is not the childishness of the exercise of power but the cynicism with which power is exercised as power, in the most archaic, puerile, infantile manner. As children we learn what it means to be reduced to bread and water. Prison is the only place where power is manifested in its naked state, in its most excessive form, and where it is justified as moral force. "I am within my rights to punish you because you know that it is criminal to rob and kill . . . ... What is fascinating about prisons is that, for once, power doesn't hide or mask itself; it reveals itself as tyranny pursued into the tiniest details; it is cynical and at the same time pure and entirely "justified," because its practice can be totally formulated within the framework of morality. Its brutal tyranny consequently appears as the serene domination of Good over Evil, of order over disorder.

 

DELEUZE: Yes, and the reverse is equally true. Not only are prisoners treated like children, but children are treated like prisoners. Children are submitted to an infantilisation which is alien to them. On this basis, it is undeniable that schools resemble prisons and that factories are its closest approximation. Look at the entrance to a Renault plant, or anywhere else for that matter: three tickets to get into the washroom during the day. You found an eighteenth-century text by Jeremy Bentham proposing prison reforms; in the name of this exalted reform, be establishes a circular system where the renovated prison serves as a model and where the individual passes imperceptibly from school to the factory, from the factory to prison and vice versa. This is the essence of the reforming impulse, of reformed representation. On the contrary, when people begin to speak and act on their own behalf, they do not oppose their representation (even as its reversal) to another; they do not oppose a new representativity to the false representativity of power. For example, I remember your saying that there is no popular justice against justice; the reckoning takes place at another level.

 

FOUCAULT: I think that it is not simply the idea of better and more equitable forms of justice that underlies the people's hatred of the judicial system, of judges, courts, and prisons, but-aside from this and before anything else-the singular perception that power is always exercised at the expense of the people. The anti-judicial struggle is a struggle against power and I don't think that it is a struggle against injustice, against the injustice of the judicial system, or a struggle for improving the efficiency of its institutions. It is particularly striking that in outbreaks of rioting and revolt or in seditious movements the judicial system has been as compelling a target as the financial structure, the army, and other forms of power. My hypothesis -but it is merely an hypothesis- is that popular courts, such as those found in the Revolution, were a means for the lower middle class, who were allied with the masses, to salvage and recapture the initiative in the struggle against the judicial system. To achieve this, they proposed a court system based on the possibility of equitable justice, where a judge might render a just verdict. The identifiable form of the court of law belongs to the bourgeois ideology of justice.

 

Read the whole thing here http://libcom.org/library/intellectuals-power-a-conversation-between-michel-foucault-and-gilles-deleuze (And remember, this is the conversation between Deleuze and Foucault that made them such targets by Spivak in her "Can the Subaltern Speak?"). As the dialogue above indicates, Foucault not only detested the prison, but was absolutely suspicious of reform. The question is not between an evil prison, and a kinder, gentler prison; but instead between power in its all its manifestations and the people. This anti-reformism exists not just in relationship with prisons, but is manifested in Foucault's understanding of a philosophical and critical project.

 

"We have known at least since the nineteenth century the difference between anaesthesis and paralysis. Let's talk about paralysis first. Who has been paralyzed? Do you think what I wrote on the history of psychiatry paralyzed those people who had already been concerned for some time about what was happening in psychiatric institutions? And, seeing what has been happening in and around prisons, I don't think the effect of paralysis is very evident there either. As far as the people in prison are concerned, things aren't doing too badly. On the other hand, it's true that certain people, such as those who work in the institutional setting of the prison—which is not quite the same as being in prison—are not likely to find advice or instructions in my books that tell them 'what is to be done'. But my project is precisely to bring it about that they 'no longer know what to do', so that the acts, gestures, discourses which up until then had seemed to go without saying become problematic, difficult, dangerous. This effect is intentional. And then I have some news for you: for me the problem of the prisons isn't one for the 'social workers' but one for the prisoners. And on that side, I'm not so sure what's been said over the last fifteen years has been quite so—how shall I put it?—demobilizing.

 

But paralysis isn't the same thing as anaesthesis—on the contrary. It's in so far as there's been an awakening to a whole series of problems that the difficulty of doing anything comes to be felt. Not that this effect is an end in itself. But it seems to me that 'what is to be done' ought not to be determined from above by reformers, be they prophetic or legislative, but by a long work of comings and goings, of exchanges, reflections, trials, different analysis. If the social workers you are talking about don't know which way to turn, this just goes to show that they're looking, and hence are not anesthetized or sterilized at all—on the contrary. And it's because of the need not to tie them down or immobilize them that there can be no question for me of trying to tell 'what is to be done'. If the questions posed by the social workers you spoke of are going to assume their full amplitude, the most important thing is not to bury them under the weight of prescriptive, prophetic discourse. The necessity of reform mustn't be allowed to become a form of blackmail serving to limit, reduce or halt the exercise of criticism. Under no circumstances should one pay attention to those who tell one: 'Don't criticize, since you're not capable of carrying out a reform.' That's ministerial cabinet talk. Critique doesn't have to be the premise of a deduction which concludes: this then is what needs to be done. It should be an instrument for those who fight, those who resist and refuse what is. Its use should be in processes of conflict and confrontation, essays in refusal. It doesn't have to lay down the law for the law. It isn't a stage in a programming. It is a challenge directed to what is.

 

The problem, you see, is one for the subject who acts—the subject of action through which the real is transformed. If prisons and punitive mechanisms are transformed, it won't be because a plan of reform has found its way into the heads of the social workers; it will be when those who have to do with that penal reality, all those people, have come into collision with each other and with themselves, run into dead-ends, problems and impossibilities, been through conflicts and confrontations; when critique has been played out in the real, not when reformers have realized their ideas." (The Foucault Effect, pp. 83-85, 1991).

 

The intellectual purpose of critical philosophy is not to work from ahigh, to survey and plan the necessary reforms. It is not, in other words, to take the role of the panopticon to the realm of thought itself. Critical philosophy is not transcendental, it does not exist out of this world. It exists among the interplay of forces and bodies, it exists within the real material history, the blood and the violence, of all of us who are human, all too human. Here, it would do well to understand the opposition of the political on one hand, and policy-making (what Ranciere refers to as the police) on the other hand. Policy-making always attempts to abstract itself out of the reality of lived existence. Policy-making seeks to make sure everyone has a place (and therefore also everyone in their place). It proceeds through a process of distribution, of distributing the ways of speaking and acting that is deemed proper, and those that are not. For example, look again to the above quotation from Foucault. The only intellectual discourse that is considered legitimate in the realm of the policy maker, is one that seeks to tell us what should be done. Such a discourse will always be reformist, because it doesn't grasp the possibility that we might not know what is to be done. Another example, this time closer to home. Every time we run a kritik we are told we have to have an alternative (What is to be done?!), and so often we are asked or ask our opponents, "What does the world of the alternative look like?" This is a strange moment of intellectual judo, in which our critical work is suddenly hailed as a policy prescription. And we are asked to abstract ourselves from the bodily reality of our critical philosophy, and to declare what is to be done. And if we can't, well, we are not to be taken seriously, then. Like a cop at a protest, telling the passerbys, "Move along, move along, nothing to see here." (This image is lifted from an essay by Peter Hallward on Jacques Ranciere). To assume that critical philosophy is about telling us what is to be done, misunderstands fundamentally the nature of knowledge itself. As Foucault said, "This is because knowledge is not made for understanding, it is made for cutting" ("Nietzsche, Genealogy, History" in Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, p. 380).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micah once asked me about the alternatives to Foucault, and this is the email I sent him back, I hope it clarifies things somewhat.

 

"Hello,

Well, I don't know why you are asking this. I'm not sure if it is strictly for debate or not. If it is, I don't know how helpful my answer will be. So I will answer your question as if it is not a debate only question.

You put your question kinda solely in the terms of Foucault, and I won't be answering it solely that way. It seems to me you want to know what society will look like after we manage to achieve the sort of goals that radical philosophy makes demands upon. My answer is not a satisfactory one, but here it goes: We don't know, and we necessarily cannot know. Gramsci understood this one, he explained in part of his prison notebooks that communist struggle demands an interesting kind of thought. It demands that we be able to fight for something that we cannot foresee. The reason we cannot see it, is that it is so radically different, it necessarily annuls our thought of it. We cannot know what a communist (or whatever your radical term here) society will look like. Even Marx understands this a bit when in the German Ideology he writes "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established , an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." Perhaps you read my paper on societies of control and experiment? There is two models of doing science, the demonstration and the experiment. In the demonstration we know what will happen, we are merely demonstrating the predicted outcome. In an experiment we really don't know what will happen. Radical struggle, and with it radical philosophy, is always an experiment. It is exactly this quality that sets it apart from mere liberalism. From what Foucault calls ministerial cabinet talk. Or to put it another way, this is what makes radical thought different from policy making. Policy making entails a way of standing outside of the conditions of things, of being able to say "This is the conditions and if we do X we will able to achieve Y." This approach is transcendental, or to use Haraway's phrase, it is a god-trick. Radical thought at its best is immanent, non-transcendental. Which means it only results in the midst of struggle, this is what Maria Lugones refers to as praxical thinking, thinking that occurs in the midst of practice.

We can't know what will come, but it's worth fighting for anyway. It's the only thing worth fighting for. The society of equality and freedom is a dream that is not dead. As a matter of fact, Negri argues in Insurgencies that no revolution is a failed revolution. Because revolution exceeds its instrumentality, it exceeds merely some purpose, revolution itself develops radical subjectivity, which is always worthwhile.

This is not utopianism. What is amazing is the profound anti-utopianism that is found among the french radical philosophers, the italian autonomists, the american anarchist tradition. Utopianism implies a desire for some world not here, some world that will happen in the future. But the revolutionary moment is here, now, with us. It is never any other time. We make the society of equality and freedom here, out of this concrete world. Just because we are not utopianists, doesn't mean we believe history is dead (see my Love:A Politics of Joy).

 

I'm drunk and it's been a long day, so I hope this makes sense. If there are any questions, or I didn't answer you in anyway, please feel free to keep asking.

 

-Scu"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest svfrey

throwback to civ liberties for the fucking win

 

 

 

man, i wish i could've been a senior on that topic instead of a freshman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nearly every anarchist i've read that has a little bit of credibility thinks...dissolving prisons = the first step toworods inevitable anarchist revolution.

 

What Anarchist say that dissolving prisons is the 1st step in an anarchist revolution?

 

I agree all Anarchist opposse prisons, but i doubt there is a wealth of anarchist literature focusing on the strategic centrality of destroying the prison as the necessary first step or the coalescing focus of the revolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Anarchist say that dissolving prisons is the 1st step in an anarchist revolution?

 

QFA

 

I think there is a difference, atleast in Foucaultian terms, between the power exercised in prisons, and how the power relates to anarchy. I worded this wrong but cannot think of a better way.

 

It would seem from D&P that Foucault takes the prison as a symbol of the state, and how it exercises power. But never really advocates the dismantling of prisons to a point where it would advocate anarchy, especially since he is not neccessarily an advocate of anarchism.

 

However a good portion of the book (D&P) would be pages ~95-105 (quite possible I am wrong) where he talks about what a "good punishment" does. He borrows alot of Beccaria's ideas, and I think this is where some cool advantages can come into play. The use of prisoners as laborers, instead of containing them in the cell. Although Foucault doesn't really advocate the idea (it contradicts most of his philosophy, in my opinion at least) it might be a good advantage.

 

Anyway, the aff seems more like neg ground as a CP or something. A lot of the prisons are controlled by states, and the advantages won't really be able to be accessed if you are using Federl Penitentaries only. I realize that this is a problem with virtually every aff on the poverty topic, but I truly believe it is state ground on prison reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to double check what Jack just said,

 

I think the real problem with this idea, ultimately, is what do you do against the prison abolition cp? It seems that reform is a good idea, but abolition will solve the advantages better.

 

As far as making people work or something, that all seems like you'd unable to solve any of the disciplinary power or anarchist advantages with that sort of talk.

 

As far as Foucault and anarchist power, I agree there is a great deal of tension. In Birth of Biopolitics Foucault spends a long time talking about state-phobia, in some pretty negative terms. On the other hand, in works like Society Must Be Defended, and indeed in works like Discipline and Punish, you can see some stronger language used against the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QFA

 

I think there is a difference, atleast in Foucaultian terms, between the power exercised in prisons, and how the power relates to anarchy. I worded this wrong but cannot think of a better way.

 

It would seem from D&P that Foucault takes the prison as a symbol of the state, and how it exercises power. But never really advocates the dismantling of prisons to a point where it would advocate anarchy, especially since he is not neccessarily an advocate of anarchism.

 

However a good portion of the book (D&P) would be pages ~95-105 (quite possible I am wrong) where he talks about what a "good punishment" does. He borrows alot of Beccaria's ideas, and I think this is where some cool advantages can come into play. The use of prisoners as laborers, instead of containing them in the cell. Although Foucault doesn't really advocate the idea (it contradicts most of his philosophy, in my opinion at least) it might be a good advantage.

 

Anyway, the aff seems more like neg ground as a CP or something. A lot of the prisons are controlled by states, and the advantages won't really be able to be accessed if you are using Federl Penitentaries only. I realize that this is a problem with virtually every aff on the poverty topic, but I truly believe it is state ground on prison reform.

 

My question has nothing to do with Foucault. I was asking about anarchist literature that address prisons not discipline and punishment or any other foucauldian works or how to combine Anarchism and Foucault.

 

so again my question is to rhizome: What Anarchist lit supports the claim that the prison is the key nexus of revolutionary anarchist activity?

Edited by Bakunin+Debordxhash=Bey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it could be argued that prison is a social service due to its ostensible aid to law-abiding citizens, and crime, it could be argued, affects impoverished folks worse - i.e., they're more likely to live in high crime areas and more vulnerable to its dangers (can't afford private security, don't live in gated communities, etc.). strictly speaking, this seems either effectually topical or extra topical or both (not that i have a big problem with any of those violations per se).

 

note that a foucauldian approach flips this analysis on its head: is it that poor communities require more policing or are they more policed? do these neighbors require more patrolling to reduce crime rates or are they patrolled more often thus inflating their crime rate (thereby justifying patrolling more heavily still)?

 

anyway, as someone said above, i do believe there are specific programs which target ex-convicts living below the poverty line and attempt to assist their successful re-entry into legit society ...which could access these competing literatures. i also wonder if cases that would reform public defender offices for suspects who can't afford lawyers, or perhaps even retrying convictions involving impoverished criminals, could be made topical.

Edited by Lazzarone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume11/Vol11no5.pdf

THEBUSINESS OF DRUG DEALING IN MILWAUKEE

This report is really interesting. It argues that drug dealing is part of an informal economy that is being developed in poor communities as a response to economic marginaliztion. There is also an analysis of the diference between the motivations behind drug dealing in inner-city poor/minority communities and white suburban communities and the way the police enforce drug laws in these diferent spaces. at the vary end there is a comparison of several possible policy options that range from-Continuing the SQ-Legalizing Drugs-Creating Job Programs-or Decriminalize Non-Violent Informal Economies.

 

here is an excerpt (the conclusion) from page 21-22:

"My purpose for writing this seldom-told story of illegal drug use and sales is to promote a better understanding of the consequences of economic restructuring for the poor in our cities. Rather than starve or sink into self-pity, thousands of poor Milwaukeeans have been forming new businesses in order to survive. In a few cases, these businesses become quite profitable. But most are small-scale and do little to lift poor people from the margins. At the present time, it is these economic activities, not politics or rebellion, that hold center stage at the theater of the streets. Many of those new businesses have as their product illegal drugs. In fact, the drug business is the most profitable sector of an expanding informal economy. While drugs are harmful and destructive, as well as illegal, this report has sought to dispassionately understand the drug business in the context of the various economic and entrepreneurial strategies of the minority poor, in contrast to drugs’ more social role in the white suburbs. I hope this report will encourage both conservatives and liberals to engage in a rethinking of our nation’s and state’s drug policies.

This report includes several major findings that are at variance with stereotypical images of poor people and the drug business.

1. Much of what we call “crime” is actually work.

Both Horatiotown and Algerville are literally alive with informal economic activity. The 28 drug businesses surveyed employed a total of 191 people. At least 10% of all male Latinos and African Americans aged 18-29 living in these two neighborhoods are supported to some extent by the drug economy.

2. The work of drug dealing in the central city is in many ways an innovative, entrepreneurial, small-business venture.

The business of drug dealing in these two neighborhoods has changed over the past five years. For sixteen of the twenty-eight drug businessmen, drug sales are no longer based on corner and drug-house-based sales but has transformed into a more mobile, less risky, innovative, entrepreneurial venture.

3. Most drug entrepreneurs are hard working, but not super-rich.

The majority of entrepreneurs in Horatiotown and Algerville grossed between $1000 and $5000 per month, hardly the media stereotype of Mercedes Benz-driving drug dealers. Drug businessmen work long hours, usually from mid afternoon until early morning. More than a quarter also work a legitimate job to make ends meet. The majority of their employees are daily drug users, are not paid in money, and have difficult working and living conditions.

4. Most drug entrepreneurs aren’t particularly violent.

While drug dealing may attract violent criminals to its ranks, it also appears that successful drug businesses are those which avoid violence. More than a quarter of all drug businesses surveyed reported no violence at all in their business, and nearly two thirds reported violence occurred less than once a month. This is a major change from the early 1990s when drug gangs violently competed for markets.

5. Drug entrepreneurs have reduced their risk of arrest.

Innovative sales techniques have minimized the risk of arrest for most drug sellers. A quarter of all drug entrepreneurs reported no problems with police at all, and a majority reported problems with law enforcement no more than once a month. The modal method of drug sales — utilizing drug-addict “runners” — has allowed drug entrepreneurs to displace most risk onto their employees and avoid arrest.

6. Women do not seem to be entering the ranks of drug sellers in large numbers.

Women still appear to be playing a secondary role in the drug business. Only five of twenty two drug entrepreneurs were women, and only three of seventeen wives/spouses were involved in their husband’s drug business. Our data do not indicate increases in prostitution are occurring, except for anecdotal information on increases in teenage girls exchanging sex for drugs. Whether welfare reform will influence the patterns of female involvement in prostitution or drugs sales is unknown.

7. Drug dealing by whites in the suburbs and youth culture is more about partying than economics. Drugs are sold mainly by “word-of-mouth” means to white youth in the suburbs. There are no stable, neighborhood, drug-selling locales like Horatiotown and Algerville in the suburbs. White youth and suburban drug dealers hire very few employees, and drug dealing is more part of a “partying” lifestyle than a job. Drugs are sold to whites though contacts at work, at taverns and athletic leagues, and at alternative cultural events like “raves.” These methods are more hidden from law enforcement than neighborhood-based sales. Police have chosen to focus on neighborhood-based drug sales, rather than workplace or nightclub-based drug sales. This is a major reason for the racial disparity in arrests for drug offenses."

Edited by Bakunin+Debordxhash=Bey
format

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many, many anarchist want to abolish the prison system as part of an anarchic revolution or to start one. Authors to check out would include: Goldman, Barclay, Purchase, Shafter, The book: anarchist blackcross, Bonnano, Preston and Herket just to name a few. I know that Wolffe also talks about prisons as well.

 

I also forgot Agamben bashes the prison system as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tommy, I think you are missing Bakunin+Debord etc (you need a shorter name)'s point. The point isn't that anarchists are not against prisons, obviously they are, and I can't imagine being an anarchist and not being against prisons. The problem is, in order to get the anarchist advantages, you have to have a card (or more) that says reforming/destroying prisons will cause the destruction of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my old partner used suggest we run a critical aff about unionizing prison labor. we never did but this thread reminded me about it.

 

here's a link to a book that talks about the efforts to organize a prisoners union in california in the 1970's

http://books.google.com/books?id=QXpejAPTqH0C&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=prisoner+union&source=bl&ots=9y2tmTY9F3&sig=U1PRW8pfSZhAVD0En5AMF-qKF5M&hl=en&ei=BZQgStzJD5u6sgOY7Pj4Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPA253,M1

 

<H4>this could be a useful cite

 

Donald F. Tibbs. BLACK POWER, PRISON POWER: Race, Radicalism, and Rights in Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2009.

 

 

Abstract

</H4>On Thursday, June 23, 1977, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (1977), that prison inmates do not have a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment to organize and join prisoner labor unions. Writing for the majority, Justice William Rehnquist took judicial notice that the inmate union in North Carolina was a glorified outlet for inmate anger designed to foment racial hatred in North Carolina’s prison system. But, history suggest otherwise. The North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union (NCPLU), the first prisoner union in the South, not only condemned racial hatred, it actively sought the creation of a pluralist society behind prison walls. Its leadership contained no dangerous criminal element. Instead, educated black power activists, many of whom were imprisoned as an effort to stall their activism, operated it. Absent from the Jones opinion, and the academic discussions that followed, is any mention of the issues proposed in this study – the realities of the Black Power Movement behind prison walls. Black Power, Prison Power presents a historical analysis of law and race during the Black Power Movement, as well as their import in the Jones decision. It offers a clearer context for the domestic and international imperatives that characterized prisoners’ rights politics during the Black Power era, and details how social factors, as opposed to the rule of law, galvanized the highest court in the United States to forever alter the course of prisoners’ rights law.

accessed at http://works.bepress.com/donald_tibbs/4/

 

this also seams like it could be a good starting point that Foucault could be down w/. if you implement these demands that would be a pretty sweet aff.

 

.http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter9.shtml

..The manifesto from the Folsom Prison strike is representative of the many documents carefully written and posted by prisoners all over America. These are the most authentic voices from prison: those on the receiving end of the system.

Folsom prison strike manifesto

 

(1) We demand legal representation at the time of all Adult Authority hearings.

(2) A change in medical staff and medical policy and procedure.

(3) Adequate visiting conditions and facilities.

(4) That each man presently held in the Adjustment Center be given a written notice with the Warden of Custody signature on it explaining the exact reason for his placement in the severely restrictive confines of the Adjustment Center.

(5) An immediate end to indeterminate adjustment center terms.

(6) An end to the segregation of prisoners from the mainline population because of their political beliefs.

(7) An end to political persecution, racial persecution, and the denial of prisoners, to subscribe to political papers.

(8) An end to the persecution and punishment of prisoners who practice the constitutional right of peaceful dissent.

(9) An end to the tear‑gassing of prisoners who are locked in their cells.

(10) The passing of a minimum and maximum term bill which calls for an end to indeterminate sentences.

(11) That industries be allowed to enter the institutions and employ inmates to work eight hours a day and fit into the category of workers for scale wages.

(12) That inmates be allowed to form or join labor unions.

(13) That inmates be granted the right to support their own families.

(14) That correctional officers be prosecuted as a matter of law for shooting inmates.

(15) That all institutions who use inmate labor be made to conform with the state and federal minimum wage laws.

(16) An end to trials being held on the premises of San Quentin prison.

(17) An end to the escalating practice of physical brutality.

(18) Appointment of three lawyers from the California Bar Association to provide legal assistance for inmates seeking post‑conviction relief.

(19) Update of industry working conditions.

(20) Establishment of inmate workers' insurance.

(21) Establishment of unionized vocational training program comparable to that of the Federal Union System.

(22) Annual accounting of Inmate Welfare Fund.

(23) That the Adult Authority Board appointed by the governor be eradicated and replaced by a parole board elected by popular vote of the people. (24) A full time salaried board of overseers for the state prisons.

(25) An immediate end to the agitation of race relations.

(26) Ethnic counselors.

(27) An end to the discrimination in the judgment and quota of parole for Black and Brown people.

(28) That all prisoners be present at the time that their cells and property are being searched.

A bill of rights for prisoners

 

 

This composite bill of rights for prisoners has been assembled from various state prisoners' demands:

  • Right to organize prisoner unions.
  • Right to adequate diet, clothing and health care.
  • Right to vote and end second‑class citizenship.
  • Right to furloughs or institutional accommodations to maintain social, sexual and familial ties.
  • Right to noncensorship of mail, literature and law books.
  • Right to access to the press and media.
  • Right to procedural and substantive due process to guarantee rights.
  • Right to personality; resistance to coercive attempts by "correctional" staff to change behavior thru brain surgery, electric stimulation of brain, aversion therapy, hormones or modification techniques.
  • Right to properly trained counsel.
  • Right to be free from racial, ethnic and sexist discrimination.
  • Right to freedom from mental and physical brutality.
  • Right to have the community come into the prison.
  • Right to have surveillance teams in prisons to monitor rights, protect prisoners' due process and see that they have access to their own files.
  • Right to make restitution in lieu of further incarceration.
  • Right to know their release date at time of entry to the prison.

In all the demands that come out of America's prisons, and there are thousands, there has never been a mention of wall‑to‑wall carpet or color t.v. The demands have always been for the bare necessities of decent human existence, for constitutional rights and for changes in the judicial and penal systems. Yet prison managers are deaf to these demands and focus on pastel paint and modern architecture where the same indignities are perpetuated.

Prisoners' Union

 

We are convinced that there will be no progress unless prisoners and ex‑prisoners participate in shaping the solution. First, prisoners' and ex‑prisoners' perspectives are absolutely necessary to define the problem and to construct solutions. If anything has been learned from the events of the last 20 years, it is that "outsiders" alone are unable to define a particular group's problems and work for their solution without the full participation, if not the leadership, of the target group. Secondly, by and large prisoners have come from social segments which have been denied participation in the society's political and economic institutions. Therefore, to solve their "problems," they must be allowed to develop skills in participation and to gain access to the society's political and economic arenas.

‑Willie Holder, President of the Prisoners' Union, Fellowship, November 1975, p 7.

Edited by Bakunin+Debordxhash=Bey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy, I think you are missing Bakunin+Debord etc (you need a shorter name)'s point. The point isn't that anarchists are not against prisons, obviously they are, and I can't imagine being an anarchist and not being against prisons. The problem is, in order to get the anarchist advantages, you have to have a card (or more) that says reforming/destroying prisons will cause the destruction of the state.

yeah. that's pretty much what i was asking about.

 

however when i checked into Purchase i saw he was an anarcho-syndicalist (not that i didn;t know what that was i just wasn;t thinking in that vain at the time) and then I realized there could be an anarcho-syndicalist prison unionization aff that could get anarcho-syndicalism/anarchism advantages. hence the last post about prison unions.

 

ps yes the name is too long. fucking annoying when i get signed out.

Edited by Bakunin+Debordxhash=Bey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy, I think you are missing Bakunin+Debord etc (you need a shorter name)'s point. The point isn't that anarchists are not against prisons, obviously they are, and I can't imagine being an anarchist and not being against prisons. The problem is, in order to get the anarchist advantages, you have to have a card (or more) that says reforming/destroying prisons will cause the destruction of the state.

doesn't bookchin make this argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i can see a prison rape advantage...

 

Contention 1: Don't Drop the Soap

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doesn't bookchin make this argument?

 

Not sure, I haven't read much Bookchin since I cut a statism file in HS. (Bookchin's anti-animal rights and anti-poststructuralism grumpyness always bothered me). My assumption is someone somewhere probably does say that prisons are the key to state power, or something like that. Just not sure who makes a strong solvency card. So, it would have to be found. Where does Bookchin make this argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Contention 1: Don't Drop the Soap

 

WOW way to trivialize rape.

i really can never rap my brain around the fact that once rape, which we as a society consider one of the worst crimes, is put into the context of prison it becomes acceptable and even worse a joke.

 

also..

i dont think this is topical in the least.

prison reform is barely if at all a social service.

and it seems like the neg can win the poverty T more times than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...