On the other hand prison works rehabilitated in to society.
> Not sure I feel comfortable with celebrating breaking the law.
I don’t know where you live, forgive me if this comes off condescending.
In the US, celebrating activism with illegal techniques is part of the fabric of our culture, institutional and even foundational. Approximately everyone is taught about:
- the Boston Tea Party, and the Revolutionary War which that and similar actions ultimately precipitated
- the Underground Railroad and other actions to smuggle slaves to their (relative) freedom
- various illegal actions in the Civil Rights movement, from sit ins at segregated businesses to Rosa Parks’ refusal to sit in the back of the bus to Freedom Riders crossing all sorts of state/county lines to help ensure others’ access to polls
There are of course other illegal actions which are less taught/known but nevertheless shaped our society in ways few could disagree with. We have strikers and work saboteurs to thank for the 5-day/40-hour work week. We have the Black Panthers to thank for breakfast and child care programs in schools, as well as the proliferation of community health clinics.
Some of these were not non-violent actions, some of the actions taken in these contexts and others which moved us as a society forward were morally complicated. But at least from my historical perspective, I cannot justify deference to the law as a moral imperative. Sometimes, often even, it’s the law which is morally unacceptable. And the moral imperative is to go beyond it.
Edit: I don’t want to trivialize that courage either. Challenging power can be an incredible risk. Most people under most circumstances will choose to limit their risk no matter what the moral question. I’m honest enough to say, even though I’m not proud to, I haven’t taken all of the risks I wish I had.
Things can be right regardless of the law, history is filled with false and immoral legislation.
Original poster made it seem like there is some unique American culture of anti establishment and celebration of courage and activism. Then goes on to enumerate examples that are now obviously celebrated.
My point is that it's a survivor biased argument. It's very easy _now_ to celebrate past activism that ended up on the good side of history. There's nothing special in American culture about that.
We are talking about a country that started wars on false premises, tortured prisoners, incarcerated whistle-blowers, economically bullies most of its competitors, elected an ultra conservative president, have one of the worst immigration integration policy, etc etc.
> In the US, celebrating activism with illegal techniques is part of the fabric of our culture, institutional and even foundational.
I'm sorry but that just strikes me as plain.. . Maybe that's how Americans see themselves, but get back to earth, 99% of the world would roll on the floor at this.
Most of the activism enumerated in the comment is actually a minority's activism against social problems that only existed in the US in the first place. It requires a very twisted argument to celebrate US activism on issues that the US created for itself.
It’s odd to frame actions by some in the US to right wrongs in our country as “issues that the US created for itself”. I mean yes, as a country slavery is a horrible stain on our history. But the abolitionists who fought it since before the US even existed and continue to this day are not implicated in that. And that’s my point: rejection of immoral laws and power structures is valid, and equating legality with morality is sometimes and even often wrong.
I can’t say I lose a seconds sleep over the “victims”, they are weak minded crybabies
The intent was for the intimidation to work, so regardless of how sturdy the character. Its hardly a victimless crime.
Marching and demonstrating maybe not as effective, but I find it hard to celebrating trying to harm another person, regardless of how ineffective. Non-violence is a good way to change unjust laws, intimidation is not just.
I found the "Seek first to understand, then to be understood" rule in the 7 Habits book illuminating.
If only government, lawmakers, and the electorate in general, understood it.
Rehabilitating someone with "radical" ideas would involve acknowledging and challenging their ideas. That's not how rehabilitation really works even in theory - most rehabilitation is taking criminals who aren't ideologically motivated and solving the much simpler problems of educating them so that they can work.
Reading this, I'd bet £1000 to spat out sweet you are US-American?
Because elsewhere, most of the civilised world treats prison as rehabilitation.
I look with envy at how they do a lot of things.
I would assume that rehabilitation does not focus on changing people's ideological values.
Am I wrong? Is that a thing in other countries?
Few countries in Western and/or Northern Europe? That's a very narrow definition.
* Retribution ("a punishment")
* General prevention ("a jailed person cannot keep hurting others and prison threat is a deterrent")
* Special prevention (rehabilitation)
Last time I looked, most countries are mostly for general prevention with a pinch of special prevention. Retribution is not currently defensible philosofically or technically, though some people errounesly think it's the basis of the system.
Even without the spelling or the previous reference to GBP, I could have guessed nationality from your tone.
I am curious if the getting a job using the A-level, reduced your likelihood of reoffending, at the risk of your current job ?
Dear John Doe,
Please inform us when and where you plan to infringe the law again. Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
your government
As far as I understand it, lengthy sentences don't work -- the likelihood of getting caught does. (I mean in a statistical sense. But I might have read this before the replication crisis, so caveat lector.)
... but also: Do you have any evidence of your claims? Literally any evidence of being who say you are?
This.
Many crimes are barely enforced; I'm thinking of some kinds of moving-traffic offences such as using a phone while driving. Because it's not enforced, people keep doing it; so the government increases the fines.
But increasing the fines has zero effect, if everyone knows the law isn't enforced.
EDIT: Not that I'm defending any particular prison system or making a moral statement here. In many countries the prison system is horrible and probably not even very optimal at preventing offences. It's just that in my mind the prison has one main purpose; to act as a deterrent for crime, and most of the time, for most of the population, it somewhat works for that purpose.