Originally Posted by
echappist
Of course not, and I stated as much in my original post, about how most of us would like to see prison and sentencing reform. I don't doubt that you are much better read on this issue than I am, but even with my relative paucity, I understand how many jurisdiction abuse the incarceration system, not only in the ways you highlighted, but also in ways such as turning jail into a funding source and jailing people over mere peccadilloes and releasing people only after they have paid what's in effect an administrative fine. In my mind, incarceration should be for three types of people: fraudsters, violent criminals, and the truly incorrigible (e.g. I'm thinking along the line of people with 5+ DUIs, or maybe that's just a Wisconsin specialty; though perhaps those should be instead committed to a psych ward).
But when you introduced Prof. Gilmore's ideas (many of which are of significant academic and social value), that introduction was made using an article that specifically highlighted the professor's overarching aim of eliminating prisons altogether, which is where the incongruity comes in. That's the whole reason why there's a side-track discussion about prison abolition. You may view it as a distraction, but it could hardly be a distraction when the theme of the article is on that very topic.
Last but not least, though this exchange may have gotten heated, I fully appreciate you engaging on the substance.