Former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin has been stabbed by another inmate at a federal prison in Arizona where he's serving time for the murder of George Floyd.
I don’t feel bad for the guy, but I don’t celebrate this sort of vigilante justice, either. Prisoners should be safe from other prisoners. Prison is not meant to be torture, and recidivism is a massive problem in the United States. Chauvin will have 20 years to contemplate his crimes, and treating him and every other prisoner will only reinforce their criminal proclivities.
yup. And there is a reason why laws are written to disproportionately affect certain groups- like how crack cocaine gets more jail time than powder, or marijuana convictions…
Loopholes are things intentionally built into structures with the purpose of allowing something through. I find it weird so many people think loopholes aren’t something intentional.
I’m having a lot of trouble finding a source that backs up this position. Everything I’m reading says that loopholes are typically oversights, not intentional inclusions.
That being said, the 13th amendment’s allowance for prisoner slavery is not a loophole at all, it’s an explicit allowance. Loopholes are not explicit, that’s kinda the whole point of them. It’s a bit like saying that the standard deduction on your taxes is a loophole. It’s just an explicitly defined feature.
While that, in fact, does happen, when a large portion of loopholes benefit corporations are written by people employed, or otherwise invested in, those corporations you would have to be lying to yourself, or ignorant of the situation, to believe loopholes are generally unintended.
The above is one example of how this is done. Bills are written to model what the industry wants to get out of legislation. Then they use LLMs to construct legislation after being trained on those models. They then collude to push these bills to as many places as possible, greasing palms the whole way. Sometimes these are just out-right legislation for the purposes of enriching the industry, more often though they are bills written with carefully designed language to allow for specific technicalities, or for stipulations of compliance to be so vague as to be unenforceable, or to use a bunch of jargon and complex linguistics to make a law read one way to the laymen, but another to the professionals that will actually be interacting with these laws.
FWIW the vast majority of prisons in the US are not corporate run (>90%), but those majority government-run prisons still provide a lot of free/cheap manufacturing labor to private companies.
The government itself is to blame, not just private prisons.
i think you’re responding to a normative statement by making a descriptive statement.
for those unaware, here’s a quick explanation from wikipedia: a normative statement is “meant to talk about the world as it should be”, while a descriptive statement is “meant to describe the world as it is”.
i wasn’t trying to talk about grammar at all, i was only trying to focus only on the meaning of what was said. but i probably could’ve made my point more clearly, so ill try to do that now.
here’s an “example”: one person says “things should be done this way” and the other person says “well things aren’t being done that way”. these two statements aren’t in opposition to each other. in fact, it’s perfectly possible both people agree with each other. maybe things aren’t being done a certain way, and they should be done differently.
the terms “normative” and “descriptive” might seem overly complicated to someone who hasn’t seen them before (they did the first time i saw them), but i thought i’d use them because they’re useful concepts to keep in mind. they’ve helped me communicate and resolve conflicts in my own life. i’ve been both people in the example above, and it’s helpful to be able to know when it’s happening.
Edit I’m fuckin stupid, leaving this comment up as a monument to my illiteracy
Making a comment like this about basic conversation and debate concepts is like driving and saying you can’t read the speed limit signs. Like, maybe you should avoid actively participating altogether until you’re actually able to
The idea of “not killing” and “I wish he was dead” can’t seem live in most people’s head. I think he’s human waste, he should be dead, and I wouldn’t have lamented his death. BUT!!! I don’t want him to die and I don’t want someone to kill him.
Yes, our prisons should be safe for those who are confined within them. I agree with that, and that less people should be confined in the first place.
But there is a qualitative difference between “he was stabbed due to being a cop (or due to being THAT cop)” vs “He got into an altercation that resulted in him being stabbed, but which could have happened to anyone.”
I think the kneejerk assumption is that he was targeted, which is worse IMO.
Not that I shed a single tear for the fate of Derek Chauvin, mind you.
Would you rather be in an unsafe environment where you are taking the same risks as anyone else by being there, or an unsafe environment where you are likely to be specifically and personally targeted for being you?
Doesn’t that prove his fuckin point? Even in something as locked down and controlled as fucking prison can’t stop humans if they truly want to harm others
You think prisons are locked down and controlled? Prisons are for-profit labor generators where slaves are treated like, well, slaves. Society accepts this because we act like they deserve subhuman treatment. We should not accept this.
to be fair, the united states doesnt care about the humans it pretends to ‘rehabilitate’. we dont care about recidivism, because our system is for punishment not for rehab.
other countries do a better job at fixing their humans than we do. can we start there?
I was just making the joke initially, a contrasting oversimplification.
But just because they don’t stop all violence, it doesn’t mean they don’t stop any violence. Prisons literally do keep murderers locked up instead of out harming others in the public. Are they flawless systems? Fuck no. There’s all kinds of shit wrong with the systems. But they definitely beat the alternative of having no prisons.
In theory, yes, but that should be the point of education and social programs tbh. Even then, restorative justice models don’t rely as heavily on jail/prison. Temporary and maybe permanent removal from a specific environment doesn’t have to require fully sequestering perpetrators from society. Caught early enough, extreme examples of violent individuals can be rehabilitated through house arrest and other programs like anger management, therapy, etc. Saves taxpayer money, reduces recidivism, and victims report much higher satisfaction as they can actually face their perpetrator and be more involved in the process seeking accountability.
In practice, prisons prop up class and racial segregation, perpetuating capitalist agendas.
I don’t feel bad for the guy, but I don’t celebrate this sort of vigilante justice, either. Prisoners should be safe from other prisoners. Prison is not meant to be torture, and recidivism is a massive problem in the United States. Chauvin will have 20 years to contemplate his crimes, and treating him and every other prisoner will only reinforce their criminal proclivities.
American prisons ARE meant for torture. Don’t get it twisted.
If they were for rehabilitation or treatment, then we would see to that, societally. But we don’t.
This is a small piece of why our justice system is so absolutely fucked.
naw. not really. Prisons are meant to provide cheap domestic labor to the corporations running them. it’s all profits.
Well both those things can be true.
Never forget, it’s actually legal to enslave prisoners according to the 13th Amendment.
yup. And there is a reason why laws are written to disproportionately affect certain groups- like how crack cocaine gets more jail time than powder, or marijuana convictions…
That’s a part of it, yes. It’s the slavery loophole in the 13th amendment.
Less of a loophole, more of an intended feature
Loopholes are things intentionally built into structures with the purpose of allowing something through. I find it weird so many people think loopholes aren’t something intentional.
I’m having a lot of trouble finding a source that backs up this position. Everything I’m reading says that loopholes are typically oversights, not intentional inclusions.
That being said, the 13th amendment’s allowance for prisoner slavery is not a loophole at all, it’s an explicit allowance. Loopholes are not explicit, that’s kinda the whole point of them. It’s a bit like saying that the standard deduction on your taxes is a loophole. It’s just an explicitly defined feature.
While that, in fact, does happen, when a large portion of loopholes benefit corporations are written by people employed, or otherwise invested in, those corporations you would have to be lying to yourself, or ignorant of the situation, to believe loopholes are generally unintended.
https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/copy-paste-legislate/you-elected-them-to-write-new-laws-theyre-letting-corporations-do-it-instead/
The above is one example of how this is done. Bills are written to model what the industry wants to get out of legislation. Then they use LLMs to construct legislation after being trained on those models. They then collude to push these bills to as many places as possible, greasing palms the whole way. Sometimes these are just out-right legislation for the purposes of enriching the industry, more often though they are bills written with carefully designed language to allow for specific technicalities, or for stipulations of compliance to be so vague as to be unenforceable, or to use a bunch of jargon and complex linguistics to make a law read one way to the laymen, but another to the professionals that will actually be interacting with these laws.
The torture is just a fringe benefit in the cops’ eyes.
deleted
lesser of two evils
Cheap domestic labor isn’t torture?
FWIW the vast majority of prisons in the US are not corporate run (>90%), but those majority government-run prisons still provide a lot of free/cheap manufacturing labor to private companies.
The government itself is to blame, not just private prisons.
13th amendment
i think you’re responding to a normative statement by making a descriptive statement.
for those unaware, here’s a quick explanation from wikipedia: a normative statement is “meant to talk about the world as it should be”, while a descriptive statement is “meant to describe the world as it is”.
If we could read we would be very upset.
the most niche grammar nazi
i wasn’t trying to talk about grammar at all, i was only trying to focus only on the meaning of what was said. but i probably could’ve made my point more clearly, so ill try to do that now.
here’s an “example”: one person says “things should be done this way” and the other person says “well things aren’t being done that way”. these two statements aren’t in opposition to each other. in fact, it’s perfectly possible both people agree with each other. maybe things aren’t being done a certain way, and they should be done differently.
the terms “normative” and “descriptive” might seem overly complicated to someone who hasn’t seen them before (they did the first time i saw them), but i thought i’d use them because they’re useful concepts to keep in mind. they’ve helped me communicate and resolve conflicts in my own life. i’ve been both people in the example above, and it’s helpful to be able to know when it’s happening.
The most based discourse nazi, singlehandedly preventing what could become a 30 comment deep argument where both sides fully misunderstand the other
Lemmy cannot read one word of your comment
Edit I’m fuckin stupid, leaving this comment up as a monument to my illiteracy
Making a comment like this about basic conversation and debate concepts is like driving and saying you can’t read the speed limit signs. Like, maybe you should avoid actively participating altogether until you’re actually able to
Huh? My point was many Lemmy users very commonly reply to someone’s descriptive comment with a normative complaint, and freak out when it’s clarified.
Wow I misread Lemmy as literally, I fuckered that one up bad lmao
i made the same mistake you did the first time i read their comment. your confusion helped me too!
So much this man. Guy was an asshole, but he and everyone else should be safe in prison.
Let’s start with making everyone else safe, then.
No disagreements here.
Very glad this is currently the top comment. I was worried I’d run into a comment thread cheering for violence that simply shouldn’t have happened.
The idea of “not killing” and “I wish he was dead” can’t seem live in most people’s head. I think he’s human waste, he should be dead, and I wouldn’t have lamented his death. BUT!!! I don’t want him to die and I don’t want someone to kill him.
Yeah dude is a piece of shit, but it’s a bit disheartening seeing people cheer on stuff like this.
deleted by creator
We don’t know what happened. He might have ran his mouth and found out he wasn’t a protected class anymore.
That doesn’t really change anything.
It does a little bit, I think.
Yes, our prisons should be safe for those who are confined within them. I agree with that, and that less people should be confined in the first place.
But there is a qualitative difference between “he was stabbed due to being a cop (or due to being THAT cop)” vs “He got into an altercation that resulted in him being stabbed, but which could have happened to anyone.”
I think the kneejerk assumption is that he was targeted, which is worse IMO.
Not that I shed a single tear for the fate of Derek Chauvin, mind you.
How is “that could’ve happened to anyone” any better?
Would you rather be in an unsafe environment where you are taking the same risks as anyone else by being there, or an unsafe environment where you are likely to be specifically and personally targeted for being you?
How is either acceptable?
You’ll have to ask someone who said either was acceptable.
I don’t think it’s possible to keep humans from harming each other if they want to
That is literally the point of prisons.
Doesn’t that prove his fuckin point? Even in something as locked down and controlled as fucking prison can’t stop humans if they truly want to harm others
You think prisons are locked down and controlled? Prisons are for-profit labor generators where slaves are treated like, well, slaves. Society accepts this because we act like they deserve subhuman treatment. We should not accept this.
to be fair, the united states doesnt care about the humans it pretends to ‘rehabilitate’. we dont care about recidivism, because our system is for punishment not for rehab.
other countries do a better job at fixing their humans than we do. can we start there?
I was just making the joke initially, a contrasting oversimplification.
But just because they don’t stop all violence, it doesn’t mean they don’t stop any violence. Prisons literally do keep murderers locked up instead of out harming others in the public. Are they flawless systems? Fuck no. There’s all kinds of shit wrong with the systems. But they definitely beat the alternative of having no prisons.
In theory, yes, but that should be the point of education and social programs tbh. Even then, restorative justice models don’t rely as heavily on jail/prison. Temporary and maybe permanent removal from a specific environment doesn’t have to require fully sequestering perpetrators from society. Caught early enough, extreme examples of violent individuals can be rehabilitated through house arrest and other programs like anger management, therapy, etc. Saves taxpayer money, reduces recidivism, and victims report much higher satisfaction as they can actually face their perpetrator and be more involved in the process seeking accountability.
In practice, prisons prop up class and racial segregation, perpetuating capitalist agendas.
And you should look into improvised weapons they confiscate from prisoners.
I agree with your broad sentiment that prisoners should feel safe in prison. However, this specific instance, I call (delayed) karma.