[lbo-talk] Abolition of prisons (Was: Angela...)

[John Thornton]

Jordan Hayes wrote:
> John Thornton changes the subject by saying:
>
>> If you think there is no distinction who would you
>> rather face, a person seeking to kill you or a person
>> who wants your wallet and MAY harm you if you don't
>> give it to them?
>
> The distinction we were talking about is the one that's between 
> robbery that involves physical assault and that which doesn't -- not 
> some strawman like the difference between robbery and rape.
>
> I know it was a few messages ago, but you do remember writing this:
>
>> Robbery is the #1 violent offense (~30% of total violent
>> crime) in spite of the fact that the majority of robberies
>> involve no physical assault to anyone.
>
> ... right?  I took that to mean that you think "robbery without 
> physical assault" (as though the mere threat *isn't* physical?!) 
> shouldn't be a "violent" crime.

I'll try to explain this more clearly.
I object to robbery being included in the category of violent crimes 
with rape, assault, and murder since it is not a crime committed with 
intent the harm others as these crimes are.
Robberies that include assaults should be included in the category of 
violent crimes under assaults.
Robberies with no physical assault should be categorized as robberies 
and nothing more.


>
> You later tried to shift gears and say something about "desire to harm 
> others" ... but there's plenty of "violent crime" that doesn't involve 
> this "desire" -- negligent homicide, for instance.  Surely you aren't 
> hoping we'll call that "non-violent" too?

I didn't shift gears, you misunderstood my original point.
A drunk driver who killed someone and was found guilty of negligent 
homicide is not a violent criminal in my opinion.
If you wish to label this as violent crime you certainly can but I don't 
believe that is a defensible position.
They are a criminal, just not a violent criminal. The reason being their 
crime had no desire to harm others.
I don't think it is justifiable to put this type of crime in the same 
category as murder and rape.
Why is this a violent crime?
If a doctor kills a patient through negligence and is found guilty of 
negligent homicide is he a violent criminal that needs to be 
incarcerated to protect the public or an incompetent doctor that needs 
to be prevented from practicing medicine in order to protect the public?
For you negligent homicide (drunk driver) equals "violent crime" equals 
murderer (angry man killing immigrant students)?
That thinking seems daft to me.


>
> Go make up some more words if you want.  Just don't be surprised when 
> you fail the bar.

I have no intention of taking the bar so this isn't really a concern for me.

John Thornton