> You need to ask yourself: "what problem is the US
> prison system, as is, currently solving"?
It sounds to me like "prison abolition" is mis-named; if the reason you want to get rid of the prisons is because you'd like to change society to remove the conditions that drive many people to crime, that's a little bit of the cart before the horse, no?
> [ ... ] you're worried about the incredibly small number of
> people who, were it not for poverty, racism, and the drug war,
> would be criminals anyway ...
I'm all for the agenda of removing poverty, racism, and the drug war from society (with the side-effect that we'd have far fewer candidates for prison); what shall we call it? "Prison abolition" ...? Hmmm.
Doug says that "upper class criminals are often just guilty of exaggerated capitalist behavior" ... but isn't that what *most* crime is? Most crime is property crime, even when it's of a violent sort. That comes down to an inequality.
This is just another case of Americans making decisions that are against their best interests, right? Clearly the "legal economy" works Just Fine without the "criminal population" -- but the question is: how to pay for that non-participation? You could have a social safety net, or you can pay for prisons. Prisons are more expensive and less effective; let's pick that!
/jordan