"Crime" in the sense of "behaviors people find abhorrent" is not an institution. It's part of being a social animal, probably beginning historically the first time a therapsid mother swatted its cub's snout for stealing another cub's food. Punishment is hardly a strange concept either. If somebody, say, kills my wife, I am not going to sit around and drink tea and say, "ho-hum, he killed my wife, que sera sera." I am going to try to do very bad things to him out of this primitive animal desire called "desire for revenge."
--- On Sat, 5/23/09, Peter Ward <nevadabob at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> From: Peter Ward <nevadabob at hotmail.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Close the Prisons Re: Irish priests beat, raped children
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Saturday, May 23, 2009, 8:34 PM
>
> Personally, I don't find convincing most people (who don't
> have a vested interest) that the whole institution of
> "crime", implying punishment, needs to be abolished very
> hard. The problem, IMO, is the PR hypochondria of leftists
> such as Bob who think we'll offend everybody if we act on
> principle and actually ask for what we want. These things
> always start with a minority of raving loonies and develop
> broader acceptance over time as more people become aware of
> the arguments (assuming they are convincing, of course). If
> one's objective is a NY Times article or a university
> promotion tomorrow then then the bet-hedging Bob recommends
> is a good move. But if one's aim is alleviating a social ill
> in the long term than taking the most extremist position
> today is the most pragmatic strategy because it will push
> even "moderates" further to the left (or reveal them as
> complete frauds) by putting their timid positions in
> perspective.
>