I don't understand what your point is or how it is relevant to my point. My point doesn't require agreement on "what is constitutive of non-violent, anti-social behavior." On the contrary, in my view, the fact that what is considered "non-violent, anti-social behavior" is intrinsically a judgment which could be contested lends support to the view that the use of incarceration to punish and deter it should face a very high bar.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Eubulides <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 9, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Robert Naiman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Perhaps, but I fear that the cure is worse than the disease. It's a > horrible thing that women are incarcerated in the United States for > prostitution. One can acknowledge this without being pro-prostitution, just > as one can acknowledge that it's horrible that people are incarcerated in > the United States for minor marijuana crimes without being pro-marijuana. > The bar for using incarceration as a means of punishing and deterring > non-violent behavior which is judged to be anti-social should be much > higher in the United States than it is. This is much more important than > whether some academics have gotten carried away with irrational exuberance > about "sex work." > > > > ======== > > It seems clear that there is *no* agreement in the US as to who is capable > of judging just what is constitutive of non-violent, anti-social behavior. > Do you really think Richard Posner and Martha Minow are *more* qualified > than you or other list participants to make a decision re sex and weed? > After all their brains are just like yours. > > E. > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] (202) 448-2898, extension 1.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
