Mastodawn

Jun 20

@phil_stevens , plus all imprisoned should have to work for their own upkeep, otherwise it's again the common people that are financially punished for their crimes.

Jun 20

@Antigrav No, because that serves to rationalise slavery for thousands of people who are incarcerated in a a racist system. The prison slave economy in the US is big $$.

I think taking their assets will do the trick. The state can splash out for three hots and a cot.

Jun 21

@phil_stevens , nzd 201.480 per prisoner each year.
For 2026 this will cost the country around nzd 2.276.724.000.

Jun 21

@Antigrav The very best argument for sharply reducing incarceration rates, right there.

Jun 21

@phil_stevens , agreed, though after transgressions have occurred, serious enough to warrant removal from society, it shouldn't be rewarded (for free) with something a lot in society can't afford anymore - a roof over your head, three meals, opportunities to learn a profession or study, etc, often paid for, at least in part, by those you harmed.

@Antigrav Framing public expenditures as something we "can't afford" is exactly what the neoliberal project of the last half century wants us to do.

I certainly accept that some people need to be removed from general circulation among society, and that some of those are unlikely or impossible to be rehabilitated. So if we want to do this right, we accept that there is a cost to be borne and that's mostly just an operating expense, like maintaining roads and pipes and paying for things like public servants and conservation budgets.

But we also need to take a critical look at our "justice" system and admit that it is overwhelmingly a tool of colonial statecraft to subjugate the colonised, and to enforce the extraction of private wealth from what used to be the commons. So maybe we need to claw back those ill-gotten gains as well, and for those who insist on using the flawed accounting of the austerity freaks we can say this is how we pay for the things a country needs.

Matt Willis Jun 22

@phil_stevens

2 thoughts here:

1) "serious enough to warrant removal from society," is the question isn't it? Where do we draw that line? My view is that bar is way too high right now, and applied way too unfairly to use as a standard.

2) " it shouldn't be rewarded (for free) with something a lot in society can't afford anymore" I'd argue the problem isn't the former thing, but the latter one. Also, fix the latter one and you'll greatly reduce the need for the former.

@phil_stevens @Antigrav on the same topic as your first point, this seems to provide the antidote, and a different narrative... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLAJEeGGwaU Reckon we need a few more people in Aotearoa to get familiar with it so it can become part of the political discourse. #MMT #ModernMonetaryTheory
h/t to @RichardJMurphy 😉

The MMT Source Book: the economics they never taught you

YouTube

Jun 22

@lightweight @Antigrav @RichardJMurphy I've just about given up after well over a decade of trying to promote this brand of sanity. It seems that everyone is happy to tie an anchor around public sector finance and throw it into the depths because "balance the budget" SMFH.

Dave Lane

🇳🇿Jun 22

@phil_stevens @Antigrav @RichardJMurphy you might just've been a bit ahead of your time... A pathfinder!🤞🏻

Jun 22

@phil_stevens , I totally agree with most of that, though 2+ billion dollars is hardly chump change -
as for justice -
if someone ruins/ends the life of one of your family members and you're told to house, feed, educate that person for free (even though their other freedoms might be restricted) -
do you call that justice?

Jun 23

@Antigrav Framing. We don't talk about public sector spending or tax in the right ways, and that leads to the idea that we're paying for stuff we don't support. Victims are most assuredly not being billed directly to house and feed those who took everything from them. That bill lands with the state and thinking about it the wrong way just fuels grievance.

But there's also the whole sociological theory of incarceration that has to be assessed. If you truly believe in restorative justice, or the potential for rehabilitation, let alone a secure means of ensuring that the worst of the worst never again get the opportunity to prey on innocents, then you need to provide the environment where that can take place, and that is basic infrastructure - one of the functions of civil society.