ᴅᴇᴀɴ (ЯF) ғɪʟᴇs @[email protected]

#114 is up!
JStark; Emerson hates Pooh; The UN abandons Yemen; Whistleblowers are jailed; S.B.8 update; Schools and School Cops cross boundaries; Where have all the pilots gone? All that, and more, on this episode!

https://airad.io/dean-o-files/114-getting-the-cops-involved

The proper response to crime is to wring the perpetrator until the victim is made as whole as possible.

Incidentally, if you can't point to a victim to make whole, there was probably no crime in the first place.

For me, anticarceralism is about doing right by the victims, rather than further burdening them with the care and lodging of their perpetrators. About making them whole, rather than feeding the state's endless appetite for fines and retribution. Ultimately, it's about justice.

In my view, the proper reaction to crime isn't punishment. Convicts are not children. They don't respond to spankings, and there's a reason we call prison "con college."

The fact that you throw someone in a cage does absolutely nothing for their victim, who is now paying the perpetrator's living expenses while they, themselves, attempt to recover from whatever crime was committed.

All it does is place compensation further from their reach.

For me, anticarceralism isn't about prisons sucking. Murderers and rapists can rot, for all I care (and I don't believe in victimless crimes, so my feelings with regard to those convicts extend beyond anticarceralism).

In fact, restorative law is so important that, despite the fact that just about every wrong which can be committed by one person against another has been criminalized, access to the civil system for remuneration has been maintained.
Why?

Because justice is making the victim whole, or as close to whole as is possible.

Retribution and rehabilitation are distractions from what, in my opinion, should be the aim of any functional system of justice: doing what can be done to repair the damage.

Retributive, carceral legal systems cannot serve the victim. It is antithetical to their construction. (Regardless of all the bluster from the zealous, "victim's advocate" prosecutors.)

And to do this while disguised as a rehabilitative legal system only adds deceit to injury. But don't mistake me, rehabilitative systems are generally failures, too, and for some of the same reasons.

You know what doesn't suffer this damning internal inconsistency? Reparative legal systems don't.

In a retributive, carceral legal system, the perpetrator is (ideally) housed and fed with his medical needs attended to, all on the taxpayer's dime.

If you believe his debt is to "society," how does this pay society back?

If you believe his debt is to his victim, how does this help them?

In both instances, they are fleeced in the interest of the perpetrators' wellbeing. And if his victim can extract a judgment against him, he can't pay it! He's caged, and at the victim's expense!

Turns out, no. Most people are just super opposed to being murderers, for a variety of reasons. And, as it happens, the deterrent effect of law is really, really low on that list of reasons people don't just up and kill each other all the time.

Hobbes was wrong, and he didn't suddenly become right any time in the last four and a half centuries.

But the ultimate flaw, in my opinion, of retributive legal frameworks is that they burden victims.

But the deterrent effect of law is unproven conjecture. Those of us who wouldn't commit any great crime think the deterrent effect must exist, because it makes sense that it would, right? I mean, we don't murder because we're just good people, but most people aren't good people. So it stands to reason that the deterrent effect must exist. Because, if it didn't, people would be murdering each other all over the place!

The self-defeating, failed nature of the criminal legal system ultimately comes down to one simple flaw:

Bad legal orientation.

The criminal legal system, while it claims to be a rehabilitative system, is not one. It is a retributive system which aims to punish, not to rehabilitate.
Retributive legal frameworks are ultimately reduced to justifying their existence by pointing to their "deterrent effect."

When man serves his community, he does so out of care for the community and the value it brings him, and he considers the constant calculation of social reciprocity.
These considerations are rooted in the individual and harmonize with his natural motives.
When man is motivated to serve his community at the barrel of a gun, this balance is destroyed. The community no longer exists to serve his social needs, and does not care to.
Thus, the community is worthless to him, and should not exist.

The unrivaled primacy of the individual is not a rejection of community. Man is a social animal, community is necessary for man to thrive.
The primacy of the individual simply requires that the individual is not subservient to the community.
Man will, of course, serve his community (its part of his nature and its in his interest to do so), but his station must never be confused for that of a servant to the community. The community exists to meet the individual's social needs.

"Do you want to build a server,
Out of old Optiplex machines?
Just print a front drive bay converter,
'Cause no one uses DVDs."

Me RN

"Do you want to build a server,
Out of old Optiplex machines?
Just grab that 8 year old i7,
and some mismatched DDR3."

Yo, go donate a bit at https://chillderburg.com
They gotta break even, they ain't making their nut off this.
If you like #Chillderburg, support it!

Lots of suspensions on Birdsite today.
If you're on this list, get the word out on your alts and your fedi accounts.
https://twitter.com/EatBannedSteak/status/1535342755819429894?s=20&t=mfJHqYTGnlpcx_WQPCenMg

This means that, for the purposes of the amended 922(p)(2)(A), a frame is not a firearm, but it is a "major component" for the purposes of 922(p)(1)(A), which makes it illegal to possess... I guess?

"the term “firearm” does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;"

Which means they want the frame exception gone, right? Well, it turns out that "a firearm, as defined in section 921(a)(3)(A)," is "any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."

So... Not a frame... How do I know its not a frame? because 921(a)(3)(B) specifically defines a frame as a firearm.