So what, specifically, should we be doing? In alameda county (ca), the long term, terrible sheriff was just defeated, largely because of jail deaths, lawsuits, activism highlighting the issues undermined general support. Work for sheriff oversight and transparency? Or is that just giving people an out to a more substantive discussion about abolition?
I have some familiarity with the issues there. Honestly, I think people should probably do both. Plainly, lives should be saved (I wrote a post about this before https://sheriffs.substack.com/p/surviving-versus-thriving) because people should not suffer and die. I find it hard to make an argument otherwise. But I also think there needs to be some kind of grasp of the overall goal. I don't mean to insult people who work hard to election better sheriffs because I know they do it to save lives. The system has a way of working very hard to negate gains. I guess I don't always know myself? I am just not clear any jailer can be truly "progressive" as a political figure (not, like, as a person, because I think a lot of people believe they are). Does that make sense?
I guess I want to be clear that a value for preserving life should be foremost in people's minds even as they strive to other goals. I would not think people should adhere to some strict interpretation that leads to misery. But you are really getting to the hardest question.
Given that "reform" candidates often just turn into the same figurehead of oppression that they originally opposed...
Given that the few who win on that line and stick to it once they're in power get effectively boxed in by the other elements of the justice system...
Given that elections are really the only lever available to the public for controlling the Sheriff's office...
Somebody really should run a campaign that boils down to "vote for me and I will effectively shutter this department."
You can continue to pay the deputies their salaries until the county votes to stop those funds. Just don't give them anything to do, or any equipment to use. Don't require them to report for duty. Just close down operations, draw a paycheck while doing fuck all for your entire term, and report back for re-election when that term ends.
Such a candidate would never win. Too many people who like the abstract idea of reform but are scared of the measures successful reform would actually take. But as this article makes clear, it's a better play than hoping for some kind of half-measure reform to yield results.
Good thoughts. As far as the "average citizen" goes i believe we would rather take our chances with the most "shoot first, ask questions later" type of Wild West Sheriff than with a "progressive" Woke sheriff.
Your understanding of politics should include the knowledge that consent is manufactured and we can strive for better futures without some hypothetical "average american" which is a term that makes no sense. You cant average togethers ppls beliefs and backgrounds.
Yes, agree somewhat. But unfortunately or fortunately we have, as did our founding ancestors, the "average" citizen - yes hypothetical. These ancestors worked hard to manufacture consent and got it - in the face of the alternative - which was rule by European royalty. Thomas Paine played a major role in the manufacturing of consent, using Common Sense that got through to the wisdom of the "average" citizen. Averaging together ppls beliefs and backgrounds is exactly what it is about. Unless the "average" person holds that self interest and the interest of us all are diametrically opposed which they are not. The alternative to not honoring the wisdom of the average citizen is totalitarianism. Believing other people are dumb but we are not is preposterous.
So what, specifically, should we be doing? In alameda county (ca), the long term, terrible sheriff was just defeated, largely because of jail deaths, lawsuits, activism highlighting the issues undermined general support. Work for sheriff oversight and transparency? Or is that just giving people an out to a more substantive discussion about abolition?
I have some familiarity with the issues there. Honestly, I think people should probably do both. Plainly, lives should be saved (I wrote a post about this before https://sheriffs.substack.com/p/surviving-versus-thriving) because people should not suffer and die. I find it hard to make an argument otherwise. But I also think there needs to be some kind of grasp of the overall goal. I don't mean to insult people who work hard to election better sheriffs because I know they do it to save lives. The system has a way of working very hard to negate gains. I guess I don't always know myself? I am just not clear any jailer can be truly "progressive" as a political figure (not, like, as a person, because I think a lot of people believe they are). Does that make sense?
I guess I want to be clear that a value for preserving life should be foremost in people's minds even as they strive to other goals. I would not think people should adhere to some strict interpretation that leads to misery. But you are really getting to the hardest question.
Given that "reform" candidates often just turn into the same figurehead of oppression that they originally opposed...
Given that the few who win on that line and stick to it once they're in power get effectively boxed in by the other elements of the justice system...
Given that elections are really the only lever available to the public for controlling the Sheriff's office...
Somebody really should run a campaign that boils down to "vote for me and I will effectively shutter this department."
You can continue to pay the deputies their salaries until the county votes to stop those funds. Just don't give them anything to do, or any equipment to use. Don't require them to report for duty. Just close down operations, draw a paycheck while doing fuck all for your entire term, and report back for re-election when that term ends.
Such a candidate would never win. Too many people who like the abstract idea of reform but are scared of the measures successful reform would actually take. But as this article makes clear, it's a better play than hoping for some kind of half-measure reform to yield results.
Good thoughts. As far as the "average citizen" goes i believe we would rather take our chances with the most "shoot first, ask questions later" type of Wild West Sheriff than with a "progressive" Woke sheriff.
Your understanding of politics should include the knowledge that consent is manufactured and we can strive for better futures without some hypothetical "average american" which is a term that makes no sense. You cant average togethers ppls beliefs and backgrounds.
Yes, agree somewhat. But unfortunately or fortunately we have, as did our founding ancestors, the "average" citizen - yes hypothetical. These ancestors worked hard to manufacture consent and got it - in the face of the alternative - which was rule by European royalty. Thomas Paine played a major role in the manufacturing of consent, using Common Sense that got through to the wisdom of the "average" citizen. Averaging together ppls beliefs and backgrounds is exactly what it is about. Unless the "average" person holds that self interest and the interest of us all are diametrically opposed which they are not. The alternative to not honoring the wisdom of the average citizen is totalitarianism. Believing other people are dumb but we are not is preposterous.
Two americas