thank you for the article. I feel like the author, and the people who passed that legislation, conflate forgiveness with leniency. you can forgive someone and still want them to atone for their crimes and receive a sentence that’s commensurate with the harm they did to others. considering that Clayton showed no remorse (even lying under oath) and that his attack was obviously with the intent of the authors death, I feel like the initial sentence was totally appropriate. even without the bill, he would be released in his 40s and still have an opportunity to make something useful of himself
Im failing to see how "you can forgive someone and still want them [to] receive a sentence that’s commensurate with the harm they did to others." You can forgive someone and still want rehabilitation, but forgiveness somewhat implies not seeking punition.
As an aside, it sounds like the author wants Clayton to be trusted not to attempt to kill anyone else, but doesn't feel safe that he could be released without proof of that rehabilitation. I personally think in some way she has already forgiven him, but has an absolutely correct desire of not wanting someone who took no responsibility for raping and leaving her for dead to walk the same street as her.
I dont think forgiveness means you feel okay existing with someone, I think it means you dont need them to suffer.
I think we have a similar perspective on this, I might have just phrased it differently in my comment. i’m coming from it with my perspective as a Catholic; God is infinitely forgiving of our sins, but to receive that forgiveness we have to admit the sin and seek God’s redemption. it’s not a one way street, God doesn’t forgive every criminal, liar, or abuser just because he loves and wants the best for humanity. in the same way the author shouldn’t be expected to ‘forgive’ Clayton unless she knows it’s the only way she can make peace with her ordeal, as he hasn’t shown he has any intention of admitting and apologizing for what he put this woman through.
This is probably not possible for a lot of reasons, but I think that it would be for the best if, as a general rule, teenage boys with a history of behavioral problems weren’t put in foster homes in which the sole foster parent is a single woman. Teenage boys rarely feel physically intimidated by adult women the way they feel intimidated by adult men; they’re aware that, if they behave violently, men are far more likely to have the physical power to stop them than women are.
I think this should at least be a consideration! They consider gender in other ways - like sometimes they prefer single women for girls who were abused by men, thinking that the girls will be more comfortable this way.
Troubled teenage boys could also really benefit from having daily interaction with a male role model – someone who works hard (in whatever way), cares about his family, obeys the law, and is a steady presence in the home. Women can do a lot to raise boys into men, but unfortunately, they can’t personally model a healthy way to be a man.
When I was in my mid-twenties and probably the most physically fit I’ve ever been, my parents and my now-husband helped me move out of an apartment. At the time, my dad was sixty years old, significantly overweight, and got very little exercise because he worked long hours at a desk job. He was still much better at moving furniture than I was. I would struggle to get one end of a couch a few inches off the ground, and he’d lift the whole end right up like it was an air mattress.
The sexual assault component is not given enough attention. Obviously attempted murder resulting in life long brain injury is horrendous. But she was also sexually assaulted. Possibly even raped. That absolutely contributes to her trauma.
The author told the story the way she wanted to. What I took away was that she was absolutely stunned and grapples to this day to understand what happened that night
Yes I understand that. I should have worded my comment better. I didn't intend to criticize the author. I think as others have said that it my be too painful for her to discuss that aspect. I just wanted to draw attention to it. Because I think it has a lot to do with why she considers "Clayton" a bad candidate for early release. She was also uniquely vulnerable as a single woman living alone. A violent male 17 year old should not have been placed with a single person especially not a woman.
It’s also unfair to expect someone to forgive when the perpetrator has not repented, or tried to make things right. With a crime as heinous as this one, I don’t think forgiveness is possible anyways. But the only person who gets to decide that is the victim / author.
I work for a non profit that does services for justice involved people. The rhetoric we surround ourselves with is about second chances, don't be defined by your worst moment, building community not prisons. We also advocate for decarceration and alternatives to jail, with the understanding that incarceration is traumatizing and leads to worse crime outcomes in the long run.
We also have to be super aware of our client base and what they're capable of. The women on our staff get harassed constantly. People will beg for housing placements then not show up once they get an assignment. A judge will assign them to pre trial supervision rather than being held on bail, then they'll reoffend and get new charges literally within a day. They will lie to your face about basic facts you can check on their profile in a single click. I can say quite plainly some of these people don't belong in the general population because they're not capable of making moral choices, and our efforts to keep them out of prison are not a societal benefit.
The prison industrial complex and the trappings of criminality make this work very complicated. Our local jail is one huge human rights violation after another. Your sense of personhood is just dissolved after months of waiting in jail for trial - to say nothing of lengthy prison sentences. Still, I think incarceration is the uncomfortable best solution for some people who just cannot stabilize.
How do you feel about those people who don’t seem capable of making moral choices? I agree that our justice system and prison system right now is horrendous but people do know that especially if they’re repeat offenders and if your organization is working with them, they’ve gotten a lot of support.
I guess the assumption in the space is always that it’s good people in bad situations but some people don’t seem to fit that.
Also, I’d be curious if you are a theory behind the people who don’t come to housing placements, leave on bail etc. At the very least it seems like some portion of the affected population doesn’t want your services (although many more of course appreciate them). Can you ever cut off a client?
"Good people in bad situations" - most of us working in this field understand that it's not exactly good people in bad situations, even a more optimistic view might describe it as people continuously placed in triggering situations that keep them from self-improving. Even in perfect conditions, someone just might have really poor emotional regulation keeping them from maintaining a job or relationships. We might tell the story of "good people in bad situations" to stoke public sympathy... but there IS value to providing opportunities for people who are really just selfish assholes but wouldn't commit crime if they could just get it together.
For the people who skip on housing services, skip bail etc, there's a variety of reasons - but our direct staff say they're "just not ready" for intervention. Haven't hit rock bottom or are comfortable there, or aren't ready to take accountability. Others don't have a phone and aren't realistically stable enough to make appointments for things like court dates, so we have to keep track of where they're staying and drive them to their appointments if we expect them to make it.
Can we ever cut off a client? Definitely, clients who get violent or threatening are typically banned from all our services. There are a handful of similar providers in our area and so these people can usually get diverted to some other provider.
Reading the headline I thought this might be about lashing out in a fit of anger. Not this. This was absolutely sadistic, and for no reason. He came back and specifically fixed someone to hurt.
Actions should still have consequences. Generally I don’t think the victims/ their families are the most reliable people to ask because it’s an emotional situation understandably, but “forgiveness” doesn’t make the harm done to her disappear.
Like that other article some weeks back with the murderer and his foster family, the foster family is being punished for their kindness. “forgiveness” or “they’ve been through a lot” is for lies, anger (to an extent), petty theft, other things kids do - as she agreed! Not for this type of attack
The people she knew who supported that bill but never replied to her weren’t interested in a discussion, just their agenda. Even if you believe in the bill a conversation, especially with someone you actually know, should still be doable.
Yeah, this is crazy. First of all, that the system would place a 17 year-old almost-a-man in the house of a single woman. He rapes her leaves her for dead and she’s supposed to forgive him? Why? Why should she forgive someone that sadistic?
Goodness, that was a rough read. Thanks for posting.
I have read similar scenarios about violent foster kids who just can't be "fixed" the way well-intentioned people want them to be. Everyone knows these kids have had nightmarish lives and have more than likely been exposed to abuse, neglect, and other horrors that shaped their morals and actions. We all want to believe that every single one of these kids can unlearn that behavior if they're loved enough, but what happens when they just don't? What happens when they just become equally-violent adults who prey on innocent people? I don't have the answers for any of it.
I do think there is a distinction between having compassion for someone and forgiving them, and I think the author illustrates that distinction as well as she could have. I don't blame her one bit for wanting this guy to remain locked up for as long as possible; it is a matter of self-preservation for her.
Whenever judicial elections come up and some prosecutor is running for the position on a tough on crime platform, I have to laugh because the toughest judges I know were former public defenders. They are the ones who have seen what their clients are capable of and who they are when the mask comes off in the zone of confidentiality.
This is what I believe. Not everyone is redeemable. I know two families that took in foster kids as teenagers and they wreaked absolute havoc upon their lives. They both regret it.
I don’t have answers. But it does seem that when children are exposed to horrible violence and neglect as very young children, they often just don’t came back from it. And then when they grow up and commit crimes, they are inflicting so much trauma on others.
Expecting families to “save” these children is an impossible task.
Speaking as a leftist...the part where the do-gooders either ignore or chastise the victim is so relatable that I wanted to throw something at my screen lmao
Well, I do think that prison abolition and societal separation are ideas that can coexist; I don't think the American prison system as is currently is should exist at all due to its replication of abuse and perpetuation of state violence. I simultaneously believe that someone like Clayton should not be released, especially not after the shortened 5 year sentence. Additionally, the author's situation is taking place in modern America where we do have private prisons and a justice system that routinely fails survivors of violence, especially sexual violence which is also implied to have taken place. This story is not reflective of a world in which prison abolitionist ideas are being considered to determine what justice and rehabilitation can look like.
I think these kinds of articles provide us with great case studies to discuss what a more humane form of justice would look like for victims of abuse, for both the author, who has clearly suffered at not just the hands of Clayton, but also at a justice system that refuses to acknowledge her pain. Even her own colleagues are dismissive of her suffering! I also wonder what Clayton's upbringing looked like before this: while obviously, he is a danger to others and should not be allowed to continue in this manner, I wonder how the abuses of the foster care system and his previous caretakers led him here and how the system may have perpetuated this outcome.
I feel for the author a lot here - I do not believe that she has to forgive Clayton by any means and I do wonder if part of her feeling of "wanting to forgive" is based in her own apprehension toward the cruelty of these systems. I wish her healing and peace and I hope she is able to find a way forward.
I agree, the current system serves little benefit.
We need more intervention, diversion, treatment so we don't have to send people to prison.
And then we can make prisons more humane and more rehabilitative.
But honestly, in order to do that we are going to need a different society because a lot of people see prison as punishment when the actual punishment is just the loss of freedom and being unable to get Thai food at 2 in the afternoon whenever they want. Everything else is just cruelty disguised as justice.
yeah, you nailed it - we are currently living in a world where there is NOT an ample and well-funded system for addressing crime from restorative justice and abolitionist principles. all we have is "let them suffer the current brutal system of incarceration, or let them go" - and just letting criminals go free without any intervention whatsoever is not at all what prison abolition is meant to be, and obviously does nothing to address the problem. in an ideal world, all the funding that goes to punitive prisons and justice systems would be re-targeted to things like early interventions for the few individuals likely to commit crimes, providing economic opportunities and exposure to those without it, restorative justice, and so on. it wouldn't just be "let criminals go free" like so many people seem to conceive of it.
I feel horrible for the author and I also think this piece really touches on how the best justice would’ve been for our systems of societal violence and state violence to not be a perpetual cycle. Even if Clayton is imprisoned for the rest of his life in our violent carceral system, what true justice is there for the author who has lifelong injuries from this? What does justice look like for her and for a society that revels in all forms of systemic violence against women and other marginalized groups?
I often find that I never quite feel like I can describe myself as an abolitionist because I do believe we’ll need some form of policing and prison in the future. However, the more I find out about how policing and prisons actually work in this country, the more convinced I become that the only way to fix them is to completely destroy the current institutions and rebuild them from scratch. I can’t say I know how to do that, but what we have right now is rotten to the root.
>does justice look like for her and for a society
This is far out of the scope of this article, but I'm very wary of anyone who looks at a specific event and decides the best way to address it is to declare we need a revolution. Because what is most likely to happen is that there won't be a revolution *and* there will be no more limited reforms that would address the specific event that just occured.
If I am killed by a distracted driver at a dangerous intersection, it's appropriate to use my death to force safe conditions at the intersection (e.g., through speed bumps and narrower roads). But if someone looks at my death and starts talking about how we need to stop people from feeling the need to speed, I swear that I will come back and haunt you.
Yeah, I tend to agree. We should send less people to prison and make prisons more humane, but some people just need to be removed from free society. Some people are just bad eggs and they can't or won't change.
It sounds counterintuitive, but for some people, their compassion can actually negatively impact their ability to empathise in certain ways. That sounds like a contradiction, but it isn’t when you remember that empathy is the ability to not necessarily share but at least understand the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of another person. For some people, they believe so much in the potential of human goodness that they literally can not conceptualise someone who is irredeemably bad, that can never get better and might not even want to. Their empathy isn’t limited by their caring, but by their imagination. They can’t or don’t want to accept that there are people in the world that can’t be made better, and that there are some things that can never be fixed.
The idea of abolishing either prisons or police is completely inane and conveys a fundamental rejection of reality.
All that said, by no means am I saying that the writer in this article was in any way responsible for what happened to her. What was done to her was absolutely monstrous, and she was just trying to be kind. I feel so bad for her.
It reminds me of my grandma. Too kind for their own good. She lived alone and would invite homeless people to live with her, come work for her right off the street. And not just economically displaced homeless people, I'm talking about people talking to Jupiter homeless people. Nothing serious happened, but it was a constant roll the dice. She told me that when she grew up in the depression, people would come by their homestead for work or food/shelter for work and her father would give them a day's work in exchange for sleeping in the stable and a hot meal. And it was like okay, but that's not the world we live in anymore.
She never got it. Some people are just too... whatever for their own good.
I mean, it's kind of a nice world in a way. Imagine having a hard time and you just wander to a stranger's house and you're fed and given shelter in exchange for work. And everything works out for everyone involved. That's a nice world.
We just don't live that really anymore. Now you'll get shot if you go up to someone's house lol.
I really like both of your comments on this sub thread, especially the idea that too much compassion can be an impediment to empathy in some people. I have noticed this as well.
I also felt terrible for the author. It is so awful that someone who tried to live their values and open their heart to other people was repaid with such cruelty.
What you describes sounds so similar to what I have encountered when discussing abuse prevention. I live in a very priveliged country, most people see the world and others as fundamentally just and good, and they just cannot quite comprehend that children are abused, particularly by their parents. It's not that they deny it happens, but there's definitely a belief that it happens somewhere far away, committed by people who are clearly and obviously bad.
The rejection of prisons or police does not mean that there would cease to be a justice system or societal separation of individuals that cause harm to others. Prison and police abolition are rooted in the idea that the current system of policing and consequence is harmful to citizens and cannot be reformed and that we should find a new way to protect citizens and pursue justice. This is a story about a woman who was harmed by our current system and is being retraumized by our current prison system wanting to free her assaulter. I do not think that believing that there is a better way of enacting justice is a "rejection of reality."
What you are arguing for, when you actually describe it, is not abolishment of policing or prisons, but reformation of them. You don’t want to use the labels of “prisons” or “police” for semantics reasons, fine, but nothing you are saying here is talking about just getting rid of the role they are supposed to serve in society. If you are saying they aren’t serving us as well as they could be, I’d agree. But saying you want to get rid of police or prisons isn’t helpful because you will, understandably, never get widespread support. Even if what you actually want to do is much more nuanced and possibly helpful.
When people say “defund the police” and “abolish prisons,” they should be expected to be taken at their word. If what you mean is “reduce the things police are used for by increasing mental health services and community outreach” and “adjust our prison system but still keep dangerous individuals from going outside”, then you should be using those words.
My church has gone all-in on prison abolition right now - which is a reason I’ve stepped away from it - and the pastor does not mean “find a way for dangerous offenders like Clayton to still not be allowed outside.” She doesn’t think such people exist, or, that if they do, that they matter to the world at hand.
The right wing example might be people who say that all abortions should be banned and then say that getting rid of something like an ectopic pregnancy isn’t really an abortion because it’s not compatible with life.
Defund the police means shifting funding from police to other services. So yes, it means increasing mental health services, but it also acknowledges that civic budgets don't have money for other services because the police budgets are too high. Compare the way cities treat police to the public library. Every dollar spent on the library must be accounted for, while police buy military equipment for fun and constantly abuse overtime pay, and that's before we consider things like payouts to victims of police abuse.
I know what people mean when they say it, but if you mean “use less policing” you need a slogan that reflects that. Especially since there are a ton of people who do mean “eliminate the police” when they say that.
But either way, if you are keeping someone in a place apart from the general public because they have committed a crime, you are not abolishing prison.
The people who want to abolish police say abolish police, just as most people say 'abolish ICE', not 'defund ICE'. Defund means spend that budget elsewhere.
At absolutely no point is that ever discussed, hinted at, positioned as a point being made… NO argument whatsoever for what you’re projecting onto it. Never, ever does the author make any point other than her own personal, human capacity for forgiveness.
Not any mention about the political or moral way forward, nothing about her attackers rehabilitation, not his parole. Truly nothing but her own feelings and experience.
For that to be your takeaway is deeply unserious and borderline illiterate
Unfortunately, as the article details, there are people like Clayton who commit violent crimes so monstrous that they should be in prison, as flawed as the institution is. Which is irreconcilable with prison abolitionism. Sorry for the inconvenience.
It clearly bothers you that I read the article, thought about the issues that it brought up, came to MY OWN conclusion about it, and posted one sentence about it on the internet, so much so that you felt the need to call my takeaway unserious and borderline illiterate.
This is exactly the kind of condescension that I’ve come to expect from the upper middle class left, so I’m not surprised to see it here.
Your response is just wishful thinking.
That the article would shy away from the fact that the author’s value system and beliefs about forgiveness and the question of whether people like Clayton should go to prison are forever changed because of what happened to her.
That the reader, after years of lectures by people like you about prison abolitionism, would come to the conclusion that this ideology is irreconcilable with the fact that some violent crimes like the one in the piece are unforgivable and their perpetrator should go to prison like the author wants.
And finally, that your circa 2017 knee jerk idealism is applicable to the much crueler and more predatory world that we’re all living in now. Even to someone like me who despises conservatism, wants way more from the Democratic Party, and has no illusions about the failings of the prison system, your grandstanding is about as relevant as Lizzo.
As a lifetime non-christian abolitionist, I will say that prison abolition is not necessarily against the death penalty, nor against forcible incarceration, if it is part of actual rehabilitation (both of which would qualify for in this case, in my opinion). Rather it is against punition.
That’s an interesting insight, I did not know that. I am not against people being punished for violent crimes.
But I think it is way more important that people who prey on others be separated from society through incarceration or the death penalty (in extreme cases). So there may be more common ground here than I thought.
i could send you countless links to people who went to prison, jail, et al under the current system and continued to commit crimes - do these prove why prison would never work?
i think people misconstrue prison abolitionism as some panacea that would fix everything - it obviously wouldn't, just like the current system obviously doesn't. the difference is that it would be focused on prevention of crimes rather than punishing crimes after they occur, which i think is a more worthy goal.
The problem with your argument is that punishing people who commit violent crimes, especially ones that are as cruel and merciless as the one discussed in this article, is important and prison abolitionists do not have a good alternative.
"punishing" those people is not necessary, though. perhaps certain individuals may need to be removed from society in some manner, sure, but that need not be done as a punishing type of institution such as a prison, where the whole goal is depriving people of freedom rather than simply making others safe. there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to see family and friends in a safe way, have access to food, media, etc. - none of that does anything to help and is just for cruelty sake (and the punishing aspects of prisons essentially just reinforce and re-establish violence and cruelty as valid when they are released). this would also work as a deterrent because some aspects of this would be unwanted but necessary to ensure safety - it's just that the point wouldn't be cruelty.
ideally, of course, the emphasis would be on prevention, so targeting individuals in bad home situations, with personality disorders, etc., for help while they are young, and just a general focus.
i realize there may be other ideas concerning what prison abolition is, but in my mind the idea of a prison is fundamentally a punitive one, even if it pretends to be rehabilitative - so much of what goes on is clearly just meant to deprive people of things for no other reason than to punish, and that aspect is totally unneccessary and part of the problem imho
Glossing over the fact that people like Clayton should be there anyway and you have nothing to replace it with but a bunch of platitudes about restorative justice doesn’t help your cause.
Lmfao where in the story did it say anything about prison abolishment? She expresses not believing in rehabilitation for people like him, which is fair and real because most offenders simply dont deserve it, let alone are entitled to it.
She mentions this in relation to her offender and the rehabilitation for his case not in totality, the US penal system offers 0 rehabilitation to begin with so its not like this fucked up kid wouldve been offered any, he wouldve came out a better offender - ironically. Her dropping her beliefs after she was assaulted is quite frankly, expected nor at any fault of her own. But i did not pick up a full "anti-defund/abolish prisons" sentiment, my takeaway was she was at odds with what she use to believe in after her assault, she tried to rationalize it with the pro abolish/defund prisons" discourse but she can't because of said trauma, which is fair.
I honestly think its disingenuous asf to use this piece as a push for the "anti-defund/abolish prison" narratives because it just uses her story and other people's stories as a way to cut out the nuance thats necessary when having these conversations and also looking at how to reform or create a new system that does honor preventative outreach, better social support (he shouldnt have ever been placed with her, the social workers were stupid to approve the fostering of this kid under someone who works amongst said populations its almost always a recipe for disaster and abuse due to the nature of her previous line of work, a complete overstepping of boundaries for one) and actual rehabilitation policies that center for certain offenses - obviously this wouldnt be one of them
Of course you think it’s disingenuous, it’s a direct challenge to your worldview. You want to live in a world where things like this don’t happen and the prison system doesn’t exist in its current form. A lot of us do. The problem is that these 2 things are largely irreconcilable.
So you dish up a bunch of platitudes about the importance of outreach and social support, you Monday morning quarterback the social workers involved, and you issue vague calls for a better way of doing things.
Among other things, I think this piece is illustrative of the failures of the prison abolition movement to specifically address what to do about people like Clayton.
Dancing around inconvenient and difficult questions for ideological reasons is a tactic that I no longer have any patience for. I’m not going to view this piece from the box you want to put it in and the fact that you’re trying to get me to do so speaks for itself.
Edit: switched out a word for a phrase that fits better about a minute after posting.
Thats your takeaway from my comment so be it. I never once said I think these people, like Clayton, need rehabilitation. I said just because there are people who dont deserve it doesnt mean the privatization of our prison should still stand or be tolerated because its "all we have" lol like the vast majority of people in US prisons and jails are innocent, look it up its a real statistic and its extremely concerning. Even in the countries I mentioned who focus on the rehabilitation aspect vs the retribution aspect, also opt to just keep violent offenders locked up for life depending on the severity of their offenses
You cant handle the nuance necessary for these conversations and thats not my problem you cant see multiple things at once. You didnt even acknowledge anything else in my comment but the "disingenuous" part ike please be forreal lol
Like no one is questioning why we have a bill that allows extremely violent offenders out for serving half their time. Your takeaway is "evil people dont need rehabilitation" but you and others arent mad at the fact that we have a innate rape culture that gives absuers more leeway than the victims. Why are politicians/lawmakers okay with giving leniency towards rapist and violent abusers under bills like that? There's always some vague wording and loophole they purposely leave in place which allows for exploitation. I mean we have a serial child rapist who's the sittin president so I guess that answers that one...
Instead you guys are like "see this is why defund or abolish the police/prisons is stupid" lmaooo like what meanwhile most people dont even know what the official talking points are for that stance is and you guys all sound like those people who truly dont understand the broader implications behind said slogan, just take it at face value and ignore any nuance procided by the other side but albeit im not responsible nor obligated to change any minds nor was i attempting to persuade you to beging with, just sharing my views on it lol
im not going to enagge with you any further because everything is black and white for you, so take care and have a nice day!
The vast majority of people in prisons are NOT innocent. Most sources estimate the number at between 1-5%, with the higher estimates coming it at around 10%. You’re so off here that it undermines your position in general.
Of course I think it’s a huge problem that Clayton is only going to serve half of his time, that’s why I have such an issue with the far left ducking the question of what to do about violent criminals who commit unconscionable crimes.
You don’t know anything about what I think about rape culture, so I’m not sure why you brought that up.
The slogans are stupid because they’re not nuanced. If the goal of the slogans is to get people who aren’t already true believers to think about criminal justice in a nuanced way, well, they do the opposite and they’re not working. And in general I’m tired of all the wishful thinking on the left. That’s not working either.
I do think forgiveness is really besides the point when it comes to parole reform or release from prison. We should not change sentencing rules or parole rules out of forgiveness, just as we should not view punishment as the point of the justice system. What matters is an individual's current and future danger to the community. And that danger might not actually correspond with someone's original crimes. So a person who committed murder while abusing crack but has remained sober for 10 years is probably safer than a person who committed several violent but not fatal assaults and shows no sign of change.
The family of the former crack addict's murder victim need not forgive them, but that also doesn't mean they shouldn't be granted parole. I might forgive someone who did violence to me, but if they're still a risk to the public, that doesn't matter.
This is why I’m “tough on crime” even though I am very social justice oriented and spend my time trying to help disadvantaged people. Prisons and police are essential to protecting all of us, especially women. Yes these systems need massive reform, and can do more harm than good sometimes, but calls to defund and abolish them are frankly idiotic.
Defunding and abolishing the slave penal system is not at all idiotic. We cant reform something that is designed to exploit rather than rehabilitate, we barely have the latter in most US prisons
There's countries around the world who prioritize rehabilitation and also still keep the fucked up people locked up for life at the same time, its very possible to do both, stop viewing the penal system in a black and white perspective because its quite literally one of the many reasons that created the framework for our shitty system today
Have you ever heard anything about how Norway, the Swedes, and the Netherlands operate? These countries also have larger social safety nets, something we lack in America.
So reforming our prisons isnt the only step, we would have to expand our social safety nets for those who are in poverty or might fall into it, the kids background was rough he came from a DV background and other fucked up things coupled with general American poverty and the exploitative foster/adoption system - we need to address that as well as the penal system in america. And as you know one comes before the other when we hear stories of disturbed children like this, so ask yourself if we "reform" US penal system before "reforming" our shitty almost non existent social safety net then what would the outcome be? Better prisons for people we couldve helped with preventative measures that couldve stopped that from being their last "stop" in life?
Its quite literally by design to breed people like this in America, socially culturally and institutionally why do you think we have the most serial killers in the world? We are literally fucking up our children, Domestic Violence is also a similar background for school shooters, most people don't know this enough to talk about it in depth, especially the media not covering it extensively but just tossing out "thoughts and prayers" ask yourself why that is?
Scandinavian countries have prisons and police. They are not abolished in the countries you mentioned.
You are calling for abolition, but that means ending prisons and police altogether. No 911 calls when your friend gets attacked. No removal of serial killers from society. Abolition means it stops existing.
I think we all obviously agree that social programs, anti-poverty resources, intervention programs, all of that is wonderful and should be funded more. Nobody is disagreeing with any of that.
Moderators deleted your response to me but I saw in the preview that it was quite salty and I am wondering why. I am not “full of sh*t,” we have the same values and goals.
I am not calling for abolishing of all prisons I am calling for the abolishing of the US penal system, specifically privatized ones which is just basically all of them. The asked me to list countries with rehabilitation approaches, I did.
Also is it not possible to believe in multiple things at once with nuance???
Mods didnt delete my comment I did and no it wasnt salty? Please dont label my response as emotional as it was fad from that. I deleted it and made the comment above which is the same sentiment expressed from my deleted comment, there was no "saltiness" in either - lets not play the "youre too reactionary" when ironically you guys are thinking in black and white from this article
I’m not trying to be reactionary and I didn’t mean to seem that way, or to say that you’re being that way. I only saw the preview of your comment so I don’t know exactly what it contained, all I saw was that it said I was full of it for sharing my experience.
It definitely is possible to believe in multiple things at once, and to believe in nuance! But, calling for abolition of prisons (I’m unclear how that’s different from the penal system?) is a very “black and white” message that doesn’t have any nuance. Abolition means none. Changing private prisons into publicly owned ones is an example of reform, not abolition.
The reason that I care is that “prison abolition” and “police abolition” are very popular phrases used on our side, but they are unnecessarily divisive because nobody actually wants the criminal justice system to be abolished. We should all collectively stop saying those terms, it’s hurtful to the cause.
Sorry but I disagree. We certainly can reform institutions. We cannot survive without those institutions.
This reminds me of the BLM rally I went to in 2020. I live in Baltimore and the attendees of the rally were primarily older black folks from really disadvantaged neighborhoods, places where electricity is cut off for weeks. They were calling for MORE, BETTER policing in their neighborhoods, because they feel unsafe in their homes and abandoned by the police for not protecting them. Then at that rally, while a black pastor was preaching, there was a white woman similar to myself who kept yelling and interrupting him to shout “DEFUND THE POLICE” and “ABOLISH PRISONS!” And all the elder people there were shaking their heads at her, because that was not what they wanted at all. This is a community of people who were at a rally about police inflicted violence towards unarmed black people, and people who face that discrimination by police on a daily basis. But to them, the greater threat is still the crime in their community.
If I heard a majority of my black community members saying “abolish all police,” I genuinely would reconsider my own position. But I only hear my far left academic friends calling for that, and I think they are stuck in the theory, rather than living in the practice.
I am following up because I’m also confused by your stance. You are calling for abolishment of prisons. But then you say there are countries that lock people up for life — how is that possible without prisons? Is a prison not the word for a place where people are locked up for life and removed from society?
Well, transferring ownership of prisons from private to public is not abolition. That’s reform. You want reform. When you say you want abolition it means no prisons or police at all.
this is a very difficult situation, and we have to consider the realities of racial, class, and environmental disparities that the perpetrator and the survivor came from. psychiatric and developmental disorders can and do arise out of complex traumatic experiences - it is very likely this kid has been through hell before he committed this horrific crime. it is likely those violences were already too normalized, commonplace for him.
she is entirely in the right to not be able to forgive this kid and does not have a moral responsibility to. i have met folks serving life sentences who want restorative justice, but also believe some of the people they met inside should never be around others freely ever again.
i hate the prison system because it is based on a system of population control, specifically of enslaved people and rebellious workers. it is built to cage specific kinds of people who society deems as less than human animals needing to be culled, often regardless of the awful things they did or did not do - not the ones who also commit monstrous atrocities but are born with the privileges of being considered more human than those they harm (not the imperialist soldiers that torture, rape, and burn down cities and villages around the world - nor the politicians and fortune 500 figures that run in child sex trafficking circles)
i hate the prison system for not changing the conditions of violence and reaping the payouts of violence in corporations and investors and contracts bankrolled by our tax dollars
a prison system designed to profit and promote a cultural logic that upholds oppression can never be just. In this situation it was simply the only thing that could give the survivor the frail safety she needed (in knowing this kid could not touch her again for a long time).
im not against the idea of retribution. i just dont want justice it to be managed by a state that may not consider me and other people human.
it might be fucked up but i am an abolitionist that also recognizes retribution as a form of protection. before prisons, people used to met out justice and punishments and reconciliation in their own ways. sometimes this meant people had a whole community of people exile them.sometimes people beat the perpetrator up and made them too afraid to do anything like that again. sometimes women killed their abusive husbands, and it was acknowledged as rightful defense.
transformative justice to me is not about holding hands and getting over it, it is about addressing the root causes of violence. it does not disappear violence but discourages it. it would put the power of serving justice back into our hands, and how we deal with it is not some quick easy answer. we have dealt with violence (with heavy and gentle hands) for a long time before prisons and we can after too
I’m not really sure what I just read here, but violent antisocial individuals should be kept away from society. Some people are simply compelled to hurt others. Sadistic crimes with no “logical” motive are an indication of that proclivity. The author deserves to live her (barely retained) life without fear of this man.
Huh, is this the liberal version of realizing gay people matter or abortions save lives only after it affects you directly?
Sounds like she's been advocating for violent criminals to be released early so they can reoffend. And now that she personally became the victim of a horrific crime, she sees the other side but her former colleagues maintain their dogmatic policy and simply ignore her.
I'm very sorry for her. And also sorry for the people who have likely been hurt or will be hurt now that Clayton is going to be out again
Yeah, we can talk about what to do with thieves and drug offenders. I'm fine with thieves being sentenced to Holes for the summer and drug offenders going to rehab and not prison. Make dudes who like to get into fights do yoga and mindfulness and get a dog.
But offenders like this? That's what prison is built for. I'm fine with prison being more humane like Norway, but some people just need to be removed from free society because they can't or won't stop offending.
I do think some people in this thread are conflating prison abolition and societal separation, which are ideas that can coexist. I do not think anyone has really figured out what an ideal justice system is yet, but Clayton getting out after 5 years is clearly unacceptable (and a consequence of our current system, not an alternative justice system).
Norway, for another thing, will never let free Anders Behring Breivik, who in 2011 first set off a car bomb in the middle of Oslo and then murdered 69 children at the camp on Utøya island. Norwegians know that someone who murders 77 people and injured well over 300 just can't possibly live freely and peacefully again in their society. (Besides which, one wouldn't be surprised if he were murdered upon release, so he's probably safer in solitary. He is also not a threat to other prisoners in his current imprisonment.)
We as a nation in the U.S. absolutely need to do away with private prisons and our state and federal prison systems need massive amounts of reform. Some people just aren't ok to be out walking around, ever again. (See also someone like Charles Manson, even though he "technically" didn't kill anyone by his own hand.)
sodabubbles1281 | 22 hours ago
Jesus, this is haunting
umwamiikazii | 23 hours ago
Wow.
That feels like it should be two or three times as long.
leahbee25 | 13 hours ago
thank you for the article. I feel like the author, and the people who passed that legislation, conflate forgiveness with leniency. you can forgive someone and still want them to atone for their crimes and receive a sentence that’s commensurate with the harm they did to others. considering that Clayton showed no remorse (even lying under oath) and that his attack was obviously with the intent of the authors death, I feel like the initial sentence was totally appropriate. even without the bill, he would be released in his 40s and still have an opportunity to make something useful of himself
Potential-Scholar359 | 6 hours ago
It's wild to think they might let this guy out early. He definitely seems like he would be a danger to the community at large.
oldwhiteoak | 6 hours ago
Im failing to see how "you can forgive someone and still want them [to] receive a sentence that’s commensurate with the harm they did to others." You can forgive someone and still want rehabilitation, but forgiveness somewhat implies not seeking punition.
As an aside, it sounds like the author wants Clayton to be trusted not to attempt to kill anyone else, but doesn't feel safe that he could be released without proof of that rehabilitation. I personally think in some way she has already forgiven him, but has an absolutely correct desire of not wanting someone who took no responsibility for raping and leaving her for dead to walk the same street as her.
I dont think forgiveness means you feel okay existing with someone, I think it means you dont need them to suffer.
spaltavian | an hour ago
> Im failing to see how "you can forgive someone and still want them [to] receive a sentence that’s commensurate with the harm they did to others
You can forgive someone and still think they are a danger to society, and therefore can't be in society.
You can forgive someone and still think (rightly or wrongly) that punishment is part of thr process of rehabilitation.
This really isn't a contradiction.
leahbee25 | 5 hours ago
I think we have a similar perspective on this, I might have just phrased it differently in my comment. i’m coming from it with my perspective as a Catholic; God is infinitely forgiving of our sins, but to receive that forgiveness we have to admit the sin and seek God’s redemption. it’s not a one way street, God doesn’t forgive every criminal, liar, or abuser just because he loves and wants the best for humanity. in the same way the author shouldn’t be expected to ‘forgive’ Clayton unless she knows it’s the only way she can make peace with her ordeal, as he hasn’t shown he has any intention of admitting and apologizing for what he put this woman through.
Feral4SierraFerrell | 10 minutes ago
Way too many people conflate forgiveness with leniency imo, it’s maddening bc it comes up a lot in criminology.
M0506 | 12 hours ago
This is probably not possible for a lot of reasons, but I think that it would be for the best if, as a general rule, teenage boys with a history of behavioral problems weren’t put in foster homes in which the sole foster parent is a single woman. Teenage boys rarely feel physically intimidated by adult women the way they feel intimidated by adult men; they’re aware that, if they behave violently, men are far more likely to have the physical power to stop them than women are.
Fluffy_Yesterday_468 | 8 hours ago
I think this should at least be a consideration! They consider gender in other ways - like sometimes they prefer single women for girls who were abused by men, thinking that the girls will be more comfortable this way.
M0506 | 5 hours ago
Troubled teenage boys could also really benefit from having daily interaction with a male role model – someone who works hard (in whatever way), cares about his family, obeys the law, and is a steady presence in the home. Women can do a lot to raise boys into men, but unfortunately, they can’t personally model a healthy way to be a man.
DeadWishUpon | 10 hours ago
Agree.
BigCityHaole | 7 hours ago
Really insightful, I had not considered this.
M0506 | 5 hours ago
When I was in my mid-twenties and probably the most physically fit I’ve ever been, my parents and my now-husband helped me move out of an apartment. At the time, my dad was sixty years old, significantly overweight, and got very little exercise because he worked long hours at a desk job. He was still much better at moving furniture than I was. I would struggle to get one end of a couch a few inches off the ground, and he’d lift the whole end right up like it was an air mattress.
I-Love-Toads | 19 hours ago
The sexual assault component is not given enough attention. Obviously attempted murder resulting in life long brain injury is horrendous. But she was also sexually assaulted. Possibly even raped. That absolutely contributes to her trauma.
faithanyacordelia | 15 hours ago
I do wonder, given that the author is also the survivor, if that part is still too painful to delve into too deeply.
Sweet-Bodybuilder250 | 13 hours ago
The author told the story the way she wanted to. What I took away was that she was absolutely stunned and grapples to this day to understand what happened that night
firewontquell | 7 hours ago
Yes, I found in another piece she wrote she was raped. Horrible
TheEsotericCarrot | 6 hours ago
I was so confused that he wasn’t charged with any kind of sexual assault when it is obvious that something happened.
running_hoagie | 16 hours ago
Right? It was totally glossed over.
2OttersInACoat | 14 hours ago
I think that aspect was too painful for the author to focus on.
icypeach11 | 12 hours ago
Yeah that’s her choice - this is a first person narrative non-fiction piece. She gets to chose what she talks about.
Sweet-Bodybuilder250 | 13 hours ago
You understand that this was not a news article, right? The victim wrote this.
I-Love-Toads | 7 hours ago
Yes I understand that. I should have worded my comment better. I didn't intend to criticize the author. I think as others have said that it my be too painful for her to discuss that aspect. I just wanted to draw attention to it. Because I think it has a lot to do with why she considers "Clayton" a bad candidate for early release. She was also uniquely vulnerable as a single woman living alone. A violent male 17 year old should not have been placed with a single person especially not a woman.
sharipep | 15 hours ago
Yeah, that part.
Own-Emergency2166 | 12 hours ago
It’s also unfair to expect someone to forgive when the perpetrator has not repented, or tried to make things right. With a crime as heinous as this one, I don’t think forgiveness is possible anyways. But the only person who gets to decide that is the victim / author.
torpidcerulean | 11 hours ago
I work for a non profit that does services for justice involved people. The rhetoric we surround ourselves with is about second chances, don't be defined by your worst moment, building community not prisons. We also advocate for decarceration and alternatives to jail, with the understanding that incarceration is traumatizing and leads to worse crime outcomes in the long run.
We also have to be super aware of our client base and what they're capable of. The women on our staff get harassed constantly. People will beg for housing placements then not show up once they get an assignment. A judge will assign them to pre trial supervision rather than being held on bail, then they'll reoffend and get new charges literally within a day. They will lie to your face about basic facts you can check on their profile in a single click. I can say quite plainly some of these people don't belong in the general population because they're not capable of making moral choices, and our efforts to keep them out of prison are not a societal benefit.
The prison industrial complex and the trappings of criminality make this work very complicated. Our local jail is one huge human rights violation after another. Your sense of personhood is just dissolved after months of waiting in jail for trial - to say nothing of lengthy prison sentences. Still, I think incarceration is the uncomfortable best solution for some people who just cannot stabilize.
Fluffy_Yesterday_468 | 8 hours ago
How do you feel about those people who don’t seem capable of making moral choices? I agree that our justice system and prison system right now is horrendous but people do know that especially if they’re repeat offenders and if your organization is working with them, they’ve gotten a lot of support.
I guess the assumption in the space is always that it’s good people in bad situations but some people don’t seem to fit that.
Also, I’d be curious if you are a theory behind the people who don’t come to housing placements, leave on bail etc. At the very least it seems like some portion of the affected population doesn’t want your services (although many more of course appreciate them). Can you ever cut off a client?
torpidcerulean | 7 hours ago
Going to try addressing point by point
"Good people in bad situations" - most of us working in this field understand that it's not exactly good people in bad situations, even a more optimistic view might describe it as people continuously placed in triggering situations that keep them from self-improving. Even in perfect conditions, someone just might have really poor emotional regulation keeping them from maintaining a job or relationships. We might tell the story of "good people in bad situations" to stoke public sympathy... but there IS value to providing opportunities for people who are really just selfish assholes but wouldn't commit crime if they could just get it together.
For the people who skip on housing services, skip bail etc, there's a variety of reasons - but our direct staff say they're "just not ready" for intervention. Haven't hit rock bottom or are comfortable there, or aren't ready to take accountability. Others don't have a phone and aren't realistically stable enough to make appointments for things like court dates, so we have to keep track of where they're staying and drive them to their appointments if we expect them to make it.
Can we ever cut off a client? Definitely, clients who get violent or threatening are typically banned from all our services. There are a handful of similar providers in our area and so these people can usually get diverted to some other provider.
pinap45454 | 8 hours ago
I am very pro criminal justice reform but this is wild. This is exactly the sort of crime that the community needs to be protected from.
Potential-Scholar359 | 6 hours ago
With our current prison systems, I think there's a lot of room for reform before we get to the place where dangerous criminals walk free.
Fluffy_Yesterday_468 | 8 hours ago
This is wild. I feel so bad for her.
Reading the headline I thought this might be about lashing out in a fit of anger. Not this. This was absolutely sadistic, and for no reason. He came back and specifically fixed someone to hurt.
Actions should still have consequences. Generally I don’t think the victims/ their families are the most reliable people to ask because it’s an emotional situation understandably, but “forgiveness” doesn’t make the harm done to her disappear.
Like that other article some weeks back with the murderer and his foster family, the foster family is being punished for their kindness. “forgiveness” or “they’ve been through a lot” is for lies, anger (to an extent), petty theft, other things kids do - as she agreed! Not for this type of attack
The people she knew who supported that bill but never replied to her weren’t interested in a discussion, just their agenda. Even if you believe in the bill a conversation, especially with someone you actually know, should still be doable.
Powerful-Patient-765 | an hour ago
Yeah, this is crazy. First of all, that the system would place a 17 year-old almost-a-man in the house of a single woman. He rapes her leaves her for dead and she’s supposed to forgive him? Why? Why should she forgive someone that sadistic?
uttertorpedo | 4 hours ago
Goodness, that was a rough read. Thanks for posting.
I have read similar scenarios about violent foster kids who just can't be "fixed" the way well-intentioned people want them to be. Everyone knows these kids have had nightmarish lives and have more than likely been exposed to abuse, neglect, and other horrors that shaped their morals and actions. We all want to believe that every single one of these kids can unlearn that behavior if they're loved enough, but what happens when they just don't? What happens when they just become equally-violent adults who prey on innocent people? I don't have the answers for any of it.
I do think there is a distinction between having compassion for someone and forgiving them, and I think the author illustrates that distinction as well as she could have. I don't blame her one bit for wanting this guy to remain locked up for as long as possible; it is a matter of self-preservation for her.
insanecorgiposse | 10 hours ago
Whenever judicial elections come up and some prosecutor is running for the position on a tough on crime platform, I have to laugh because the toughest judges I know were former public defenders. They are the ones who have seen what their clients are capable of and who they are when the mask comes off in the zone of confidentiality.
LilRedCaliRose | 7 hours ago
“I could go back to the easy assumptions I’d made about the world: that everyone was redeemable, that everything could be overcome.”
These assumptions are pure fantasy. Not everyone is redeemable. And many things simply can not be overcome.
And if I could meet the author I’d tell her: you suffered an unimaginable trauma. You don’t owe anyone or anything you forgiveness.
Powerful-Patient-765 | an hour ago
This is what I believe. Not everyone is redeemable. I know two families that took in foster kids as teenagers and they wreaked absolute havoc upon their lives. They both regret it.
I don’t have answers. But it does seem that when children are exposed to horrible violence and neglect as very young children, they often just don’t came back from it. And then when they grow up and commit crimes, they are inflicting so much trauma on others.
Expecting families to “save” these children is an impossible task.
connorroy_2024 | 23 hours ago
Link?
[OP] CircadianChai | 23 hours ago
Here's the link without the paywall: Surviving Without Forgiveness
connorroy_2024 | 15 hours ago
Thank you so much!!
Jose_Canseco_Jr | 3 hours ago
Dang I'm getting a paywall :/
Edit: https://web.archive.org/web/20260912010410/https://www.thecut.com/article/surviving-without-forgiveness.html
Living_Ad8152 | 2 hours ago
THANK YOU. Absolutely insane you got downvoted.every single one of these posts should have a non paywalled link.
honeytrick | an hour ago
Speaking as a leftist...the part where the do-gooders either ignore or chastise the victim is so relatable that I wanted to throw something at my screen lmao
BigCityHaole | 22 hours ago
One of the best pieces I’ve read about why prison abolitionism would never work.
m0nsteraplant | 21 hours ago
Well, I do think that prison abolition and societal separation are ideas that can coexist; I don't think the American prison system as is currently is should exist at all due to its replication of abuse and perpetuation of state violence. I simultaneously believe that someone like Clayton should not be released, especially not after the shortened 5 year sentence. Additionally, the author's situation is taking place in modern America where we do have private prisons and a justice system that routinely fails survivors of violence, especially sexual violence which is also implied to have taken place. This story is not reflective of a world in which prison abolitionist ideas are being considered to determine what justice and rehabilitation can look like.
I think these kinds of articles provide us with great case studies to discuss what a more humane form of justice would look like for victims of abuse, for both the author, who has clearly suffered at not just the hands of Clayton, but also at a justice system that refuses to acknowledge her pain. Even her own colleagues are dismissive of her suffering! I also wonder what Clayton's upbringing looked like before this: while obviously, he is a danger to others and should not be allowed to continue in this manner, I wonder how the abuses of the foster care system and his previous caretakers led him here and how the system may have perpetuated this outcome.
I feel for the author a lot here - I do not believe that she has to forgive Clayton by any means and I do wonder if part of her feeling of "wanting to forgive" is based in her own apprehension toward the cruelty of these systems. I wish her healing and peace and I hope she is able to find a way forward.
Nervous_Insect5976 | 20 hours ago
I agree, the current system serves little benefit.
We need more intervention, diversion, treatment so we don't have to send people to prison.
And then we can make prisons more humane and more rehabilitative.
But honestly, in order to do that we are going to need a different society because a lot of people see prison as punishment when the actual punishment is just the loss of freedom and being unable to get Thai food at 2 in the afternoon whenever they want. Everything else is just cruelty disguised as justice.
garbageprimate | 11 hours ago
yeah, you nailed it - we are currently living in a world where there is NOT an ample and well-funded system for addressing crime from restorative justice and abolitionist principles. all we have is "let them suffer the current brutal system of incarceration, or let them go" - and just letting criminals go free without any intervention whatsoever is not at all what prison abolition is meant to be, and obviously does nothing to address the problem. in an ideal world, all the funding that goes to punitive prisons and justice systems would be re-targeted to things like early interventions for the few individuals likely to commit crimes, providing economic opportunities and exposure to those without it, restorative justice, and so on. it wouldn't just be "let criminals go free" like so many people seem to conceive of it.
Round-Polar-Bear | 15 hours ago
I feel horrible for the author and I also think this piece really touches on how the best justice would’ve been for our systems of societal violence and state violence to not be a perpetual cycle. Even if Clayton is imprisoned for the rest of his life in our violent carceral system, what true justice is there for the author who has lifelong injuries from this? What does justice look like for her and for a society that revels in all forms of systemic violence against women and other marginalized groups?
I often find that I never quite feel like I can describe myself as an abolitionist because I do believe we’ll need some form of policing and prison in the future. However, the more I find out about how policing and prisons actually work in this country, the more convinced I become that the only way to fix them is to completely destroy the current institutions and rebuild them from scratch. I can’t say I know how to do that, but what we have right now is rotten to the root.
UpbeatEquipment8832 | 11 hours ago
>does justice look like for her and for a society
This is far out of the scope of this article, but I'm very wary of anyone who looks at a specific event and decides the best way to address it is to declare we need a revolution. Because what is most likely to happen is that there won't be a revolution *and* there will be no more limited reforms that would address the specific event that just occured.
If I am killed by a distracted driver at a dangerous intersection, it's appropriate to use my death to force safe conditions at the intersection (e.g., through speed bumps and narrower roads). But if someone looks at my death and starts talking about how we need to stop people from feeling the need to speed, I swear that I will come back and haunt you.
lovelyrita_mm | 10 hours ago
This this this
Nervous_Insect5976 | 22 hours ago
Yeah, I tend to agree. We should send less people to prison and make prisons more humane, but some people just need to be removed from free society. Some people are just bad eggs and they can't or won't change.
think_long | 21 hours ago
It sounds counterintuitive, but for some people, their compassion can actually negatively impact their ability to empathise in certain ways. That sounds like a contradiction, but it isn’t when you remember that empathy is the ability to not necessarily share but at least understand the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of another person. For some people, they believe so much in the potential of human goodness that they literally can not conceptualise someone who is irredeemably bad, that can never get better and might not even want to. Their empathy isn’t limited by their caring, but by their imagination. They can’t or don’t want to accept that there are people in the world that can’t be made better, and that there are some things that can never be fixed.
The idea of abolishing either prisons or police is completely inane and conveys a fundamental rejection of reality.
All that said, by no means am I saying that the writer in this article was in any way responsible for what happened to her. What was done to her was absolutely monstrous, and she was just trying to be kind. I feel so bad for her.
Nervous_Insect5976 | 21 hours ago
It reminds me of my grandma. Too kind for their own good. She lived alone and would invite homeless people to live with her, come work for her right off the street. And not just economically displaced homeless people, I'm talking about people talking to Jupiter homeless people. Nothing serious happened, but it was a constant roll the dice. She told me that when she grew up in the depression, people would come by their homestead for work or food/shelter for work and her father would give them a day's work in exchange for sleeping in the stable and a hot meal. And it was like okay, but that's not the world we live in anymore.
She never got it. Some people are just too... whatever for their own good.
acidwash_video | 20 hours ago
The Depression really did a number on that generation
Nervous_Insect5976 | 20 hours ago
Indeed.
I mean, it's kind of a nice world in a way. Imagine having a hard time and you just wander to a stranger's house and you're fed and given shelter in exchange for work. And everything works out for everyone involved. That's a nice world.
We just don't live that really anymore. Now you'll get shot if you go up to someone's house lol.
bicyclecat | 16 hours ago
You’d get shot back then too if you were black. That was an era of Jim Crow, sundown towns, and lynchings. It wasn’t a nicer world.
UpbeatEquipment8832 | 17 hours ago
You’d get a meal sleeping in a stable, and then you’d need to leave on foot to the next farm. I don’t think it’s as good as it sounds.
Bright_Ices | 18 hours ago
Sounds like your grandma was happy with the way she lived her life. It probably did her a lot of good, even as it probably worried others around her.
Nervous_Insect5976 | 18 hours ago
She lived life on her own terms. It caused everyone a lot of anxiety, but she was content with her choices.
BigCityHaole | 12 hours ago
I really like both of your comments on this sub thread, especially the idea that too much compassion can be an impediment to empathy in some people. I have noticed this as well.
I also felt terrible for the author. It is so awful that someone who tried to live their values and open their heart to other people was repaid with such cruelty.
Layil | 15 hours ago
What you describes sounds so similar to what I have encountered when discussing abuse prevention. I live in a very priveliged country, most people see the world and others as fundamentally just and good, and they just cannot quite comprehend that children are abused, particularly by their parents. It's not that they deny it happens, but there's definitely a belief that it happens somewhere far away, committed by people who are clearly and obviously bad.
m0nsteraplant | 20 hours ago
The rejection of prisons or police does not mean that there would cease to be a justice system or societal separation of individuals that cause harm to others. Prison and police abolition are rooted in the idea that the current system of policing and consequence is harmful to citizens and cannot be reformed and that we should find a new way to protect citizens and pursue justice. This is a story about a woman who was harmed by our current system and is being retraumized by our current prison system wanting to free her assaulter. I do not think that believing that there is a better way of enacting justice is a "rejection of reality."
think_long | 20 hours ago
What you are arguing for, when you actually describe it, is not abolishment of policing or prisons, but reformation of them. You don’t want to use the labels of “prisons” or “police” for semantics reasons, fine, but nothing you are saying here is talking about just getting rid of the role they are supposed to serve in society. If you are saying they aren’t serving us as well as they could be, I’d agree. But saying you want to get rid of police or prisons isn’t helpful because you will, understandably, never get widespread support. Even if what you actually want to do is much more nuanced and possibly helpful.
UpbeatEquipment8832 | 17 hours ago
When people say “defund the police” and “abolish prisons,” they should be expected to be taken at their word. If what you mean is “reduce the things police are used for by increasing mental health services and community outreach” and “adjust our prison system but still keep dangerous individuals from going outside”, then you should be using those words.
My church has gone all-in on prison abolition right now - which is a reason I’ve stepped away from it - and the pastor does not mean “find a way for dangerous offenders like Clayton to still not be allowed outside.” She doesn’t think such people exist, or, that if they do, that they matter to the world at hand.
The right wing example might be people who say that all abortions should be banned and then say that getting rid of something like an ectopic pregnancy isn’t really an abortion because it’s not compatible with life.
JenningsWigService | 10 hours ago
Defund the police means shifting funding from police to other services. So yes, it means increasing mental health services, but it also acknowledges that civic budgets don't have money for other services because the police budgets are too high. Compare the way cities treat police to the public library. Every dollar spent on the library must be accounted for, while police buy military equipment for fun and constantly abuse overtime pay, and that's before we consider things like payouts to victims of police abuse.
UpbeatEquipment8832 | 6 hours ago
I know what people mean when they say it, but if you mean “use less policing” you need a slogan that reflects that. Especially since there are a ton of people who do mean “eliminate the police” when they say that.
But either way, if you are keeping someone in a place apart from the general public because they have committed a crime, you are not abolishing prison.
JenningsWigService | 2 hours ago
The people who want to abolish police say abolish police, just as most people say 'abolish ICE', not 'defund ICE'. Defund means spend that budget elsewhere.
hce692 | 20 hours ago
At absolutely no point is that ever discussed, hinted at, positioned as a point being made… NO argument whatsoever for what you’re projecting onto it. Never, ever does the author make any point other than her own personal, human capacity for forgiveness.
Not any mention about the political or moral way forward, nothing about her attackers rehabilitation, not his parole. Truly nothing but her own feelings and experience.
For that to be your takeaway is deeply unserious and borderline illiterate
veryowngarden | 18 hours ago
it’s on the level of “someone failed out of school so that is why education will never work and we need to just close up all the schools”
BigCityHaole | 13 hours ago
Unfortunately, as the article details, there are people like Clayton who commit violent crimes so monstrous that they should be in prison, as flawed as the institution is. Which is irreconcilable with prison abolitionism. Sorry for the inconvenience.
BigCityHaole | 13 hours ago
It clearly bothers you that I read the article, thought about the issues that it brought up, came to MY OWN conclusion about it, and posted one sentence about it on the internet, so much so that you felt the need to call my takeaway unserious and borderline illiterate.
This is exactly the kind of condescension that I’ve come to expect from the upper middle class left, so I’m not surprised to see it here.
Your response is just wishful thinking.
That the article would shy away from the fact that the author’s value system and beliefs about forgiveness and the question of whether people like Clayton should go to prison are forever changed because of what happened to her.
That the reader, after years of lectures by people like you about prison abolitionism, would come to the conclusion that this ideology is irreconcilable with the fact that some violent crimes like the one in the piece are unforgivable and their perpetrator should go to prison like the author wants.
And finally, that your circa 2017 knee jerk idealism is applicable to the much crueler and more predatory world that we’re all living in now. Even to someone like me who despises conservatism, wants way more from the Democratic Party, and has no illusions about the failings of the prison system, your grandstanding is about as relevant as Lizzo.
oldwhiteoak | 5 hours ago
As a lifetime non-christian abolitionist, I will say that prison abolition is not necessarily against the death penalty, nor against forcible incarceration, if it is part of actual rehabilitation (both of which would qualify for in this case, in my opinion). Rather it is against punition.
BigCityHaole | 5 hours ago
That’s an interesting insight, I did not know that. I am not against people being punished for violent crimes.
But I think it is way more important that people who prey on others be separated from society through incarceration or the death penalty (in extreme cases). So there may be more common ground here than I thought.
garbageprimate | 11 hours ago
i could send you countless links to people who went to prison, jail, et al under the current system and continued to commit crimes - do these prove why prison would never work?
i think people misconstrue prison abolitionism as some panacea that would fix everything - it obviously wouldn't, just like the current system obviously doesn't. the difference is that it would be focused on prevention of crimes rather than punishing crimes after they occur, which i think is a more worthy goal.
BigCityHaole | 10 hours ago
The problem with your argument is that punishing people who commit violent crimes, especially ones that are as cruel and merciless as the one discussed in this article, is important and prison abolitionists do not have a good alternative.
garbageprimate | 4 hours ago
"punishing" those people is not necessary, though. perhaps certain individuals may need to be removed from society in some manner, sure, but that need not be done as a punishing type of institution such as a prison, where the whole goal is depriving people of freedom rather than simply making others safe. there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to see family and friends in a safe way, have access to food, media, etc. - none of that does anything to help and is just for cruelty sake (and the punishing aspects of prisons essentially just reinforce and re-establish violence and cruelty as valid when they are released). this would also work as a deterrent because some aspects of this would be unwanted but necessary to ensure safety - it's just that the point wouldn't be cruelty.
ideally, of course, the emphasis would be on prevention, so targeting individuals in bad home situations, with personality disorders, etc., for help while they are young, and just a general focus.
i realize there may be other ideas concerning what prison abolition is, but in my mind the idea of a prison is fundamentally a punitive one, even if it pretends to be rehabilitative - so much of what goes on is clearly just meant to deprive people of things for no other reason than to punish, and that aspect is totally unneccessary and part of the problem imho
Fearless-Feature-830 | 13 hours ago
Already, prison does not work.
BigCityHaole | 13 hours ago
Glossing over the fact that people like Clayton should be there anyway and you have nothing to replace it with but a bunch of platitudes about restorative justice doesn’t help your cause.
AdditionalQuietime | 13 hours ago
Lmfao where in the story did it say anything about prison abolishment? She expresses not believing in rehabilitation for people like him, which is fair and real because most offenders simply dont deserve it, let alone are entitled to it.
BigCityHaole | 13 hours ago
“For years, I read restorative justice manuals, prison abolitionists.”
Great writing like this doesn’t just tell a story, it’s a jumping off point for the reader to consider the larger issues.
AdditionalQuietime | 12 hours ago
She mentions this in relation to her offender and the rehabilitation for his case not in totality, the US penal system offers 0 rehabilitation to begin with so its not like this fucked up kid wouldve been offered any, he wouldve came out a better offender - ironically. Her dropping her beliefs after she was assaulted is quite frankly, expected nor at any fault of her own. But i did not pick up a full "anti-defund/abolish prisons" sentiment, my takeaway was she was at odds with what she use to believe in after her assault, she tried to rationalize it with the pro abolish/defund prisons" discourse but she can't because of said trauma, which is fair.
I honestly think its disingenuous asf to use this piece as a push for the "anti-defund/abolish prison" narratives because it just uses her story and other people's stories as a way to cut out the nuance thats necessary when having these conversations and also looking at how to reform or create a new system that does honor preventative outreach, better social support (he shouldnt have ever been placed with her, the social workers were stupid to approve the fostering of this kid under someone who works amongst said populations its almost always a recipe for disaster and abuse due to the nature of her previous line of work, a complete overstepping of boundaries for one) and actual rehabilitation policies that center for certain offenses - obviously this wouldnt be one of them
BigCityHaole | 11 hours ago
Of course you think it’s disingenuous, it’s a direct challenge to your worldview. You want to live in a world where things like this don’t happen and the prison system doesn’t exist in its current form. A lot of us do. The problem is that these 2 things are largely irreconcilable.
So you dish up a bunch of platitudes about the importance of outreach and social support, you Monday morning quarterback the social workers involved, and you issue vague calls for a better way of doing things.
Among other things, I think this piece is illustrative of the failures of the prison abolition movement to specifically address what to do about people like Clayton.
Dancing around inconvenient and difficult questions for ideological reasons is a tactic that I no longer have any patience for. I’m not going to view this piece from the box you want to put it in and the fact that you’re trying to get me to do so speaks for itself.
Edit: switched out a word for a phrase that fits better about a minute after posting.
AdditionalQuietime | 11 hours ago
Thats your takeaway from my comment so be it. I never once said I think these people, like Clayton, need rehabilitation. I said just because there are people who dont deserve it doesnt mean the privatization of our prison should still stand or be tolerated because its "all we have" lol like the vast majority of people in US prisons and jails are innocent, look it up its a real statistic and its extremely concerning. Even in the countries I mentioned who focus on the rehabilitation aspect vs the retribution aspect, also opt to just keep violent offenders locked up for life depending on the severity of their offenses
You cant handle the nuance necessary for these conversations and thats not my problem you cant see multiple things at once. You didnt even acknowledge anything else in my comment but the "disingenuous" part ike please be forreal lol
Like no one is questioning why we have a bill that allows extremely violent offenders out for serving half their time. Your takeaway is "evil people dont need rehabilitation" but you and others arent mad at the fact that we have a innate rape culture that gives absuers more leeway than the victims. Why are politicians/lawmakers okay with giving leniency towards rapist and violent abusers under bills like that? There's always some vague wording and loophole they purposely leave in place which allows for exploitation. I mean we have a serial child rapist who's the sittin president so I guess that answers that one...
Instead you guys are like "see this is why defund or abolish the police/prisons is stupid" lmaooo like what meanwhile most people dont even know what the official talking points are for that stance is and you guys all sound like those people who truly dont understand the broader implications behind said slogan, just take it at face value and ignore any nuance procided by the other side but albeit im not responsible nor obligated to change any minds nor was i attempting to persuade you to beging with, just sharing my views on it lol
im not going to enagge with you any further because everything is black and white for you, so take care and have a nice day!
BigCityHaole | 10 hours ago
The vast majority of people in prisons are NOT innocent. Most sources estimate the number at between 1-5%, with the higher estimates coming it at around 10%. You’re so off here that it undermines your position in general.
Of course I think it’s a huge problem that Clayton is only going to serve half of his time, that’s why I have such an issue with the far left ducking the question of what to do about violent criminals who commit unconscionable crimes.
You don’t know anything about what I think about rape culture, so I’m not sure why you brought that up.
The slogans are stupid because they’re not nuanced. If the goal of the slogans is to get people who aren’t already true believers to think about criminal justice in a nuanced way, well, they do the opposite and they’re not working. And in general I’m tired of all the wishful thinking on the left. That’s not working either.
letthetreeburn | 21 hours ago
Anyone got an archive link?
PC-load-letter-wtf | 20 hours ago
Google paywall remover and paste the link
letthetreeburn | 12 hours ago
Found one that works
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.thecut.com/article/surviving-without-forgiveness.html
JenningsWigService | 8 hours ago
I do think forgiveness is really besides the point when it comes to parole reform or release from prison. We should not change sentencing rules or parole rules out of forgiveness, just as we should not view punishment as the point of the justice system. What matters is an individual's current and future danger to the community. And that danger might not actually correspond with someone's original crimes. So a person who committed murder while abusing crack but has remained sober for 10 years is probably safer than a person who committed several violent but not fatal assaults and shows no sign of change.
The family of the former crack addict's murder victim need not forgive them, but that also doesn't mean they shouldn't be granted parole. I might forgive someone who did violence to me, but if they're still a risk to the public, that doesn't matter.
Seltzer-Slut | 14 hours ago
A powerful read.
This is why I’m “tough on crime” even though I am very social justice oriented and spend my time trying to help disadvantaged people. Prisons and police are essential to protecting all of us, especially women. Yes these systems need massive reform, and can do more harm than good sometimes, but calls to defund and abolish them are frankly idiotic.
AdditionalQuietime | 13 hours ago
Defunding and abolishing the slave penal system is not at all idiotic. We cant reform something that is designed to exploit rather than rehabilitate, we barely have the latter in most US prisons
There's countries around the world who prioritize rehabilitation and also still keep the fucked up people locked up for life at the same time, its very possible to do both, stop viewing the penal system in a black and white perspective because its quite literally one of the many reasons that created the framework for our shitty system today
silliestjupiter | 13 hours ago
Can you give me some examples of these systems? Like, which countries specifically (I'm genuinely interested)?
AdditionalQuietime | 12 hours ago
Have you ever heard anything about how Norway, the Swedes, and the Netherlands operate? These countries also have larger social safety nets, something we lack in America.
So reforming our prisons isnt the only step, we would have to expand our social safety nets for those who are in poverty or might fall into it, the kids background was rough he came from a DV background and other fucked up things coupled with general American poverty and the exploitative foster/adoption system - we need to address that as well as the penal system in america. And as you know one comes before the other when we hear stories of disturbed children like this, so ask yourself if we "reform" US penal system before "reforming" our shitty almost non existent social safety net then what would the outcome be? Better prisons for people we couldve helped with preventative measures that couldve stopped that from being their last "stop" in life?
Its quite literally by design to breed people like this in America, socially culturally and institutionally why do you think we have the most serial killers in the world? We are literally fucking up our children, Domestic Violence is also a similar background for school shooters, most people don't know this enough to talk about it in depth, especially the media not covering it extensively but just tossing out "thoughts and prayers" ask yourself why that is?
Seltzer-Slut | 11 hours ago
Scandinavian countries have prisons and police. They are not abolished in the countries you mentioned.
You are calling for abolition, but that means ending prisons and police altogether. No 911 calls when your friend gets attacked. No removal of serial killers from society. Abolition means it stops existing.
I think we all obviously agree that social programs, anti-poverty resources, intervention programs, all of that is wonderful and should be funded more. Nobody is disagreeing with any of that.
Moderators deleted your response to me but I saw in the preview that it was quite salty and I am wondering why. I am not “full of sh*t,” we have the same values and goals.
AdditionalQuietime | 11 hours ago
I am not calling for abolishing of all prisons I am calling for the abolishing of the US penal system, specifically privatized ones which is just basically all of them. The asked me to list countries with rehabilitation approaches, I did.
Also is it not possible to believe in multiple things at once with nuance???
Mods didnt delete my comment I did and no it wasnt salty? Please dont label my response as emotional as it was fad from that. I deleted it and made the comment above which is the same sentiment expressed from my deleted comment, there was no "saltiness" in either - lets not play the "youre too reactionary" when ironically you guys are thinking in black and white from this article
Seltzer-Slut | 11 hours ago
I’m not trying to be reactionary and I didn’t mean to seem that way, or to say that you’re being that way. I only saw the preview of your comment so I don’t know exactly what it contained, all I saw was that it said I was full of it for sharing my experience.
It definitely is possible to believe in multiple things at once, and to believe in nuance! But, calling for abolition of prisons (I’m unclear how that’s different from the penal system?) is a very “black and white” message that doesn’t have any nuance. Abolition means none. Changing private prisons into publicly owned ones is an example of reform, not abolition.
The reason that I care is that “prison abolition” and “police abolition” are very popular phrases used on our side, but they are unnecessarily divisive because nobody actually wants the criminal justice system to be abolished. We should all collectively stop saying those terms, it’s hurtful to the cause.
Seltzer-Slut | 13 hours ago
Sorry but I disagree. We certainly can reform institutions. We cannot survive without those institutions.
This reminds me of the BLM rally I went to in 2020. I live in Baltimore and the attendees of the rally were primarily older black folks from really disadvantaged neighborhoods, places where electricity is cut off for weeks. They were calling for MORE, BETTER policing in their neighborhoods, because they feel unsafe in their homes and abandoned by the police for not protecting them. Then at that rally, while a black pastor was preaching, there was a white woman similar to myself who kept yelling and interrupting him to shout “DEFUND THE POLICE” and “ABOLISH PRISONS!” And all the elder people there were shaking their heads at her, because that was not what they wanted at all. This is a community of people who were at a rally about police inflicted violence towards unarmed black people, and people who face that discrimination by police on a daily basis. But to them, the greater threat is still the crime in their community.
If I heard a majority of my black community members saying “abolish all police,” I genuinely would reconsider my own position. But I only hear my far left academic friends calling for that, and I think they are stuck in the theory, rather than living in the practice.
Seltzer-Slut | 12 hours ago
I am following up because I’m also confused by your stance. You are calling for abolishment of prisons. But then you say there are countries that lock people up for life — how is that possible without prisons? Is a prison not the word for a place where people are locked up for life and removed from society?
AdditionalQuietime | 11 hours ago
Yea I said US penal system lol not all prisons
Seltzer-Slut | 11 hours ago
Well, transferring ownership of prisons from private to public is not abolition. That’s reform. You want reform. When you say you want abolition it means no prisons or police at all.
Ok-Acanthaceae8855 | 37 minutes ago
Can't see it: subscription required.
murkydayhotel | 4 hours ago
this is a very difficult situation, and we have to consider the realities of racial, class, and environmental disparities that the perpetrator and the survivor came from. psychiatric and developmental disorders can and do arise out of complex traumatic experiences - it is very likely this kid has been through hell before he committed this horrific crime. it is likely those violences were already too normalized, commonplace for him.
she is entirely in the right to not be able to forgive this kid and does not have a moral responsibility to. i have met folks serving life sentences who want restorative justice, but also believe some of the people they met inside should never be around others freely ever again.
i hate the prison system because it is based on a system of population control, specifically of enslaved people and rebellious workers. it is built to cage specific kinds of people who society deems as less than human animals needing to be culled, often regardless of the awful things they did or did not do - not the ones who also commit monstrous atrocities but are born with the privileges of being considered more human than those they harm (not the imperialist soldiers that torture, rape, and burn down cities and villages around the world - nor the politicians and fortune 500 figures that run in child sex trafficking circles)
i hate the prison system for not changing the conditions of violence and reaping the payouts of violence in corporations and investors and contracts bankrolled by our tax dollars
a prison system designed to profit and promote a cultural logic that upholds oppression can never be just. In this situation it was simply the only thing that could give the survivor the frail safety she needed (in knowing this kid could not touch her again for a long time).
im not against the idea of retribution. i just dont want justice it to be managed by a state that may not consider me and other people human.
it might be fucked up but i am an abolitionist that also recognizes retribution as a form of protection. before prisons, people used to met out justice and punishments and reconciliation in their own ways. sometimes this meant people had a whole community of people exile them.sometimes people beat the perpetrator up and made them too afraid to do anything like that again. sometimes women killed their abusive husbands, and it was acknowledged as rightful defense.
transformative justice to me is not about holding hands and getting over it, it is about addressing the root causes of violence. it does not disappear violence but discourages it. it would put the power of serving justice back into our hands, and how we deal with it is not some quick easy answer. we have dealt with violence (with heavy and gentle hands) for a long time before prisons and we can after too
LittleLatteLady | 2 hours ago
I’m not really sure what I just read here, but violent antisocial individuals should be kept away from society. Some people are simply compelled to hurt others. Sadistic crimes with no “logical” motive are an indication of that proclivity. The author deserves to live her (barely retained) life without fear of this man.
violeblanche | an hour ago
Spot on.
soleceismical | 22 hours ago
Huh, is this the liberal version of realizing gay people matter or abortions save lives only after it affects you directly?
Sounds like she's been advocating for violent criminals to be released early so they can reoffend. And now that she personally became the victim of a horrific crime, she sees the other side but her former colleagues maintain their dogmatic policy and simply ignore her.
I'm very sorry for her. And also sorry for the people who have likely been hurt or will be hurt now that Clayton is going to be out again
Nervous_Insect5976 | 22 hours ago
Yeah, we can talk about what to do with thieves and drug offenders. I'm fine with thieves being sentenced to Holes for the summer and drug offenders going to rehab and not prison. Make dudes who like to get into fights do yoga and mindfulness and get a dog.
But offenders like this? That's what prison is built for. I'm fine with prison being more humane like Norway, but some people just need to be removed from free society because they can't or won't stop offending.
m0nsteraplant | 21 hours ago
I do think some people in this thread are conflating prison abolition and societal separation, which are ideas that can coexist. I do not think anyone has really figured out what an ideal justice system is yet, but Clayton getting out after 5 years is clearly unacceptable (and a consequence of our current system, not an alternative justice system).
CarlySimonSays | 12 hours ago
Totally agree with all of this!
Norway, for another thing, will never let free Anders Behring Breivik, who in 2011 first set off a car bomb in the middle of Oslo and then murdered 69 children at the camp on Utøya island. Norwegians know that someone who murders 77 people and injured well over 300 just can't possibly live freely and peacefully again in their society. (Besides which, one wouldn't be surprised if he were murdered upon release, so he's probably safer in solitary. He is also not a threat to other prisoners in his current imprisonment.)
We as a nation in the U.S. absolutely need to do away with private prisons and our state and federal prison systems need massive amounts of reform. Some people just aren't ok to be out walking around, ever again. (See also someone like Charles Manson, even though he "technically" didn't kill anyone by his own hand.)
ErsatzHaderach | 13 hours ago
i stg the existence of Claytons makes people like you just a little bit excited
Fearless-Feature-830 | 13 hours ago
You either didn’t read it or have poor comprehension