Prison Abolitionist Professors Curiously Quiet Amid High-Profile Killing Cases
“Prison abolition supporters would have a difficult time recommending appropriate treatment for anyone found guilty of a heinous crime”
This is rather odd, isn’t it? Why so quiet?
The College Fix reports:
Everyone is talking about these high profile killings – except prison abolitionist professors
Ongoing criminal cases have attracted nationwide attention, but professors who support abolishing the prison system have been quiet when asked for comment.
A judge recently ruled Tyler Robinson should face a trial for allegedly killing Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University. At the same time, Luigi Mangione has admitted to killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York. Finally, Lindsay Clancy is awaiting the next steps in the case against her for killing her three children.
Yet many university professors who advocate against prisons did not respond to multiple requests for comment in the wake of these ongoing court proceedings.
The College Fix contacted nine university professors and graduate instructors who support prison abolition from states including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Utah. The Fix then asked for their views on the court cases such as whether they were convicted, and whether they would support prison time and/or the death penalty for any, all, or some of these cases. In addition, The Fix asked what punishments, if any, the accused killers should face if convicted.
The Fix contacted Toussaint Losier University of Massachusett-Amherst, Anthony Nocella at Salt Lake Community College, Robert Holbrook at University of Pennsylvania, and doctoral student Celena Todora at the University of Pittsburgh.
Tommie Shelby at Harvard University, Ben Brucato University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and Mark Warren at University of Massachusetts-Boston all did not respond to emails and phone calls in the past several weeks.
Professor Dorothy Roberts, at UPenn, declined to comment, as did Professor Jasmine Rose at Boston University.
“My work focuses on evidentiary procedure. I do not see how my personal opinion regarding these tragic homicides in pending cases could be of any particular import to anyone,” Professor Rose said via email.
An assistant for Professor Roberts said she has a full schedule and “is unable to provide a comment.”
Two legal scholars explained why they thought abolitionists would not comment on these cases.
“Prison abolition supporters would have a difficult time recommending appropriate treatment for anyone found guilty of a heinous crime,” Barry Latzer told The Fix via email. He is an emeritus professor of criminal justice at the City University of New York.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Abolishing prison is a perfectly respectable position — provided that you support replacing it with appropriate corporal or capital punishment.
In my view, underlying the abolition of prison is the belief that human behavior is entirely (or largely) determined by the person’s environment. That is human behavior is determined by outside forces, that are no innate desires. In other words, the person committing a crime is not responsible. Rather it is everything else around that person: parents, peer groups, poverty, etc. that drives a person to act in non-socially acceptable ways.
But this strips from humans any agency, any desires or intentions, and ultimately any responsibilities for their actions. This is a position that is scientifically flawed – we know we have innate desires. It is therefore also morally flawed.
It’s the leftist pathology of evading responsibility.
It’s not hard to see why they’re keeping their mouths shut – in each of those cases the defendant is white.
No bleeding heart liberal professor is going to cry over them. They only want to get rid of prisons for “people of color,” who are practically saints, had bad childhoods because they grew up in disadvantaged homes, etc.
Leave a Comment