The Valley Springs owner, Herminigilda Noveda Manuel, pled guilty to felony elder abuse and was sentenced to a year in prison. The administrator, Edgar Babael, got probation for aiding in a crime.
Got one year in prison by pleading guilty. A year in prison is not just the cost of doing business.
For almost killing 19 people and being completely devoid of morality? Yeah, that's nothing. And only one of the responsible people got any prison time.
As a side note, the leftist policy on prisons should be making them humane and using them as a last resort, not abolition. This is the type of crime that any decent society should punish -- not simply try to rehabilitate the offender, or make the victims whole, or keep the offender out of a position where they can re-offend, etc. The punishment should involve loss of freedom, not the abuse and lack of basic dignity common in existing U.S. prisons, but that punishment should happen. And there are many crimes where this is appropriate.
Prison abolition is partly premised on creating a society where this kind of crime cannot happen because the structures and systems that made it possible don't exist. Can't have a small group of people harm the elderly if the elderly are integrated members of a very social society and large parts of the community interact with them every day.
I agree that any leftist policy on criminal justice should be focused on "let's fix the underlying social issues so thoroughly that far fewer crimes happen in the first place." But even in the best possible world I still see horrible crimes happening some.
A lot of abolitionists think this, too, which is why you see "abolitionist" language along the lines of "prison should not be the dominant mode of punishment, but the absolute last resort," but the problem then becomes that's not abolition. Abolishing slavery doesn't mean "we can still do it in select circumstances," it means you don't do it ever. Leftists make that exact point when discussing prison labor and the 13th amendment. It's not coherent to use "abolition" one way when discussing prison labor and another way when discussing imprisonment itself. Also, when people hear "prison abolition" for the first time, they take the term at face value and think we mean it literally, which makes most people dismiss it out of hand ("what about murderers?"). For those still willing to entertain the idea, we're stuck immediately backing off the position we just staked out ("I don't mean abolition abolition"). The phrase is just not a good way of communicating our good policy ideas, and seems to prevent a lot of leftists from developing their thinking on criminal justice in the first place (it's either "prison abolition now" or "gulag!", depending on the facts of a given case).
For almost killing 19 people and being completely devoid of morality? Yeah, that's nothing. And only one of the responsible people got any prison time.
And theres literally redditors going yass kween kamala over it 😭😭😭😭
For almost killing 19 people and being completely devoid of morality? Yeah, that's nothing. And only one of the responsible people got any prison time.
As a side note, the leftist policy on prisons should be making them humane and using them as a last resort, not abolition. This is the type of crime that any decent society should punish -- not simply try to rehabilitate the offender, or make the victims whole, or keep the offender out of a position where they can re-offend, etc. The punishment should involve loss of freedom, not the abuse and lack of basic dignity common in existing U.S. prisons, but that punishment should happen. And there are many crimes where this is appropriate.
Prison abolition is partly premised on creating a society where this kind of crime cannot happen because the structures and systems that made it possible don't exist. Can't have a small group of people harm the elderly if the elderly are integrated members of a very social society and large parts of the community interact with them every day.
I agree that any leftist policy on criminal justice should be focused on "let's fix the underlying social issues so thoroughly that far fewer crimes happen in the first place." But even in the best possible world I still see horrible crimes happening some.
A lot of abolitionists think this, too, which is why you see "abolitionist" language along the lines of "prison should not be the dominant mode of punishment, but the absolute last resort," but the problem then becomes that's not abolition. Abolishing slavery doesn't mean "we can still do it in select circumstances," it means you don't do it ever. Leftists make that exact point when discussing prison labor and the 13th amendment. It's not coherent to use "abolition" one way when discussing prison labor and another way when discussing imprisonment itself. Also, when people hear "prison abolition" for the first time, they take the term at face value and think we mean it literally, which makes most people dismiss it out of hand ("what about murderers?"). For those still willing to entertain the idea, we're stuck immediately backing off the position we just staked out ("I don't mean abolition abolition"). The phrase is just not a good way of communicating our good policy ideas, and seems to prevent a lot of leftists from developing their thinking on criminal justice in the first place (it's either "prison abolition now" or "gulag!", depending on the facts of a given case).
And theres literally redditors going yass kween kamala over it 😭😭😭😭
A year in prison is what you'd expect for like...driving under the influence. Drug dealers have gotten longer sentences for marijuana distribution.