I don't know what you're referring to but my comment goes way back to trump's first term. Should I remind you of what you said to me?
It occurs to me
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Your post was made very recently. So was my reply. As my favorite "South Korean girl" used to say, go back and reread.
Sure. Is it relevant?
Starting from the beginning, you wrote "Why do I consider what has occurred to me to be a plausible set of circumstances?" Then you linked to a book and some articles that you said influenced your opinion. Then you went on to criticize liberals and me, saying we would never read anything as cerebral as your book and links. So far, do I have it right?
LINK
Geebus. Are you hung over or something?
Why do I consider what has occurred to me to be a plausible set of circumstances?
Reading, and research. I read things leftists like @christiefan915 apparently do not, and I consider the implications.
For example;
Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America (Russell Sage, 2006).
archive.org
Lifetime-risk papers in the same stream
Reading, and research. I read things leftists like @christiefan915 apparently do not, and I consider the implications.
For example;
Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America (Russell Sage, 2006).
Punishment and inequality in America : Western, Bruce, 1964- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
xiv, 247 pages : 24 cm
archive.org
Lifetime-risk papers in the same stream
- Becky Pettit and Bruce Western, “Mass Imprisonment and the Life Course,” American Sociological Review (2004).
- Bruce Western and Christopher Wildeman, “The Black Family and...
Where does that text appear?
Stop your game playing. You wrote "I read things leftists like @christiefan915 apparently do not, and I consider the implications." "Too cerebral for JPP leftists, I suppose, but here it is, anyway:"
You took the time to write that long post yet now you're being critical because I said the articles sound like something that confirm your biases... your biases being pro-police, pro-prisons and pro-punishment.
Last edited:
Mischaracterizing what I posted isn't a valid argument.
I quoted the exact words you wrote and you say I mischaracterized. Jesus wept.
What was the point of that post?
Did you?
Link up.
It seems self-evident to me.
Reposted: Why do I consider what has occurred to me to be a plausible set of circumstances?
Reading, and research. I read things leftists like @christiefan915 apparently do not, and I consider the implications.
For example;
Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America (Russell Sage, 2006).
archive.org
Lifetime-risk papers in the same stream
Summary of the risk tables often reused later:
https://prisonstudiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Incarceration_and_Social_Inequality.pdf
National Research Council, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (Travis, Western, and Redburn, eds., 2014).
Free PDF: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/c...eration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes
OJP abstract: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...arceration-united-states-exploring-causes-and
Too cerebral for JPP leftists, I suppose, but here it is, anyway:
The prison/police abolitionist movement did not appear from criminology alone.
It was assembled, popularized, and morally licensed by a specific current of leftist thought, then carried into mass politics by Black Lives Matter and the Democrat aligned officials and institutions that celebrated that movement.
The theoretical lineage is explicit. Angela Davis’s Are Prisons Obsolete? treated the prison as a racial and capitalist institution to be dismantled, not tuned.
Ruth Wilson Gilmore defined abolition as a presence—new social provision—rather than a vacuum, while naming “organized abandonment” as the condition prisons manage.
Mariame Kaba and allied organizers translated that into the slogan that went from pamphlets to streets: “defund the police,” “care not cops,” “we keep us safe.”
Critical race and prison-studies programs supplied the claim that disparity after Shannon and Western is not leftover crime but the system working as designed.
Black Lives Matter made that academic-activist package a public liturgy.
After Ferguson and again after George Floyd, the Movement for Black Lives platform put prison and police abolition, not “community policing plus body cameras,” at the center.
The demand was not that Shannon’s 33 percent be studied.
It was that a state which marks that many Black men has no legitimate claim to the monopoly of force in Black neighborhoods.
Western’s and the National Academies’ findings on policy-driven mass incarceration were cited as proof that the scale was chosen; Davis and Gilmore were cited as proof that the choice was racial domination.
Democrat celebration completed the circuit.
In 2020, party officeholders, campaign surrogates, urban mayors, universities, foundations, and newsrooms treated BLM as a moral consensus: with kneeling, murals, “systemic racism” resolutions, and budget fights framed as racial justice.
“Defund” was sometimes walked back as messaging; the underlying story was not.
Elected Democrats and their aligned institutions (media, education) endorsed the premise that American policing and imprisonment are constitutive of racial hierarchy, that the Western/Pettit life course is an indictment of the state, and that legitimacy flows to the movement that named that indictment.
Once that premise is official culture, abolition is no longer a fringe inference from Demography articles.
It is the policy horizon those articles are said to require.
That is the link.
Shannon counted the marks. Western and the NAS described the policy machine that made them.
Left theorists named the machine illegitimate.
BLM made the naming a movement.
Democrats, in celebrating the movement, treated that naming as the respectable account of race and the carceral state in the United States.
After reading this (if you did), now you might consider things a little differently.
Reading, and research. I read things leftists like @christiefan915 apparently do not, and I consider the implications.
For example;
Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America (Russell Sage, 2006).
Punishment and inequality in America : Western, Bruce, 1964- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
xiv, 247 pages : 24 cmarchive.org
Lifetime-risk papers in the same stream
- Becky Pettit and Bruce Western, “Mass Imprisonment and the Life Course,” American Sociological Review (2004).
- Bruce Western and Christopher Wildeman, “The Black Family and Mass Incarceration,” Annals of the American Academy (2009).
Summary of the risk tables often reused later:
https://prisonstudiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Incarceration_and_Social_Inequality.pdf
National Research Council, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (Travis, Western, and Redburn, eds., 2014).
Free PDF: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/c...eration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes
OJP abstract: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...arceration-united-states-exploring-causes-and
Too cerebral for JPP leftists, I suppose, but here it is, anyway:
The prison/police abolitionist movement did not appear from criminology alone.
It was assembled, popularized, and morally licensed by a specific current of leftist thought, then carried into mass politics by Black Lives Matter and the Democrat aligned officials and institutions that celebrated that movement.
The theoretical lineage is explicit. Angela Davis’s Are Prisons Obsolete? treated the prison as a racial and capitalist institution to be dismantled, not tuned.
Ruth Wilson Gilmore defined abolition as a presence—new social provision—rather than a vacuum, while naming “organized abandonment” as the condition prisons manage.
Mariame Kaba and allied organizers translated that into the slogan that went from pamphlets to streets: “defund the police,” “care not cops,” “we keep us safe.”
Critical race and prison-studies programs supplied the claim that disparity after Shannon and Western is not leftover crime but the system working as designed.
Black Lives Matter made that academic-activist package a public liturgy.
After Ferguson and again after George Floyd, the Movement for Black Lives platform put prison and police abolition, not “community policing plus body cameras,” at the center.
The demand was not that Shannon’s 33 percent be studied.
It was that a state which marks that many Black men has no legitimate claim to the monopoly of force in Black neighborhoods.
Western’s and the National Academies’ findings on policy-driven mass incarceration were cited as proof that the scale was chosen; Davis and Gilmore were cited as proof that the choice was racial domination.
Democrat celebration completed the circuit.
In 2020, party officeholders, campaign surrogates, urban mayors, universities, foundations, and newsrooms treated BLM as a moral consensus: with kneeling, murals, “systemic racism” resolutions, and budget fights framed as racial justice.
“Defund” was sometimes walked back as messaging; the underlying story was not.
Elected Democrats and their aligned institutions (media, education) endorsed the premise that American policing and imprisonment are constitutive of racial hierarchy, that the Western/Pettit life course is an indictment of the state, and that legitimacy flows to the movement that named that indictment.
Once that premise is official culture, abolition is no longer a fringe inference from Demography articles.
It is the policy horizon those articles are said to require.
That is the link.
Shannon counted the marks. Western and the NAS described the policy machine that made them.
Left theorists named the machine illegitimate.
BLM made the naming a movement.
Democrats, in celebrating the movement, treated that naming as the respectable account of race and the carceral state in the United States.
After reading this (if you did), now you might consider things a little differently.
Cliff Notes version: Society is in danger of imminent collapse and it's all the fault of Democrats.Reposted: Why do I consider what has occurred to me to be a plausible set of circumstances?
Reading, and research. I read things leftists like @christiefan915 apparently do not, and I consider the implications.
For example;
Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America (Russell Sage, 2006).
Punishment and inequality in America : Western, Bruce, 1964- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
xiv, 247 pages : 24 cm
archive.org
Lifetime-risk papers in the same stream
- Becky Pettit and Bruce Western, “Mass Imprisonment and the Life Course,” American Sociological Review (2004).
- Bruce Western and Christopher Wildeman, “The Black Family and Mass Incarceration,” Annals of the American Academy (2009).
Summary of the risk tables often reused later:
https://prisonstudiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Incarceration_and_Social_Inequality.pdf
National Research Council, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (Travis, Western, and Redburn, eds., 2014).
Free PDF: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/c...eration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes
OJP abstract: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...arceration-united-states-exploring-causes-and
Too cerebral for JPP leftists, I suppose, but here it is, anyway:
The prison/police abolitionist movement did not appear from criminology alone.
It was assembled, popularized, and morally licensed by a specific current of leftist thought, then carried into mass politics by Black Lives Matter and the Democrat aligned officials and institutions that celebrated that movement.
The theoretical lineage is explicit. Angela Davis’s Are Prisons Obsolete? treated the prison as a racial and capitalist institution to be dismantled, not tuned.
Ruth Wilson Gilmore defined abolition as a presence—new social provision—rather than a vacuum, while naming “organized abandonment” as the condition prisons manage.
Mariame Kaba and allied organizers translated that into the slogan that went from pamphlets to streets: “defund the police,” “care not cops,” “we keep us safe.”
Critical race and prison-studies programs supplied the claim that disparity after Shannon and Western is not leftover crime but the system working as designed.
Black Lives Matter made that academic-activist package a public liturgy.
After Ferguson and again after George Floyd, the Movement for Black Lives platform put prison and police abolition, not “community policing plus body cameras,” at the center.
The demand was not that Shannon’s 33 percent be studied.
It was that a state which marks that many Black men has no legitimate claim to the monopoly of force in Black neighborhoods.
Western’s and the National Academies’ findings on policy-driven mass incarceration were cited as proof that the scale was chosen; Davis and Gilmore were cited as proof that the choice was racial domination.
Democrat celebration completed the circuit.
In 2020, party officeholders, campaign surrogates, urban mayors, universities, foundations, and newsrooms treated BLM as a moral consensus: with kneeling, murals, “systemic racism” resolutions, and budget fights framed as racial justice.
“Defund” was sometimes walked back as messaging; the underlying story was not.
Elected Democrats and their aligned institutions (media, education) endorsed the premise that American policing and imprisonment are constitutive of racial hierarchy, that the Western/Pettit life course is an indictment of the state, and that legitimacy flows to the movement that named that indictment.
Once that premise is official culture, abolition is no longer a fringe inference from Demography articles.
It is the policy horizon those articles are said to require.
That is the link.
Shannon counted the marks. Western and the NAS described the policy machine that made them.
Left theorists named the machine illegitimate.
BLM made the naming a movement.
Democrats, in celebrating the movement, treated that naming as the respectable account of race and the carceral state in the United States.
After reading this (if you did), now you might consider things a little differently.
Christiecrite mischaracterization version.
Then educate me about what you're saying.
Not my responsibility.
I live to hear your thoughts on this topic.
Do you? I doubt it. DM me.
What historians document is a recurring pattern: when the state can no longer protect persons and property or punish predation, private violence, banditry, and flight from authority accelerate the unraveling of society.
Below are cases where that failure is well attested, not as a slogan but in contemporary sources and later scholarship.
By late antiquity the imperial monopoly on legitimate force had thinned. Cities had limited night policing; the countryside saw latrones (bandit bands). Salvian, writing in the mid-5th century, claimed provincials fled to Goths and Bagaudae because Roman tax collectors and officials were harsher than the “barbarians.” Scholars have framed this as the collapse of a state criminal-justice system and the rise of private violence: once the center could not punish or protect, local strongmen and invaders filled the vacuum. Urban depopulation and loss of complex crafts followed. Crime was not the only driver—taxes, military overstretch, and migrant invasion mattered—but the inability to keep order was both symptom and feedback.
After Pepi II, central government evaporated. Literary texts of the period (the Admonitions tradition) describe civil war, famine, tomb robbery, and the upending of social roles. Scholars treat these as more than literary convention: there was no functioning center, and “justice, order, or respect for tradition fell by the wayside.” The Egyptian idea of Maat (right order) included punishment of wrongdoing; its breakdown is how Egyptians themselves described the nadir. Loss of enforceable order was how the collapse was experienced.
After Henry I’s death, succession war under King Stephen produced nearly two decades of licensed predation. Chroniclers wrote that “Christ and his saints slept,” churches were violated, harvests burned, and the land “all done for.” Royal tax receipts fell by about a quarter, recorded as “waste.” Nobles could not collect rents; armed retinues plundered with little fear of royal justice. This was not the end of English society, but it was a near-collapse of the kingdom as a governed space until Henry II restored royal courts and punishment.
Banditry and rebellion were not peripheral. Mid-Ming sources already describe highwaymen operating near Beijing; by the last decades, Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong’s armies grew out of unpaid soldiers, famine, and peasants whom the state could neither feed nor police. Officials repeatedly failed to suppress large gangs; special laws against Guangdong bandits in the late 18th century (Qing, but showing the same problem) were responses to a “bandit miasma” the courts could not process. Corruption, extra taxes, and weak local enforcement turned crime into rebellion and then dynastic collapse when the Manchus arrived. Peasant revolt plus unpunished predation was a standard Chinese-dynastic end-stage.
After Siad Barre fell, there was no central criminal law for years. Clan customary systems (xeer) and private militias provided some local order, but homicide, predation, and piracy surged in the vacuum. This is state failure, yet it is a clean modern illustration: when no authority reliably punishes robbery and murder, organized crime and warlords become the government. International observers described daily violence as catastrophic even if clan structures prevented total atomization.
Before the Empire fell, the Republic itself nearly did. Organized street gangs under Clodius and Milo turned politics into armed intimidation; courts were disrupted; self-help replaced public prosecution. Augustus later built urban cohorts and the vigiles precisely because republican (small r) institutions would no longer suppress violence in the capital. That was not civilizational death, but it shows how unpunished political crime can destroy a constitutional order.
Below are cases where that failure is well attested, not as a slogan but in contemporary sources and later scholarship.
Western Roman Empire (especially 4th–5th centuries)
By late antiquity the imperial monopoly on legitimate force had thinned. Cities had limited night policing; the countryside saw latrones (bandit bands). Salvian, writing in the mid-5th century, claimed provincials fled to Goths and Bagaudae because Roman tax collectors and officials were harsher than the “barbarians.” Scholars have framed this as the collapse of a state criminal-justice system and the rise of private violence: once the center could not punish or protect, local strongmen and invaders filled the vacuum. Urban depopulation and loss of complex crafts followed. Crime was not the only driver—taxes, military overstretch, and migrant invasion mattered—but the inability to keep order was both symptom and feedback.
End of Egypt’s Old Kingdom / First Intermediate Period (c. 2180 BCE)
After Pepi II, central government evaporated. Literary texts of the period (the Admonitions tradition) describe civil war, famine, tomb robbery, and the upending of social roles. Scholars treat these as more than literary convention: there was no functioning center, and “justice, order, or respect for tradition fell by the wayside.” The Egyptian idea of Maat (right order) included punishment of wrongdoing; its breakdown is how Egyptians themselves described the nadir. Loss of enforceable order was how the collapse was experienced.
The Anarchy in England (1135–1154)
After Henry I’s death, succession war under King Stephen produced nearly two decades of licensed predation. Chroniclers wrote that “Christ and his saints slept,” churches were violated, harvests burned, and the land “all done for.” Royal tax receipts fell by about a quarter, recorded as “waste.” Nobles could not collect rents; armed retinues plundered with little fear of royal justice. This was not the end of English society, but it was a near-collapse of the kingdom as a governed space until Henry II restored royal courts and punishment.
Late Ming China (especially 1620s–1644)
Banditry and rebellion were not peripheral. Mid-Ming sources already describe highwaymen operating near Beijing; by the last decades, Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong’s armies grew out of unpaid soldiers, famine, and peasants whom the state could neither feed nor police. Officials repeatedly failed to suppress large gangs; special laws against Guangdong bandits in the late 18th century (Qing, but showing the same problem) were responses to a “bandit miasma” the courts could not process. Corruption, extra taxes, and weak local enforcement turned crime into rebellion and then dynastic collapse when the Manchus arrived. Peasant revolt plus unpunished predation was a standard Chinese-dynastic end-stage.
Somalia after 1991
After Siad Barre fell, there was no central criminal law for years. Clan customary systems (xeer) and private militias provided some local order, but homicide, predation, and piracy surged in the vacuum. This is state failure, yet it is a clean modern illustration: when no authority reliably punishes robbery and murder, organized crime and warlords become the government. International observers described daily violence as catastrophic even if clan structures prevented total atomization.
Late Roman Republic (1st century BCE) as a warning stage
Before the Empire fell, the Republic itself nearly did. Organized street gangs under Clodius and Milo turned politics into armed intimidation; courts were disrupted; self-help replaced public prosecution. Augustus later built urban cohorts and the vigiles precisely because republican (small r) institutions would no longer suppress violence in the capital. That was not civilizational death, but it shows how unpunished political crime can destroy a constitutional order.
Transformative justice (TJ) is a set of community-based practices and philosophies that seek to address harm—especially interpersonal violence—without relying on police, prisons, or the criminal legal system. It is closely linked to prison and police abolition frameworks.
Unlike restorative justice, which often works alongside or within existing legal systems and focuses primarily on repairing relationships between the person harmed and the person who caused harm, transformative justice aims to change the broader social conditions that produce violence. It treats individual acts of harm as symptoms of larger systems of oppression, trauma, inequality, and community breakdown.
Proponents generally organize TJ around these ideas:
Many of these efforts grew out of feminist, queer, and "anti-racist" organizing that viewed the state as an unreliable or actively harmful responder to violence within marginalized communities.
Advocates argue that TJ:
Critics and some practitioners themselves note significant challenges:
In short, transformative justice models reject the carceral system in favor of voluntary, community-driven processes aimed at healing, accountability, and structural change.
Their strongest documented applications tend to be in tight-knit activist or mutual-aid networks addressing interpersonal and gender-based harm; their ability to replace formal systems for broader or more severe violence remains a central point of debate.
Unlike restorative justice, which often works alongside or within existing legal systems and focuses primarily on repairing relationships between the person harmed and the person who caused harm, transformative justice aims to change the broader social conditions that produce violence. It treats individual acts of harm as symptoms of larger systems of oppression, trauma, inequality, and community breakdown.
Proponents generally organize TJ around these ideas:
- Accountability without punishment or state violence. The person who caused harm is expected to acknowledge the harm, understand its impact, and take concrete steps to change behavior and make amends. Coercion through arrest, prosecution, or incarceration is rejected.
- Survivor-centered but not solely survivor-determined. Processes prioritize the safety, agency, and needs of the person(s) harmed while also supporting the person who caused harm in transforming.
- Collective and community responsibility. Harm is not treated as a private matter between two individuals. Friends, family, organizers, and community members share responsibility for intervening, supporting, and changing conditions.
- Addressing root causes. Poverty, racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, intergenerational trauma, lack of housing or mental health support, and other structural factors are seen as drivers of violence that must be transformed.
- Prevention and prefiguration. The goal is not only to respond to harm after it occurs but to build communities capable of intervening early and creating conditions where harm is less likely.
- Support for the person harmed — safety planning, emotional support, material help, and space to define what accountability looks like for them.
- Accountability processes for the person who caused harm — often involving a small group (sometimes called a “pod” or accountability team) that helps the person understand the harm, interrupt patterns, make amends, and develop new behaviors. These processes are usually voluntary.
- Community intervention and education — addressing bystander dynamics, cultural norms that enable harm, and broader patterns (e.g., gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, sexual harm, or community violence).
- Structural change work — connecting individual cases to organizing around housing, economic security, mental health resources, and anti-oppression efforts.
Many of these efforts grew out of feminist, queer, and "anti-racist" organizing that viewed the state as an unreliable or actively harmful responder to violence within marginalized communities.
Advocates argue that TJ:
- Avoids the documented harms of incarceration (trauma, family separation, high recidivism, racial disproportionality).
- Can produce deeper behavioral change because it requires active engagement rather than passive punishment.
- Builds community capacity and resilience instead of outsourcing safety to the state.
- Centers people most affected by both interpersonal violence and state violence.
Critics and some practitioners themselves note significant challenges:
- Scalability and capacity. Most documented TJ processes involve relatively small networks with high levels of trust and organizing experience. Handling high volumes of serious violence (homicide, serial sexual violence, organized crime) at city or national scale remains largely unproven.
- Enforcement without coercion. When the person who caused harm refuses to participate or continues causing harm, communities often lack reliable non-state mechanisms to stop them. This can leave survivors unprotected or shift the burden onto informal networks.
- Power dynamics and incomplete accountability. Processes can be influenced by existing community hierarchies, social pressure, or ideological commitments that downplay certain harms. There are documented cases in activist circles where accountability processes were slow, incomplete, or captured by the person who caused harm.
- Evidence base. Much of the literature is qualitative, narrative, or based on small-scale projects. Rigorous comparative data on long-term outcomes for serious violence relative to criminal legal responses is limited.
- Resource intensity. Effective processes require substantial time, skilled facilitation, and sustained community investment—resources that are scarce in the very communities most affected by violence.
In short, transformative justice models reject the carceral system in favor of voluntary, community-driven processes aimed at healing, accountability, and structural change.
Their strongest documented applications tend to be in tight-knit activist or mutual-aid networks addressing interpersonal and gender-based harm; their ability to replace formal systems for broader or more severe violence remains a central point of debate.
Mariame Kaba
Critical Resistance (co-founded by Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, and others)
Angela Davis
Ruth Wilson Gilmore
DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) materials
Black Rose / Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Derecka Purnell (author of Becoming Abolitionists)
National Lawyers Guild
Abolitionist Law Center
Leaders Igniting Transformation (Wisconsin)
Colin Kaepernick (editor)
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_dab5e3e9-75bc-4d22-a41a-03bb50fa3b08
- NYT opinion: “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police” (June 12, 2020)https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html(Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/2022093...inion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html)
Critical Resistance (co-founded by Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, and others)
- Organizational mission and statements calling for abolition of the prison-industrial complex (policing, imprisonment, and surveillance):https://criticalresistance.org/https://criticalresistance.org/how-we-organize/
Angela Davis
- Longstanding advocacy for prison abolition (e.g., Are Prisons Obsolete?, public lectures, and interviews stating the prison system itself must be abolished). Examples:https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2003/03/abolish-prisons-says-angela-davis/Democracy Now! segments and related statements on prison-industrial complex abolition.
Ruth Wilson Gilmore
- Co-founder of Critical Resistance; explicit advocacy for prison and police abolition (e.g., “Abolition requires that we change one thing, which is everything”).Statements and interviews appear in DSA materials and outlets such as The Marshall Project and The Intercept.
DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) materials
- “The Abolitionist Horizon: Building A World Without Police Or Prisons” (DSA Emerge, 2020):https://dsaemerge.org/2020/06/24/th...n-building-a-world-without-police-or-prisons/
Black Rose / Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation
- “Statement: The Necessity of Abolishing the Police and Capitalism” (2020):https://www.blackrosefed.org/nyc-statement-abolishing-police-capitalism/
Party for Socialism and Liberation
- Marxist analysis supporting “abolish the police” as rejection of the capitalist state apparatus:https://indyliberationcenter.org/how-will-the-police-be-abolished-a-marxist-perspective-2/
Derecka Purnell (author of Becoming Abolitionists)
- Explicit advocacy for police and prison abolition:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-i-became-police-abolitionist/613540/(and her book Becoming Abolitionists)
National Lawyers Guild
- 2015 Resolution Supporting the Abolition of Prisons:https://www.nlg.org/nlg-adopts-resolution-supporting-prison-abolition/
- Later resolution supporting the abolition of policing (2020):https://www.nlg.org/wp-content/uplo...-Supporting-the-Abolition-of-Policing-REV.pdf
Abolitionist Law Center
- “WE ARE ABOLITIONISTS. Solidarity in the Struggle to End Police Terror and State Violence”:https://abolitionistlawcenter.org/2...ggle-to-end-police-terror-and-state-violence/
Leaders Igniting Transformation (Wisconsin)
- Explicit platform plank: “Abolish police and prisons…”:https://litwi.org/about/criminal-justice-priorities/
Colin Kaepernick (editor)
- Abolition for the People (collection advocating a future without policing and prisons):https://www.everand.com/book/531045...ovement-for-a-Future-without-Policing-Prisons
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_dab5e3e9-75bc-4d22-a41a-03bb50fa3b08