Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Brian Sullivan
Brooklyn, NY
Recent Activity
-
Brian signed the petition | -
Brian commented on the article |Thanks for the great post Matt. And although I appreciate the thoughtfulness, I really disagree. My impression is that the culture of prosecutors' offices is pretty overwhelming and the heirarchy in the office is very secure. As a young prosecutor you either get sucked in or feel completely out of place. If you want to advance you need to be on board with the program. The ideals of young law school grads pretty quickly crumble in the face of these conditions.Or if crumble is the wrong way to put it, then at least change.
The example you give is of an attorney who started on the defensive then moved over to prosecution. He didn't go through the aculturation described by Butler. Plus, defense attorneys are in the system just as much as prosecutors, just not in the same office. And they get a completely different experience, one that is more likely to make them, or keep them, progressive.
-
Brian commented on the article |Great post Matt! This is such an under-reported issue. I think your last point is particularly interesting. It's not just that mentally ill people are mistreated in the criminal justice system, but also the existence a larger stigma that people with mental illness are inherently dangerous. As long as people with mental illness are considered natural subjects of the criminal justice system there will be a wider distrust and stigmatization. Changing the way the criminal justice system interacts with people with mental disabilities is a key component of destroying that stigma.
-
Brian commented on the article |I completely agree that Costa's comments missed the point and were even a little disingenuous. At least with respect to pedophilia and human trafficking. But, I disagree that the use of weapons necessarily has victims. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Weapons can be dangerous, but so can drugs. Obviously there is a difference between the two (weapons are a technology designed to kill; drugs are a technology designed to make you feel awesome), but both are very different than the other examples Costa used. Drugs can be used in a way that is victemless and harmless, and they can be used in a way that is incredibly damaging. It depends on the drug, and it depends on the context. Similarly, weapons can be used in very damaging ways, but they can also be used in fun or even productive ways. Again, it depends on the context.
-
Brian commented on the article |
If you want to malign fun, that's one thing, but leave video games out of this.
You are no doubt right that legally purchased semi-autos get into dangerous hands. This is why a really high level of regulation is needed. But a couple dudes just firing the things off in a field somewhere? That is just pure bliss. Should they be allowed to take the guns back home? I would probably draw the line there.
Plus any type of legally purchased weapon can get into dangerous hands. My understanding of urban gun violence is that it is largely handgun violence. Handguns, like assault rifels, are machines desigend to kill, and they are more easily consealed and easier to use.
My guess is that a catagorical ban on guns, aside from being illegal after Heller, would be a money pit and impossible to enforce (like the drug war). So, some of the fun that you hate so much should be available, just in a controlled and regulated way. -
Brian commented on the article |
I think Matt is right on that we don't need weapons of war in our homes, but something about the Brady Campaign's video choice is troubling to me. I understand that the clips are supposed to drive home the point that semi-automatic weapons are just a small step away from automatic, but part of what's interesting about those videos is how fun it looks to shoot those guns. It is exciting to watch someone fire 30 rounds out of an assault rifle in about 10 seconds. I don't know why it is so exciting, but it's like going to an action movie. Even when they depict horrible deaths, they are fun to watch. It seems to me that that thrill is part of what underlies the gun-rights supporters' arguments. Even though they are machines of death, they are fun to shoot, and fun to watch other people shoot. Obviously guns need to be regulated on some level, but even the Brady Campaign's own video clips seem to illustrate the fact that guns are exciting, and they get your adreneline pumpping.
-
Brian commented on the article |I think you are right on about the need for diplomacy by state actors. I don't think violence would disapear if state actors moved to a more peaceful mode of operation, but the quality of violence in the current war and the fallout here at home is particularly nasty. It just makes the soon to be former administration's failure to take diplomacy seriously all the more unforgiveable.
I think you are even more right on about the violence used by the US in detaining, restricting the movement of and generally controlling imigrant communities. It isn't always recognized because it less frequently results in deaths, but it is rightly labeled a violent act. Situations like Guantanamo are more obvious, but the smaller and more local examples are just as pernicous. -
Brian commented on the article |Thanks very much for the thoughtful comment William. Your point about the job of military leadership is particularly interesting. In a certain sense the genie is out of the violence bottle regardless of what the US military chooses to do. From a non-military perspective, the controlled violence that is unleashed on the battlefield seems so psychologically scarring and damaging that I wonder if there is any ethical training that can effectively contain it. In other words, can controlling the violence of war and combat really protect us (citizens and vets) from its damaging effects?
-
Brian commented on the article |As this blog frequently makes clear, police in the US can be racist and police enforcement often targets racial minorities. The state enforcement of criminal law seems to go out of its way to criminalize minority status. In light of this fact, I can understand some of the appeal of the no snitches attitude.
That being said, the type of violence this post describes seems nihilistic and destructive to me. You can imagine racial violence that is liberatory and productive, but I don't think that is what is happening in the examples above. It is nerve wracking to criticize hip-hop culture, because at least to some extenet that envolves criticizing African-American culture, and this risks being called (or actually being) racist. That being said, I think Matt and his former colleague are right in criticizing a culture of violence that is not empowering, but rather deeply destructive.
