Mass incarceration and the modern prison system as contemporary slavery

¶ … subscribe to any of these theories about punishment. I have a different one, which is this: slavery never really went away -- prisons are the new slave plantations and the blacks that are imprisoned are put there so that they can make parts for Nike and Apple for slave wages and be perpetually recycled back into the system because of the high rates of recidivism that the prison farm systems know will occur (because the ex-cons can't pay their prison bills (yes, they have prison bills upon leaving -- they actually have to pay for their own incarceration) because they haven't earned anything from their corporate prison slave plantation masters). The system is set up to exploit black labor -- just like as of old (Benns, 2015).

I think Tom is appealing in the wrong manner. Instead of appealing on the "void for vagueness" doctrine, Tom should appeal simply because he did not know that there was a daycare next door. Indeed, how is he supposed to know? The law, like many U.S. laws, is written and passed without any thought of how it might apply in the real world. Is a convicted sex offender supposed to get on Google Maps and look up parks, daycares, pools and schools before he goes anywhere? How can he ever go anywhere at all considering that these places are virtually everywhere? Tom should appeal based on the law being idiotic. Unfortunately he would lose, because as Thurgood Marshall pointed out, "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws" (New York State Bd. Of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 2008).

Unit 2 Discussion

Did you know the pill would knock you out the way it did? No.

Then you are not responsible for what happened? You did not act against your own self-interest and the interest of others? No.

Then there can be no Actus Reus.

However -- arguing for Actus Reus -- she should have known the effect of the pill. Her ignorance was the result of negligence on her part, thus she is still responsible. Thus, there is Actus Reus (Lehman, Phelps, 2008).

Unit 3 Discussion

The defendant was armed and thus gave the impression of one who was prepared to cause physical, bodily harm. Thus, in spite of whatever in his mind said he did not intend to cause harm, his actions obviously dictated that he was prepared to do so. Thus the conviction was upheld.

Unit 4 Discussion

Mistake of Fact should work as a defense because the defendant never had mens rea. He had no intent to break the law of Fun Land and so should not stand punishment. This is similar to having no Actus Reus, if the facts were changed slightly.

Unit 6 Discussion

I would argue against this Bill since it is impossible to distinguish a Bugs Bunny from a regular bunny. Such a law just invites trouble and all manner of contention -- and laws should work to ease tension, not create it. A counter-argument might be that, but, yes the Bugs Bunny must be protected therefore we need this law. I would contend that if the lawmaker can identify correctly 10 Bugs Bunnies out of 20 bunnies then, fine, he can have it his way. If not, the Bill should be struck. I would not attempt to revise it.

Unit 7 Discussion

Tom did not cause Jerry's death because though he did set the boulder on the edge with the intent of pushing it over, he had a change of heart at the last moment -- a moment of grace, if you will. But it appears that God wanted Jerry dead anyway, and so along comes Bugs and acts as the indifferent agent -- the unknowing agent -- the unseen hand of God. Over goes the boulder -- but not because of Tom, who at this moment is innocent before God, if not before the state of xx.