Loading
The Physical Liberty Facet
If freedom means being permitted to move, decide, and act, does a monitored, curfewed, financially-crippled parole still count as freedom, or just a lower-security version of confinement?
Pretrial detention, aggressive over-policing of low-level offenses, and parole/probation surveillance regimes remove far more physical liberty than public safety requires — "freedom" reduced to a monitored, curfewed, financially-crippled version of confinement. This is distinct from Justice's Domain 3 (which argues bail should reflect risk, not wealth): Freedom's concern here is the raw quantity of liberty removed, regardless of who's paying for it.
Minimizing pretrial detention to genuine flight/safety risk only, and treating post-release monitoring as a last resort rather than a default add-on.
a specific, tracked reduction in unnecessary pretrial detention days and post-release monitoring conditions relative to actual assessed risk.
physical liberty of movement is a preferred external good — Epictetus, formerly enslaved, distinguished it from the deeper freedom of will, but that distinction was never license for a system to needlessly deprive it; physical liberty remains a preferred good worth engineering justly.
A settled position, stated plainly and kept honest by repair: if this analysis is wrong, it should be visibly wrong enough to be challenged and corrected.
The system prices supervision by the person monitored, so more people monitored is simply more revenue, regardless of whether monitoring makes anyone safer. Why it stays broken: the for-profit electronic-monitoring and supervision industry's revenue is tied directly to the volume of people under supervision rather than to any measured safety outcome, and municipal political incentives favor visible enforcement activity — arrests, monitoring caseloads — that is easy to point to, over the harder-to-see outcome of appropriately reduced supervision. The inefficiency amplifies itself: as monitoring volume becomes a metric agencies and vendors both have reason to grow, the definition of who "needs" supervision tends to expand to match capacity rather than actual assessed risk. The types that profit from the broken state: private electronic-monitoring and supervision-technology vendors whose contracts scale with caseload, and enforcement agencies whose visible-activity metrics are easiest to defend when supervision stays broad by default. The lock-in: a monitoring contract priced per person has no built-in incentive to ever recommend fewer people be monitored. Fixing it starts with the questions below.
Investigation, not agreement; these questions invite someone who disagrees with the Picture to test it, push back, or propose a better account.
Sign in with a verified face to submit a repair.