Speaker 1: Greetings and welcome to woke AF with me Danielle Moody.
Speaker 1: This week, as all eyes are on the trial proceedings
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis for the former police officer who killed George Floyd,
Speaker 1: I wanted to explore calls for abolition and defunding and
Speaker 1: what these terms actually mean in practice. I had deep
Speaker 1: half hour conversations with New York City mayoral candidate Maya
Speaker 1: Wiley and Represent Justices executive director Daniel Furkio about how
Speaker 1: we can transform policing and rehabilitative justice to work for
Speaker 1: all people. As always, you can hear those full conversations
Speaker 1: right now on my Patreon for just five dollars at
Speaker 1: patreon dot com slash woke AF. But if you've ever
Speaker 1: had questions about how activists are processing the loud calls
Speaker 1: to abolish prisons, take a listen to Daniel Fokio explaining
Speaker 1: what represent Justice is doing to adjust the fat that
Speaker 1: the prison system is directly descended from the institution of slavery.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the things that I often say,
Speaker 1: and you hear people saying, is that our criminal justice
Speaker 1: system is broken. Right, our criminal justice system is broken
Speaker 1: and it needs to be fixed. And what I have
Speaker 1: started to say is that the criminal justice system isn't broken.
Speaker 1: It's actually working exactly the way it was intended to work.
Speaker 1: Right that you, following the abolition of slavery, that we
Speaker 1: have as a society created various mechanisms to in prison
Speaker 1: right and essentially put back into slavery black and brown people.
Speaker 1: We use the criminal justice system as a way for
Speaker 1: us to say that this particular group of people needs
Speaker 1: to be over surveillance, needs to be over policed, right,
Speaker 1: and so we are going to put law enforcement embedded
Speaker 1: in these communities, right. And what we know to be
Speaker 1: true is that the more police that you have, the
Speaker 1: more likely you are to be picked up foreign fraction.
Speaker 1: And then this cyclical way of being happened. So when
Speaker 1: we look at this and we have these communities, we
Speaker 1: have the white community saying, well, you know, of course
Speaker 1: they commit all of the crimes right like the you know,
Speaker 1: we see they're in prison for a reason, and so
Speaker 1: we treat them like animals because they are animals, and
Speaker 1: it's a reinforcing this sense of being and then justifies
Speaker 1: white violence. So talk to me about how this is
Speaker 1: such a grave lie. When we talk about the big
Speaker 1: lie right now, we talk about the big lie in
Speaker 1: politics in terms of lying about who won the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election, but I think the biggest lie in all
Speaker 1: honesty is how we have continued on with the system
Speaker 1: that we know is purposefully made based on racism and injustice.
Speaker 1: And so how do you unpack that lie? What does
Speaker 1: it look like to have these real, deep conversations and
Speaker 1: stories about why our justice some misset up in the
Speaker 1: way that it is. That is such a great and
Speaker 1: observation and question, Danielle. I think one thing I would
Speaker 1: say for people that don't know is that between nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety and two thousand and five, if you can imagine this,
Speaker 1: a prison was built once every ten days in the US.
Speaker 1: Those prisons were filled, particularly even in states like California,
Speaker 1: like where people believe that we're very progressive right on
Speaker 1: with black and brown individuals, including the youth. The super
Speaker 1: Predator narrative which popped up at the same time, feel
Speaker 1: that type of investment, state level of incarceration. And so
Speaker 1: when you look at and it feels, ultimately Danielle, a
Speaker 1: narrative of good versus evil instead of opportunity versus oppression,
Speaker 1: which is really the conversation that we should be having.
Speaker 1: And so it's important for people to understand that when
Speaker 1: you spend, for example, in California, fifty billion dollars a
Speaker 1: year on your justice system, you are making a philisop
Speaker 1: optical statement that this is what you believe. It's not
Speaker 1: a matter of safety. There's a million different types of
Speaker 1: interventions and alternate models besides locking up individuals, and besides
Speaker 1: all of the many atrocities that sort of happened to
Speaker 1: our youth and to incarcerated women in the system. So
Speaker 1: you're making a decision that this is how your resources
Speaker 1: should be sent. And so I think there's a couple
Speaker 1: of things versus reframing it to opportunity versus oppression, and
Speaker 1: also to naysayers around changing the justice system. It usually
Speaker 1: comes from a really myoptic view of what the justice
Speaker 1: system is. It comes from a view that it's a
Speaker 1: person's worst act that they've ever committed and what the
Speaker 1: retribution for that act is at the systemic level. And
Speaker 1: so we need to broaden people's view of the system.
Speaker 1: We need to broaden people's view of who is incarcerated,
Speaker 1: why are they incarcerated? You know, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers,
Speaker 1: victims of prime, survivors of crime, survivors of abuse, survivors
Speaker 1: of discrimination and prejudice, violence of all kinds. That really,
Speaker 1: those stories and that understanding is ultimately will fuel the
Speaker 1: empathy and the demand for change. I think if people
Speaker 1: understood how we've invested ourselves emotionally and really in our
Speaker 1: identity as a country around the justice system, it would
Speaker 1: do more to change it. You know. The last question
Speaker 1: for you, Daniel and I you know, I just want
Speaker 1: to once again like commend you and the work that
Speaker 1: represents justice has been doing over the past couple of
Speaker 1: years since your launch, because I think you know, as
Speaker 1: a storyteller, right, as somebody who works to share information
Speaker 1: and tell stories, I think that it's incredibly important. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you, you know, when we are having
Speaker 1: these conversations that are readily in the press right now
Speaker 1: about abolition, right the abolition of the police, the abolition
Speaker 1: of this very injust system, they understanding that throwing people
Speaker 1: in jail and throwing away the key has not made
Speaker 1: our society any better. That looking at people as obstacles
Speaker 1: other than opportunities for change or possibility is where we
Speaker 1: actually need to lead and need to put our investment.
Speaker 1: Do you think that we need to change the conversation
Speaker 1: or change the language that we use in terms of abolition.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that has been a hindrance to
Speaker 1: people getting on the side of how we reform this
Speaker 1: system or is it just we need to talk more
Speaker 1: about it and we need to familiarize people more. I
Speaker 1: think we just need a more detailed understanding around what
Speaker 1: it means. I think that there's some misunderstanding around abolition
Speaker 1: that is completely willful, and then there's some just general
Speaker 1: misunderstanding around what it means, I think, or that converts
Speaker 1: it to kind of this zero it's either going to
Speaker 1: be no public safety or the current system that we have.
Speaker 1: And so what I would do is I would reframe
Speaker 1: kind of the context of it to say that we know,
Speaker 1: and we all, every single one of us desires to
Speaker 1: live in a safe community, a well invested community. We
Speaker 1: desire to feel protected. We desire that when you know,
Speaker 1: people stumble or commit mistakes, they not be defined by
Speaker 1: those mistakes, but rather given a chance to grow redeem
Speaker 1: themselves in a way that doesn't harm anyone, so storing
Speaker 1: the harm that they've caused and also repairing the harm
Speaker 1: that has been caused often to them. But take a
Speaker 1: look at our prison system and does it do that?
Speaker 1: And I think that if you give that deeper understanding
Speaker 1: around the narratives that people's stories, you will lead to
Speaker 1: a very logical conclusion that the prison system does not
Speaker 1: do that. The prison system does not rehabilitate you. It
Speaker 1: is not just a predictive it is a predictable consequence.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's validated by by the stigma that people
Speaker 1: who are returning citizens have that we don't feel like
Speaker 1: the prison system is doing anything good. And so you
Speaker 1: have to really kind of give that additional context and
Speaker 1: narrative to share that this system is not working. The
Speaker 1: system it is working, as you said, the way that
Speaker 1: it's been intended to safety. It's not bettering people, it's
Speaker 1: not bettering the communities. And if we can really communicate
Speaker 1: that clearly with people's voices who've been impacted by the
Speaker 1: system at the center of it, everyone everyone will understand
Speaker 1: what it means when we say abolish, abolish prisons, or
Speaker 1: whatever the case might be. It's abolishing the trauma and
Speaker 1: the trauma factory, the prisons that have become That was
Speaker 1: as I mentioned earlier written into the constitutional amendments. I mean,
Speaker 1: we could have foreseen that mass incarceration would be the
Speaker 1: evolution of slavery, of racism, and everything else. So it's
Speaker 1: not meant to be at odds with the values that
Speaker 1: we all share, but it's meant to point out that
Speaker 1: this system is not accomplishing those values at all for anyone,
Speaker 1: and there's a better way to do things, and it's
Speaker 1: time for our philosophy as a country to completely change.
Speaker 1: While Daniel and I agree that the prison system is
Speaker 1: not actually intended for rehabilitation, there is still work to
Speaker 1: be done to help people understand the prison industrial complex
Speaker 1: so that we can work together as a people to
Speaker 1: end private prisons and create a system that works better
Speaker 1: for everyone. One small thing you can do is to
Speaker 1: help share these conversations with your friends and family, equip
Speaker 1: them with the knowledge they can use to expand wokeness
Speaker 1: in their own communities. Activist calls to abolish prisons and
Speaker 1: defund the police might be confusing to people until they
Speaker 1: understand what they actually mean in practice. So I asked
Speaker 1: Maya Wiley, who is running from mayor of New York City,
Speaker 1: how she interprets these calls to defund the police in
Speaker 1: a city where there is endemic police violence against everyday citizens.
Speaker 1: When we talk about this term of defund the police
Speaker 1: right and of creating investment in community, we see that
Speaker 1: there is incredible pushback from the police. We see incredible
Speaker 1: pushback from police unions. I want to know, how do
Speaker 1: you both create a city that is equitable in terms
Speaker 1: of the fact that my tax dollars go to funding
Speaker 1: them police, just like my white neighbors tax dollars go
Speaker 1: to funding the police. Except I would be fearful to
Speaker 1: call the police if I needed them because I don't
Speaker 1: want to end up as a hashtag. And so how
Speaker 1: do we look at the readjustment in terms of the
Speaker 1: relationship that police have with the communities that they are policing,
Speaker 1: the excess violence that we have seen over the course
Speaker 1: of decades with too many black lives lost, and then
Speaker 1: also recognizing that we are not putting money in the
Speaker 1: right place. But when we talk about defund that spins
Speaker 1: off into something else. So how does your campaign, would
Speaker 1: your administration deal with this balancing act that we've seen
Speaker 1: play out across the country. Yeah, look, I start with
Speaker 1: it from the perspective of a moral budget. A moral budget,
Speaker 1: and a moral budget requires us one to look at
Speaker 1: how we build revenue effectively, but in ways that solve problems,
Speaker 1: not create them. Right, So revenue generation means thinking about
Speaker 1: as I said, you know, we're going to take ten
Speaker 1: billion dollars, actually didn't say this part the caring economy
Speaker 1: is one piece of that. Right, We're actually putting money
Speaker 1: back in people's pockets. They can care for themselves, they
Speaker 1: can care for their communities. They can put money back
Speaker 1: into the economy when we help them get those jobs,
Speaker 1: when we help them work because or deal with emergencies,
Speaker 1: because they have a safe place to leave family members.
Speaker 1: We also, by giving them those grants, are ensuring that
Speaker 1: they can put money back into the economy. That's good
Speaker 1: for everyone and that actually brings revenue back into the city. Coffers.
Speaker 1: It's also looking at it from what our resources are
Speaker 1: that we control. That creates more of those opportunities. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to spend ten billion dollars capital construction budget
Speaker 1: that is separate from the expense budget. We're often talking
Speaker 1: about budgeting. Is if we don't have two different budgets,
Speaker 1: but we do the capital budget, that just means money
Speaker 1: we borrow to build things we need built and fix
Speaker 1: things we need fixed. And what do we need? We
Speaker 1: need affordable housing that's deeply affordable for so many of
Speaker 1: our workers who work hard but can't afford the rent.
Speaker 1: We need, you know, to make sure that they're creating.
Speaker 1: We're solving the problem with nitscha. So we'll put two
Speaker 1: billion dollars into renovation and rehabilitation. As I said, my
Speaker 1: god son lives in public housing. This ain't theoretical for me.
Speaker 1: People are unsafe and unsanitary conditions and they deserve better
Speaker 1: green economy, green jobs. You know how we're thinking about
Speaker 1: building resiliency when you know two thirds of our people
Speaker 1: who are in flood zones or low income people of color.
Speaker 1: So these are all ways where we're fixing problems we
Speaker 1: have as a city. But we're doing it by creating
Speaker 1: a hundred thousand jobs. We're going to do local target
Speaker 1: and hiring. We're going to think about local procurement, buying
Speaker 1: the things we need for those projects. We're going to
Speaker 1: be thinking about how that creates jobs for artists and
Speaker 1: creatives as well, so that while while we're spending and
Speaker 1: borrowing to spend in a way that is stimulative that
Speaker 1: we know from the Great Recession to the Great Depression
Speaker 1: has helped us come back in the past. We're also
Speaker 1: going to focus it on art what I call communities
Speaker 1: of concern, which were the communities that were worse off
Speaker 1: before COVID, and we're worse off during COVID, and we'll
Speaker 1: have a long trajectory to recovery and deserve investments post COVID.
Speaker 1: And so that's really looking at our budget differently, and
Speaker 1: we've already talked about it on the police side. It
Speaker 1: means that when we make cuts, and we will, that
Speaker 1: we're making choices that are about investing in our future,
Speaker 1: because that's what a moral bud is. It is investment
Speaker 1: in the kind of city I think we all want
Speaker 1: to live in. When I talk about it in that way,
Speaker 1: when I talk about what is just good common sense,
Speaker 1: like nobody thinks that police officer's job is responding to
Speaker 1: a mental health crisis. Everyone agrees that it's a mental
Speaker 1: health professional that should be responding to a mental health
Speaker 1: crisis with the ability to ask her police backup if
Speaker 1: the expert thinks he or she needs it, But that
Speaker 1: should be a call by a mental health expert not
Speaker 1: by the police who don't sign up for the force
Speaker 1: to become mental health experts. That's not why they're signing
Speaker 1: up for the job. And there's so much that we
Speaker 1: can focus policing on that's appropriate and that we know
Speaker 1: our communities want police focused on. I use the legal
Speaker 1: guns because that's such an obvious example, and it's such
Speaker 1: an example that police officers also want to work on.
Speaker 1: But putting more police officers on a street corner doesn't
Speaker 1: stop the shooting it, Oh, it just moves it over
Speaker 1: a block. Why would we keep doing it that way?
Speaker 1: It is often said that the definition of insanity is
Speaker 1: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
Speaker 1: a different result. We have seen what the prison system
Speaker 1: and police departments due to Black Americans across this country.
Speaker 1: We cannot keep doing things the same way. There needs
Speaker 1: to be deep systemic change, and folks like Daniel Fokio
Speaker 1: and Maya Wiley are leading the charge to make this
Speaker 1: a better nation for all Americans, but especially black folks
Speaker 1: and people of color who suffer disproportionately. To hear more
Speaker 1: of these conversations every single week, you know what to do.
Speaker 1: Head over to patreon dot com, slash woke f and subscribe.
Speaker 1: Five dollars a month gets you five shows a week
Speaker 1: full of in depth discussions just like these until next time.
Speaker 1: Power to the people and to all the people. Power,
Speaker 1: get woke and stay woke as fuck.