You’re a prison abolitionist. You’re in a high stakes discussion where you have to answer seriously and be convincing.
Someone asks you : “yeah, but what are we to do with people breaking the law, then? What will you replace prisons with ?”
What will you answer?
Edit : Thanks a lot for your answer, they were very interesting and reflecting different ways to frame a world without prisons.
Except from one or two edgelord hot takes, of course.
I don’t think it’s possible to abolish prisons for all crimes. But why does a thief or a drug dealer (or worse, just a drug user) need to be in prison? What about the nature of their crimes necessitates imprisonment as a reasonable method of corrections?
If the point is stopping people from reoffending, prisons don’t do that. Like objectively. Recidivism in the US is super high, and going to prison predicts increases in the severity of crimes people commit.
So, what reduces recidivism? Eliminating the factors that drove them to crime in the first place. So, you monitor them closely - house arrest, assigned social/case workers, etc. Like a more robust parole system for nonviolent offenders. With enough surveillance, you can reduce the likelihood of reoffence by making the chances of getting caught much higher. This enhanced monitoring would be temporary.
For violent offenders and more serious criminals, maybe prisons are still necessary. But they don’t have to be dehumanizing and can provide necessary health/psychiatric, educational, social, and job skills training.
You could make the corrections system more effective by making society easier for criminals to reintegrate into. If you’re a felon and you can’t find work because you’re a felon - how are you going to afford to live within the confines of the law? Step 1) jobs programs for felons with a path to eliminating non-violent offenses from your record as it relates to work with exceptions as necessary. Step 2) improve the education system to prevent people from turning to crime and to help give former criminals relevant job skills to earn an honest living. Step 3) provide healthcare to people - having access to healthcare for mental and addiction-related conditions is super important to reduce crime.
Basically - prison abolition isn’t about just letting rapists and murderers go free with no consequences. Instead, people in favor of prison abolition are typically in favor of reducing the societal pressures to commit crimes and preventing reoffense.
In short, prison abolition isn’t about abolishing prisons?
Bad name choice in my opinion, as it immediately makes me think: what a dumb idea. There will surely always be people beyond a point of no return.
The name is important because of the parallels between slavery and modern day prisons.
At minimum, the movement is about completely rethinking our approach to dealing with crime. If we “only” reduce the prison population to 5% or 1% of its current count in the process, we won’t have abolished all prisons, but we will have succeeded in abolishing many parts of the current criminal justice system.
Yeah. I gather you’re from the US.
I’m not telling you what to do.
If we “only” reduce the prison population to 5% or 1% of its current count in the process
Then why call it abolish prisons?
I see now that you’re trying trying to trigger an additional emotional response. Working on association, rather than logic. Such manipulation, especially, is something I would not want to be a part of. It’s vile.
You do you. I’ll just repeat my original statement: it also drives away people, who would otherwise agree.
I gather you’re from the US.
Yes, but also the prison abolition movement is US specific. I’m not affiliated with it, to be clear - not that I oppose it or anything, but I certainly don’t speak for any of its activists.
If we “only” reduce the prison population to 5% or 1% of its current count in the process
Then why call it abolish prisons?
Have you ever heard the quote “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars?” “Abolition” is a goal, an ideal - and even if it isn’t accomplished fully, working toward that end goal and considering everything necessary to get there along the way is the point.
Along those lines, I posit that if 90% of prisons are torn down or repurposed and the remaining 10% are drastically changed - holding fewer prisoners; not being privately owned and operated; focusing on rehabilitation, like learning new job skills, when possible, and otherwise simply being more humane, then the prison abolition movement would have succeeded.
But if you disagree with the name, what would you call it? “Prison Reform” is already taken and means something drastically different.
And to be clear, for some the goal is to eliminate prisons entirely. The movement isn’t monolithic. Abolishing the “prison institution” as it exists today is a pretty common goal, though, and using “prison” to mean “the prison institution” is a pretty common literary technique called “Synecdoche,” which you likely use every day.
I see now that you’re trying trying to trigger an additional emotional response. Working on association, rather than logic.
It’s a logical association, though. If the name evokes feelings of slavery, that’s a good thing, as the situation is similar enough to slavery to warrant that.
Slavery in the US is still legal (so long as the person is in prison). Black Americans are 5 times as likely to be in prison as white Americans. A black man born in 2001 has a 20% chance of being in prison at some point in his life.
The systemic oppression of black Americans is obviously because of racism, and the parallels between slavery and the prison institution aren’t accidental. For example, here’s a quote from Slavery and the U.S. Prison System:
Gary Webb’s famous investigation revealed that the CIA was operating a gun-running and drug-smuggling operation that brought guns to the Nicaraguan contras that the U.S. was using to destabilize the popular government in that country, while bringing cocaine into the U.S. and funneling it to street-level dealers with access to black inner-city neighborhoods. The history of black street gangs is part of the afterlife of COINTELPRO, the FBI’s counter-intelligence program that actively sabotaged black social movement throughout the long civil rights era. Bobby Lavender, one of the founders of the Bloods in Los Angeles, explained that the COINTELPRO assassinations of black leaders, and the terrorizing of rank-and-file civil rights activists, left an organizational vacuum in many communities that youth like him filled with their “own brand of leadership.” COINTELPRO established a pattern of law enforcement interference and sabotage of black self-determination, including gang truces, from the 1970s through to the present.
Such manipulation, especially, is something I would not want to be a part of. It’s vile.
Personally, I think the systemic sabotage of black people’s livelihood, communities, and families is vile, but you’re welcome to your opinion.
Well, I can try to clarify here. Some prison abolitionist, activist or scholars, do indeed think there will be a residual proportion on crime that will necessitate kind of spatial segregationi, and, for some, being locked up for a time.
And it’s not necessarily conflicting with the abolitionist motto. They say : Well, prisons are buildings, but mostly, they are a social and historical function (punishing the poor, the political opposition, etc.). If we abolish that and there are like 3000 people in prison nationwide, the logic of stockpiling inmates will be gone. Maybe it will be possible to actually do something for them. The gap in punishment between the poor and the rich will be reduced if not gone.
Nevermind the building. If their historical function is gone, prisons are gone.
No one’s actually saying abolish prisons
Me:
In short, prison abolition isn’t about abolishing prisons?
Bad name choice in my opinion, as it immediately makes me think: what a dumb idea.
This is kind of like saying being anti-war is a dumb idea because there will surely always be wars fought in defense. Being anti-war isn’t necessarily being an absolute pacifist. It’s about opposing war and striving towards a future where war is a relic of the past. Everybody understands this, but struggles to apply the same logic to other topics.
Striving for intentionally utopian and impossible ideals is a great idea, actually, as long as you recognize it for what it is. I’m a prison abolitionist. Ultimately what I strive for is a society that doesn’t need prisons. I don’t know if total prison abolition is possible, but worst case scenario, we get as close as possible. What’s so bad about that?
Similarly, I’m a communist, in the classical anarchist sense: abolition of state, class, and money. Are these things possible? Maybe not. In fact, probably not, at least not in any timeframe where humanity will be recognizable to us, as it would require true peace between all people and absolute post-scarcity in every way available to everyone. But worse case scenario, we get as close as possible.
Ultimately, adopting a utopian ideal is a recognition that the struggle to do better never ends. We’re never “done”. There’s no end of history. Even if we do somehow achieve it, it must be maintained.
Everybody understands this, but struggles to apply the same logic to other topics.
People don’t go: England is polio free, yet there’s people with polio.
Perhaps this method of communication is something that will have to adapt. It disengages a lot of people who otherwise would share the same goals.
I don’t follow. We regularly refer to polio as being “eradicated”, even though there have still been documented (but exceptionally rare) cases of polio transmission even in western countries over the last couple decades. That actually sounds like a perfectly apt comparison for the goals of prison abolition, just not in the way you intended.
I would love to be proved wrong, and see the sources describing recent polio cases in england!
Would indeed be apt!
Not an active case, but it has been detected in recent times.
A direct case was not reported in the UK in recent years, but evidence of very likely polio transmission was found in sewage samples two years ago:
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/polio-virus-found-in-uk-sewage-samples-risk-to-public-low
A similar situation happened in New York where an actual case was found a month later:
The short of it is, when vaccination rates fall, Polio can be reintroduced via transmission of the live virus found in the oral vaccine, usually taken in poorer countries. If someone were to take the oral vaccine and then immediately travel to a country with lessening vaccination rates, like is currently happening in the west due to the spread of right-wing conspiracy mongering, the live virus still in the vaccinated individual has a low but not zero chance of propagating to the unvaccinated or immune-compromised population there. Samples containing these vaccine-derived viruses are found a few times per year in most places, and it’s a weaker virus so often it leads to no symptoms, but in very rare instances it does take hold with the expected effect:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON366
Despite individual cases of polio turning up, either via direct reporting or evidence found elsewhere, it would still be correct to describe polio as being “eradicated” in these countries, at least currently. Nobody is confused by this or demands reclassification of the status of polio.
So, none. Traces by RNA amplification in sewages. But there very well might be a right wing conspiracy.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed answer. I agree with you about almost everything.
