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 need to have a replacement ready. It’s enough for me to say that the current system does not work.
That’s always my first answer indeed. "Well, I’m going to answer your question but first, just think about the abolition of legal slavery a while ago. What would you have thought about someone who would object : “yeah, but what will we replace slavery with ?”.
I support the abolishment of prisons (at least as we know them), but I don’t think this is a fair or convincing comparison. Prisons are a failed attempt to solve a real problem (what to do with people who break the rules), which is what people are concerned about. In an ideal society it will be replaced by something (rehabilitation?). Slavery solved no problem, and so needed nothing to replace it.
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 liklihood 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.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed answer. I agree with you about almost everything.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Criminals will be required to work social services for the common good. High-risk criminals will also be put under constant surveillance either by automated systems or, in extreme cases, Human guards to stop them from reoffending.
3 psychologists per criminal I’d guess.
Well, that would reduce unemployment.
In short, community based restorative justice and support services. I.e., repairing harm through dialogue between victims, offenders, and community members, while addressing root causes like poverty, mental health issues, and substance abuse.
Ultimately, the goal is to create a society where crime is less likely to occur. This requires a shift towards preventive measures that promote social equity and community engagement. Abolishing prisons, for me at least, is one part of a larger movement that values dignity and promotes healing rather than perpetuating cycles of harm
repairing harm through dialogue between victims, offenders, and community members
What if the person who committed the crime doesn’t want to engage in this process? What if the victim of the crime doesn’t want to? What if a person accused of a crime maintains their innocence? There are plenty of cases where restorative justice can work, but many others where it won’t.
addressing root causes like poverty, mental health issues, and substance abuse
the goal is to create a society where crime is less likely to occur
I think this is a much better framework to work with than prison abolition. Picking up the pieces after a crime has been committed is expensive and usually leaves you choosing from a range of bad options.
Isn’t the root cause often (generational) trauma. There’s no, within lifetime, solution.
While trauma can be a life sentence in a way, that doesn’t mean it isn’t treatable. I’ll always have a brain formed/rewired by trauma but, through therapy, it no longer impairs my life enough to qualify as a “disorder”
The basis of prison abolition is not the idea that we should replace prision with something else. We start by understanding that it is the structure of our society that creates and perpetuates systems of crime and punishment. The emphasis on punishment does little or nothing to address the safety, health and property rights of the public. So it can be seen that it is a public problem that requires a public solution: the vast resources spent on catching and punishing people would be better spent on prevention by making mental health, substance abuse and addiction treatment affordable and available to everyone.
Rather than punish, a greater effort could be made to help rehabilitate people who have lost control of themselves and their lives, to restore them to living in harmony within their communities. Of course there will always be a small proportion of the population that are unable to healthy lives, unable to resist resorting to theft, violence, and desperate attempts at self-medication. Such persons do not benefit from punishment.
Prisons are punishment but that won’t deter crime committed out of necessity or substance abuse from self medicating mental illness. Root cause that shit - meet the basic needs (food, water, shelter) of everyone unconditionally, provide physical and mental health care to everyone as a basic right, and you suddenly have less need for prisons.
Interesting cases that challenge this argument: white collar crime - would this be consider a mental illness? Sexual predators - definitely mental illness likely caused by prior trauma, we need to provide mental health care.
Same as what we had for centuries before prison of course.
in starship trooper I believe they replaced all prisons with corporal punishment.
We don’t replace prisons, because putting people in cages is bad. There’s nothing to “replace” them with. If I wanted to “replace” prisons I wouldn’t want to abolish them. That’s like asking what you’ll replace slavery with, how on earth are we going to get cheap labour otherwise.
Bourgeois law should be abolished too. I have no respect for “the law”.
I don’t think you can start with prison reform.
You can’t rehabilitate someone who is stealing out of necessity or because they are mentally unwell. Have to start with providing UBI and universal Healthcare (including and especially mental health and addiction rehab). Probably also should solve homelessness and provide cheap educational options too.
Once that’s in start improving prisons, make them not slums, provide some ways to keep up with the times (an excon with no concept of the internet is not going to be functional in today’s society) and provide job programs and some way of protecting excons from excessive discrimination. The number one metric to measure the success of a prison should be the recitivism rate.
Now maybe after all this is done there’s a few people who cannot be classified as insane and are deadset on committing violent crimes. I will point out that a lot of organized crime would fall apart when there isn’t a fresh supply of disenfranchised people to exploit at the bottom and a lot of white collar crime does not need full exclusion from society more than exclusion from the system they were exploiting.thise few remaining murders and terrorists can go be in prison.
Tldr: to fix prisons you must first fix society.
I think I understand the spirit of your question, but the way you’ve worded it suggests that the law is immutable and/or that lawbreakers are necessarily evildoers. I interpret the question as “without incarceration, what do we do about those who do harm to others”. To that I would answer that we need institutions and programs that provide various types of care, support, and protection to people and that those who cause harm and do not provide restitution to their victims lose access to those institutions and programs. For example, if a child molester’s house burns down, the fire department would not be expected to try and save them. If it was arson then the arsonist might only get fined for creating an environmental hazard and putting adjacent buildings at risk. The lack of a carceral system would make funding available for the above programs and institutions.
Id say: prisons dont work, cost a lot and does huge damage. They also often work as a gateway to heavier crime. I dont need a replacement for that. “Nothing” would still be an improvement. This is the short answer
When that is said, what do we do about crime? Id say that depends, what kind of crime? There are so many different motivations for doing crime, there should be just as many solutions: removing poverty, proper sex education, confiscating the money from the rich, remove the reasons people are doing crime in the first place
We also do a lot of alternatives today: fines, mental hospitals, community service, guidance, conflict counseling, anger management courses, sometimes a serious conversation with the police, childcare help, detox institutions, and a lot more
They have three things in common: they work, they are a lot cheaper and they dont for the same mental damage as torture/prison
And then there are those under 1% og criminals that is totally lost, that need to be locked up. But only until we get a society where they dont get lost…
I almost feel like I’m being contrarian by asking this, though it isn’t my intent: your alternatives sound great at first blush, but how do you intend that those alternatives are enforced? Does that lead into your estimated >1% of offenders?
If those are valid substitutes for prison and they do exist, then why does prison still get the bulk of the offenders? I’m all for your idea but reality seems to be proving those solutions do not apply to most cases of criminal justice
What reality? Prisons doesnt work. Even just abolishing them without alternatives would be better for solving crime Why prisons get the bulk of the offenders? Light be something wrong with the system then. Just like how tons of people starve to death each day while EU and USA burns food to keep high prices Something happening of not a good reason to continue doing it
Plenty of word around that prison is a poor deterrent and to me it doesn’t make much sense as a punishment. It should be a tool to guide the person on right tracks.
For instance, a fellow gets caught for not paying a million in taxes so they get sent to prison where they will continue to not pay and instead spend government money. For a situation like this I suggest they remain captive (not imprisoned) working for the government until they have paid their debt. Alike in prison, someone will have a constant eye on the fellow and every breath they take. After all they managed to accumulate a million of tax money so they obviously are capable.
Those who we genuinely can’t trust to not be out of trouble should be locked up, for a reason.
What will you replace prisons with?
Work and reeducation camps.
Mmmmm, extra steps my favorite!
