Talk:Prison abolition movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Racism

Someone has added "white supremacy and racism" to the relevant issues. I have removed it because it is completely unrelated topic, if somebody wants to put it back please ensure that you post the reason here, otherwise i'll still revert it. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)

[edit] Eighty percent of women in prison are pregnant?

Someone added that 80% of prison women are pregnant, but it's unsourced. That sounds a little absurd.

[edit] Additions to "Arguments for prison abolition" ?

Should there not be mention of philosophical positions on questions surrounding free will and moral/criminal responsibility leading to a rejection of prison? I think this would give a broader summary of differing reasons for supporting abolition of prison, rather than simply focusing on practical issues such as whether reoffending is reduced.

I believe so. There are many deeply rooted issues here. I think in general the notion of instituting a restorative rather than a retrubutionist justice system would be at the heart of the argument. Piercetp (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to narrow that a bit: Abolitionism is more like "solve individual problems using restorative principles" than "solve criminal problems with a restorative system". Two important distinctions between the two (and I realize the latter may not have been exactly what you said) are that the former (a) does not imply that any and all actions currently defined as "crimes" are necessarily "problems" that society should intervene on (e.g. 'victimless' crimes), and (b) does not imply that all societal problems must be imposed by a "system", as that often does not allow for actual restoration. --RealGrouchy (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section: "Arguments for prison abolition"

I don't care to get into a political debate, but I'd like to point out a few non sequiturs in these claims.

In the United States of America, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not abolish slavery, but limited it to cases where it is a "punishment for the crime". In some countries prisons are nothing more than institutionalised slavery.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution does not permit slavery to continue in prisons. What it permits is "involuntary servitude," which is a far cry from slavery in that there is no ownership claimed over the involuntary servant. But is this even the real issue? No. The invocation of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution in this context is clearly meant to imply that the United States is one such country whose prisons represent "nothing more than institutionalised slavery" and that the correctional systems there are the last vestiges of a rotten idea of endemic social oppression and blah blah blah. There is no doubt in my mind that many countries do, in fact, have atrocious prison systems that are arbitrary and despotic. The use of the 13th Amendment as an illustrative example of this in reference to other countries, however, is inappropriate since I'm sure many of these hypothetical places also have similar laws on the books that are more relevant to the discussion at hand.

The state can always use prisons to put undesirables out of the way

Sure, but if The State (TM) is so corrupt that it's going to do that, why not just kill said undesirables instead? This is not an unreasonable point, but it's far too broad a statement as is.

Judicial outcome depends on the financial resources of the accused

The United States, the United Kingdom, and many other countries make legal provisions for citizens who stand accused of crimes to receive legal representation at no personal cost. Are public defenders usually able to devote as much of their time and energy to their various clients as private defense attorneys are? Well, no. But this statement is written in an inflammatory manner that attempts to draw an absolute causal connection between finances and criminal liability. This should be rewritten to be less all-encompassing.

Legislature is biased towards profiting one segment of the population over another. In most countries tobacco is legal, while marijuana is not, because large corporations control the former, while the latter will be impossible to control and tax.

Inflammatory, innacurate, and absolutely irrelevant. This needs to be removed in its entirety.

Police and prisons alienate people from their communities.

Why do they do this? By what methods do they do this? What are the effects of this alienation?

There are examples of prisonless societies.

Which ones? Specific examples strengthen the point(s) being made.

Prisons are not proven to make people less violent.

And the aforementioned prisonless societies are? Please elaborate.

Prisons fuel greed and lust, rather than encouraging offenders to work to end those desires.

Another statement that is far too broad to be of any practical validity. Why do prison abolitionists make this claim and what do they use to support it?


Whomever posted this made some good points but forgot to sign! I suggest you be bold and edit what you deem inaccurate or unnecessary, personaly I thinkt he statement that "prisons alienate people from their communities" is pretty self explanatory for example, when you're removed from a community you're bound to become alienated, but others such as "There are examples of prosonless socieites" obviously need elaboration or can be deleted. four tildes = signature Omishark 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


There are examples of prisonless societies.
Here's an easy example: early Israel. Simplfying dramatically, under the rules you'll find in the Bible, either it was a property crime, in which case you pay seven times the value (cash on the barrelhead, or become an indentured servant until you and your family have worked the equivalent number of days), or it was a non-property crime, in which case you were maimed or executed. Prison is mentioned nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
More broadly, nomadic tribes don't have prisons (you can't put a prison on a camel's back when it's time to move on), and neither do tiny tribes or groups that are barely managing a subsistence-level survival. If you think about it, I think it'll be obvious that a group which is barely fending off starvation is more likely to want every worker in the field, instead of dedicating workers to feeding and guarding someone they consider to be a troublemaker. WhatamIdoing 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism?

While it makes sense to discuss prison abolition as a vital part of anarchist theory, it makes far less to imply (as in the article as written so far) that anarchism is where (all) prison abolition stems from. The fact that "history" gets only a lazy stub and a plug for a specific anarchist organization bothers me. Anarchist Black Cross is far from the only prison abolition organization, and to skip over a great deal of history only to include an entire section called "Anarchists in prison abolition" also bothers me. I have absolutely no problem with anarchism being a vital part of this article, but I do have a problem with what amounts to the text of an anarchist zine on prison abolition being passed off as an encylopedia article on the entire topic of prison abolition. I find anarchist reasoning for prison abolition perfectly valid, just not representative of the entire breadth of the topic.

I would suggest having a more detailed "History" section, first of all. One could include all the different groups invloved in prison abolition there. Or else one could do "History", as well as a seperate section on "Philosophies/Ideologies/Groups In Favour of Prison Abolition"-- including all types of groups, not just anarchists, and their different reasons for being advocates of prison abolition. (I'm aware of the links section, but unless you leave Anarchist Black Cross to the links section only like everyone else, you need a section about all the groups. Besides that, a list just isn't enough and fails to tell me how much of a role that, let's say the Quakers for instance, played in this movement both philosophically and historically.)

Also, I didn't know what "Tactics" meant initially. (Tactics for...?) In fact, at risk of appearing stupid, I'll say that I still don't quite get it. It's poorly titled and the content does little to illuminate my understanding. I would start by using full sentences and explaining what they mean. And then I'd re-title it to something that actually explains what the section is about. When I see "tactics" I assume I'm going to get a list of political tactics for abolishing prisons. (ie, demonstration, letter writing, etc.) Or maybe something else. The list that's there looks more like "Alternatives to Prison" than "tactics". Am I misunderstanding the section? Or is the author misunderstanding the word "tactics"? In any case, even if "tactics" is okay as a word, it still needs more to be a heading. Again-- tactics for what, exactly? I would humbly suggest that if the title can't make sense as "Tactics for _______" (ie, nothing fills the blank well) it should be scrapped in favour of a section called "Alternatives to Prisons" to go after the Pros and Cons.

As someone who is both an anarchist and an advocate of prison abolition, I find it strange to say this, but I think this does a poor job of explaining prison abolition. This article looks like a rally leaflet entitled "Why Anarchists are Opposed to Prison"-- not an article about the entire subject of prison abolition. If one was interested in making sure wikipedia has a comprehensive article about the idea of prison abolition, this is not what they would write (even if they were an anarchist, like myself). Sorry to be harsh, but this needs some major editing.

[edit] Article isn't informative or doesn't make sense

If people want to abolish prison, the first question I want answered is "What alternative do they propose?" The answer given in this article is "In place of prisons, anarchism proposes community-controlled courts, councils, or assemblies", which makes no sense since those are the adjudication aspect of the justice system and prisons are not (they're the penal or correctional part).

There is then later a glimmer of sense, where one goal of the movement is said to be "Substituting incarceration with supervised release, probation, restitution to victims, or community work." There's, probably, the answer to the obvious question I posed at the start, but is one line all that can be written about the alternatives? Is that it, is the proposed alternative really that simple? What happens if the convict violates the terms of the first or second of those alternatives, or the fourth, or isn't capable of the third? I find it very hard to believe that such a credible-sounding movement could have such an underdeveloped plan.

Of course, they don't. But can the details (anything) be added by someone who knows them? Thanks. Gronky 04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, your comment is irrelevant. The article is meant to describe the movement and its arguments; whether or not you or anyone else agrees with the movement is completely irrelevant. As for the actual content, I don't have time to respond, but it boils down to "prisons are doing far more harm than good, particularly when you consider the expense (anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000 per person per year to incarcerate someone). As such, they should be abolished, or at least greatly reduced in scope, and the resources should be spent more productively" and "you can't paint a wide variety of social phenomena with one label ("crime") and try to deal with it using one single method of resolution (prisons); it does not take into account the particular situation that brought a person there. Further, prisons are meant to punish, but do nothing to actually reduce crime, or to ensure that those who are released from it have the skills and resources they need to live a "productive" life that does not involve crime." That is an oversimplification, but it starts to get the point across. --RealGrouchy 14:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


The article is meant to describe the movement and its arguments
And by that token, Gronky's comment was completely relevant; that's exactly what he was asking for. His comment may vaguely imply his opinion on the abolition subject, but that's about it. His point still stands. The main article only briefly mentions any of the solutions proposed by prison abolitionists, and doesn't go into their relative merits at all. What would be much more useful would be for each suggested alternative to get at least a short paragraph of its own to describe the idea clearly, and maybe mention arguments for and against it. I realize this goes somewhat beyond simply describing arguments for abolition, but it's still essential information on the subject - any argument for change must by its nature state the intended result of the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychojosh13 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Party USA

The Socialist Party's support for alternatives to prisons can be seen in its party platform, which is online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.108.69 (talk • contribs)

I urge this user to register and engage in collaboration rather than trying to hijack wikipedia to advertise or promote your group. There are many groups involved in the prison abolition movement — worldwide — and we can't list them all in the "see also" section. This is also true of the literally hundreds of wikipedia articles about other issues (any social issue, it seems), that you've been spamming with SPUSA links. For other editors who would like to join in cleaning up this mess, see the contributions of this user, and be wary of anyone adding inappropriate SPUSA links:

ntennis 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Increased Use of Death Penalty?

Is increased use of the death penalty really a strategy advocated by the prison abolition movement? If so, it seems like it warrants additional explanation and/or documentation, since it is so at odds with everything else in the list.

I second this. I thought I was reading a typo, could someone knowledgeable on the subject please elaborate? Thanks Avigon 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Having taken two courses on the subject in University (one specifically on penal abolition, and one on Prison Community and the Deprivation of Liberty) as part of my Criminology degree, I can't say I've ever heard of increased capital punishment being advocated as an alternative to imprisonment. Penal abolitionists are against prison because of its inhumanity, and capital punishment is arguably much less humane.
This is not to say that such an argument would be logically inconsistent, particularly if used facetiously or hypothetically: Prison only makes crime worse, and does not serve its stated goal of rehabilitation; so eliminate prisons and instead use other techniques to punish and/or reform people who commit crimes (well, and stop counting certain things as crimes, like prostitution and drug use--any harm caused by the former is a social construction, and any harm caused by the latter is not helped by the stigma and coldness of imprisonment).
If we were to hypothetically stop using prisons tomorrow, there are some people who are just totally screwed up and are a complete danger to society and should be segregated from society (called the "Dangerous Few"). Criminologists (or at least the ones I've spoken to) tend to agree that this only comprises about 2-3% of the current North American prison population.
If you wanted to take penal abolitionism to its logical extreme, and completely eliminate the use of prisons (as opposed to jails, whose purpose of holding accused--before trial and before the punishment is carried out--predates the use of prisons/incapacitation as punishment), you have to do something with these people. Most penal abolitionists see that prison is useful for incapacitating/segregating these people, but on a logical (i.e. ethically ambivalent) scale, it would be more efficient to simply put the hopelessly-dangerous people to death and not spend $100K/year to hold them for the rest of their natural lives. This is what was done before prisons were used for punishment. The change in policy came as juries tended to acquit people because capital punishment was getting excessive.
I don't know if (a) some penal abolitionists have actually argued in favour of the death penalty, or if (b) they simply used it in hypothetical situations, as above, or (c) they noted the correlation between the increase in use of prison as capital punishment declined or was phased out, and this was (wrongly) interpreted to mean that because they want less imprisonment, they must therefore want more capital punishment.
Note that aside from the 2-3%, about 80% of people in (North American) prisons are generally law-abiding, but are imprisoned for things like drug- or prostitution-related crimes, or for not paying fines. They do not need to be incapacitated.
The remainder, about 15-18%, are people who are 'headed down the wrong track', so to speak, but could be turned around if given the proper attention. However, when they are simply gobbled up by the system and tossed into prison, they effectively become as bad as the "dangerous few".
I realize that I haven't cited any of my claims. Hence why it is in the talk page. This is all what I've absorbed from my courses, and it would take hours to track down references. But I hope it at least explains things on a logical scale. --RealGrouchy 04:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penal Abolition, not prison abolition

Right after the first Prison Abolition conference, members of the movement realized that prison abolition was an unreasonable goal, because the entire carceral system is circuitously self-supporting. One component of the system cannot be eliminated, as it would just regrow to fit in with the remaining rest of the system. The proper term for this movement is "Penal Abolition(ism)" not "Prison Abolition". --RealGrouchy 14:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Penal means "of, relating to, or involving punishment, penalties, or punitive institutions." It's not simply a synonym for the current criminal justice system. Having a group of your neighbors get together in a community court and say, "You stole that and we don't like it, so give it back and spend ten hours picking up trash at the park to show you're sorry" definitely counts as a punishment or penalty, even if there's no written law, no lawyers, no policeman, and no jail. WhatamIdoing 07:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VER, WP:OR and WP:RS

Please make sure that this article cites references for all material. At present it looks like a page of unverifiable facts. At present the page can be removed as it has been tagged since 2006 and still has not a single reference. If any editors need to discuss how to follow WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:VER please contact me. SmithBlue (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)