Prison abolition movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The prison abolition movement is a movement that seeks to reduce or eliminate prisons and the prison system, and replace them with more humane and effective systems. It is distinct from prison reform, which is the attempt to improve conditions inside prisons; however, relying on prisons less can significantly improve their conditions by eliminating overcrowding.[1]:3

Some organizations such as the Anarchist Black Cross seek total abolishment of the prison system, not intending to replace it with other government controlled systems. Anarchist organizations believe that the best form of justice arises naturally out of social contracts. However, many supporters for prison abolition intend to replace it with other systems, reducing prisons to a smaller role in society.

Advocates for prison abolition[edit]

Historically, Quakers were among the first advocates for alternatives to prison.

Anarchist groups such as Anarchist Black Cross have played a significant part in the prison abolition movement and this trend continues today. Anarchists wish to eliminate all forms of state control, of which imprisonment is seen as one of the more obvious examples. Anarchists also oppose prisons because they house non-violent offenders (e.g., thieves and swindlers instead of just murderers and rapists), incarcerate mainly poor people and ethnic minorities, and do not generally rehabilitate criminals, in many cases making them worse.[citation needed] As a result, the prison abolition movement often is associated with humanistic socialism, anarchism and anti-authoritarianism.

Prison reforms and alternatives[edit]

Proposals for prison reform and proposed alternatives to prisons differ significantly depending on the political beliefs behind them. Proposals and tactics often include:

  • Penal system reforms:
  • Prison condition reforms
  • Crime prevention rather than punishment
  • Abolition of specific programs which increase prison population, such as the prohibition of drugs (e.g., the American War on Drugs), gun control, prohibition of sex work, and alcohol restrictions.
  • Education programs to inform people who have never been in prison about the problems
  • Fighting individual cases of wrongful conviction

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime published a series of handbooks on criminal justice. Among them is Alternatives to Imprisonment which identifies how the overuse of imprisonment impacts fundamental human rights, especially those convicted for lesser crimes.

Abolitionist views[edit]

In place of prisons, some abolitionists propose community-controlled courts, councils, or assemblies to control the problem of social crime.[who?] They argue that with the destruction of capitalism, and the self-management of production by workers and communities, property crimes would largely vanish. A large part of the problem, according to some, is the way the judicial system deals with prisoners, people and capital. They argue that there would be fewer prisoners if society treated people more fairly, regardless of gender, color, ethnic background, sexual orientation, education, etc.

Arguments made for prison abolition[edit]

  • Lack of proper legal representation
"Eighty percent of people accused of crimes [in the United States] are unable to afford a lawyer to defend them."[2] The US Supreme Court held in 1963 that a poor person facing felony charges "cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him."
"Long Term Neglect and underfunding of indigent defense have created a crisis of extra ordinary proportions in many states throughout the country."[2]
  • War on drugs conceals racial tension
(2005) "The United States leads the world in the number of people incarcerated in federal and state correctional facilities. There are currently more than 2 million people in American prisons or jails. Approximately one-quarter of those people held in U.S. prisons or jails have been convicted of a drug offense. The United States incarcerates more people for drug offenses than any other country. With an estimated 6.8 million Americans struggling with drug abuse or dependence, the growth of the prison population continues to be driven largely by incarceration for drug offenses."[3]
"The so-called drug war was started in the 1980s and it was aimed directly at the black population. None of this has anything to do with drugs. It has to do with controlling and criminalizing dangerous populations."[4]"Blacks are 12.3 percent of the U.S. population (2001) but they comprise fully half of the roughly 2 million Americans currently behind Bars. On any given day, 30 percent of African-American males aged 20- 29 are "under correctional supervision."[5] Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison.[6]
  • Incarceration is socially and economically crippling to the convicted and the community.
"Each Prisoner represents an economic asset that has been removed from that community and placed elsewhere. As an economic being, the person would spend money at or near his or her area of residence—typically, an inner city. Imprisonment displaces that economic activity: Instead of buying snacks in a local deli, the prisoner makes those purchases in a prison commissary. The removal may represent a loss of economic value to the home community, but it is a boon to the prison [host] community. Each prisoner represents as much as $25,000 in income for the community in which the prison is located, not to mention the value of constructing the prison facility in the first place. This can be a massive transfer of value: a young male worth a few thousand dollars of support to children and local purchases is transformed into a $25,000 financial asset to a rural prison community. The economy of the rural community is artificially amplified, the local city economy is artificially deflated."[7]
Unfortunately, there are no definitive national statistics on the employment status of felons. But both anecdotal evidence and fragmentary data confirm what common sense would predict: individuals who have been incarcerated have great difficulty securing employment when they return to society. Except for a short period in the late 1990s, when the labor market was so tight that the Wall Street Journal reported on employer efforts to reach out to felons, those leaving prison have faced formidable obstacles to employment. Some of these difficulties are related to company policies or procedures and others are the result of employer perceptions of felons' job skills or trustworthiness. Felons are also barred from public employment in a number of states, including three with a high proportion of African American residents (Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina). Occupations that are licensed by states also have restrictions on allowing felons to work in them.[8]
  • It is argued by the Massachusetts Statewide Harm Reduction Coalition that the prison system is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, and which is prescribing life, liberty, equality and justice to all people without discrimination of any sort as an inalienable right.[9] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has also abolished all forms of slavery and genocide, including torture, repression and oppression that prisons thrive upon.
  • Imprisonment is seen by some as a form of violent behaviour which legitimises violence and cruelty, producing a "boomerang effect of dehumanisation" [10] on the society which dehumanises itself and limits its potential for a peaceful future by resorting to the use of such repressive and cruel institutions.
  • Prisons may be less effective at discouraging crimes and/or compensating victims than other forms of punishment.[11]
  • Degree and quality of access to justice depends on the financial resources of the accused.[12][13]
  • Prisons alienate people from their communities.
  • In the U.S., people of color and from the lower class are much more likely to be imprisoned than people of European descent or people who are wealthy.[14]
  • People who are put in prison for what are arguably crimes motivated by need, such as some minor theft (food, etc.) or prostitution, find it much harder to obtain legal employment once convicted of a crime. Arguably, this difficulty makes it more likely they will find themselves back in the prison system, having had few other options or resources available to support themselves and/or their families.[citation needed] Many prison abolitionists argue that we should "legalize survival" and provide help to those who need it instead of making it even harder to find work and perpetuating the non-violent crimes.
  • Prisons are not proven to make people less violent. In fact, there is evidence that they may instead promote violence in individuals by surrounding them with other violent criminals, which can lead to predictable negative/violent results.[15]
  • Drug-related offenders are being ushered in and out of the prison system like a revolving door. Rather than educate, and rehabilitate the offender to a clean path of sobriety and increased stature, the state ignores them.

Opponents of the abolition argue that none of the arguments above address the protection of non-criminal population from the effects of crime, and from particularly violent criminals.

Mental illness and prison[edit]

Prison abolitionists such as Amanda Pustlinik take issue with the fact that prisons are used as a "default asylum" for many individuals with mental illness.[16] One question that is often asked by some prison abolitionists is:

"why do governmental units choose to spend billions of dollars a year to concentrate people with serious illnesses in a system designed to punish intentional lawbreaking, when doing so matches neither the putative purposes of that system nor most effectively addresses the issues posed by that population?" [16]

This question is often one of the major pieces of evidence that prison abolitionist claim highlights the depravity of the penal system. Many of these prison abolitionists often state that mentally ill offenders, violent and non-violent, should be treated in mental hospitals not prisons.[17] By keeping the mentally ill in prisons they claim that rehabilitation cannot occur because prisons are not the correct environment to deal with deep seated psychological problems and facilitate rehabilitative practices.[17] Individuals with mental illnesses that have led them to commit any crime have a much higher chance of committing suicide while in prison because of the lack of proper medical attention.[18] The increased risk of suicide is said to be because there is much stigma around mental illness and lack of adequate treatments within hospitals.[18] The whole point of the penal system is to rehabilitate and reform individuals who have willingly transgressed on the law. According to many prison abolitionists however, when mentally ill persons, often for reasons outside of their cognitive control, commit illegal acts prisons are not the best place for them to receive the help necessary for their rehabilitation.[17] For many prison abolitionists, if for no other reason than the fact that mentally ill individuals will not be receiving the same potential for rehabilitation as the non-mentally ill prison population, prisons are considered to be unjust and therefore violate their Sixth Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights, in the U.S., and their chance to rehabilitate and function outside of the prison.[16][19] By violating individual’s rights to rehabilitation prison abolitionist see no reason for prisons to exist and offers just one more reason people with the movement demand for the abolition of prisons.[16][17] In America, by violating an individual's rights as a citizen prison abolitionist see no reason for prisons to exist and, again, offers another reason people within the movement demand for the abolition of prisons.[16][17][19]

Related Links[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment. United Nations. April 2007. ISBN 978-92-1-148220-1. 
  2. ^ a b Herivel and Wright, Prison Nation. Routledge, 2003. p. 6.
  3. ^ Justice Policy Institute, "Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety," (Washington, DC: January 2008), p. 1. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08_01_REP_DrugTx_AC-PS.pdf
  4. ^ Herivel and Wright, Prison Nation. Routledge, 2003. p. 56.
  5. ^ Herivel and Wright, Prison Nation. Routledge, 2003. p. 31.
  6. ^ [1][dead link]
  7. ^ Clear, Todd. "Backfire: When Incarceration Increases Crime". in The Unintended consequences of Incarceration. New York: Vera Institute of Justice, January 1996
  8. ^ Margaret C. Simms, "JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES" MAY/JUNE 2004 p. 7"
  9. ^ http://www.massdecarcerate.org/download/HumanRights.doc
  10. ^ http://peaceconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Jakopovich.pdf Daniel Jakopovich, The Humanist Defence and Critique of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Peace Studies Journal, Vol.4, Issue1, 2011
  11. ^ Andrews and Bonta, 2003[title missing][page needed]
  12. ^ Tyler, Tracey (August 12, 2007). "Access to justice a 'basic right'". The Star (Toronto). Retrieved May 22, 2010. 
  13. ^ Public Interest Law Institute – Indigent Defense Systems in the United States
  14. ^ "Prison population statistics". Archived from the original on 2007-10-02. Retrieved 2007-10-04. 
  15. ^ MotherJones.com – Debt to Society
  16. ^ a b c d e Pustlinik, Amanda. 2005. "Prisons of the Mind: Social Value and Economic Inefficiency in the Criminal Justice Response to Mental Illness."The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.96(1): 217–265.
  17. ^ a b c d e Rollin, Henry. 2006. "The Mentally Ill Should Be in Hospital, not in Jail." The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 17(2): 326–329.
  18. ^ a b Ahmed, Mukhtar. Bowen, Andy. and Graham, Tanya. et al. 2007. "The Identifications and Management of Suicide Risk in Local Prisons." Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 18(3): 368–380.
  19. ^ a b Harvard Law Review. February 2008. "Developments in the Law: The Law of Mental Illness." Harvard Law Review. 121(4):1114–1191.