Jump to content

Carceral feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.119.129.131 (talk) at 20:47, 10 February 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Carceral feminism is a term used to describe law-and-order feminist activism that aims to obtain social justice for women through an expansion of the state's punitive apparatus. It specifically concerns the institution of punitive laws and policies that maximize policing, sentencing, and the incarceration of perpetrators of violence against women, in response to the issue of gender violence. It is founded on the assumption of harsher sentencing and incarceration's deterrent effects.[1][2][verification needed]

Carceral feminist discourse concerns numerous topics in relation to gender violence, such as domestic abuse, sexual abuse (inclusive of sexual harassment and intimidation, sexual assault, and rape), prostitution, and sex trafficking.[3][4] There has been contentious debate on whether carceral feminism is a solution to violence perpetrated against women. There has been adamant support for carceral feminism, but carceral feminism has also been criticized for its "neoliberal ideologies".

History

Origins

At the height of second-wave feminism in the 1960s and 1970s, feminist leaders as well as Evangelical Christian groups developed a strong commitment to ending female trafficking and as well as rape and domestic abuse.[1] Second-wave feminists believed that violence against women was a result of tight hegemonic control of the private domestic sphere, within homes.[1] Second-wave feminists also asserted that economic factors, such as limited employment opportunities for women, played a role in oppressing women.[1] Feminists' commitment to expanding female-choice and autonomy informed their anti-violence platform. On the other hand, Christian organizations were more broadly focused on a cultural and moral crusade centered on the reduction or elimination of pornography, abortion, and domestic violence.[1] Some historians[who?] suggest that carceral feminism recycled the nineteenth century logic of the fallen women in order to justify mass incarceration of female victims of violence.[5]

Anti-rape and battered-women's movement

The Battered Women's Movement is a feminist movement that seeks to bring visibility to the systemic issue of domestic terrorism within the United States, as well as bringing about an end to domestic violence on a societal level.[6] Prior to the carceral feminist movement, issues of domestic abuse were not seen as a topic to be brought in front of the public sphere.[6] Domestic terrorism was viewed as a private concern that should not be handled on a public platform, leaving legislators and law enforcement out of the picture until the second wave feminism movement pushed for de jure policies to be passed (see VAWA).[6] A lack of such legislation led to domestic abuse victims struggling to bring their cases to court, leaving many women condemned to unjust sentences in prison.[6] Cases of domestic violence were also typically mishandled, with no formal police training on the matter as part of policing curriculum.[6] Through 1988, a husband could legally rape his wife in more than half of all states.[6] The legal education system treated instances of abuse as “novelty cases”, with no effort made to devote attention to the plight of battered women.[6]

The United States first recognized that women are battered in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the court deemed that "battering can often involve a substantial amount of sexual abuse including marital rape and sexual mutilation".[6] In 1994, Congress officially stated that "existing bias and discrimination in the criminal justice system often deprives victims of crimes of violence motivated by gender of equal protection of the laws and the redress of the laws to which they are entitled".[6] These findings come on the heels of relentless lobbying by feminist groups giving voice to the concern that battered women are unjustly incarcerated by a biased law enforcement system that penalizes them for acts of self-defense against their abuser.[6]

Assessment

Human trafficking and prostitution

Carceral feminists consider prostitution and sex trafficking as major obstacles to achieving gender equality, and therefore call for arrests, imprisonment, and the eventual deportation of undocumented immigrants that are part of the illicit sex industry. [dubious] According to carceral feminists, the prostitute-client relationship reinforces power inequality between men and women by objectifying women in order to meet men's satisfaction, and further facilitates ideas of sexual violence and abuse by putting women in a vulnerable and dangerous position.[4] Additionally, social acknowledgement of prostitution would encourage sex trafficking, in which many women (often times underage) are forced to become sexual labor by coercion, threats, or fraud, blurring the line between "voluntary sex workers" and "sex slaves".

Despite the disagreements between the left and the right over hot-button issues such as abortion and prostitution, an unlikely coalition of evangelical Christian and liberal feminists groups have emerged (groups such as: NOW, CATW, Evangelicals for Social Action, New York Asian Women's Center, International Justice Mission) in the late 1980s to 1990's to fight against human trafficking and prostitution. Both sides have demonstrated resounding efforts to fight for stricter regulations to stop human trafficking and the overall exploitation of women domestically and internationally. The idea of women needing to be rescued has advanced into underdeveloped countries.

There has been intense lobbying for longer sentences for those involved with human trafficking, from pimps, traffickers, to those being trafficked. One example is National Organization for Women (NOW) lobbying for bill that leads to a lengthened one-year sentence, instead of nineteen days, for those that pay for sex (which was eventually passed in New York in 2007).[1]

Sexual agency

Sexual agency means having the choice of one's sexuality. The idea of one being able to choose has been at the center of third-wave feminism. Despite given the choice of abstinence or willingly engaging in sexual activity, studies have argued that neoliberalism has restricted and dimmed this concept of choice, especially when dealing with various intersectional groups within the feminist movement. Neoliberalism has done so by promoting individual responsibility, especially when it comes to choice of sexual expression. If one chooses to be promiscuous, she is blamed for her choice. This fuels the need to continue to have "carceral heroes" and carceral feminism to protect the vulnerable woman.[7]

When considering sexual agency, the idea of a man's choice also comes up. There is an argument made that, by imposing rules on sexual violence against women, heterosexual males are refrained from indulging in sexual desires.[8] In addition to that, the government now has an opportunity to enforce its authority over a previously unregulated industry.[8]

Reproductive oppression

The idea of having gender-responsive prisons has been deemed as an essential for providing solutions for those that have faced reproductive oppression. [9] However, others argue that, reproductive oppression, in the context of the carceral state, is a form of gendered violence that refers to the intentional imprisonment of women during their reproductive years, neglectful healthcare, and coerced or non-consensual sterilization procedures. Carceral feminism has also used to describe the punitive policies and practices within prisons that oppress women, such as by imposing reproductive oppression. Critics of carceral feminism argue that increased punitive policies that criminalize both perpetrators and victims of violence against women have not only increased the number of women but the frequency of reproductive oppression.[9]

Neoliberalism and Prisons

Many carceral feminists find that neoliberal government has done more harm than actually help out the imprisoned. With Black Liberation Army member Assata Shakur's beliefs on race, gender, time, and the current market, it seems to show that nothing has changed in terms of treatment of minorities through slavery and today.[10] One example comes from the treatment of black women and transsexual women in prison. Incarceration rates for African American women significantly outpace the rates black men, and though the rates have leveled off, incarceration rates for black women remain higher than for their white and Hispanic counterparts. One in every 300 black females is incarcerated, compared to about one in every 1,099 white females and one in every 704 Hispanic females.[11] This discrepancy can often be lead back to the school system, as the neoliberal market has created the school-to-prison pipeline. In these schools, there is still a bias against women, especially women of color.[12]

Legislation

Violence Against Women Act

Carceral feminists' movements pushing towards the maximization of policing and incarceration of perpetrators of women against women have contributed to the passage of Violence Against Women Act in 1994.[13] In 1990, Senator Joe Biden introduced his counsel's widely supported draft of the bill in Congress. It would eventually become a bi-partisan measure that was co-sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Joe Biden (D-DE).[14] Coupled with overwhelming Congressional support, a unified coalition of conservative and liberal groups began lobbying for the passage of laws to protect abused and battered women, regardless of race, background, or immigration status.[15] The act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton as a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The act's main provisions were: giving more funding to law enforcement, social and political groups that were fighting against gendered violence, enforcing stricter penalties against violent offenders, and guaranteeing legal aid, protection and shelter programs for immigrants that faced domestic or sexual violence.[15] This act also led to states and local law enforcement having more political clout on preventing violence against women. Players such as police officers and prosecutors began to work closely with feminist organizations and social service groups to challenge violence against women and sought to increase incarceration of violent offenders.[15] VAWA is largely recognized for its historical importance in ameliorating the number of crimes against women and changing the law enforcement and society’s point of view on violence against women from a family matter to an actual crime of which the perpetrator must be held accountable.[16] However, it has been argued that legislation such as VAWA has succeeded in helping privileged women but still marginalizes racial minorities, poverty-stricken women, and immigrants. This marginalization has occurred as there's been an upward trend of the women being incarcerated due to mandatory arrest laws (which often leads to dual arrest), or by causing financial struggle for women upon incarceration of their abusers.[4]

Trafficking Victims Protections Act

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act was a law signed under President Clinton on October 28, 2000 that worked to protect people (specifically women) from human trafficking and violence. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act also rejuvenated federal programs that offered women and victims resources. A few amendments to this law were added in 2003, 2006, and 2008, and in 2013, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act became a statute under the Violence Against Women Act (VAMA). In order to be under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, you must have a T-Visa. A T-Visa can be obtained by doing the following: show some proof that you were a victim of human trafficking or violence and are willing to be a part of the prosecution side of the perpetrator.[17]

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act garnered mixed to negative views among carceral feminists, who argue that the act passed is ineffective. To some, the law is "apathetic" towards ending human trafficking. The opposition claims that human trafficking is a legitimate issue globally, and the United States has been unable to effectively eradicate it.[18] Others view the Trafficking Victims Protection Act as holding a limitation because of economic factors. Some deem that, a country like the United States should view it as a necessity like the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Developing countries, specifically Latin American and Sub-Saharan African countries, don’t have the wealth or resources to properly fund programs to raise the quality of life for women and other victims of human trafficking and violence.[19] A shift to focus on prevention rather than victim shaming and attacking the reproductive rights of women seems like one of the best routes to go to completely eliminate human trafficking. The focus on prevention would also benefit all victims and women, especially those with poor economic status.[20]

Opposition

There are many reasons as to why there's opposition against carceral feminism. One argument made is that carceral feminism has led to a crackdown within the inner-city.[1] Carceral feminism has led to an overwhelming number of arrests made against those that already marginalized.[1] As police officers are called to the site of where a dispute has taken place, they have an obligation to arrest those implicated under "mandatory arrest policies".[15] There are claims that the need to arrest individuals affect those that have been under constant surveillance by the police and have lengthy criminal records.[15]Arrests for violence related crimes or domestic/international sex trafficking have even begun to target the youth. [21]Another argument is that the solution to violence against women would lead to justification for enacting continuing to rely on criminality as a solution to problems, hence incarceration fuels the prison-industrial complex.[1] One such sociologist goes as far to question the evidence and reasoning given to support the fact that carceral feminism is a solution to violence against women.[15]

Militarized humanitarianism

Evangelical and conservative Christian groups made up the majority of anti-trafficking activism organizations, as they believed the fight was akin to a "moral crusade",[1] similar to the fight against alcohol consumption or pornography. Activists such as Dorchen Leidholt from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and members of the National Organization for Women explicitly demanded stronger anti-trafficking laws during 2007.[1] On March 2, 2007, carceral feminists at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women meetings connected "sexual and carceral politics"[1] by emphasizing the need to harness the carceral state and strengthen the "punitive state apparatus".[1] Contemporary anti-trafficking efforts revolve around criminalizing and decriminalizing different aspects of sex work in what Elizabeth Bernstein calls "militarized humanitarianism", or the use of the contradictory carceral state to achieve a humanitarian goal.[22]

Alternatives

Abolitionist (transformative) feminism

Abolitionist feminism, also known as transformative feminism, seeks to oppose neoliberal mechanisms of punitive state control.[23] Supporters of this type of feminism call for decarceration, the process of releasing individuals from jails, prisons, or penitentiaries.[24] Abolition pedagogy acts as a catalyst for feminist discourse and scholarship, providing insights into the functionality of the carceral state and the organization of subsequent discourse, trade, and relationships therein.[25] As such, abolition feminists commonly assert their frustrations over both carceral feminist and the Criminal Justice System’s institutionalized fixation on prescribing said issues and guilt on an individual or group basis, rather than addressing the structural barriers and cyclical oppression that contribute to crime and violence against women.[26] Furthermore, in relation to the criminalization of women (which has particularly affected women during the recent years),[27] abolition feminist researchers suggest that communities should realize that such carceral logics as harsh sentences for drug possession and drug dealing (War on Drugs), "inappropriate" behavior, and the neglect of human rights have led to the increasing trend of women's mass incarceration.[24] They argue that the state's focus on policing and punitive measures should shift towards an understanding of social, economic, cultural pretexts behind incarceration.[24]

Abolition feminists’ criticism of carceral feminist pedagogy primarily reside within two specific areas of feminist concern: prostitution and domestic violence. Pro-prostitution activists that call for the decriminalization and eventual legalization of prostitution cite that the occupations’ criminalization not only lacks empirical evidence in its favor, but has created a stigma surrounding female sexuality and a dichotomy wherein a woman’s worth, as dictated by society, is reliant upon her modesty.[28] There are also claims that such practices propagate ideologies of female subordination that increase violence against women and stereotypes that lead to the disproportionate incarceration of socially and racially marginalized, minority women, which undermines a vital understanding of the role of consent and women’s bodily rights within sex work.[28] Pro-prostitution proponents additionally cite the introduction of safety regulations as a benefit to the legalization of the practice, providing further protection towards the health and safetyll parties involved in sex work.[28] Abolition feminists argue that carceral feminist ideologies surrounding domestic abuse neglect intersectional classifications such as race, class, gender, and immigration status, and their effect within biased American policing and jurisprudence that disproportionately inflate victims' vulnerability and inaccessibility to adequate aid.[28]

Intersectionality

Intersectionality (or intersectional feminism) is a theory developed and advocated for by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw.[29] Intersectionality requires the understanding of an individual's holistic identity as the intersection of interrelated forms of oppression and group identities, separate from component identities, and can thus be used to situate a more comprehensive conceptualization of social inequality and systemic injustice. Intersectional feminists seek to define carceral feminist discourse as "law-and-order and race/class-neutral rhetoric" that is "both developed by and most directly beneficial to class-privileged white women".[2] As such, proponents of intersectionality criticize carceral feminism as lacking both a critical carceral studies and the subjugated and subaltern knowledges of minority groups.[30] Intersectional feminists advocate for a larger representation of marginalized women to dismantle and destabilize dominant criminological narratives and carceral logics surrounding the PIC in order to effectively merge the discipline with abolitionist pedagogy and replace them with their invisible histories and experiences as agents of resistance.[30] They argue that carceral feminists’ fail to conceptualize the Prison Industrial Complex and its methodologies as a politico-ideological apparatus that criminalizes identities unbefitting of hegemonic norms encompassing age, class, criminal record, race, immigration status, and sexuality, which cultivates a regimen of the cyclical targeting and arrest of such groups (especially queer women and women of color).[2][31] Intersectional feminists believe that violence against women can only be explained by a holistic understanding of such identities rather than as a one-dimensional result of crime. Only after considering a variety of influencing factors do intersectional feminists believe people can begin drafting and utilizing proper strategies to address violence against women. Thus, intersectional feminists tend to criticize carceral feminism by suggesting that it neglects to consider the comprehensive and discriminatory nature of the US Criminal Justice System.[15] Some researchers have insisted that Congress should embrace intersectionality when it comes to constructing laws that protect women against violence.[15]

Some researchers have claimed that the dangers of carceral feminism are exaggerated.[8] There could be safe reliance on government for feminist goals. In Canada, feminists and lawmakers have called for changes to Canada's laws and guidelines involving cases of sexual violence against women.[8] The changes made to the Criminal Code does not have intentions of incarceration.[8] Instead, it seeks to be more sensitive to the diverse experiences of victims.[8] It protects victims by ensuring confidentiality, redefining consent to be a woman's choice, and including measures against sexual battery.[8] The reforms that are implemented would be a step towards "restorative justice".[8]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Bernstein, Elizabeth (Autumn 2010). "Militarized Humanitarianism Meets Carceral Feminism: The Politics of Sex, Rights, and Freedom in Contemporary Antitrafficking Campaigns". Signs. 36 (1): 45–71. JSTOR 10.1086/652918.
  2. ^ a b c Epler, Rhett; Dewey, Susan (2016-04-02). "Women in prison: Ethnographic reflections on gender and the carceral state". Reviews in Anthropology. 45 (2): 71–87. doi:10.1080/00938157.2016.1179521. ISSN 0093-8157.
  3. ^ Ammons, Linda L. (2001-01-01). "Dealing With the Nastiness: Mixing Feminism and Criminal Law in the Review Cases of Battered Incarcerated Women - A Tenth-Year Reflection". Buffalo Criminal Law Review. 4 (2): 891–916. doi:10.1525/nclr.2001.4.2.891. ISSN 1093-3514.
  4. ^ a b c de la Cruz, Krishna (2016). "Exploring the Conflicts within Carceral Feminism: A Call to Revocalize the Women Who Continue to Suffer Null [Comments]". St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice. no. 1: 79. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  5. ^ Duley, Kolleen (2012). "Gender and Criminality". UCLA Women's Law Journal. 18.2: 273–299.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Ammons, Linda L. (2001). ""Dealing with the Nastiness: Mixing Feminism and Criminal Law in the Review Cases of Battered Incarcerated Women - A Tenth-Year Reflection."". Buffalo Criminal Law Review. 2: 891–916.
  7. ^ Lerum, Dworkin, Kari, Shari L. (14 August 2015). "Sexual Agency is not a Problem of Neoliberalism: Feminism, Sexual Justice, & the Carceral Turn". Sex Roles (2015). 73: 319–331.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h Powell, Henry, Flynn, Anastasia, Nicola, Asher (2015). Rape Justice: Beyond the Criminal Law. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 80–101. ISBN 978-1-137-47615-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ a b Levi, Robin (2010). "Prisons as a Tool of Reproductive Oppression". Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: 310–355.
  10. ^ Dillon, Stephon (2012). ""Possessed by Death: The Neoliberal-Carceral State, Black Feminism, and the Afterlife of Slavery."". Radical History Review. 2012: 113–125.
  11. ^ Willingham, Breea C. (2011-12-01). "Black Women's Prison Narratives and the Intersection of Race, Gender, and Sexuality in US Prisons". Critical Survey. 23 (3). doi:10.3167/cs.2011.230305.
  12. ^ Miguel, Christine; Gargano, Jennifer (2017-04-07). "Moving Beyond Retribution: Alternatives to Punishment in a Society Dominated by the School-to-Prison Pipeline". Humanities. 6 (2): 15. doi:10.3390/h6020015.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  13. ^ Whittier, Nancy (Fall 2016). "Carceral and Intersectional Feminism in Congress". Gender & Society. 30 (5): 797–818 – via EBSCOhost.
  14. ^ "Violence Against Women Act of 1993 (1993 - S. 11)". GovTrack.us. Retrieved 2017-11-26.
  15. ^ a b c d e f g h Whittier, Nancy (October 2016). "Carceral and Intersectional Feminism in Congress". Gender & Society. 30 (5): 791–818.
  16. ^ DeMatteis, Claire (Fall 2016). "Protecting the Freedom for Women to Be Free from Violence: The Violence Against Women Act Endures". Widener Law Review. no.2: 267. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  17. ^ Siegfriedt, Julianne (Fall 2016). "When Sex Trafficking Victims Turn Eighteen: The Problematic Focus on Force, Fraud, and Coercion in U.S. Human Trafficking Laws". William & Mary Journal of Women & the Law. 23: 27–45 – via EBSCOhost.
  18. ^ George, Shelly (April 2012). "The Strong Arm of the Law Is Weak: How the Trafficking Victims Protection Act Fails to Assist Effectively Victims of the Sex Trade". Creighton Law Review. 45: 563–580 – via EBSCOhost.
  19. ^ Noyori-Corbett, Chie; Moxley, David P. (2017-04-01). "A transnational feminist policy analysis of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act". International Journal of Social Welfare. 26 (2): 107–115. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12217. ISSN 1468-2397.
  20. ^ Bewley, Elizabeth (January 2014). "A New Form of "Ideological Capture": Abortion Politics and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act". Harvard Law & Policy Review,. 8: 229–253 – via EBSCOhost.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  21. ^ Musto, Jennifer (2016). Control and protect: collaboration, carceral protection, and domestic sex in the United States. University of California Press. pp. 26–62. ISBN 9780520281967.
  22. ^ Bernstein, Elizabeth (2007). "The Sexual Politics of 'New Abolitionism". Difference. 18: 128–151.
  23. ^ Palacios, Lena (2016). "Challenging Convictions: Indigenous and Black Race-Radical Feminists Theorizing the Carceral State and Abolitionist Praxis in the United States and Canada". Meridians. 15 (1): 137–165. doi:10.2979/meridians.15.1.08.
  24. ^ a b c O'Brien, Ortega, Patricia, Debora M. (2015). "Feminist Transformation Deconstructing Prisons and Reconstructing Justice With Criminalized Women". Journal of Women and Social Work. 30 (2): 141–144 – via Sagepub.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  25. ^ Lawston, Jodie M.; Meiners, Erica R. (2014-08-25). "Ending Our Expertise: Feminists, Scholarship, and Prison Abolition". Feminist Formations. 26 (2): 1–25. doi:10.1353/ff.2014.0012. ISSN 2151-7371.
  26. ^ Epler, Rhett; Dewey, Susan (2016-04-02). "Women in prison: Ethnographic reflections on gender and the carceral state". Reviews in Anthropology. 45 (2): 71–87. doi:10.1080/00938157.2016.1179521. ISSN 0093-8157.
  27. ^ White, Gale D. (2012). "Gender-Responsive Programs in U.S. Prisons: Implications for Change". Social Work in Public Health. 27. Taylor & Francis Ltd: 283–300.
  28. ^ a b c d De La Cruz, Krishna (2016). ""Exploring the Conflicts within Carceral Feminism: A Call to Revocalize the Women Who Continue to Suffer Null [Comments]."". St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice. 1: 79.
  29. ^ "Intersectionality". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  30. ^ a b Brown, Michelle; Schept, Judah (2017-10-01). "New abolition, criminology and a critical carceral studies". Punishment & Society. 19 (4): 440–462. doi:10.1177/1462474516666281. ISSN 1462-4745.
  31. ^ Lawston, Jodie M.; Meiners, Erica R. (2014-08-25). "Ending Our Expertise: Feminists, Scholarship, and Prison Abolition". Feminist Formations. 26 (2): 1–25. doi:10.1353/ff.2014.0012. ISSN 2151-7371.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carceral_feminism&oldid=824991237"