Hi Miriam,

Thank you so much for posting your notes from this conference. I wanted to be there so badly and feel really lucky that I can now have a better idea of what was said.

Thanks!
Hannah

Considering present company, I am shocked to hear anyone would consider abolition of prisons. Or would they be replaced by nice residential "treatment facilities" instead where everyone is treated with dignity as individuals instead of warehousing over 2 million people in institutions? Would that satisfy survivors of IPV/DV and sexual assault? And when can they be put on the street again? If there were real cures for violence and sexual assault, would you accept offenders being free?

A male makes a good point. It's a bit hypocritical to expect the courts to punish domestic abusers and rapists (which, to be sure, I do), then encourage the abolition of legal punishment. I don't see how that can be resolved.

I'm all for building community to reduce both police brutality and crime, but some of these other ideas seem a little far fetched. Our goal should be to define crime by harm (harm is defined as what? and against who or what?) and then to abolish all police officers and prisons? That doesn't seem feasible to me. I was also slightly disturbed by the fact that they call the program for kids "donut dialogues"; isn't that reinforcing police stereotypes?

jennyolson,

You are an MRA troll and you have no business on a feminist site. Please fuck off for the love of god.

crime is high when it comes to woman because they think that we can not fend for ourselves, however we are smarter than people think.

crime is high when it comes to woman because they think that we can not fend for ourselves, however we are smarter than people think."

Then why are there always so many complaints on this website about communities and the law putting the primary burden of fighting sexual assault on victims? If someone has a gun to your head, or weighs fifty more pounds than you, or has a car when you're on foot, how the hell are you supposed to "fend for yourself"? I sure don't think I can. I'm 5'3 and unfortunately have not taken a self-defense class. I'm ashamed of it, but I also resent the extra fear and self-castigation I'm left with. I don't expect a world free of violence, but at least once a day I wonder if I'm a complete idiot for not carrying a pocket knife, or buying/learning how to use a gun, or even forgetting my cellphone when I just run to the store at night. Forgetting my cell phone, or forgetting to tell someone where I'm going.

What a waste of time this is. I am all for decriminalizing some drug crimes,addressing disparities/harshness in sentencing, building up neighborhoods in the hopes that it will change the course of life for those tempted by the criminal life, and giving a serious look at rehabilitation and even attempts at reconciliation and counseling. But it DOES seem hypocritical (and terrifying) to suggest a world where the state (and yes, with force) does not recognize criminal violence. I don't think we'll ever be free of it, not in this generation at least, and until then, I think we should work on changing police behavior and working on those backlogs of rape kits before we talk about "police abolition."

So exactly what do these people think will happen if the police and prison systems are abolished? Do they expect criminals will just suddenly become decent citizens, or that no one will resort to vigilantism?

In Canada, where I am from, convicted murderers routinely serve less than ten years, violent sex offenders are released even though it is highly likely they will reoffend (one recently in BC who has committed 50 known rapes), and the justice system often places criminal's welfare above that of victims.

I am all in favor of communities working together with police to fight crime, but to seek the abolition of the justice system seems to be quite ridiculous. If one were to ask me, I would say the criminal justice system is far too lenient.

The concept of community-based law enforcement raises so many questions about the logistics of such a system there isn't room to list them all here. However what disturbs me most is how these community-based groups would be held accountable for their judgements and actions, and who would be setting the parameters within which they act. Also, the police and judicial system deal with crime across the board, not only sexual assault. To think that a local community group would have the skills, knowledge and resources to cope with crime in its broadest definition is ludicrous.

I support middlechild when she states:

"I am all for decriminalizing some drug crimes,addressing disparities/harshness in sentencing, building up neighborhoods in the hopes that it will change the course of life for those tempted by the criminal life, and giving a serious look at rehabilitation and even attempts at reconciliation and counseling."

However to advocate, as the post and links do, a police and jail free society is a recipe for lawlessness. What do criminals have to fear from isolated community groups unskilled in the job of policing, and without the resources available to a state-run police force? Also, if criminals do get caught, (and how this occurs without police is not explained), they have nothing to fear but appearing sorry for their victim(s), taking part in some sort of rehabilitation programme, acting full of remorse and being released back into the community!

Thus the concept of abolishing jails is ridiculous. Most groups which advocate victims' rights complain about the light sentences given to those convicted of crime, particularly in the areas of violence and sexual assault. This seems to be the case in most Western countries. Also, how does a system with no jails cater for those criminals it is judged are too dangerous to release back into the community?

Strategies such as mothers making lunch and eating it on the corners where young men hang out, and grandmothers used as a security system are just laughable(and sexist perhaps?). Do the people who advocate such nonsense have an overall picture of criminal activity in mind and its level of sophistication in some areas? Not all criminal activity is restricted to the local level, and even if it is, it often takes the coordinated resources of a properly trained police force to gather sufficient evidence to bring about an arrest.

Sure the police and judicial system need to be made accountable for their actions, and subject to laws which balance their powers with the rights of individuals. Mistakes are made, and a lot of improvement is needed, but to advocate, as a result of this, that we should therefore get rid of the police and jails is more likely to increase the level of criminal activity and unsolved crime, than improve the situation.

I don't know about community-based law enforcement, but I am in favor of individual-based law enforcement. Now, a person's jurisdiction would only exist during the moments a crime is actually being committed, so higher levels of police power would still be needed, but I think that arming citizens for self-defense will dramatically help crime rates. A large percentage of felons admit to avoiding possible victims who they know or even suspect of having a firearm, so how many would turn away from crime entirely if it was assumed everyone was armed?

Also, I'd be in favor of replacing, where ever possible, imprisonment with corporal punishment. It's less disruptive towards the lives of individuals and the communities they're part of, more easily appreciated by potential criminals on a concrete level, and it taps into one of the oldest and most powerful behavior-altering instincts.

It's also far less cruel. Personally, I consider imprisonment a cruel punishment. If I were convicted of a crime and given a choice, it would take an extreme form of corporal punishment to make me find years of my life an acceptable trade off.

Corporal punishment fails to do one thing--incapacitating a (violent/serious drug) criminal's capacity to do harm...with the exception (unfortunately) of other inmates, I suppose.

I'm all for letting victims protect themselves and fighting fire (literally) with fire. Force and surprise is usually what gives a criminal the upper hand. The problem is, how could you make sure people didn't misuse a gun (i.e. in a fight with a spouse or neighbor) and were trained of the risks?

And as for the general notion of prison/police abolition--maybe I'm missing something, but I find this idea incredibly insulting (it implies that crime will either disappear or that we just won't have an orderly system to deal with crime)...or terrifying. Replace "prison abolition" with "prison reduction" (through improvement of the educational system, child welfare system, drug rehab/less draconian drug laws, easier re-entry for non-violent offenders, etc.) and I can understand.

Andie, I used to work with Peace for the Streets. I don't think "donut dialogue" reinforces the stereotype at all. In fact, it actually gets those kids to go. These are street kids we are talking about, who already have a strong perception of police as useless "pigs", so by denigrating the police in a way, it seems to make these kids feel like they have some power again and make them more inclined to go. And just getting them there is a huge struggle in the first place.

But even if you still don't like the name, the results of the Donut Dialogues is staggering. It really brings the police and homeless kids together, which is no small feat. When I was there, the kids all LOVED the cops who participated in the Donut Dialogues, and the cops obviously really cared about the kids too. Whenever there were criminal incidents (and there were many), the kids always wanted those cops to deal with it because they knew they would be tough but fair.

I never participated directly in the Donut Dialogues, though, so I'm a little confused as to what that has to do with abolishing police or anything like that. I hope Miriam will explain.

Crime rates have been rising for years, this makes me believe the current system with police and prisons doesn't work to deter criminals. I am anti-police and anti-prison, generally... Police have far too much authority and are too unregulated to trust. One needs only to look at the numerous police brutality incidents in which the cops end up getting off scott free or 'suspended with pay' while young people are being beaten and killed to see this. I've seen my friends get beaten by cops for no reason and I know several rape survivors who've never seen justice.
I find it laughable that people think abolition of cops would necessarily greatly increase the crime rate... look at how high it is already! And ask yourself this: do you break any laws? Would you change your behaviour if suddenly there were no cops? Would you go on a killing spree or something? Personally, my behaviour-- including those laws that I do and do not break, would not change, and I'd guess that many people would say the same, including violent criminals.

Mind you, do I have a viable alternative to put out there that I think could work reasonably well? No I don't. But I know enough to know that this system is failing a lot of the population.

"What do criminals have to fear from isolated community groups unskilled in the job of policing, and without the resources available to a state-run police force?"

Precisely that. People enforcing the law and punishing people for alleged offenses at whim, without regard for procedure or law, and any resulting cycle of retaliation or revenge. Imagine your friends and family punishing alleged rapists and abusive partners, themselves. More effective, and more fearful than police, no?

"I find it laughable that people think abolition of cops would necessarily greatly increase the crime rate... look at how high it is already!"

Try checking out countries and cultures where there are more serious social problems, and/or law enforcement and the legal system are "really" corrupt, for comparison. For example, in the Philippines, the police themselves (including national level officials who've been uncovered) are involved in kidnappings for ransom, an epidemic in that country, and something that well to do citizens or foreigners perceived as "rich" like my American father while visiting had to concern themselves with. My grandmother would not allow us anywhere without an escort of local blood relatives, even in her own home town of 2,000. Her house is surrounded by an eight foot concrete wall topped with broken glass, with an iron gate in front, and bars on the doors and windows. Such precautions are common in the Philippines. Despite this, communist rebels (my grandmother claimed they were imposters, mere local bandits; "real" communist rebels had manners - they ASKED for food, drink and "donations" when they came calling) invaded her home, robbed her of her jewelry, and demanded a monthly extortion fee equal to a white collar Filipino's salary. Those who can afford it, have armed private security. My father once saw a local woman who was accompanied by 16 men carrying M-16s in an army truck, her very own private bodyguards. Armed private security guards outside businesses such as small family grocery stores are also common.

To believe that crime in the US cannot be much worse with less law enforcement, is the naive view. Also compare more affluent US communities to those less affluent, or with less opportunity and less law enforcement, to see the difference in where you'd prefer to live or walk the streets at night. This week in my community, we had our first ever police Tasering of a suspect, indicative of the local crime scene. It was front page and statewide TV news. Compare that to life and crime in certain US urban centers. I'll take life in the worst part of Hawaii, to urban regions I read or hear about.

Also, have you heard of the Watts riots, the L.A. riots, or life after Hurricane Katrina? That's life without police or respect for laws.

"And ask yourself this: do you break any laws?"

Sure do. And it makes my 50 mile commute, or riding a high performance motorcycle, all the more interesting. Also, considering the one and only firing range in my county is open to civilians only once per month, to members of a shooting club, where else am I supposed to practice shooting on a regular basis to develop or maintain skills, but wherever I can? Locals tell me they simply take their guns to any rural area, public or private, to shoot.

"Would you change your behaviour if suddenly there were no cops?"

Hawaii has some of the nation's most restrictive gun control laws, making acquisition or use of a firearm for self defense, or even practicing to be able to use one in a safe and legal manner, very difficult. The next certification class for a permit to acquire is in three months. I'd be able to disregard those laws without concern for committing a class A or B felony.

"Would you go on a killing spree or something?"

I would have exacted justice on the people my wife claims have physically and sexually abused her since the age of nine, including certain members of her family as soon as I found out about it. It was largely for fear of prosecution (Japan has a 96% clearance rate for homocide, and an over 99.9% conviction rate in general) and concern for public perception, that I did not.

I am all for rule of law and IMPROVING the police, and on some level reducing their capacity to abuse their power with impunity. It is true, the thought of a criminal who rapes, robs, and penalizes people for crimes or charges they don't deserve who can do all these things b/c he has a badge...is terrifying. As bad as the police can be here (and I'm aware your perception may be effected by neighborhood, social class, race, etc.)...I'll take cops in the U.S. over Mexico or the Philippines any day.

As for family justice...

If they're pretty sure of his guilt, fine, but what if they're wrong? Isn't that why we have a court system? And is it acceptable if, say, the family permanently removes a limb or tortures the alleged rapist to death? Rape is horrible, it's assault, but in terms of physical pain--would you rather be permanently physically disfigured or, horrible and physically painful as the experience may be, raped? What if that rapist turned out to be an animal on the streets, but a supportive father, brother, husband by day? What about their family members? Can you compromise--punish the rapist, but not the people inevitably dependent on them?(Aggravated rape where extensive battery or harm is involved, is another matter).

Isn't that what the conflicts of domestic violence often come down to? If victims and perpetrators have some sort of relationship--however twisted--do you think punishment dished out by relatives would always be best?

Do criminals--even rapists--have any rights? This site seems to advocate often enough if the victims are women,gay men or transgender. What if they commit violent crimes as well?

Can you imagine a system of families beating up a drug-addicted, child-neglecting mother within the family and removing the children? (Actually, short of the beating, that'd be exactly what the law is supposed to do).

Another thing--plenty of places DO seem to prefer (or in fear and without faith in the police, accept) informal forms of regulation--like, uh, gangs--to regulate their neighborhoods. Is that always better? Doesn't that have negative consequences at least as often as not? Is the code of the streets always best?

Hold the police accountable for the power they hold and may be tempted to abuse--but abolish them?

"What if that rapist turned out to be an animal on the streets, but a supportive father, brother, husband by day?"

In recent months, I read the claim on this website that one in ten men are rapists. I could see that. When I asked if readers were not disturbed by a tenth of the males in society being removed as punishment for their rapes, respondents claimed not to be.

Logic would dictate that a random sampling of readers' partners, fathers, uncles, brothers, friends, and other loved ones are among these rapists (whether or not they realize or are willing to admit it), because rapists are for the most part, not obvious animals on the street, but seemingly ordinary men like those who assaulted my wife, or myself when I was younger. Yes, the ones I heard about from my wife are respectable seeming men with their own families, including the husband of her best friend, whom she cared about herself when he repeatedly forced himself on her in college when he appeared alone and uninvited at her apartment, and whom she still visits on trips to Japan. Should I kill her friend's husband like I wanted to kill the relative who raped her at nine, or view him as her college friend that he is?

Do your loved ones deserve the same treatment people wish for other offenders or accused offenders? What if the offenses or abuse happened, even once, 30 or 60 years ago, as when your father or grandfather did not always ask their wives for sex, or did not stop when she said no; but it did not hinder your mother or grandmother from having a lasting, loving marriage? What do you do when your brother, boyfriend, or husband are accused of rape, abuse or harassment by someone other than yourself, today (perhaps for something back in college or high school)? Do you campaign against them like the men featured on this site? Do you not get them a lawyer? Do they deserve due process, or are they 98% likely to be guilty and deserving of treatment as such?

By "myself when I was younger" I am referring to the unassuming lightly built stranger who assaulted me in his car about 20 years ago in Waikiki, when I naively agreed to stop on the street and give him traffic directions, not me being a rapist or past rapist.

To all those who say they don't like the police, I have one question: who is the first person you call when someone has committed a crime against your person or property?

The police do have their fair share of problems, but they also have an incredibly difficult and demanding job. While I am opposed to the prison industrial complex, for me the main problem with the criminal justice system is that there are not enough police officers.

And if you think that organized crime will not rule the streets in the absence of an effective police force, try taking a holiday in Moldovia or one of the former Eastern Bloc countries.

I have to say that I have really quite enjoyed this website, up until this whole idea of abolishing the police came up. I find it quite ridiculous (and insulting) that anyone seriously believes that society will become some sort of utopia without the criminal justice system (do a little research on utopian societies and find out why they didn't work).

Instead of working to abolish the criminal justice system, perhaps a focus on working with the police to make their jobs easier would be more effective in building a community without crime.

middlechild: The problem is, how could you make sure people didn't misuse a gun (i.e. in a fight with a spouse or neighbor) and were trained of the risks?

How do you make sure people don't misuse a vote? You don't. It's just one of the risks of living with other people, and the potential for harm with an ill-spent share of political power far exceeds what a person can manage with a gun.

I'm really surprised by some of the comments here.
Right now, as it is, we have more POC doing forced labor for very little to no compensation for the corporate (wealthy white) industrial prison system than we had slaves on the plantations during the civil war period. Many of these so called "criminals" are non-violent people placed in prison for a drug "crime", petty theft, or political beliefs. It's the American apartheid. It's modern slavery. If that's not enough of an argument for abolition of this system, than I don't know what is. Quite frankly I'm disturbed that there aren't more people on this site talking about how grossly corrupted (racist/classist = UNJUST/CORRUPT...etc) our "justice" system is and wouldn't we be better finding alternatives to this? Especially when the current system is also ineffectual at deterring crime, rehabilitating criminals, and reconciling victims of crime? Not to mention the HUGE amounts of money that could be put to better use. Here in NYC we have something called "million dollar blocks" (google it) I can only dream of what good this money could do for these communities if it were instead put into the local economies/community support systems/education, etc.

I'm not sure if, those of you who are arguing that we need this justice system, are seeing all the HARMS that come from the prison/police industrial complex - how it is poisoning our society. You have to ask yourself, is this really the price we as a society want to pay? For a system that is largely ineffectual, I would say the answer should be "NO". And I don't mean to sound condescending, but some of you really need to read up on some abolitionist theory before you comment. It's not all about "LAWLESSNESS! OMG!". Because already I've seen quite a few myths/scare tactics spouted out here, not to mention misunderstandings.

I can't address all these myths/scare tactics/misunderstandings here, but I will address this one: JohnJ you said: "To all those who say they don't like the police, I have one question: who is the first person you call when someone has committed a crime against your person or property?"

Well here's my answer, I've been robbed and assaulted several times, and the ONLY reason that I have called the police in most those instances is because a police report was required by my home insurance co./crime victims board in order to be reimbursed for losses. Like I said, I've been the victim of both assaults and robberies, and NEVER once has the police helped me out. My first experience with the police, I naively thought that they were "there to help me", so I pleaded with them investigate after my assailant...all I got back was laughs and sarcasm. So now, the ONLY reason I would go to the cops would be for a police report, which in most cases is required for crime victim's compensation. NEVER again would I go expecting them to help me. Yes, I used to have a positive view of the police, however my views on the police/justice system has changed over the years as I learned more about the system and it's tactics. Now, I am not surprised by how I was treated because I know that this happens all the time, every day, every hour, and much more often for certain groups of people. So, don't assume just because you can go to your "friendly neighborhood police station" to deal with your problems that everyone else can. Then again, if you're white and male, you've probably have been shielded from the amount of racism and sexism that both WOC/POC/women have to deal with when it comes to the "justice" system. So realize this and open your eyes...because in this "system" people are NOT seen/treated as equals.

Here's a good place to start/some organizations dedicated to the fight against prisons:

Critical Resistance
http://www.criticalresistance.org/

November Coalition (drug war)
http://www.november.org/

I'll post more of my opinions/views on this if someone would like to respond to what I have said. For now I don't want to take up too much space since I really could go on and on about this topic...

meeneecat,

wow. thank you.

i had to read through all of this i'm quite surprised... i mean, i'm seeing the whole tragedy of the commons argument and all kinds of other mess that, frankly, makes no sense.

first off, prison abolitionists are not suggesting that all prisons disappear tomorrow. everyone in their right mind is fully aware that these things will take time and transition to work out (if there's ever enough support for it).

further, no prisons =/= no consequences. however, if you look at the effectiveness of criminal justice, it's just not there. particularly, in the united states, where the theoretical framework for our judicial system is overwhelmingly putative, our recidivism rates are out of control - even if you consider some of that is because of the parole/probation system.

i also love how folks critical of these shorthand notes are vacillating between arguing against the idea of just being nice to criminals and stabbing people who do your friends wrong. i mean, all of the tactics CR talks about involve training, mediation, strategy, etc. just because you haven't thought about doesn't mean other folks haven't... check out meeneecat's links... there are a lot of articles there that could answer your questions - particularly in CR's publication section.

Another point to make is that police/prison abolition is not comparable to low police effectiveness due to corruption, and the suggestion that it is is completely missing the point. The latter is part of the same problem of authoritarianism that having a strong prison industrial complex is.

I've read your links and heard those arguments against the police and prisons. I know there are alternatives to incarceration for non violent offenders such as common drug users and addicts. I've written about them since 1986, for my graduation thesis, using purely legal sources from a legal library, as opposed to emotional appeal or anecdote. I know that the prison system is in itself a form of social injustice which particularly affects the underprivileged. I read on those problems, and others such as cost. I am even aware that many of the wrong people are in prison, sometimes deliberately, as well as executed. I support the governor's suspension of the death penalty in that state where the actions of a medical examiner has been brought into question in at least 100 cases. As I have written elsewhere, as a health care provider I am also aware of some of the rights and needs of those in prison, including from the inside, and have considered a career in correctional health to promote and maintain the health of prison inmates including the worst of society. I'll gladly give a rapist his insulin three times a day, or provide pain relief for a wife beater. It means he'll be in prison longer, hopefully with full awareness of where he is, as opposed to dying, being kept in a medical facility, or being released early on humanitarian grounds.

But why don't you come straight out on a feminist site, and educate us, as your link does, on why people "really" commit violent crimes such as rape and murder, and explicitly promote COMPLETE ABOLITION of prison, not just reduction, or simple treatment or social reform, as at your link. Go ahead and try to excuse those crimes while ignoring the crimes and their cost to society. My wife was raped at nine by a family member. Her evil stepmother repeatedly beat her bloody with and without weapons, leaving permanent scars, marks and bald spots, till she was old enough to escape her own house, leaving her beloved father, against her will. She was repeatedly raped by her college classmate, who was at the time the boyfriend/future husband of her best friend. She was repeatedly sexually assaulted by strangers in public, as on the train, by the same man, in one instance. And on and on. My own $180 per hour psychiatrist is eager to see her, but she denies how her life has affected her of affected her relations with her family (or myself as her husband) as an adult.

Oh, "something happened" to the offenders when they were younger to make them do what they did, or make them the way they are? As a health care provider and student of the human psyche, who's repeatedly got A's in my psychology and psychiatry courses at university, that is all fascinating. Another career option for me is working at the local psychiatric ward, where people in acute distress are evaluated before being discharged, or being sent to an institution. I read about psychology and psychiatry for fun, including academic and professional periodicals, and sit glued on the sofa to documentaries on the human condition. But as a member of society and a crime survivor myself, I'll say fuck them. Fuck those who cannot be treated. They need to be removed. There will CONTINUE to be abusers, rapists and murderers of any color or class, in even the best of human societies (see progressive European cultures and their correctional systems). Tell us what you plan to do with these criminals, to keep their victims and the rest of society safe. Convince the victims and survivors like myself. Abolish prisons. Alternatives to police. Right.

meeneecat--

In its vision statement, the Critical Resistance site advocates the total abolition of the Prison/Industrial Complex, not its improvement. It also claims that the way to prevent crime is to build strong neighbourhoods where the basics are provided. The assumption is that once these basics are provided, the motivation or need to commit crime is removed. Persons who, despite this, still do (then why?) commit crimes would be subjected to rehabilitation programmes and mediation as a consequence. This is seen as an effective way of ensuring that a person will not re-offend. Sounds great in theory...

I agree that a proportion of criminal acts and behaviour are the result of social disadvantage and feelings of powerlessness. As social disadvantage is often paralleled with race, then certain racial groups are going to be over-represented. Non-violent crimes, particularly of a petty nature, are probably best dealt with outside the prison system.

The sites for which you have provided links deal with crimes of this nature, and provide a strong case for looking at alternative ways of dealing with non-violent crime, while giving many examples of the failings of the current police/judicial/prison systems. Also programmes to strengthen communities to remove disadvantage are positive steps. I have no problem with any of this.

What these sites do not address is how the perpetrators of SERIOUS crime and violent crime would be dealt with. Somehow, I don't think society would accept the release back into the community of criminals who have committed the most violent of crimes, accepting that rehabilitation programmes and mediation are a sufficient punishment for their crimes, and a way of ensuring they will not re-offend. This is not because people are being subjected to myths or scare tactics. The reality is that there are some people who commit crimes of a magnitude and nature that to have no way of separating them from the community is putting people at risk.

Repeatedly on this site we hear about the crimes of sexual assault and rape not being taken seriously enough by the judicial system, with often lenient sentences being given. Then we have a thread which espouses that prisons should be abolished, hence rapists would never serve a jail term, but would instead be subjected to mediation, rehabilitation and victim reconciliation programmes. It all seems somewhat contradictory.

Also, to believe that provision of basic needs and strong neighbourhoods will prevent crime from occurring is naive. It assumes that the motivation of crime is always because of social disadvantage. People commit crimes for a multitude of reasons, greed, pursuit of power and sexual deviancy being among them. I do not understand how the provision of basic needs is going to prevent the paedophile, rapist or the affluent white-collar person involved in fraud from committing crime.

Countries which have gone down the road of state-imposed egalitarianism have all found that not only is it a recipe for economic disaster, but even with the provision of basic needs by the state, corruption and crime abounds. An element of people are certainly not satisfied with just their basic needs being met, and will commit criminal acts to give themselves more power and/or money. That most of these countries now find themselves in economic chaos with organized crime gaining an ever more powerful foothold indicates that relying on the myth of the inherent goodness of human nature is little more than ideological blindness.

I wholeheartedly agree that policing, the judicial system and the way prisons are run need to be examined fully, particularly in the contexts of social disadvantage and the nature of crimes committed. I also agree with alternatives other than jail for those guilty of petty, non-violent crime. I also agree that the concept of the Prison/Industrial Complex amounts to the exploitation of some of the most disadvantaged members of society in order to satisfy corporate greed.

What I do not agree with is that the wholesale abandonment of the current police, judicial and prison systems is the answer. While it could be ideologically attractive to believe that removal of social disadvantage and the building of strong communities would remove the motivation and/or need to commit crime, the reality of the complexity and nature of criminal activity in its broadest definition would render community-based crime prevention and response totally ineffective, except for the most localized and non-violent crimes.

AliCat put the same thing, ten times better than I could.

People who seriously promote ABOLISHING prisons and police, as at those links, should put down the pipe.

I'll do this: AFTER crime is eliminated, we ELIMINATE police and prisons. As long as crime occurs, or if crime ever reappears after disappearing, the police and prisons stay.

I'm for that.

A male--

I am somewhat disappointed that meeneecat, after providing the links for other posters to read, and inviting them to comment, has not yet responded herself as she said she would. Maybe she hasn't yet had the time...

Alicat

First of all, AliCat, I'm a person, and I have a life besides the internet. Just because it took a few days to respond does not mean I have no desire to engage. Don't you expect that people have lives outside of the computer? Or are you just trying to create conflict? In truth, I don't think any of the regular feministing readers would respond so rudely like that.

I take it people linked to the website and just saw the front page, which said "abolition of the prison system" and didn't bother looking any further on the site as Puckalish suggested. And I'm also assuming now one bothered googling "abolition movement" to research the different perspectives on their own. I'm not going to bother posting all the articles listed there because if you're interested enough you can go and explore the site further and you can also do a google search for articles. And note, critical resistance is not the only organization. Still, they do discuss many programs, and training (as puckalish also repeated) that these movements use. Also, trying to characterize all abolitionists as one monolithic group is as ridiculous as doing the same thing to feminists. Abolitionists have many different ways of going about reform and not all of them agree on which is the best way to go about this. Many of them believe that there are certain degrees to which we should keep aspects of the justice system. But again, some of you keep discussing it as if abolitionists are all one group of thought. Also it seems that for the sake of your arguments you keep referring to abolitionists in the most extreme example: which is total and immediate removal of the entire justice system. I'm sorry, but you would be hard pressed to find a sincere abolitionist that would agree with that.

Here's a quote from Angela Davis given in an interview:
"First of all, I must say that I would hesitate to characterize the contemporary prison abolition movement as a homogeneous and united international effort to displace the institution of the prison. For example, the International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA), which periodically brings scholars and activists together from Europe, South America, Australia, Africa, and North America, reveals the varied nature of this movement."

Still, and I will repeat those of you who are characterizing abolitionists with complete lawlessness are uninformed. So far none of you have bothered to comment on my likening the prison system to modern slavery, or the fact that it is highly ineffective and expensive. (although someone here did acknowledge those points) Also, amale, I never came on this site with the intention of justifying criminal acts, that is not what abolitionism is about, they are not apologists for criminals and they have no intention of letting criminals "get away with it" again you are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing. I'm not going to engage you in it and thus give legitimacy to what you are saying.

Also, amale, did you even read my post about how I am also a survivor? So don't tell me I don't understand the situation. However the reason that I feel the way I do is because actually I think the current system encourages MORE criminal behavior and not less. It creates more HARMS than it alleviates. So don't tell me that I need to convince victims that a new system will keep them safe. First of all that's not my job. Secondly, It's the CURRENT system that is NOT keeping people safe. So most of your argument is a strawman and again, I'm not going to engage in it. Do you think I have no understanding of this issue? Baiting with an emotions and being angry at criminals is still not any reason to support a system that keeps more slaves than civil war America.

When the cure does more harm than the disease, isn't it time to consider a different cure?

AliCat, you mention survivors of assault a lot (again is this a scare tactic) Like I said before, I'm a survivor so don't think I don't understand the situation. My issue is, that I don't feel any safer due to the "justice system" and I think you will also find other survivors who would agree with me (of course there would be others who would disagree). But, I personally feel that certain cultural changes and community intervention would be much more effective at preventing crime than imprisonment, and these are the alternative methods that many of these groups speak of. To bring this to real life perspective, think of the fact that the U.S. locks up roughly 2.03 million people behind bars, or 701 per 100,000 population, more than China or Russia, yet studies have repeatedly shown that locking up more and more people has no effect on crime rates (in fact it might make them worse). Compare that to a country like Japan who imprisons very few compared to the U.S. and their crime rate is much lower. Advocates of prisons have a hard time explaining this. The tough on crime folk think you just need to create tougher laws and harsher punishment as a way of dealing with crime. Psh. Of course prisons do nothing to deter crime or "keep people safer". I will say this though, personally, even I do not feel that the most violent of our citizens should be roaming free, but this is relatively very VERY few people who are both violent and beyond rehabilitation. Because, I also believe that there are even murderers and rapists who can be rehabilitated. The only people I would put behind bars are those who are psychologically impaired to the point where they don't know the difference between right and wrong and again this is an extremely EXTREMELY small portion of the population. Otherwise I think things like supportive community rehabilitation environments would work much better to rehabilitate people and decrease recidivism. Ever wonder why prisons are called "detention and rehabilitation centers" yet you never see anyone ever rehabilitated? Because they never bother to rehabilitate anyone. They are only concerned about the imprisonment part, and getting a bigger budget for the more people they keep imprisoned.

I still haven't heard anyone bring up any new arguments that weren't already previously mentioned. And I'm really interested in the extreme racist/slavery aspect of the modern system and how those of you advocating to keep the current system justify this. How do you justify keeping a system that is ineffective, racist, and extremely expensive? One thing I want to point out in closing, is also regarding the issue of race. Just like back in the civil war period many abolitionists were POC, and yes, true, same can be said today. But I think the issue of prisons is in everyone's interest. Still, I wonder if the fact that the people on this site who are commenting in defense of the justice system are seeing this from a perspective of white privilege. Because I get a different tone from those who have actually experienced this racism everyday. (Note: I'm not trying to put everyone here in one block here and yes, I am generalizing a bit here, of course POC have different POV on this issue, but mostly I'm talking about having an understanding of how serious the issue of race is when it comes to the justice system). They share the same name as the civil war era abolitionists because the prison system literally IS slavery.

BTW, Here's the whole Angela Davis interview and maybe it will help in your understanding because it's called "the challenge of prison abolition" (or something to that effect):
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/davisinterview.html

BTW, thanks, puckalish, for your encouragement. (i know you're a regular reader here, as am I, I've seen you around here lots :) I'm glad you weighed in here, I was beginning to feel like I was all alone in my perspective here.

meeneecat--

If people do not agree with your position, don't assume that it is because they didn't go past the first page of your links, that their differing views are because of ignorance, being uninformed or even because of white privilege. Describing people in such a way because they differ in their opinions to you is dismissing them as people, using unattractive and inaccurate labels, rather than addressing their views.

You are discounting the opinions of others in the same way you accuse them of doing. You come to this debate from a particular position and point of view as well. None of us lives in a social vacuum, so our points of view will reflect our experiences in life, values and how we have come to view the world in general, and more specifically, how we view the way in which our society operates. The various posts on this thread reflect that, and while I might not agree with some of what is said, I do not assume that people's differing views are the result of negative characteristics which you see as your right to assign to them.

You misrepresent my views completely. In my post I wrote that there is a lot of sense in the views of groups such as Critical Resistance with regards to petty and non-violent crime, and how persons who commit such crimes are better dealt with outside of the prison system. What I cannot accept is that ALL crime, particularly of an organized, violent and/or serious nature, is better dealt with outside of the prison system. Being a realist as opposed to an ideologist, I accept that in the current political and social climate, society is not going to accept such an extreme scenario as police/prison abolition. Hence if one is to improve the system, and make real changes where injustice and prejudice exists, then more is going to be achieved by working with what we have than heading off on an ideologically based quest that is never going to become a reality.

The CR site, for which you provided the link, does state that its vision is the total abolition of the prison system. I did not use the word "immediate" in my post. That is a word you have chosen to attribute to me yourself.

Also, many posters, including myself, have been highly critical of the policing, judicial and prison systems as they currently exist PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO PEOPLE OF COLOUR AND OTHER SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED GROUPS. I also expressed my horror at the concept of the prison/industrial complex.

Where we differ is whether we see abolition as the answer, or working to improve the system that we have.

When reading the links you have suggested and other sources you have not, detail is pretty thin on the way the alternative system of community based justice would work WHEN CONSIDERING CRIME IN ITS BROADEST CONTEXT AND ITS MANY FORMS. Nor is crime restricted to the community level. Highly sophisticated criminal networks exist which cross over state and even national borders. Such criminal activity cannot be dismissed as being "isolated" or only involving a few people, as you have chosen to do with those who commit extremely violent and horrific crimes. How local community groups would ever have the resources or expertise to bring about the arrest of those involved in such highly organized criminal networks, and rehabilitate these people at some community level is never addressed, because it would not be possible for them. This sort of crime is just conveniently not discussed.

While abolitionists are quick to use statistics to point out the failings of the current system, where is the hard evidence to suggest that mediation, rehabilitation, reconciliation with victim(s) and release back into the community is any more a guarantee of successful crime prevention, particularly for more serious, violent and sexual crimes? It all sounds like a theoretical social experiment with enormous consequences if it doesn't work out the way the dogma suggests.

The tone of your posts on this thread indicates that this topic is of great personal interest to you, generating a lot of anger and passion about the inadequacies of the present criminal justice system. I fully respect that and how it contributes to your personal stance on the issues raised. However, if others, including myself, see a different answer to the same problems, please don't assume that it is because we don't understand or that we're uninformed. I am not saying that I expect you to agree with me. I am just expressing my opinions which are every bit as valid as yours.

Like with all of the controversial topics feministing brings to this site for us to discuss, we need to accept that in many instances, we are going to have to agree to differ.

WARNING THIS IS VERY LONG
AliCat RE:
[1]"If people do not agree with your position, don't assume that it is because they didn't go past the first page of your links."

I'm not assuming that people didn't read into the issue because they "disagree with me" I'm assuming that they didn't read into the issue because you haven't written anything of substance that would make me believe that you actually read anything on the issue.

For example if you said something like I read the interview with Angela Davis and (for example) I don't agree that introducing criminal justice courses at the college level that change the paradigm of how we define concepts like "crime" and "rehabilitation" will have much of an effect on public attitudes because (insert your reason here).

Or

"I read XYZ article on the November Coalition page and (my opinion here)"

[2]"...that their differing views are because of ignorance, being uninformed or even because of white privilege. Describing people in such a way because they differ in their opinions to you is dismissing them as people, using unattractive and inaccurate labels, rather than addressing their views."

Oh Boy, Seriously, are you a regular here? You have no concept of privilege? I mean come on. I'm sorry to inform you of this, but if you are white and you claim to be an anti-racist, you are going to have to examine your own privileged background in order to understand the conversation that anti-racists have. You seem to be taking this as an insult, informing someone that due to the fact that they are white, they have "white privilege" is not an insult. This really leads me to believe that you don't have a thorough understanding of what the idea of privilege means. I'm getting sick at the fact that you think me pointing out a persons "privilege" means I'm an discounting someone as a person, or I am somehow not treating them as human. So, don't start with the reactionary comments in reference to privilege. I really will get very angry if you deny the fact that white privilege exists or that I am somehow "attacking" someone because I point this fact out (these are basics that exist here on this website, one is that we are anti-racist and believe in certain principles, examination of one's own privilege is essential). I will direct you to a few links so that you can understand this concept better. Also I'm sure some of the regulars here would be willing to explain it to you better, I don't want to take to much space off topic here. As to how someone's race would effect their values, well I think it's obvious that someone who was brought up with white privilege would generally have certain perspectives that differ from someone who does not have white privilege. Especially when it comes to the PIC (prison industrial complex) This would be obvious to anyone who understands the concept, but again, it sounds like you need to do a little more reading.

http://theangryblackwoman.com/2006/09/14/things-you-need-to-understand-4/

http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

Any further interest in the issue just google "white privilege"

[3]"Being a realist as opposed to an ideologist, I accept that in the current political and social climate, society is not going to accept such an extreme scenario as police/prison abolition."

Saying something like this is akin to "well the way the political climate is going right now, it seems that we are loosing the fight for equal pay for equal work. Being a realist as opposed to an idealist, we should just accept the current political climate and the fact that population/lawmakers are not going to accept the idea that women deserve equal pay".

Ummm HELLO...Do you understand the role that activism plays? Abolishing slavery was not a "popular idea" but people still fought for it and eventually were able to change the situation on the matter. Society is not static, things change and social climates change. And regardless of whether or not something is "popular" or "accepted" people still fight for what they believe in because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO. This has NOTHING to do with being a "realist" or an "idealist". Nothing. At. All.

[4]"You are discounting the opinions of others in the same way you accuse them of doing."

Okay, Can you give me an example. In your comments you never give specifics. Aside from this:

"The CR site, for which you provided the link, does state that its vision is the total abolition of the prison system. I did not use the word "immediate" in my post. That is a word you have chosen to attribute to me yourself."

Umm, no actually I didn't attribute this to you. In this context am not only talking about you, but I am also talking about other commenters here. It was implied in some comments that there would be no transition. Even Puckalish picked up on this because she gave her opinion on this in her response.

[5]"When reading the links you have suggested and other sources you have not, detail is pretty thin on the way the alternative system of community based justice would work WHEN CONSIDERING CRIME IN ITS BROADEST CONTEXT AND ITS MANY FORMS."

Again, why not google the subject, why must I research and gather all the links for you. Try also googling "truth and reconciliation" or "alternatives to incarceration" I provided SOME links, but they could never be expected to contain even close to all the perspectives on this issue. The links were merely a STARTING point. And again, you continually only reference CR, yes that was the organization originally mentioned in the post. But there are TONS of organizations that you can find simply by googling. Again, the links I included were a starting point. For example ICOPA and November Coalition was mentioned in my post. However you have addressed neither of these, nor any other organizations. Thus I'm assuming you haven't visited their sites or done a google search on other perspective since you never mention anything relating to them. Again, why should I engage if you haven't done the research. I don't understand how you can oppose the perspective of an entire group of people (abolitionists), painting them with such a broad brush, when you haven't even done the research? I'm happy to discuss if you want to comment on particulars here. But I'm not going to go out of my way in posting dozens of links here because you can easily find them yourself.

[6]"Such criminal activity cannot be dismissed as being "isolated" or only involving a few people, as you have chosen to do with those who commit extremely violent and horrific crimes. How local community groups would ever have the resources or expertise to bring about the arrest of those involved in such highly organized criminal networks, and rehabilitate these people at some community level is never addressed, because it would not be possible for them."

I gave you my perspective on dealing with the most severe criminals (i.e. those that cannot differentiate between right and wrong). I also went on to discuss my opinion that I believe even murderers and rapists can be rehabilitated. (again those that cannot should not be allowed back into society however they are very very few in number) I gave my opinion however, there's many different ideas out there about how to deal with this. Again, if you had read the link that I had given you would have come across this:

"Since the invention of the prison as punishment in Western society during the late 1700s, criminal justice systems have so thoroughly depended on imprisonment that we have lost the ability to imagine other ways to solve the problem of "crime." One of the interesting contributions of prison abolitionists has been to propose other paradigms of punishment or to suggest that we need to extricate ourselves from the assumption that punishment must be a necessary response to all violations of the law. Reconciliatory or restorative justice, for example, is presented by some abolitionists as an approach that has proved successful in non-Western societies -- Native American societies, for example -- and that can be tailored for use in urban contexts in cases that involve property and other offenses. The underlying idea is that in many cases, the reconciliation of offender and victim (including monetary compensation to the victim) is a much more progressive vision of justice than the social exile of the offender. This is only one example -- the point is that we will not be free to imagine other ways of addressing crime as long as we see the prison as a permanent fixture for dealing with all or most violations of the law. "

Again, this is a starting point, all the points made in that quote can be more deeply examined. There are also other solutions that abolitionists suggest (again do the research) One thing, you say it would not be possible for community groups to deal with some forms of crime. How is it you can say so confidently "it would not be possible". And did I ever say that I don't believe that the most serious criminal-those beyond rehabilitation should be allowed to "roam free". No I did not. In terms of reducing the most violent types of "crime" is a lot more complicated than the ol' "crime and punishment" paradigm. Most of these "crimes" are symptoms of larger ills caused by poverty, poor education, economics, etc. In other words many abolitionists advocate for improvements in the lives of people in dealing with these societal ills which will in turn have an effect in reducing crime (a much greater effect than imprisonment). Here's a quote from an interview from the site "Dissident Voice" interview with Hans Bennet:

"I think much of violent crime is a direct result of all the state and economic violence . I think in many was the PIC reproduces violent crime and feeds it, so I think finding honest alternatives and addressing the overall power structure will help the problem of violent crime much better than the PIC. Christian Parenti argues that:

This politics of punishment works in two ways: it contains and controls those who violate the class-biased laws of our society, but prison also produces a predator class that, when returned to the street, frightens and disorganizes communities, effectively driving poor and working people into the arms of the state, seeking protection. Thus both crime control and crime itself keep people down.

I don’t believe that ALL violent crime is from the domination of state, capital, and other oppressions-but I do think it’s huge, and addressing these problems would be a huge step towards addressing the issue of violent crime. Then, I say, we could take several of the hundreds of millions of dollars of tax-money currently going towards such beasts as the military industrial complex and the PIC, and use this to research alternatives."

This is one person's perspective, but as I said, if you do a search, you can find information and proposed solutions, as well as more theory and examples of real life implementations/examples.

[7]"While abolitionists are quick to use statistics to point out the failings of the current system, where is the hard evidence to suggest that mediation, rehabilitation, reconciliation with victim(s) and release back into the community is any more a guarantee of successful crime prevention, particularly for more serious, violent and sexual crimes?"

Where do you get your evidence that it is not more effective. Because this is not what I have read. I have heard that Mediation, Rehabilitation, and Reconciliation, is in fact effective. If it were not effective there wouldn't be programs that were experiencing success with it:
http://www.criminon.org/successes/index.php

And here's a study although it deals with female inmates with HIV who are enrolled in an "inmate education program"
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/2/5/0/1/p25013_index.html

This is a long paper, which towards the end presents evidence that rehabilitation reduces recidivism.
http://www.ncjrs.org/criminal_justice2000/vol_3/03d.pdf

(this is only SOME information I found in a quick google search, you should do your own because there is much much more)
My second point is, like I said, in general, the US prison industrial complex does not focus on rehabilitation. (why am I repeating myself here) It's impossible for you to say that is a failure just because the PIC doesn't do rehabilitation. It's like saying to a three year old that he can't tie his shoe because he's never tried it. Well you have to research something and actually try it before you can examine it's efficacy. Usually this task falls onto community groups, who contrary to what you might believe, have been successful, especially in finding employment for former inmates and reducing recidivism. These community organizations are also what a larger scale program, or the implementation of a network of smaller community programs could be modeled after.

[8]"However, if others, including myself, see a different answer to the same problems, please don't assume that it is because we don't understand or that we're uninformed."

Again, you haven't demonstrated (as I said before) that you actually read into this issue. (i.e. google search, articles, etc.) You never used the information in any examples as I have here. You give explanations based on your own personal perspective / definition of crime (i.e. when you talk about organized crime, violent crime vs. non-violent). And your only references to examples refer vaguely to the CR site (again mischaracterizing abolitionists to be of one mind). You state things as if they are facts without backing them up, for example: "it would not be possible for them." (also you show an disregard for numbers and facts by saying "abolitionists are quick to use statistics but...") How can I not see that as uninformed?

*Sigh. Sorry that was so long. Lot to respond to.

Ugh, I realized that there are many mistakes in my comment, please excuse them. I wrote this very very late at night. In fact it's already morning. Yes, I never sleep. Anyway, you get the idea. Just ignore any typos, spelling, grammar mista....zzzzzzzzzzzz

meeneecat,
i'm a guy... lol... add that to the mistakes like using "effect" when you should have said "affect," but, whatever...

AliCat,
i hope you recognize that meeneecat is not just angry at you for stating a widely-held viewpoint without doing the requisite research, but really wants to give you an opportunity to do that research. so, please, look past the impulse to defend your point of view and check out some of this stuff - it is really pretty strong and nuanced.

another quick thought... given that, according to the BJS, "At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/mhppji.txt) and 74% of those inmates (as well as 56% of those without) had abused drugs or have been diagnosed with substance dependency (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm), it's just common sense what role rehabilitation and alternatives to prison can play.

by underfunding resources for people with mental health issues and for people struggling with substance abuse, we're pretty much guaranteeing a certain amount of criminality. mind you, if you look at incarceration rates, you'll find an interesting, if not wholly correlated, connection between Reagan's work to roll back Carter's mental health systems act (in 1981) and an explosion in the rate of incarceration (http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/punishing/punishing.html).

but, hey, i'm sure perfectly sane people with no traumas abuse and murder other people and we should just lock these normal people up to keep them from their wholly reasonable patterns of violence.

mind you, this argument is not even considering the ridiculous ways in which kids are introduced into the criminal justice system, drug policies that target users, etc.

you've got to figure that criminal justice seeks to solve a problem... and that incarceration can't be the only solution or the best solution... and that, perhaps, it's not even a good solution, causing more problems than it creates.

You continue to assume I have not been aware of the many other "isms" in our society, such as racism or classism, or the many problems with law enforcement and prisons, or the kinds of people sent there, and have not studied them since 1983. Amusing.

Please discuss the fact that the most progressive societies of Europe continue to have police and prisons. Perhaps you know about Finland and their system. Here's something for readers.

http://www.vankeinhoito.fi/14994.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E4DB103FF931A35752C0A9659C8B63

Take note of the fact that it is not assumed to be workable for anyone else. Also take note of the fact that there continue to be prisons and police even in this world leading society, without consideration for ABOLISHING them, even in "a relatively classless culture with a Scandinavian belief in the benevolence of the state and a trust in its civic institutions" (police rank number one in respected national institutions) where over 80 percent of people surveyed feel safe walking on the streets.

You want a "starting point"? Here it is:

Eliminate crime, BEFORE you talk about eliminating police and prisons.

Promoting abolishing police and prisons now (no, I do not mean accomplishing it immediately, but it is what your links are now promoting), makes about as much sense as abolishing abortion, because in your ideal society, there will be no need for one.

Puckalish,
First off, Thanks!
Yeah, I always mix up effect and affect. But, hey, I actually didn't know you were a guy, I guess I assume by default people here are female. But that's so cool. I love feminist guys. *heart*

Again, thanks for bringing up the role of the "war on drugs", mental health and substance abuse. Actually this is really where my interest lies: opposing the "war on drugs" and taking a more "harm reduction" approach. Actually, I'm for a total repeal of Prohibition and think we should instead be regulating drugs like we do alcohol/cigarettes/prescriptions. But the whole issue definitely adds to the mess when you consider the relationship "the war on drugs" has with incarceration rates, racism, police corruption, etc. etc.

Also, I totally agree with you about the effects (did I get that right) of an underfunded mental health system and the correlation to criminality. The mental health system in this country is another topic that I could go on and on about. I have my own personal experiences with the system, but I've also learned a great deal from the group of people I associate with, all of whom happen to be involved in harm reduction...and mental health definitely relates BIG in what they do as harm reduction activists.

Certainly I don't agree with EVERYTHING abolitionists say, and likewise, I'm sure you don't either, but I definitely lean towards their perspective. Because, a lot of this stuff just makes common sense to me, which I guess is why I'm surprised that there aren't more people here, like you and I who are sympathetic to the abolitionist perspective. With regard to the PIC being the equivalent of modern day slavery, to me it's almost similar to the issue of torture. There are just certain things that we as a society should never be engaging in. And no matter what the perceived benefits are we still should not be using torture, and similarly we should not be allowing for a system that uses forced & unpaid labor (slavery). Because I think that the racism present is so deeply rooted and also cultural, I think that the only way to reduce the harms done by it, is to uproot the system, and put the job of rehabilitating (most) criminals back into the hands of their communities by using alternatives to incarceration. At the very least, these huge industrial corporate prisons need to be completely done away with.

Actually it's only been in the past 8 years that I've really gotten upset about this issue, the whole Prison Industrial Complex, Police State/Martial Law, "war on drugs" aka "war on American citizens", scares the hell out of me, and it's largely due to the power that has been extended to these institutions in the past 8 years.

This is one of my favorite drug war blogs right now, if you're interested.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/

Not an abolitionist per say, but Sasha Abramsky has some good books on prisons, I've seen a couple of interviews with him that were very good.
http://www.sashaabramsky.com/

Amale,

"Promoting abolishing police and prisons now (no, I do not mean accomplishing it immediately, but it is what your links are now promoting), makes about as much sense as abolishing abortion, because in your ideal society, there will be no need for one."

Let me just repeat that you again are mischaracterizing. What is the difference between "now" and "immediately". Not much. You keep trying to reframe the arguments by using the most extreme views...and as I've said time and time again here abolitionists are not of one mind. And again, you have failed to do the research and have not gone any further but a cursory glance at a single organizations web page. I'm not going to engage in it, amale, because you are not taking this issue seriously. You are framing the argument how YOU see it because you are too lazy to take yourself out of your comfort zone to see how things are outside the box.

Here's an example: you give many many examples of modern societies use of prisons. You say in essence "All modern societies use prisons" thus "societies cannot function without prisons". No No No No No, that's not a valid argument. This argument misses one big point, that humans lived for thousands of years (native societies, nomadic cultures, etc.) without the use of prisons. And may I add, yes there are still societies that exist here on earth today that follow the same traditions. And, I'll also add my opinion on how THEIR societies function versus OUR (supposedly modern) societies function - well they don't have even a quarter of the problems that we do.

Second point, about this comment that you made:

"because in your ideal society, there will be no need for one"

Again, HUGE mischaracterization. I don't know of a single abolitionist who is aiming for an "ideal society where crime does not exist". Part of what abolitionists intend to do is find alternative ways to manage crime. No where have I ever heard of anyone trying "eliminate prisons by trying to eliminate crime". Just a HUGE mischaracterization on your part, and again, it's because you are not bothering to look any deeper into this issue.

I'm not going to bother talking any further with you until you can actually do a little thinking, and so far I've not seen that. You can't possibly form an opinion on this (very diverse) movement before you actually learn what it is that they are about - and for that you need to do some research and reading. Right now you are simply forming an opinion based on what you THINK abolitionists are about. And for me it's impossible to have a serious discussion with someone who bases their arguments on assumptions and preconceived ideas. Please don't bother responding if you are just going to keep repeating the same tripe over and over again.

Something to think about:

"Given that over two million people are currently imprisoned in U.S. facilities and 20% of the world's incarcerated population lives in the United States, it is incredulous that the situation remains invisible and only continues to worsen. However, this only highlights the entrenched character of the system and the public dialogue framed both in its language and proposed solutions within the narrow confines of this system that many seemingly accept. Today, prison is considered an inevitable and permanent structure of our social lives. However, as we know from the historical origins of prisons, we understand that they were not a superior form of punishment fit for all time, but rather, without taking its complexity lightly, what made sense at a particular point in history of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Slavery, lynching, and segregation are all examples of social institutions once considered to be just as much an eternal fixture in life. We need to create a new imagination that calls for a world that is completely different."

(taken from:
http://socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/index.php/Abolish_Prisons)

By that way, amale, (Alicat, whoever else) since I've already been accused of this before here. NO, my point is not getting you to agree with whatever I have to say. You can have whatever opinions you want, and that's fine with me. But, all I'm asking is that you think a little deeper about this issue and not use preconceived notions to characterize an issue that you have not yet educated yourself about. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. It's not about good or bad or black and white. And it definitely requires "out of the box" thinking (to use a very cliche phrase).

I see. It is people with your views who are asking for a social revolution, but it is the responsibility of others to "get informed" or you will even refuse to respond. Fine. Don't.

You don't think it is up to you to change minds. Then don't. Most people understand there will always be those who need to be removed from the rest of society, for our safety, or even their own, and an organization to do it. I'm waiting for what you would have done with e.g., rapists, without prisons or police. Don't blame people for not understanding if it is not even worth you telling.

And if you haven't noticed while studying those thousands years old cultures that don't have as many problems as those of "modern" society, perhaps completely without prisons or police as we know them; we aren't them, and they aren't us. I know modern examples of such people. Even in Hawaii, there is an island of 200 ethnic Hawaiians and their families, where no outsiders are allowed. To this day, there are people who speak no English, and the spoken language is Hawaiian. They all have links to the original owners and residents of the island. Reported crimes are of course, practically nonexistent. They have no police and no prisons, either. They do have other problems (e.g. living in a modern economy which requires taxes and monetary income) which threaten their privacy and existence as they have known it.

Throw in a few million people of varying ethnicities, cultures, and class, without community and familial ties into any of your traditional societies, and see how long they continue that way. The US did not have police or prisons either, until problems in the young society of newcomers to the continent forced a change.

A male,

Check it out, I know some folks have used strong language while encouraging others to read up on this particular issue, but don't take it so personally.

The bottom line is that this is a really complicated issue into which a lot of thought and research has been infused and a lot of your questions could be answered by looking into the many resources available.

Further, I, for one, am not really concerned with "thousands years old cultures," as you put it, and I'm not exactly sure who is. Though, I guess, all cultures are, in one way or another, thousands of years old and wholesale incarceration is a relatively recent phenomenon. Further, using "tough on crime" measures (such as three strikes, mandatory minimums, etc.) are even more recent and have more bearing on political expediency than on any effectiveness with regards to curbing crime rates. Many modern nations (the UK, Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.) have had a great deal of success with these alternatives. Even in the US, drug courts and community service have been shown to be much more effective than simple and cruel incarceration.

At any rate, what concerns me particularly - and is specifically damning of the criminal justice system here - is that the United States far and away incarcerates its citizens at a much higher rate than any of our peers (in terms of governance, economic strength, population, etc.) There are extant alternatives and there are ways in which can - immediately - better use (1/3 or more of my paychecks) tax dollars to make our society a safer and more productive place.

This does not mean the immediate abolition of all prisons. Further, as meeneecat pointed out, prison abolitionists are most definitely not of one mind. I am a moderate anarchist abolitionists who believes that we can significantly scale down incarceration if we engage various criminal issues according to their sources... and in rather short order.

For instance, redirecting the incredible amounts of money spent on prisons toward education and youth activities is a rather simple and effective step. Refunding mental health services (as mentioned above) for people without the means to pay for them is both more humane and more cost-effective than our current policy of waiting for someone to decompensate and then locking them up where they may or may not receive the service they need. Funding substance abuse counseling and maintenance programs would drastically reduce the (still skyrocketing) numbers of people going in and out of prison on petty drug charges (mind you, it's easier to get a bag of h in prison than to get to the front of a wait list of substance abuse counseling).

These are just three things for which abolitionists are advocating which are almost common sense and do not engage in the sort of wild-minded perspectives so often attributed to us.

Finally, let me suggest again that an argument is not how this conversation has to proceed. Meeneecat and others have provided resources for reading up on the research and pilot programs which provide the basis for a lot of what modern prison abolitionists are working for. It is not really possible to sum up all of that work, whether it be clinical, practical or academic, in a comment thread.

If you really would like to know what the foundation is behind prison abolition, rather than to just argue about it and watch people get mad on a comment thread, I highly suggest you read some of that stuff.

Otherwise, I must agree... while it would be wonderful to convince everyone in the country (or world) about what kind of harm our current policies surrounding incarceration are causing, I think that a shouting match on a blog is only going to calcify the viewpoints of people who walk into the conversation believing they are right.

A male,

You brought up Finland... i find that pretty interesting because, while Finland has not completely rid itself of prisons, it has an incarceration rate of 52/100,000 the last i checked... the US is more like 738/100,000... ie, we incarcerate more than 14x the percentage of our population as does Finland... so, um, it sounds like they've made a move in the direction of prison abolition... (in 1918, the Finnish incarceration rate was 250/100,000)...

Interesting stuff.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/finland.html

Mind you, the whole get rid of crime before you get rid of prisons thing is very chicken-and-egg. Drug crimes aren't going to go away until there is strong support for treatment. Right now, all that money is spent on interdiction and incarceration. Similarly, providing mental health services can head off crime - as opposed to incarcerating sick people and then providing a few of them some services in a very traumatic setting.

If you would bear to look at some of the information CR and other organizations have, most of it relates to alternative ways to deal with problems that are fueling the PIC right now.

Check it out, if you care to.