What are the arguments for and against prison abolitionism?
This is the argumentative essay that landed me the Cambridge CCIR essay competition Logos Prize and a scholarship, happy reading!
This prompt was set by Harvard’s Assistant Professor of Government Dr. Mashail Malik. Here is her commentary:
“The debate on prison abolitionism challenges the effectiveness and morality of the criminal justice system. On the one hand, mass incarceration has a disproportionate impact on marginalized groups and is argued to contribute to maintaining and deepening existing inequalities. On the other, some members of these communities themselves have — and continue to — advocate for “tough on crime” policies. Are prisons merely punitive, or can they effectively address the root causes of crime? Should we abolish prisons, or reimagine and restructure them towards restorative justice? Thinking through these questions requires not only addressing our stock of empirical evidence on the impact of prisons, but also being careful to be explicit about what we hope to achieve in a normatively just future.”
Below is my essay:
Prisons have always presented a conundrum to policymakers. Under conventional wisdom, prisons are a necessary evil to contain and limit crime in communities, safeguarding the safety and negative freedoms of the majority on the populace. Advocates for prisons frequently cite public safety and the potential breakdown of society to justify the need to be ‘tough on crime’, as well as principles of retribution and punishment. However, many prison abolitionists have pointed to mass incarceration’s contribution to oppressing already-marginalised groups, and its widening of existing economic, social, and racial cleavages in society. They also challenge the effectiveness of prisons: in the words of Angela Davis’ Are Prisons Obsolete?, ‘prisons do not disappear social problems, they disappear human beings.’
In light of this unresolved debate, I wish to explore the arguments for and against prison abolitionism. Prison abolitionism denotes movements aimed at eradicating prisons and their associated systems, instead advocating for rehabilitation and educational frameworks which prioritise support over punishment and governmental confinement. This is distinct from prison reform, which is a movement striving for improvements within the current prison system. In this essay, I first outline the arguments for prison abolitionism, including their dehumanising aspects and removal of fundamental human dignity, and their ineffectiveness as evidenced by recidivism rates. Secondly, I outline successful alternatives to prisons including community work and re-education programs. Thirdly, I outline the arguments against prison abolitionism. Lastly, I respond to such arguments and show them to be unsound. I conclude that the reasoning behind needing prisons is understandable, but that prisons’ harms vastly outweigh their benefits, and many alternatives can solve the same problem.
Before I begin my arguments, I wish to first outline the foundational principles of the criminal justice system. Punishment has five official objectives: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution. Prisons, along with other forms of punishment within the criminal justice system, are based on priorities surrounding such five principles. For example, prisons deter potential criminals by creating a highly undesirable consequence of committing crime, i.e. by depriving them of basic freedoms; prisons also incapacitate criminals and fulfill the function of retribution by providing a proportional punishment to the crime committed.
With such principles in mind, what are the arguments for prison abolitionism? One of the strongest arguments is its inherently dehumanising nature and its deprivation of individuals of their fundamental dignity. In a typical prison, inmates’ liberties are stripped and their lives stringently controlled. They are physically confined to small cages, with their freedom of movement constricted to within their cells or on limited prison grounds. Their strictly regimented timetable and forced labour, monitored by around-the-clock surveillance and violent prison guards, reduces them to mere animals. Furthermore, prison severely limits human contact, with visits by family members or friends rare and heavily monitored. This renders prisons inhumane and cruel, depriving everyone of their fundamental dignity.
Paradoxically, prisons have also been shown to generate more crime. A study from the United States Sentencing Commission shows that as the length of incarceration increases the likelihood of recidivism increases. A main reason for this is the economic deprivation it creates. Once inmates emerge from prison, the label of ‘ex-convict’ renders it extremely difficult for them to be gainfully employed. There exists severe social stigma attached to someone who had previously been ‘behind bars’, someone who had to be ‘locked up’ because they were a menace to society and public safety. Thus, the lack of employment prospects leads to economic hardship, which increases reliance and burdens on the state system and increases their chances of recidivism. Another reason for high reoffending rates, especially for violent crimes, is because of the nature of prison. It is harsh, chaotic, and often filled with violence by inmates and guards alike. Many prisons also operate on the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’, with the prison degenerating into a Hobbesian state of nature. As violence is almost a daily ritual, inmates are socialised to become violent in order to protect themselves, and to view physical force and domination as methods of self-defence. Such internalised beliefs can increase their chances of re-committing violent and impulsive crimes upon leaving prison.
Furthermore, prisons face another significant issue of social exclusion and the absence of support from loved ones and communities. Incarceration creates a highly isolating environment, where limited visitation and restricted contact with family and friends prevent the establishment of crucial support networks that are essential for rehabilitation. Relationships become strained, distant, or even fractured as a result. The inability of many inmates to maintain regular contact with their children, who often serve as a primary source of motivation for their recovery and reintegration, can lead to feelings of alienation and despair. In the worst cases, this isolation can increase the likelihood of reoffending. The lack of supportive networks is further amplified by the social stigma associated with being labeled a "criminal." Many individuals view those with criminal records as an inherent threat to the community, leading to actions that ostracize ex-convicts, such as creating hostile environments, avoiding interactions in public, and advocating for reduced rehabilitative support from local governments. These factors significantly complicate the lives of ex-convicts and can push them back towards criminal activities if they lack social support for rehabilitation and employment opportunities. Consequently, the absence of support from family and friends, coupled with societal stigma, can contribute to recidivism among ex-convicts.
Prisons may not just lead to increased recidivism rates compared to the alternative; it may also generate more crime due to absent parents. As demonstrated in many studies, parental imprisonment is a risk factor for child antisocial behavior, offending, mental health problems, drug abuse, school failure, and unemployment. In particular, the negative impact of fatherlessness on children has been well documented. There are several reasons behind this phenomenon. Firstly, fathers typically serve as the primary earners in a family, providing the main source of income. When they are incarcerated, it results in financial hardship for the children left behind and places a significant economic burden on the other parent. Secondly, the absence of parental care and influence can lead children to seek attention or a sense of belonging through engaging in delinquent behavior. Children with incarcerated parents not only experience material deprivation, including hardships related to finances, unmet health needs, and unstable living situations, but they also lack emotional care. This deprivation can trigger a child's inclination to rebel. Consequently, the combination of material deprivation and lack of parental attention due to incarceration are more likely to lead children towards a path of criminal behavior.
As prisons create so many undesirable and unintentional consequences, what are the alternatives? Those who support prisons may argue that perhaps they are not perfect, but they are still preferable to the alternative where criminals run rampant, and thus prisons are a ‘necessary evil.’ Thus, I propose two possible alternatives to prison: participation in reeducation programs and engagement in community work. These alternatives have the objective of rehabilitating offenders and addressing the root causes of crime, while also seeking to restore justice and provide compensation to the victim.
First and foremost, re-education programs are crucial in aiding rehabilitation and as an alternative to prison. Since 1990, research in the field has consistently demonstrated that prisoners who participate in educational programs during their time behind bars have a reduced likelihood of reoffending and returning to prison after their release. For example, Vacca (2004) notes how Effective Education Programs for prisoners are designed to enhance their social skills, foster artistic growth, and provide techniques for managing emotions. Additionally, these programs prioritise academic, vocational, and social education. Inmates engage in these initiatives with the aim of enhancing their employability upon re-entry into society, recognising the tangible benefits they offer. While educational programs within prisons have proven to be beneficial, their effectiveness could be further enhanced if conducted and received outside the prison environment. By providing access to education and skills training outside of prison, ex-convicts would have greater opportunities for gainful employment and a stable income, addressing one of the key underlying factors contributing to criminal behavior.
Secondly, engaging in community work has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of a convict's punishment by both improving the lives of individuals within the community and facilitating the rehabilitation of the ex-convict. By providing opportunities for interaction with the local community, community work can humanize the ex-convict and help dismantle the social stigma attached to them, thus enabling their successful integration into society. Moreover, community work contributes to rehabilitation efforts by instilling a sense of value and belonging in ex-convicts, offering them valuable work experience, and fostering a connection to the community. This, in turn, can increase their chances of obtaining meaningful employment upon completion of their community work or even enable them to continue their involvement in paid capacities within the same field.
Even though these are persuasive arguments for prison abolitionism, many still question whether it is the best solution. One of the primary justifications for the existence of prisons is the preservation of public safety. Critics contend that the abolition of prisons could potentially compromise public safety by eliminating a crucial tool for isolating dangerous individuals, such as murderers, from society. They also argue that the absence of prison as a deterrent may result in an upsurge in crime rates. However, advocates of prison abolition assert that only a small fraction of the current prison population can be characterized as "inherently dangerous." In reality, the majority of individuals who commit violent crimes or assaults are influenced by their surroundings and can benefit from therapy, medication, and addressing underlying issues of poverty and trauma. In the case of the most problematic repeat offenders, proponents propose redirecting them to psychiatric hospitals instead of prisons, recognizing that their criminal behavior often stems from more significant mental health or compulsive disorders.
Another argument against prison abolition is the principle of retribution. As previously mentioned, punitive justice is one of the core pillars of the criminal justice system, with some individuals believing that prisons serve to punish individuals who have committed significant amounts of crime. Proponents of this principle would argue that it is unfair for criminals to get off with a slap on the wrist, or to not suffer consequences for their actions which have caused pain and suffering. However, this principle is not conducive to the aim of reducing crime, and merely encourages revenge and punishment. Crime is oftentime a mistake - it may be committed in the heat of the moment, a crime of passion, or it might be a product of poor circumstances. Emphasising retribution as a core principle ignores the many other aims of criminal justice, including rehabilitation and restitution. Moreover, these convicts are not getting off completely free, as the alternatives outlined above, such as community work, require them to work without compensation to pay off their dues to society; as such, even under the principle of ‘retribution,’ these perpetrators are being punished. With that said, society would do well to move on from cruel and archaic forms of locking individuals up in prison, and instead emphasise healing and reconciliation.
In conclusion, prison abolition has been and still continues to be a controversial topic within politics and criminal justice discussions. Even though concerns of public safety and the need to uphold the principle of ‘retribution’ are understandable, I have demonstrated these arguments to be unsound. Instead of having a society founded on principles of punishment and deterrence, which have led to high rates of recidivism and crime, we need to look to alternatives. Prisons harm groups which are already marginalised, particularly groups which are severely economically deprived, and strip away individual dignity. They separate parents from children, and they socialise teenagers and young adults within their walls to become more violent and dangerous. Therefore, prisons should be abolished and replaced with community work, re-education and restitution with victims.