Talk:Prison abolition movement in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Socialist Party USA

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

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

• 83.131.108.69 (talk · contribs)
• 89.172.39.205 (talk · contribs)
• 82.35.70.213 (talk · contribs)
• 82.45.209.91 (talk · contribs)
• 83.131.99.127 (talk · contribs)
• 83.131.104.65 (talk · contribs)
• 83.131.171.239 (talk · contribs)

ntennis 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Increased Use of Death Penalty?

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

I second this. I thought I was reading a typo, could someone knowledgeable on the subject please elaborate? Thanks Avigon 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Having taken two courses on the subject in University (one specifically on penal abolition, and one on Prison Community and the Deprivation of Liberty) as part of my Criminology degree, I can't say I've ever heard of increased capital punishment being advocated as an alternative to imprisonment. Penal abolitionists are against prison because of its inhumanity, and capital punishment is arguably much less humane.

This is not to say that such an argument would be logically inconsistent, particularly if used facetiously or hypothetically: Prison only makes crime worse, and does not serve its stated goal of rehabilitation; so eliminate prisons and instead use other techniques to punish and/or reform people who commit crimes (well, and stop counting certain things as crimes, like prostitution and drug use--any harm caused by the former is a social construction, and any harm caused by the latter is not helped by the stigma and coldness of imprisonment).

If we were to hypothetically stop using prisons tomorrow, there are some people who are just totally screwed up and are a complete danger to society and should be segregated from society (called the "Dangerous Few"). Criminologists (or at least the ones I've spoken to) tend to agree that this only comprises about 2-3% of the current North American prison population.

If you wanted to take penal abolitionism to its logical extreme, and completely eliminate the use of prisons (as opposed to jails, whose purpose of holding accused--before trial and before the punishment is carried out--predates the use of prisons/incapacitation as punishment), you have to do something with these people. Most penal abolitionists see that prison is useful for incapacitating/segregating these people, but on a logical (i.e. ethically ambivalent) scale, it would be more efficient to simply put the hopelessly-dangerous people to death and not spend $100K/year to hold them for the rest of their natural lives. This is what was done before prisons were used for punishment. The change in policy came as juries tended to acquit people because capital punishment was getting excessive.

I don't know if (a) some penal abolitionists have actually argued in favour of the death penalty, or if (b) they simply used it in hypothetical situations, as above, or (c) they noted the correlation between the increase in use of prison as capital punishment declined or was phased out, and this was (wrongly) interpreted to mean that because they want less imprisonment, they must therefore want more capital punishment.

Note that aside from the 2-3%, about 80% of people in (North American) prisons are generally law-abiding, but are imprisoned for things like drug- or prostitution-related crimes, or for not paying fines. They do not need to be incapacitated.

The remainder, about 15-18%, are people who are 'headed down the wrong track', so to speak, but could be turned around if given the proper attention. However, when they are simply gobbled up by the system and tossed into prison, they effectively become as bad as the "dangerous few".

I realize that I haven't cited any of my claims. Hence why it is in the talk page. This is all what I've absorbed from my courses, and it would take hours to track down references. But I hope it at least explains things on a logical scale. --RealGrouchy 04:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Penal Abolition, not prison abolition

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

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

Additions to "Arguments for prison abolition" ?

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

I believe so. There are many deeply rooted issues here. I think in general the notion of instituting a restorative rather than a retrubutionist justice system would be at the heart of the argument. Piercetp (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to narrow that a bit: Abolitionism is more like "solve individual problems using restorative principles" than "solve criminal problems with a restorative system". Two important distinctions between the two (and I realize the latter may not have been exactly what you said) are that the former (a) does not imply that any and all actions currently defined as "crimes" are necessarily "problems" that society should intervene on (e.g. 'victimless' crimes), and (b) does not imply that all societal problems must be imposed by a "system", as that often does not allow for actual restoration. --RealGrouchy (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:VER, WP:OR and WP:RS

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

Section: "Arguments for prison abolition"

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial outcome depends on the financial resources of the accused

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

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

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

Police and prisons alienate people from their communities.

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

There are examples of prisonless societies.

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

Prisons are not proven to make people less violent.

And the aforementioned prisonless societies are? Please elaborate.

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

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

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

There are examples of prisonless societies.

Here's an easy example: early Israel. Simplfying dramatically, under the rules you'll find in the Bible, either it was a property crime, in which case you pay seven times the value (cash on the barrelhead, or become an indentured servant until you and your family have worked the equivalent number of days), or it was a non-property crime, in which case you were maimed or executed. Prison is mentioned nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.

More broadly, nomadic tribes don't have prisons (you can't put a prison on a camel's back when it's time to move on), and neither do tiny tribes or groups that are barely managing a subsistence-level survival. If you think about it, I think it'll be obvious that a group which is barely fending off starvation is more likely to want every worker in the field, instead of dedicating workers to feeding and guarding someone they consider to be a troublemaker. WhatamIdoing 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because they just use corporal or capital punishment instead, re: early Israel! I personally don't think this would be a bad idea, but I doubt that is what "prison abolitionists" are suggesting, especially as a disproportionate part of that lobby have criminal convictions themselves. So what alternatives are they seriously recommending, and what examples are there of this WORKING? - Richard Murray —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.129.117 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate quotations around Barack Obama

Towards the end of the 'illicit drugs and prison' section, the name of POTUS Barack Obama is put in quotations for no reason. I am removing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawdaddyjoe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Woops. Sorry for not signing. --Crawdaddyjoe (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Some edits

I removed the neo-nazi group (Bases Autónomas) from the list of organizations supporting prison abolition. Other than the seemingly obvious contradiction that would have to be going on, no evidence has been provided to show that this organization support prison abolition and there is nothing about that on the wikipedia page dedicated to them.

More importantly, I have removed the entire section "List of relevant organizaions" because of their...irrelevance. I don't know what the argument was for such a section or rather the organizations listed. I would like to hear a very clear articulated argument for why any of the organization that were listed belong on this page. None of the organizations have ever supported prison abolition and most of them don't even concern themselves with prison issues much to begin with (The ACLU, really?). In this same vein, there are other issues with the page, but I've only removed the most glaringly irrelevant things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voltage2 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup Rewrite Tag

I tagged this for cleanup-rewrite. I browsed to this page from elsewhere and was dismayed with how poorly it was written. I assume this is the strongest tag I could put that indicates the article badly needs help. I tried to do a little by removing some of the extraneous material after the article. I removed the list of groups supporting abolition, as this needs to be cited, and better yet, needs to be in a paragraph describing what exactly they support (do they support the complete abolition of prisons, or are they advocating for reductions). In any case, there's no need to list every group that supports this movement, some of the groups barely (if at all) meet the notability requirements for an article about the group. I also removed entirely the "External links". I think other editors have above listed many of the other problems with the article and I hope it can be further improved. - 134.174.174.181 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Women and Prison

Does anyone else think that this section is very poorly written? I know very little about this subject, but it seems to be an incohesive vomiting of facts (most of which aren't explained sufficiently well to emphasize why they are problems as opposed to inconsequential gender disparities) rather than any well-structured arguments. Can any expert clean it up / improve it? // 67.246.33.116 (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is very poorly written and it is a little unclear as to what the argument being made even is although it's implied that the argument is that women are affected much worse than men in the criminal justice system. Although, one important statistic not mentioned, which seems to greatly contradict such an assertion, is that in the U.S. at least, only about 5% of prison inmates are women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voltage2 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Now this has been removed, it does miss out part of the issue - from a UK perspective, prison abolition has definitely been taken up as a feminist issue, either in calls for a very different and lenient system for women or as part of a general radical challenge to power structures perceived as male-imposed, even where men are the main targets and an aim is to protect women. The NUS Women's Conference lately took up the notion of "prison abolition", as part of a movement, working with something called The Empty Cages Collective (drawing on American numbers and concepts), although apparently not meant entirely literally. The Corston report of 2007 and a few groups around it called for all women's prisons to be abolished in the sense that the institutions would be closed and criminals housed where necessary in new units dropping "prison" security and discipline. There was a widely circulated photo of a sign in favour of this - "they shouldn't be treated like men" - at this point it is clearly a strictly feminist issue and not an anarchist or general social reform one. Billwilson5060 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Racism

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

Really? You can't imagine any possible reasons why racism would be a related topic to prison abolition? Do you think it has something to do with the fact that blacks are over-represented by a factor of more than 3:1, latinos are over-represented by over 2:1, and whites are under-represented by less than 1:2 in prison? That doesn't suggest racism to you? Unless you think that black people are just more criminal than everyone else, then that's almost definitive proof that the criminal justice system is racist. And regardless of whether you think that's true, the argument is definitely out there, which justifies putting it in the relevant topics section. I put racism back in the related topics section, but I'm on the fence about white-supremacy, so I kept it out.--199.195.58.22 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no definite proof in those numbers, as you can use them for other topics like IQ or mentality theory or theory of culture etc - all of whom might be quite contrary to the "definitive proof that the criminal justice system is racist". And by the way, there is almost nowhere such thing as a definitive proof.

are you saying that a 3:1 black to white incarceration rate is explainable in terms of IQ, mentality and culture of the incarcerated black people, rather than white supremacist policies and law enforcement practices? Really? I'd like to see your definitive proof that Black folks have lower IQs, criminal mentalities and cultures. Does it rely on "research" done by slavery era eugenicists, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C4B:89B0:7854:7D57:DA58:A840 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Prison abolition movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120302060617/http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303e.as to http://www.fff.org/comment/com0303e.as

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Anarchism?

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

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

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

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

-- I agree with the above, generally. Pointedly, the article appears to indicate that people who would like to radically change or get rid of the prison system are also anti-government or anarchists. There are those who are pro-government who don't necessarily like the prison system and want to improve, change or redesign the entire system even if it means abolishing the current system. I feel that having such a strong focus on associating prison reform almost exclusively with anarchism seems rather damaging to any kind of positive information for people of different views. Malid (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

-- I agree completely with both of the above remarks. But why is the first remark anonymous? Johannes (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

This reads like a college sophomore paper on the benefits of prison abolition. Might be worth clearing that up. 122.56.232.254 (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Globalize

Quite simply, this article goes on and on about the US prison system. It fails to discuss anything about prisons or the movement outside the US. (And again, if you have a vested interest in the subject, you might want to take into account that too much bashing of the US prison system is likely to get your audience wondering why the Norwegians have a better prison system instead of how we can get rid of the prison system as a whole.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point, the article should be renamed to either American Prison Abolition Movement or Prison Abolition Movement (USA). There is no discussion of international pushes for reform. The entire section of "Arguments made for prison abolition" restricts its narrative to the United States. I suggest to put something like "[in the United States]" from the sentence of footnote 6, but in the title. Eldarraz (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Abolition vs Reform

I read this page, curious about the word "abolition." Most if not all of the cited arguments are reasons for reform (reducing prison populations) but not abolition (eliminating prisons). The key question in my mind was what they would do with the worst offenders, e.g. high-ranking members of violent gangs or child traffickers. There are many people who are interested in prison reform, but it seems like the prison abolition argument needs to address that extra step. Ultimately, I didn't get what I was looking for from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkieminstrel (talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I thought to rename this article to Prison Reform Movement. However, when searching for other webpages on the Prison Abolition Movement, I found some articles specifically advocating abolition over reform. I think this Wikipedia article needs to be updated with more recent information, and not make it seem as if it is strictly an anarchist concept. Prison reform is already being discussed in the U.N. and some alternatives to imprisonment are already in use in many countries. --Waliway (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific examples of a divide between these definitions can be seen in the Abolitionist views subsection. The first sentence refers to the fact that some organizations push for reform over abolition, but the organization cited is completely for "abolition/liberation" not policy reform; while they acknowledge the latter helps, they firmly support total abolition. Basically, not the best group to use in support of the claim that some groups want reform. Eldarraz (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Possibly out of date data?

"Blacks are 12.3 percent of the U.S. population (2001) but they comprise fully half of the roughly 2 million Americans currently behind Bars. On any given day, 30 percent of African-American males aged 20- 29 are "under correctional supervision."[9]

Information from 2001 may still be relevant but a more recent data point could be helpful Maxwell moilanen (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Max Moilanen

Source may be biased?

Prisons are not proven to make people less violent. In fact, there is evidence that they may instead promote violence in individuals by surrounding them with other violent criminals, which can lead to predictable negative/violent results.[19]

Since Mother Jones is a politically progressive magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwell moilanen (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Article isn't informative or doesn't make sense

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

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

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

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

The article is meant to describe the movement and its arguments

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

And 6 years later, I still have this problem. The obvious and surely frequently asked question here is what about afterward. There probably ought to be a criticism section showing responses to these ideas, which might be a good place to put the fact that there's no solid agreement about that. Or perhaps the advocates that surely lurk here can add a coherent explanation of what they propose to replace the prison system? (And while we're at it, surely most of the facts about the prison system can go elsewhere; state that prison in the US is racist, classist and sexist, point to the articles that show that, and go on with the argument.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of complaints about the content on this page, and I agree. Since it has seen little improvement in years, I'm going to take the liberty to start rewriting the article, hopefully to be more current, informative, organized, and reliably sourced. I will try to keep as much of the current information intact as possible, but much of it will have to be reorganized, placed in context, or even removed due to Wikipedia's strict requirements for unbiased, reliably-sourced information. If anyone has any objections or comments, feel free to interrupt me. --Waliway (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not sure if I can rewrite this article. I was going to fill it with information about reasons to replace the prison system, and what they can be replaced with; however, it's not clear whether the prison abolition movement is specifically geared toward anarchist theory or not. If it is, then that would imply that prison shouldn't be replaced with any other state controlled system, and that doesn't fall into the realm of my studies. Can anyone more familiar with the prison abolition movement let me know? I suggest having two articles, one to cover the replacement of prisons with more humane and effective systems, and the other to cover prison abolition according to anarchists. --Waliway (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on community accountability practices. The prison abolition organizations which I am familiar with in the US do not explicitly identify as anarchist, but they argue that reliance on the prison system should be reduced and eventually replaced through the use of restorative justice and community accountability practices. --Natalienaculich (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Brian Everlasting, before we embark on the usual routine of "I'm being persecuted and I'm reverting!!!" - would you care to explain how edits like

• replacing the nuanced and specific The prison abolition movement is a loose network of groups and activists that seek to reduce or eliminate prisons and the prison system, and replace them with systems of rehabilitation that do not place a focus on punishment and government punishment institutionalization system with the simplistic The prison abolition movement is a network of groups and activists that seek to reduce or eliminate prisons and punishment institutionalization system.[1] - or the same here - or
• wholesale removal of information [2]

are supposed to improve the article? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What knowledge do you have about jail? As usual you respond with personal insults rather than discuss article. Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

If you respond with edit-warring again, I will report you. - So pray, what is the point of the above edits? It seems you merely removed aposite information and introduced wonky phrasing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Complete new article necessary

The above discussion indicates that this article is beyond repair. It should be replaced by a serious article on "penal abolitionism" (see e.g. the recent European collection "No Prison" edited by Massimo Pavarini/Livio Ferrari, 2018 or the forthcoming Handbook on Abolitionism edited by Michael Coyle and David Scott). Maybe part of the original article could be retained and reduced to a description of the anarchist movement against prisons.--Johannes (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Were the Quakers among the first advocates in the United States or first in the world? If the former, then the article should state this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oatmealcookiemon (talk • contribs) 01:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Historically, prison abolitionism has two roots: Norwegian (Thomas Mathiesen, Nils Christie) and Dutch (Louk Hulsman, Herman Bianchi) criminologists and U.S. Quakers (especially Fay Honey Knopp. Since none of them is even mentioned in this article, it needs to be completely re-written.--Johannes (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johann Nepomuk: Thank you for pointing to those references! They should certainly be added to this article. Here are the earliest dates I can find in a quick search for the earliest published works by these authors on abolitionism:

• 1970 - Philip Berrigan & Daniel Berrigan, according to . Vol. 198. R.R. Bowker Company. 1970. p. 29 https://books.google.com/books?id=gMNEAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22prison+writing%22. Plaintiffs are two of the better known inmates of the Federal prison at Danbury, Conn., Father Philip Berrigan, S.S.J., and Father Daniel ... The Berrigans in their suit are saying that the system is unconstitutional and should be abolished. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
• 1971 - Davis, A.Y.; Aptheker, B. (1971). If they came in the morning: voices of resistance. Third Press.. Republished (with or without revisions?) as Davis, A.Y. (2016). If They Come in the Morning...: Voices of Resistance. Radical Thinkers. Verso Books. ISBN 978-1-78478-770-7. Coupled with an exposure of the prison system as an appendage of the capitalist state--as an instrument for class, racial, and national oppression--and the demand for the abolition of that system in its present form", "The issue is not only reform, but also to mount a struggle to abolish the present functions and foundations of the prison system", "For the movement to abolish the present functions of the prison system attacks a basic ideological pillar of fascism at its root.","Such political prisoners include the Berrigan Brothers, and many thousands of draft resisters
• 1971 - Attica Prison riot, according to Samuels, L. (2010). "Improvising on reality: The roots of prison abolition". In Berger, D. (ed.). The Hidden 1970s: Histories of Radicalism. Rutgers University Press. pp. 21–38. ISBN 978-0-8135-4873-9.
• unknown people discussed in Williams, M. (1971). Commonweal. Commonweal Publishing Corporation.
• unknown people discussed in Casey, William Van Etten,; Nobile, Philip, (1971). The Berrigans. Avon. OCLC 524610.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• 1974 - Thomas Mathiesen (1974). The Politics of Abolition. London: Martin Robertson.
• 1976 - Fay Honey Knopp (1976). Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists.
• 1981 - Quaker statement: "The prison system is both a cause and a result of violence and social injustice. Throughout history, the majority of prisoners have been the powerless and the oppressed. We are increasingly clear that the imprisonment of human beings, like their enslavement, is inherently immoral, and is as destructive to the cagers as to the caged."[3]
• 1981 - Nils Christie (1981). Pinens begrensning [Limits to Pain] (in Norwegian). Translated and republished as Christie, N. (2007). Limits to Pain: The Role of Punishment in Penal Policy. Restorative Justice Classics Series. Wipf & Stock. ISBN 978-1-55635-597-4.
• 1982 - Hulsman, L. H. C.; de Celis, J. B. (1982). Peines perdues: le système pénal en question [Wasted effort. The criminal system in question]. Droits de l'homme et solidarité (in French). Centurion. ISBN 978-2-227-12601-5.
• 1983 - Morris, Ruth (1983). Seeds of Abolition. Toronto: Quaker Committee on Jails & Justice.
• 1983 - first International Conference on Prison Abolition, founded by Ruth Morris
• 1986 - Herman Bianchi - Bianchi, H., & Van Swaaningen, R. (Eds.). (1986). Abolitionism: Towards a Non-repressive Approach to Crime: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Prison Abolition, Amsterdam 1985: with Contributions from Elizabeth Barker...[et Al.]. Free University Press.

Note that I'm just basing this list off of publication titles and incomplete quotes from Google Books snippets; I haven't reviewed the contents of these works or earlier works. Further verification is needed before this is added to the article. Daask (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Daask, for this list. But it stops in 1986. When the important International Handbook on Prison Abolition comes out later this year, the whole article will have to be rewritten.

Johannes (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Rename article to "Prison abolition movement in the United States"

Seriously, it reads like there wasn't any other country in the world but the US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.169.226.151 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to distinguish if it doesn't exist outside the US. Do you have any evidence that it does? And even if it did, unless there was enough content for two separate articles, we wouldn't split it. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Spain 1936

Were the assaults of anarchists on Spanish prisons during the Spanish Revolution of 1936 part of this movement? How do movement members analyze the results? --Error (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eldarraz. Peer reviewers: Joce Strad, Maxwell moilanen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jordane96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jerichorajninger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

1973 Walpole Prison uprising

The section on the Walpole prison uprising seems to fall short in its citations. There are only two citations in this section: One is from When the Prisoners Ran Walpole, written by an outspoken prison abolitionist. The other source is Anarchy Works, written by an anarchist; moreover, the relevant section in Anarchy Works only cites When the Prisoners Ran Walpole. The claims made in this section are also challenged by sources from non-abolitionists. Peter Remick's In Constant Fear offers a firsthand account that claims the uprising was violent; Alan Konefsky and others represent a more nuanced view of the uprising in their study of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections; local newspapers from the time also suggest that the uprising was more violent than this section claims. I think this section needs to be rewritten to reflect some less biased sourcing, or even outright removed. CWKarst (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Arguments for and against abolition

The wording and structure of the arguments for and against prison abolition appear to be somewhat biased in favour of abolition, as all four arguments against it also have rebuttals attached, while the many arguments for it don't. Additionally, some of the arguments listed really only apply to the U.S. prison system, with little concern for how corrective services operate in other nations. I'm not sure I'd consider that providing a neutral point of view. 49.192.108.230 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

New section on Anarchism and Prison Abolition

Re edits made by @JustinJacksonGeorge: This new section clearly achieves the goal of describing the role that anarchism has played in advocating for the abolition of prisons. This section does not appear to have any significant problems as it provides clear, valuable historical and current information about the intersection of prison abolition and anarchism.

The rest of the Wikipedia page would benefit from adopting a similar structure. Perhaps merging some information together rather than repeating it would make the article more easily readable.

Moreover, the introduction seems to lack footnotes. This part has no sources: "Others support books-to-prisoner projects and defend the rights of prisoners to have access to information and library services. Some organizations, such as the Anarchist Black Cross, seek total abolishment of the prison system, without any intention to replace it with other government-controlled systems. Many anarchist organizations believe that the best form of justice arises naturally out of social contracts, restorative justice, or transformative justice." Rosesav (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Opposite of mass incarceration" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Opposite of mass incarceration has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 30 § Opposite of mass incarceration until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Eighty percent of women in prison are pregnant?

Someone added that 80% of prison women are pregnant, but it's unsourced. That sounds a little absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.215.38 (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)