31.738
Bearbeitungen
Abolitionism: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
→Arguments
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 144: | Zeile 144: | ||
=== Arguments === | === Arguments === | ||
*Sociological arguments for prison abolition include the outdatedness of incarceration | *Sociological arguments for prison abolition include the outdatedness of incarceration from a social evolutionary perspective - a position maybe best spelled out by French philosophers Michel Foucault (1975) and Gilles Deleuze (1992). In Deleuze's opinion, prisons are anachronistic institutions just waiting to be abolished. | ||
*Pragmatic arguments point to the enormous costs of the prison system, and its ineffectiveness or even counterproductivity. | |||
*Moral arguments criticize the prison system as inherently unjust. They point to the disproportionality of using prisons for punishing lesser crimes (thieves, swindlers, shoplifters), to the double standards of letting rich people avoid prisons and incarcerating poor people and ethnic minorities who go to prison for the lack of access to good defense lawyers and the simplicity of their crimes that make them easily accusable and convictable, whereas prosecutors tend to a hands-off-strategy when complex financial crimes threaten to overburden their expertise and manpower. Furthermore, they point to | |||
The reasons for this weakness are not difficult to detect: | The reasons for this weakness are not difficult to detect: | ||
| Zeile 154: | Zeile 157: | ||
#In spite of their comparatively young age as an institution, prisons managed to be perceived by the wider public as a legitimate part of a quasi-natural social order. | #In spite of their comparatively young age as an institution, prisons managed to be perceived by the wider public as a legitimate part of a quasi-natural social order. | ||
===Strategies === | |||
Substituting incarceration with supervised release, probation, restitution to victims, or community work | *Substituting incarceration with supervised release, probation, restitution to victims, or community work; decreasing terms of imprisonment by abolishing mandatory minimum sentencing; decreasing ethnic disparity in prison populations; foster crime prevention rather than punishment; abolition of specific programs which increase prison population, such as the prohibition of drugs (e.g. War on Drugs), gun control, prohibition of sex work, and alcohol restrictions. | ||
Education programs to inform people who have never been in prison about the problems | Education programs to inform people who have never been in prison about the problems | ||
Fighting individual cases of wrongful conviction | Fighting individual cases of wrongful conviction | ||
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime published a series of handbooks on criminal justice. Among them is Alternatives to Imprisonment which identifies how the overuse of imprisonment impacts fundamental human rights, especially those convicted for lesser crimes. | The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime published a series of handbooks on criminal justice. Among them is Alternatives to Imprisonment which identifies how the overuse of imprisonment impacts fundamental human rights, especially those convicted for lesser crimes. | ||
Unbalanced scales.svg | Unbalanced scales.svg | ||
In place of prisons, some abolitionists propose community-controlled courts, councils, or assemblies to control the problem of social crime.[who?] They argue that with the destruction of capitalism, and the self-management of production by workers and communities, property crimes would largely vanish. A large part of the problem, according to some, is the way the judicial system deals with prisoners, people and capital. They argue that there would be fewer prisoners if society treated people more fairly, regardless of gender, color, ethnic background, sexual orientation, education, etc. | In place of prisons, some abolitionists propose community-controlled courts, councils, or assemblies to control the problem of social crime.[who?] They argue that with the destruction of capitalism, and the self-management of production by workers and communities, property crimes would largely vanish. A large part of the problem, according to some, is the way the judicial system deals with prisoners, people and capital. They argue that there would be fewer prisoners if society treated people more fairly, regardless of gender, color, ethnic background, sexual orientation, education, etc. | ||
| Zeile 191: | Zeile 189: | ||
"why do governmental units choose to spend billions of dollars a year to concentrate people with serious illnesses in a system designed to punish intentional lawbreaking, when doing so matches neither the putative purposes of that system nor most effectively addresses the issues posed by that population?" [15] | "why do governmental units choose to spend billions of dollars a year to concentrate people with serious illnesses in a system designed to punish intentional lawbreaking, when doing so matches neither the putative purposes of that system nor most effectively addresses the issues posed by that population?" [15] | ||
This question is often one of the major pieces of evidence that prison abolitionist claim highlights the depravity of the penal system. Many of these prison abolitionists often state that mentally ill offenders, violent and non-violent, should be treated in mental hospitals not prisons.[16] By keeping the mentally ill in prisons they claim that rehabilitation cannot occur because prisons are not the correct environment to deal with deep seated psychological problems and facilitate rehabilitative practices.[16] Individuals with mental illnesses that have led them to commit any crime have a much higher chance of committing suicide while in prison because of the lack of proper medical attention.[17] The increased risk of suicide is said to be because there is much stigma around mental illness and lack of adequate treatments within hospitals.[17] The whole point of the penal system is to rehabilitate and reform individuals who have willingly transgressed on the law. According to many prison abolitionists however, when mentally ill persons, often for reasons outside of their cognitive control, commit illegal acts prisons are not the best place for them to receive the help necessary for their rehabilitation.[16] For many prison abolitionists, if for no other reason than the fact that mentally ill individuals will not be receiving the same potential for rehabilitation as the non-mentally ill prison population, prisons are considered to be unjust and therefore violate their Sixth Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights, in the U.S., and their chance to rehabilitate and function outside of the prison.[15][18] By violating individual’s rights to rehabilitation prison abolitionist see no reason for prisons to exist and offers just one more reason people with the movement demand for the abolition of prisons.[15][16] In America, by violating an individual's rights as a citizen prison abolitionist see no reason for prisons to exist and, again, offers another reason people within the movement demand for the abolition of prisons. | This question is often one of the major pieces of evidence that prison abolitionist claim highlights the depravity of the penal system. Many of these prison abolitionists often state that mentally ill offenders, violent and non-violent, should be treated in mental hospitals not prisons.[16] By keeping the mentally ill in prisons they claim that rehabilitation cannot occur because prisons are not the correct environment to deal with deep seated psychological problems and facilitate rehabilitative practices.[16] Individuals with mental illnesses that have led them to commit any crime have a much higher chance of committing suicide while in prison because of the lack of proper medical attention.[17] The increased risk of suicide is said to be because there is much stigma around mental illness and lack of adequate treatments within hospitals.[17] The whole point of the penal system is to rehabilitate and reform individuals who have willingly transgressed on the law. According to many prison abolitionists however, when mentally ill persons, often for reasons outside of their cognitive control, commit illegal acts prisons are not the best place for them to receive the help necessary for their rehabilitation.[16] For many prison abolitionists, if for no other reason than the fact that mentally ill individuals will not be receiving the same potential for rehabilitation as the non-mentally ill prison population, prisons are considered to be unjust and therefore violate their Sixth Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights, in the U.S., and their chance to rehabilitate and function outside of the prison.[15][18] By violating individual’s rights to rehabilitation prison abolitionist see no reason for prisons to exist and offers just one more reason people with the movement demand for the abolition of prisons.[15][16] In America, by violating an individual's rights as a citizen prison abolitionist see no reason for prisons to exist and, again, offers another reason people within the movement demand for the abolition of prisons. | ||
===Cause for Conflict=== | ===Cause for Conflict=== | ||