1.005
Bearbeitungen
Benutzer:Woozle/Against Penitentiaries: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Benutzer:Woozle/Against Penitentiaries (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 24. August 2016, 13:14 Uhr
, 13:14, 24. Aug. 2016→Strategies for Abolition
Woozle (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Woozle (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 245: | Zeile 245: | ||
== Strategies for Abolition == | == Strategies for Abolition == | ||
Prisons are to be abolished. Especially prisons-for-punishment. But to achieve this goal will be no easy task, given the popularity of prisons among politicians, media and great segments of the population. What is needed is both an abolitionist stance and strategies for concrete abolitions. | |||
=== | === An abolitionist stance === | ||
The major exponent of such an approach with respect to prisons is Thomas Mathiesen. Mathiesen believes that to look for ready-made alternatives before changing an existing institution is the wrong way. He argues that "the alternative lies in the unfinished, in the sketch, in what is not yet fully existing" (Mathiesen 2015, 47 ff). For him, the most important thing is to nurture an abolitionist stance, a stance of saying "no!", which makes a difference in the long run. This may contribute to what he calls turning points: "The turning points of the past, the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty at least in some places, the abolition of youth prisons in Massachussetts, the abolition of forced labour or what what have you - should be scrutinized as examples for the future. What fostered them, what caused some of them to return under a different mantle? Turning points probably surface for structural, economic and political reasons. They become 'ripe fruit' to use a Norwegian expression. But people act and channel them as they surface. An abolitionist stance of saying 'no!' was certainly part of past abolitions. It may be so again" (Mathiesen 2009, 62). | |||
=== | But apart from fostering and developing an abolitionist stance, we need to think about strategies for achieving concrete abolitions. They are of a gradualist kind. Gradualist strategies suggest specific ways to dismantle an institution step-by-step. They appear more realistic than all-or-nothing strategies. At the same time, they face the danger of becoming entangled in politics as usual. Here are some examples. | ||
=== Reductionism === | |||
This means reducing the capacity of prisons, until there is nothing (or not much) left. It means to demand the destruction of (e.g. older, outmoded, unused) prisons and resist the building of new ones (Rutherford 1984). | This means reducing the capacity of prisons, until there is nothing (or not much) left. It means to demand the destruction of (e.g. older, outmoded, unused) prisons and resist the building of new ones (Rutherford 1984). | ||
The theory behind that strategy is that capacity determines imprisonment rates, i.e. overcapacity will eventually be filled. This may be so. But will the lack of prison cells change the sentencing behavior of judges? Waiting lists as an alternative to overcrowding were practiced for quite a while in the Netherlands (before reductionism was swept away by a new prison building boom). Publishing and comparing imprisonment rates can serve as a tool for shaming high-incarceration countries. A modern version of quantitative reductionism is the movement for "justice reinvestment" ( Chris Fox, Kevin Albertson, Kevin Wong 2013). Here the focus is explicitely on re-directing the funds spent on prisons in a more reasonable direction (community alternatives, education). "The question should be 'What can be done to strengthen the capacity of high incarceration neighborhoods to keep their residents out of prison?' not "Where should we send this individual'" (Tucker/Cadora 2003). | The theory behind that strategy is that capacity determines imprisonment rates, i.e. overcapacity will eventually be filled. This may be so. But will the lack of prison cells change the sentencing behavior of judges? Waiting lists as an alternative to overcrowding were practiced for quite a while in the Netherlands (before reductionism was swept away by a new prison building boom). Publishing and comparing imprisonment rates can serve as a tool for shaming high-incarceration countries. A modern version of quantitative reductionism is the movement for "justice reinvestment" ( Chris Fox, Kevin Albertson, Kevin Wong 2013). Here the focus is explicitely on re-directing the funds spent on prisons in a more reasonable direction (community alternatives, education). "The question should be 'What can be done to strengthen the capacity of high incarceration neighborhoods to keep their residents out of prison?' not "Where should we send this individual'" (Tucker/Cadora 2003). | ||
=== Normalization of prison conditions === | |||
While quantitative reductionism focusses on imprisonment rates, i.e. frequency and length of imprisonment, here the stress is on the "depth" of imprisonment (Downes), i.e. the prison conditions. If imprisonment is to be nothing more than the deprivation of liberty (European Prison Rules), the situation within prisons should approach "normal" living and working conditions as much as possible. Why should imprisoned citizens not have normal voting right? Why should imprisoned workers not be paid regular salaries? When we demand for prisoners normal rights as citizens and workers, the inner logic of such demands points to a gradual abolition of prisons as we know them (Mitford 1973). Even the deprivation of liberty itself allows for gradation in terms of more or less open prisons. In a similar vein Hedda Giertsen calls for "Tuning down prisons": placing responsibility where it should be, in the ordinary public services, as it is for other citizens" (Giertsen 2015, 292). Obviously, the term "normalization" is not used here in Foucault's sense, but as a normative principle around which some recent prison reformers , including prisoners, are rallying (cf. Feest 1999). | While quantitative reductionism focusses on imprisonment rates, i.e. frequency and length of imprisonment, here the stress is on the "depth" of imprisonment (Downes), i.e. the prison conditions. If imprisonment is to be nothing more than the deprivation of liberty (European Prison Rules), the situation within prisons should approach "normal" living and working conditions as much as possible. Why should imprisoned citizens not have normal voting right? Why should imprisoned workers not be paid regular salaries? When we demand for prisoners normal rights as citizens and workers, the inner logic of such demands points to a gradual abolition of prisons as we know them (Mitford 1973). Even the deprivation of liberty itself allows for gradation in terms of more or less open prisons. In a similar vein Hedda Giertsen calls for "Tuning down prisons": placing responsibility where it should be, in the ordinary public services, as it is for other citizens" (Giertsen 2015, 292). Obviously, the term "normalization" is not used here in Foucault's sense, but as a normative principle around which some recent prison reformers , including prisoners, are rallying (cf. Feest 1999). | ||
=== Segmentary abolition === | |||
Since prisons have not always existed, a world without prisons is perfectly conceivable. But it is unlikely that such an institution can be abolished in one go. Another strategy is therefore to demand the abolition of specific sectors of the prison system. This was successfully done in Norway and Germany with work houses, in Massachussets with juvenile training schools. It was tried with varying success with respect to short-term imprisonment (Germany), fine-default imprisonment (Denmark, Sweden) and with lifetime imprisonment (Norway, Spain) etc. It has also been advocated for deportation prisons (Graebsch 2008), juvenile prisons (Schumann et al. 1981) or for womens prisons (Carlen 1990). Our own focus on "Strafanstalt", on serving prisons, on prisons-as-punishment, can be seen as a segmentary approach. We advocate abolishing these kinds of prisons, but we are well aware that there are other prisons or prison-like institutions (e.g. pre-trial prisons; security detention; deportation facilities) that may need to be abolished too. | |||
=== Linking up the strategies === | === Linking up the strategies === | ||