1.005
Bearbeitungen
Benutzer:Woozle/Against Penitentiaries: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Benutzer:Woozle/Against Penitentiaries (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 25. August 2016, 07:35 Uhr
, 07:35, 25. Aug. 2016→What abolition does not mean
Woozle (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Woozle (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 240: | Zeile 240: | ||
As we can see, to abolish prisons does not mean to abolish all kinds of involuntary confinement. Even if we believe it to be possible that societies might one day be able to afford to let their offenders go unpunished, this would certainly not imply the end of all involuntary confinement. There will still will be a need to lock up suspects who otherwise would either evade trial or - worse - continue to be a threat to the community. Some things just have to be prevented from happening, be it the spread of an infectious disease, or be it a serial killer’s hunt for his next victims. Once imprisonment as punishment is abolished, there will still be a need for confinement. But that will be for other reasons - foremost for reasons of security - and it will be a type of confinement that must not be carried out under prison-like conditions, but in well-supervised residential settings instead of a cell prison. There is no need to impose prison conditions or prison-like conditions on anyone on earth. | As we can see, to abolish prisons does not mean to abolish all kinds of involuntary confinement. Even if we believe it to be possible that societies might one day be able to afford to let their offenders go unpunished, this would certainly not imply the end of all involuntary confinement. There will still will be a need to lock up suspects who otherwise would either evade trial or - worse - continue to be a threat to the community. Some things just have to be prevented from happening, be it the spread of an infectious disease, or be it a serial killer’s hunt for his next victims. Once imprisonment as punishment is abolished, there will still be a need for confinement. But that will be for other reasons - foremost for reasons of security - and it will be a type of confinement that must not be carried out under prison-like conditions, but in well-supervised residential settings instead of a cell prison. There is no need to impose prison conditions or prison-like conditions on anyone on earth. | ||
This is really an important point worth repeating. To say that even after prison abolition there will continue to be some form or forms of involuntary confinement is not equal to saying that any of the remaining deprivations of liberty would be allowed to take place in prison-like facilities. With no punishment intended, the living conditions of those affected by spatial separation from the rest of society must not be modeled after the penitentiary. With regard to size and comfort, they should rather resemble a decent middle-class home or at least apartment. Whoever thinks that is exaggerated should halt a minute and consider this: these people are being forced to sacrifice essential parts of their (quality of) life for the life and liberty of others - without necessarily being bad, evil, guilty, or even responsible for the risk they pose. With no reproach involved and no vengeance, those who deprive these individuals of their liberty have good reasons to do everything they can to try and compensate their sufferings the best they can. This can be done by, e.g., an artificially elevated level of comfort in their living conditions. Since they cannot be set free, they should at least live their restricted lives as good as possible, with their living conditions tailored to their needs and individual priorities, as long as that does not endanger the purpose of their confinement. | This is really an important point worth repeating. To say that even after prison abolition there will continue to be some form or forms of involuntary confinement is not equal to saying that any of the remaining deprivations of liberty would be allowed to take place in prison-like facilities. With no punishment intended, the living conditions of those affected by spatial separation from the rest of society must not be modeled after the penitentiary. With regard to size and comfort, they should rather resemble a decent middle-class home or at least apartment. Whoever thinks that is exaggerated should halt a minute and consider this: these people are being forced to sacrifice essential parts of their (quality of) life for the life and liberty of others - without necessarily being bad, evil, guilty, or even responsible for the risk they pose. With no reproach involved and no vengeance, those who deprive these individuals of their liberty have good reasons to do everything they can to try and compensate their sufferings the best they can. This can be done by, e.g., an artificially elevated level of comfort in their living conditions. Since they cannot be set free, they should at least live their restricted lives as good as possible, with their living conditions tailored to their needs and individual priorities, as long as that does not endanger the purpose of their confinement. | ||
Secondly, what the abolition of prisons does not mean is to keep all those prisoners in prison and only change the name of the institution and its inmates to “hospital/patients”, “treatment center/clients”, or “prevention house/residents”. Fraudulent labelling is a real danger, because it is both seductive (as a kind of subversive resistance open to all those who are part of the system and who are either unable or unwilling to accept a radical de-institutionalization) and sometimes hard to distinguish from a valid label (e.g., a correct risk assessment). It is also a real danger, because today’s prisons are fulfilling a hybrid function of both inflicting pain on inmates because of their past crimes (= deprivation of liberty as a punishment) and preventing them from committing more crimes in the future (= deprivation of liberty as a preventive measure). | Secondly, what the abolition of prisons does not mean is that there will be no punishment for crimes. | ||
Thirdly, what the abolition of prisons does not mean is to keep all those prisoners in prison and only change the name of the institution and its inmates to “hospital/patients”, “treatment center/clients”, or “prevention house/residents”. Fraudulent labelling is a real danger, because it is both seductive (as a kind of subversive resistance open to all those who are part of the system and who are either unable or unwilling to accept a radical de-institutionalization) and sometimes hard to distinguish from a valid label (e.g., a correct risk assessment). It is also a real danger, because today’s prisons are fulfilling a hybrid function of both inflicting pain on inmates because of their past crimes (= deprivation of liberty as a punishment) and preventing them from committing more crimes in the future (= deprivation of liberty as a preventive measure). | |||
== What is to be done? == | == What is to be done? == | ||