Benutzer:Woozle/What is to be done?

But how are we to proceed? How can we abolish these penal fortresses, these "gigantic errors turned into stone", these "bricks of shame" (Oscar Wilde). Several strategies have been already tried out or at least discussed. We can distinguish (as in the fight against slavery) gradualist and cessationist approaches:

Cessationist strategies

These strategies call for an immediate and unconditional end of imprisonment. The major exponent of a cessationst strategy 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). He refrains from specific suggestions of how to get rid of prisons. 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, te 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).

Gradualist strategies

Gradualist strategies suggest specific ways to gradually dismantle an institution. They appear more realistic than cessationist strategies, but face the danger of becoming entangled in politics as usual.

Quantitative 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). 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).

Segmentary abolition

This means completely doing away with 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).

Linking up the strategies

Obviously, these strategies are not mutually exclusive. They will have to be combined with "Anti-Funktionsarbeit" (Mathiesen 1989, 168 ff), i.e. creating a public discourse about the explicit and implicit functions of prisons. And they need to link up with existing movements for restorative justice. This is exactly what Fay Honey Knopp and her co-abolitionists had in mind, witzh explicit reference to Thomas Mathiesen: "We have structured an attrition model as one example of a long range process for abolition.'Attrition', which means the rubbing away or wearing down by friction, reflects the persistent and continuing strategy necessary to diminish the function and power of prisons in our society.To clarify our terms, the reforms we recommend are "abolishing-type" reforms: those that do not add improvement to or legitimize the prevailing system. We also call for partial abolitions of the system: abolishing certain criminal laws, abolishing bail and pretrial detention and abolishing indeterminate sentences and parole" (Morris 1976, ch.3).