the case for abolishing prison.
un-prison your mind!
“Prison abolitionists say that we should completely eliminate prisons. This is really not a serious position. These people are like children trying to talk to the adults…
Now, what is the prison abolitionist’s solution for Ted Bundy? A stiff fine? Give him a fair wage, and he’ll turn nice? More mental health care?”
Have no fear. I am a prison abolitionist, and I am here to answer your questions.
Outside of diplomatic emergencies, human cages should not exist.
If lions, who would gladly kill you, have a right to dignity and autonomy, then psychopaths do too. After we abolish the prisons, we are going to abolish the zoos, by the way.
It is cruel and evil to put a wolf in a cage. But just because I oppose the caging of wolves doesn’t mean that I support allowing wolves to wander the streets. Making this into a black-and-white binary is unnecessary and lacks basic creativity.
We should have national preserves where wolves can roam free and wild. Similarly, criminals should live on national preserves.
the national criminal preserve.
Innocents must be protected from criminals, and to accomplish that, violent criminals must be segregated from non-criminals. But this can be accomplished by segregating criminals in a particular area, either of this country or another country, by sending them into external or internal exile, on preserves or islands.
For some non-violent crimes (91% of all crime), segregation may not be necessary at all, and can be replaced with taxes, fines, wage garnishment, or corporal punishment.
The only case where prison makes sense is for spies, traitors, and terrorists. There may be Russian or Chinese spies who require maximum security surveillance, so that they can be held as hostages for future prisoner exchanges.
Currently, the number of prisoners in “supermax” numbers 80k out of 1.8 million, which is 4%. The other 96%, at least, deserve access to breathing space, freedom to work, freedom of privacy, autonomy, and dignity. Not unlimited amounts, but more than prison allows.
isn’t this moralist oppression olympics?
Whenever someone accuses abolitionists of being “bleeding heart liberals,” who put “feelings before facts,” I have a few simple questions for them:
What did Vikings do with criminals?
What did ancient Israelites do with criminals?
What does Hammurabi’s code say to do with criminals?
If you guessed “imprisonment,” you would be wrong, wrong, wrong. It is historically illiterate and ignorant to associate abolitionism with “leniency.” Ancient people did have pretrial detention, but this was not conceived of as a form of punishment.
Prison is now considered the “hardcore” conservative option, but prison was actually invented by religious fanatics who wanted to prove their moral superiority. The first public prison, Stinche Prison, was built in 1299 as a religious and political project.
The inscription on the Stinche Prison read: Oportet misereri, “one must have mercy.” It held political prisoners of war, and served as a charity project for self-styled philanthropists. Prison was not economical, but thought of as a “more Christian” alternative to traditional punishment.
The term penitentiary means, “place where penance is done.” It comes from Latin, paenitens, meaning to regret, feel bad, displease, to be sorry. Mea culpa! Pre-Christian punishment had nothing to do with penitence: the goal was to get rid of crime, not to save souls by forcing them to undergo repentance.
The glorification of imprisonment as a form of moral education derives from the myths of Socrates and Saint Paul as having achieved some kind of spiritual enlightenment in prison. Prison was based upon the model of the monastery, where the criminal would sit in solitude and ruminate on their soul. Prison is a form of spiritual warfare and torture, meant to emulate purgatory.
Once Protestantism took hold, the prison movement spread further and became more radical. On the Rasphuis, built in 1589, the inscription read, Wilde beesten moet men temmen, “Wild beasts must be tamed.” It is a human zoo. Prison was invented as a reformist, rehabilitationist, fanatical pipe-dream, meant to kill and crush the “flesh” to save the “soul.” After 400 years, the superstition of prison still hasn’t cured the flesh, but it has crushed many souls.
Like many torture devices of the Middle Ages, its time we dispensed with this barbarity, and combine pre-Christin tradition with modern, humane adaptations.
isn’t abolitionism “woke?”
Most abolitionists are motivated by moral duty. But it is entirely possible to support abolitionism out of purely pragmatic and economic concerns. Prison is incredibly expensive, costing $80 billion per year. That’s 4x the GDP of Haiti. For $80 billion, America could afford to rent the entire country of Haiti, four times over, dump all our prisoners there, and never pay another cent.
But we wouldn’t need something as large as Haiti. Since Haiti has a total population of 11 million, and we have less than 2 million prisoners, we could make due by renting only 20% of the land area of Haiti. In exchange, we could import 2 million Haitians, who would be happy to come here. The swap of prisoners for Haitians would be economical and practical.
I’m sure the bleeding heart liberals would grumble about colonialism of some kind, so I will provide other options in this article that can satisfy both the hard-nosed realists and the culturally-sensitive empaths. But you don’t need to care about or love prisoners to see that it is a bad deal for taxpayers.
isn’t this unrealistic?
The next objection I receive is that prison abolition is unrealistic. Abolition of factory farms is also unrealistic. Ending slavery was once thought to be unrealistic. But it was only unrealistic because intelligent, competent, and powerful people had not yet been convinced of its necessity. Once Elite Human Capital deem something a moral necessity, like ending slavery, the Will creates a way.
Sailing across the ocean blue to establish a new route in the spice trade was unrealistic. Founding a British colony in the new world was unrealistic (and the first attempt failed spectacularly). Fighting the British, and winning, was unrealistic. At one point, switching from an agricultural to an industrial economy was unrealistic, because the technology was not yet invented. Every good idea starts as “unrealistic.”
But unlike the industrial revolution, there is no additional technology needed to abolish prisons. Unlike the Mayflower Voyage or the American Revolution, there is no risk, and no one needs to die. The risk is low, and the rewards are great.
wouldn’t criminals sneak into society?
The primary risk of prison abolition is that criminals would sneak outside of their prescribed areas to commit more crimes. Already, around 2,000 criminals escape per year, which is not good.
No system is perfect. Both prisons and their alternatives carry some risk. The question isn’t whether non-prison punishments are perfect, but whether they are better.
For example, if 20,000 humans die from auto accidents from human error, and self-driving cars would kill only 19,000 people due to computer error, this is tolerable and acceptable in relative terms, because it represents an improvement. The prospect of criminal infiltration can be mitigated by adjusting standards to the particular individual.
Here are some basic questions to help determine the infiltration risk:
Size and strength;
Intelligence;
Family, friend, and gang connections.
Whether the crime was:
premeditated
personal (revenge) or impersonal (anonymous robbery)
forceful and violent, or abstract and fraudulent
Some criminals are at a very low risk for infiltration, because they are old or disabled. By separating high-risk from low-risk individuals, rather than throwing everyone in a prison, technical resources can focus where they are needed. Since non-prison alternatives will be less costly and generate more money for the state, more funds will be available to ensure that infiltration does not occur.
Reservations, preserves, and cities of refuge would not necessarily be easier to escape. Cameras, motion-sensors, ankle bracelets, chip implants, and AI can help criminals to live fuller lives outside of prisons, while maintaining the safety of the public. At the extremes, minefields and booby-traps could deter infiltration. Different criminal severities require different levels of security.
Out of 14 million crimes committed per year, only 9% of crimes are violent. The stereotype of an unbounded, monstrous beast who is willing to do anything to escape is not accurate. Most prisoners who currently attempt to escape do so because they miss something on the outside: a certain food, cigarettes, the company of the opposite sex, housing, privacy, time outside, or their basic human dignity and autonomy. Allowing criminals to access these things, as they could in the civilian world, will reduce the motivation for infiltration.
Specific facial tattoos could even be used to prevent infiltration. If this were found to be helpful, it might be better if we outlawed facial tattoos in order to better identify potential infiltrators. This would also have the added benefit of outlawing facial tattoos.
You could also safeguard against infiltration by requiring everyone to do a daily “check-in” with a biometric scan at designated stations. This would be a fully-automated eye scan without any human intervention needed. If someone misses their eye scan, a manhunt would ensue to catch the escapee, tracking them down by biometric chip. There are so many different options!
Perhaps some of these measures would be invasive, and a prisoner would say, “I ain’t takin’ no Elon Musk / Bill Gates trackin’ chip under my skin!” If someone would rather live in a prison, instead of the freer conditions of a preserve, they could be allowed to make that choice voluntarily. But I believe most people would choose the preserve.
isn’t this a concentration camp?
I cringe when people equate preserves, cities of refuge, or internal exile with “concentration camps.” I don’t advocate for concentration camps. The phrase “concentration camp” functions to normalize the abuse of prison, while shutting down any alternatives as “crazy” or “Nazi ideas.” It’s a slur, like racist, sexist, or transphobic, which disrupts critical thinking. I am surprised how many prison-defenders jump to this line, almost as if they have been conditioned to think in this way. It’s almost like their minds are trapped in a prison.
Prison is worse than a concentration camp, because it prevents people from going outside when they please, receiving the benefits of sunlight, having consensual heterosexual intercourse, and observing animals like birds. Here’s what the first concentration camp, used in the Second Boer War, looked like:
The British didn’t feed people, didn’t provide sanitation, and as a result, people died. But there is no reason why, with the guarantee of proper nutrition and sanitation, some people (including myself) wouldn’t choose tents over bars and concrete. I’m not arguing for concentration camps, but I’m just saying, they might be better than the prison system.
a spectrum of options:
Concentration camps lie on a spectrum, ranging from Nazi, to British, to American. Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment (2004) suggested that we should round up all Muslims and put them in internment camps. Her intent was offensive, and I am not arguing for ethnic internment. But her description of Japanese internment camps during WWII is relevant to my point that concentration and internment camps exist on a spectrum.
Japanese internment did not lead to mass starvation; disease was controlled; there were swimming pools and theater troupes. The phrase “concentration camp” is an unhelpful black-and-white equivocation between Naziism and non-carceral alternatives.
Given the choice between tents or bars and concrete, I choose tents. But there’s no reason why prisoners shouldn’t be able to earn and spend money to live in something more luxurious. If a programmer commits a financial crime, I want that programmer living in a nice house so he can keep comfortably programming. Putting him in jail is a waste of tax payer money.
isn’t abolitionism just rehabilitationism?
My purpose isn’t to rehabilitate criminals. My motivation is:
Moral. Just as factory farming is an atrocity, prisons are a factory farm for humans.
Economic. Prison is needlessly expensive.
Preventative: Prison generates more crime.
It aggravates and mixes together all different types of criminals, which creates a “rub-off” effect.
It inhibits criminal employment, and the limited employment offered in prisons breeds boredom, dissatisfaction, and discontent, which creates “culture shock” upon release and a return to crime.
None of this implies that every criminal can be “reformed” into a non-criminal.
Just like many vegetarians are also vegans, many abolitionists are also rehabilitationists, but not all.
Rehabilitationists believe that it is practical to attempt to rehabilitate all criminals. This is unfortunately not the case, and the costs and risks associated with rehabilitation are not fair to impose on law-abiding taxpayers, who then become victims of recidivism when rehabilitation fails.
The difference between rehabilitation and abolition is in separation and expenditure. Extreme rehabilitationists imagine that, with sufficient funding and therapy (or some other psycho-babble voodoo), all criminals can be easily and quickly pacified and turned into model citizens. They argue that total freedom is necessary for the magical process of rehabilitation to work, and that criminal separation is immoral.
Moderate rehabilitationists recognize the importance of separation for protecting citizens from recidivism, but they still believe that massive spending on rehabilitation is warranted, when there is mixed evidence as to whether rehabilitation techniques (talk therapy) have a commensurate effect on recidivism.
There might be forms of rehabilitation which have not yet been widely explored. For example, the use of psychedelic rehabilitation on some criminals might reduce recidivism by between 12% for violent crime and up to 75% in some specific cases. The risks of experimental therapies, like psychedelics, should be considered within the context of the massive risk associated with criminal behavior. With the voluntary consent of the criminal, court systems should be much more liberal and open to risk taking with rehabilitation techniques.
Anti-rehabilitationists treat recidivism like a fixed genetic trait, and believe that it cannot be altered by any external means. I will be arguing for abolitionism from an anti-rehabilitionist position. Even if anti-rehabilitationists are correct, prison abolition is still moral, more efficient, more economical, and safer.
Consider these five arguments:
Rub-off: Prisons force unlike criminals together, and create a “rub -off” effect, which leads to the formation of prison gangs which would otherwise not exist. They encourage the formation and normalization of new behaviors. By separating criminals according to their specific crimes, and also not cramping people together in a “survival situation,” there will be less “rub off.”
Aggravation: Prisons create aggravation, frustration, and rage, which increases psychological dysfunction. This creates a threat to fellow prisoners, as well as the general population after release. Even if rehabilitation were impossible, it may be the case that prison unnecessarily increases the risk of recidivism, when compared to other options. Inactivity creates rumination and revenge fantasies, while activity alleviates stress.
Boredom: Prisons are boring. There is some research to suggest that unemployment increases the risk of drug addiction. Forcing humans into non-productive roles as passive, helpless objects may worsen pre-existing issues. Giving criminals more options for employment, heterosexual relationships, and outdoor activities will ease the criminal transition back into society, rather than creating a “culture shock” upon release.
Cost to Taxpayers: Prisons are more expensive than the alternatives. Even if “rub off” and recidivism were the same, tax payers deserve a better system. Some criminals can work jobs and pay taxes, instead of becoming unproductive members of society. Tax payment and garnishing of wages should be considered a mitigating factor in any punishment. Productive workers should be considered differently from those who are unwilling or unable to contribute to society.
Compensation to Victims: Sitting in a cell is not “paying a debt to society.” Punishment is not the same thing as compensation. Society would be better off if an actual debt, a fine, were assessed, and issued in conjunction with a sentence of separation. Victims of crimes deserve monetary compensation from criminals, and prisons are not an efficient mechanism for allowing criminals to perform economically productive labor.
Prisons cause rape and suicide.
I would much rather fight and die for a country that doesn’t laugh at the rape and sodomy of prisoners, or treat humans like factory farmed animals, or keep people in zoos. We should at least take these issues seriously, because moral insensitivity breeds nihilism and cruelty. Prison abolition would bring us closer to abolishing factory farming, since the arguments are similar in both cases.
I also wonder if our acceptance of prison as “moral” and “humane” contributes to the prison-like atmosphere in most public schools, which is driving our children to suicide. And the ones who don’t commit suicide are forced to take ADHD medication to force them to sit still. Disgusting.
Here’s the suicide rate in prisons, compared to the general population:
It might be that criminals would have a higher suicide rate than non-criminals, even without prison, but the effect is quite strong. Suicides outside of prison are associated with a established mental health history in 80% of cases; for prisoners, this was only 33%, suggesting that these suicides wouldn’t have happened “anyway.”1
Considering that prisons are supposed to be “safe” spaces where prisoners are restricted from killing themselves, we should expect prisons to have a lower suicide rate. But despite ostensibly not having access to guns or knives or pills, prisoners find a way to escape the torment of cage life. Putting people in a cage where they are several times more likely to kill themselves is a bad thing.
what’s the “one solution?”
It is a false dilemma to claim that only one single alternative to prison should be allowed. Even if I am wrong, and prison is morally or practically optimal in 99% of cases, if there are still 1% of cases where it is a bad fit, we should be open to considering alternatives. If we only reduce our prison population by 1%, that is an improvement for the tax payer and for the moral strength of the nation.
Be open to a diversity of options. I want to ban prison, but if you do not, maybe we can compromise and allow for the possibility of different punishments for different crimes.
A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. Even the most primitive and ancient legal systems proscribed different types of punishments for different crimes. These ranged from fines, servitude, cities of refuge, exile, corporal punishment, and execution.
White collar criminals, for example, aren’t dangerous at all. They can be punished, and even segregated in some cases, but they shouldn’t be stuck in a jail cell. They should be allowed access to sex, home cooked meals, and outdoor time. This would be plausible, under supervision, either in a country that will take them (for a fee), or in a city of refuge.
Haiti probably wouldn’t mind receiving Bernie Madoff. Or, we could make an entire town devoted to scammers, who would all be wise to each other’s tricks. Similarly, we could construct an entire town full of sexual abusers, where they would have no one to hurt but each other. Something like this has already emerged in Florida.
The sex offender registry, with its prohibition on sex offenders living near schools, could be applied to more crimes. Wife beaters could be cordoned into a specific area, and forgers into another corner, and drunk drivers in another place. Imagine a town full of drunk drivers. Who would they harm, but themselves? That sounds like a more just world to me.
more examples.
In the case of violent crime, George Carlin suggested we put them all in a stadium and watch them kill each other. I advocate for something much larger than a stadium, with houses and public parks. I also don’t think murder should ever be legal, so if a murderer murders his fellow murderers, he would still be prosecuted to a higher degree. Some island in Alaska could serve as a penal colony for these double murderers.
When I bring up the Carlin sketch, I am not endorsing the murder of criminals by other criminals. But even if that was my purpose, how is that any different from the prison shankings which already occur? Or the prison rapes, which are tolerated and laughed at? Carlin’s horrifying program already exists: we just don’t record it for television. Maybe if we did, we would realize how inefficient and immoral it is.
Consider the construction of mini-reservations in the American Southwest, like Slab City, where land is cheap and human settlements are scarce. For a fee, non-criminal citizens and family would be allowed to enter these areas, reunite, and live among the criminals. Sexual segregation would be voluntary and up to the criminal to choose whether or not they wish to live in a sex segregated area. Drugs and weapons are already snuck into prisons. The goal isn’t to eliminate smuggling, but to reduce or maintain levels which are presently seen in prisons.
Within these reservations, the law still applies. Murder is still murder. If you commit this kind of “double crime,” you have three options:
Go to some double-murder reservation for the people who can't follow laws;
Find a country that will accept you as an immigrant (for a fee);
Voluntarily receive execution.
In the case of our friend Luigi, I would put him in a reservation in New Mexico with all the other murderers. It would be filled with hundreds of thousands of murderers living in houses. There would be computers, remote workers, spreadsheeters, W2s, the whole thing. They could earn money to purchase things that could be airdropped in from Amazon drones.
There would be nothing “concentrated.” It would be a large space, where everyone gets their own backyard, their own rock garden, their own living space. They just aren’t allowed to freely intermingle with the rest of society anymore. Those who try to escape can be detected with motion-detecting and heat-seeking cameras. Someone could cover themselves in mud and slowly inch their way across the desert at night, but if you placed the encampment miles away from the nearest settlement, this would be incredibly difficult to miss.
This sounds very expensive, but its not expensive at all compared to prisons, because many of these people will have jobs and earn money and pay taxes. I’m sure Luigi will make some great spreadsheets.
And if the populists get their way, and lock me up for my liberal elitism, I will still be able to write Substack articles from my mobile home in the desert. Win-win.
Prison Suicide and Prison Coping; journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/449299
I feel most people's opinion regarding criminal justice is something like, "A public lashing is cruel and unusual punishment for a shoplifter, lock him up in a violent homosexual zoo instead."
People need to pay more attention to the Old Testament. No prisons or police under the Law of Moses.