Prison abolition critique

Prison abolition is provocative and absolute. It is a long-term goal and policy that need to be adopted by the government, organizations, and the public at large. Its main aim is to create a life that is productive and violence-free. The abolition of prisons is not a movement that solemnly encourages the closing of prisons, and it emphasizes the need to have support systems that most communities lack. The campaign is geared toward the prevention of crimes rather than the cure, which is taking the victims to prisons (McLeod, 2019). Ablutions believe that such victims can be helped hence avoid making the offense nor the need to take them to prisons. In support of the abolitionists, it is an excellent movement that can help prevent prisons and jail terms. On the other hand, the movement is only effective for the society that has not committed crimes or violated the law. To those that have already violated the law, it is not the best way. According to psychology, those who have committed a crime are prone to repeating the same mistake if they are in the same circumstances. The people who are quick to anger are bound to act out without considering their actions might have an enormous negative impact on others.

Gilmore, an activist, argues that it is vital to abolish prisons. She points out that a person does not have to spend almost seven years in jail to think about and the offense they committed. The time spent in prison only makes one suffer and not enjoy their lives in the outside world. This argument is valid (Kushner, 2019). And also open to critique. Taking someone to jail for an extended period to get their life in order and prepare how to live once they finish their term is not a compelling argument. Keeping the person in jail only decreases human capital.

On the other hand, the Gilmores argument is one-sided as there are different degrees of crimes. Gilmore’s argument applies to those that have committed offenses that are not very violent. While those that have committed violent crimes, taking them to jail is the proper way. Imprisoning of such people helps to improve the safety of the public and also give the victim room to change their habits.

Kushner argues that prisons have failed at rehabilitation and also have violated human rights.  In support of the argument, there are many cases that pinpoint the fact. Some prisons have proven to be less effective mechanisms of deterring crime for the safety of the public. On the other hand, there are cases where people who have been imprisoned have changed their lives to be law-abiding citizens. Prisons that follow guidelines and policies have proven to be proper corrective measures for many criminals. In contrast, those that are interrupted by corruption and negligence from those I authorities have led to the violation of human rights and poor management.

Forman, in a tour for his book “Locking Up Our Own,” said that ending mass incarceration and adopting a system that protects and restores the community will be primarily attributed to abolitionists.  He explained that abolitionists are important factors in the movement as the public at large may lose focus once they start achieving small progress. In my opinion Forman’s argument is factual, the world at large needs activists who will stand with the movement until is adopted and implemented by the appropriate governments and institutions.

According to Angela, she says that prisoners have always been taken for granted. In her book “Are Prisons Obsolete?”. She states that the prisons should be abolished just like death penalties were abolished. Angela argues that in the past the abolition of racist institutions seemed insurmountable but with time it was possible. It is possible to abolish prisons. For this to be adopted it is important to have the regulatory frameworks to guide the process. Before the prisons can be abolished it is important to conduct a feasibility study. the study will help to provide the strength, weakness, opportunities and threats related to the process. Therefore, the parties involved can draw mitigation measures that will help to ensure that with abolishment of prisons the public at large lives harmoniously with one another and those people whom could cause problems are taken care of at an early stage before the problem develops.

The road to abolition is a viable solution. Parkin notes that there are many problems that will be encountered during the process but in the long run it will be successful (Parkin, 2019) . based on her opinion, the movement has a lot to consider before prisons can be scrapped off. It is important to provide a clear plan on how those violating the law on consequential basis need to handled. Abolishment of prisons is not a cure for all crimes.

In conclusion the critique on abolishment of prison provide more details on what needs to be done to ensure the transitioning is successful. The parties involved in fighting for prison abolishment should consider the critiques given to them. The critiques will help build better arguments thus strengthen the course of their movement.

References

Kushner, R. (2019). Is Prison Necessary? Ruth Wilson Gilmore Might Change Your Mind. The New York Times.

McLeod, A. M. (2019). Envisioning Abolition Democracy. Harvard Law Review.harvardlawreview.org

Parkin, J. (2019). The Road to Prison Abolution: A Practical Solution. NewPolitics.newpol.org