Prison Abolition – Key Concepts and Lecture Notes
Week 12 overview: Prison abolition and the role of prisons in society
Lecture focus: common justifications for prisons, abolitionist responses, and how abolition differs from reform. Introduction to key pillars of prison abolition and the NZ context (Tikanga Maori, constitutional transformation).
Activity prompt (menti): students shared views on the role of prisons (rehabilitation, public protection, deterrence, incapacitation, control, making money, etc.). This reflects common but contested justifications in public discourse.
Common justifications for prisons (and abolitionist counterpoints)
Retribution / punishment
Justification: offenders deserve punishment; incarceration is the forms of punishment criminals deserve.
Abolitionist response: punishment ≠ justice; ignores structural harm and prevents addressing root causes; reinforces cycles of harm; ignores victims’ needs in a meaningful way.
Deterrence
Justification: incarceration deters crime via a threat or example; general deterrence (society at large) and specific deterrence (offender not to reoffend).
Abolitionist response: deterrence is unreliable; evidence from recidivism shows limited or negative deterrent effects; rational actor model is flawed because not all crime is a result of rational choice.
Incapacitation (safety via removal)
Justification: removing offenders protects the public.
Abolitionist response: short-term safety only; harm can persist inside prison; fails to address root causes; many released reoffend due to community-level factors; focus on removing people does not reflect the broader dynamics of harm.
Rehabilitation
Justification: prisons are spaces to reform behavior and reintegrate people as law-abiding citizens.
Abolitionist response: evidence of rehabilitation within prisons is weak; prisons are volatile, violent spaces that produce health harms and self-fulfilling prophecies; best rehabilitation takes place in community or non-prison settings.
Terms to track: prisonization (institutionalization) undermines rehabilitation; health problems often worsen in prison; New Zealand government recognition of limitations of correctional rehabilitation.
Note on phrasing and evidence
The common justifications reflect the traditional discourse around prisons.
Abolitionists challenge each by showing failures to meet stated aims and highlighting harms and structural drivers of crime.
Abolitionist take: what prison abolition is (and isn’t)
Core idea: a long-term goal of a society without prisons; emphasis on transforming social justice through structural changes rather than relying on incarceration.
Key features:
Prisons as tools that reproduce social harms rather than resolve them.
Emphasis on community-based approaches to harm, care, and reintegration.
Pushing for transformative change to address root causes: poverty, inequality, colonization, racism, and other structural harms.
Recognition that abolition is a broad and contested project with diverse histories and definitions; not a single blueprint.
Abolitionist position on reform
Reform can be a strategic or transitional tactic, but the end goal is the abolition of prisons.
Distinction: reform seeks to make prisons more humane or effective; abolition seeks to dismantle the prison system and replace it with alternatives that do not reproduce harm.
Some abolitionists support targeted reforms that reduce harms in the short term, while keeping the larger goal in view.
Ethical and political implications
Punitive approaches often reproduce social inequalities and disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
Prisons are described as a form of state violence and a mechanism of social control rather than neutral detectors of wrongdoing.
Abolition is connected with broader social justice aims: ending violence, poverty, racism, and colonial legacies.
What counts as “abolition”: definitions, history, and scope
Abolition is a slippery, contested term with varied definitions and histories.
Common thread: it envisions a society without prisons or, at minimum, a dramatic shrinking of the prison system and a reimagining of how harm is addressed.
Abolition is often framed within a broader struggle for social justice, recognizing prisons as a “petri dish” for broader social problems and as a mechanism of social control, particularly over marginalized groups.
Some abolitionists focus on eliminating not only prisons but also certain punitive practices (e.g., death penalty, other punitive regimes) and advocate for systems of care that address harm and support communities.
In Aotearoa (New Zealand), abolitionists emphasize that true justice requires addressing structural inequalities rooted in colonization and racism, and partnering with tangata whenua (Maori) under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty). Constitutional transformation is highlighted as a crucial step.
Evidence cited by abolitionists on prison harms (and why rehabilitation/deterrence have trouble)
Rehabilitation in prisons
Abolitionist critique: prisons are ineffective at rehabilitating harms; they fail to deter; they harm public safety and do not serve victims as claimed.
Supporting points: far from being rehabilitative, confinement can exacerbate health problems; high levels of institutional violence; prisonization undermines genuine reform.
Underlying drivers of crime (not addressed by prisons): trauma from abuse, mental health issues, substance use, poverty.
Statistics cited:
77% of people in prison have been victims of violence.
91% of people in prison have been diagnosed with a mental health or substance use disorder at some point in their lifetime.
Deterrence and rational-choice theory
Abolitionist critique: deterrence is premised on a rational actor model; many offenders do not make rational calculations about punishment.
Evidence against deterrence: recidivism rates indicate punishment certainty does not reliably deter future crime.
In Aotearoa (NZ): $60.9\%$ of released prisoners are reconvicted; $43.2\%$ are reimprisoned within two years.
When compared to community-based alternatives, imprisonment can marginally increase reoffending; longer sentences can increase risks of reoffending.
Deterrence, crime rates, and imprisonment rates
Abolitionists point out that reported and non-reported crime rates have no direct causal relationship with imprisonment rates.
Policy and capacity decisions (e.g., bail laws, judicial practices) influence prison populations more than crime rates do.
NZ example: 2013 changes to bail laws led to more pre-trial detention, contributing to prison population growth independent of crime trends.
Global trend: rising imprisonment despite plateauing/declining crime rates; this questions the claim that prisons are driven by crime levels.
Victimization data and safety arguments
In NZ Victimization (2017-2018): about 1,777,000 victimizations; ~29% of New Zealanders experienced victimization; 75%+ of victimizations were not reported to police.
Imprisonment figures (02/2018): 7,378 people sentenced to imprisonment, including some for victimless crimes (e.g., bail/parole breaches).
Implication: safety through containment is limited; many harms occur outside or circumvent formal criminal justice processes, and imprisonment targets only a small proportion of harm incidents.
Structural drivers of crime and criminalization
Underlying drivers: poverty, housing instability, mental health, drug/alcohol issues, trauma.
Differential policing and surveillance: some communities are hyper-policed, producing higher arrest and conviction rates not shared by all communities.
Remand populations and pre-trial detention contribute to higher imprisonment numbers even when crime rates do not rise.
The “rational actor” assumption and non-rational harms
Many crimes are emotionally driven or impulsive; not all offenders engage in rational cost-benefit analysis pre-crime.
Thus deterrence based on rational choice is not robust evidence for prison effectiveness.
Explicit historical and political critique
Prisons connect to broader social violence: colonialism, racism, and class exploitation.
The 13th amendment (US) permits slavery or involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, illustrating how punishment systems can embed racialized and coercive labor dynamics.
The NZ and global context: mass incarceration, tikanga, and racial disparities
Mass incarceration concept
David Garland coined “mass imprisonment”/mass incarceration to describe unprecedented scale; harms include significant racialized disparities.
In NZ, mass incarceration is closely tied to Maori incarceration; imprisonment rates for Maori are disproportionately high relative to non-Maori.
NZ-specific statistics and context
Maori incarceration rate: $685$ per $100{,}000$; non-Maori: $119$ per $100{,}000$.
One in five Maori men imprisoned before age 35 vs one in twelve non-Maori men.
These disparities are used to argue that prisons reproduce racialized inequality rather than merely reflecting crime rates.
Tikanga Maori and the colonial state
Tikanga Maori emphasizes collective responsibility, restoration of balance, and relationships; prisons (as isolated confinement) starkly clash with tikanga-based justice.
The current NZ criminal justice system is rooted in colonial structures (British legal framework), creating cultural incompatibilities with tikanga Maori.
Critics argue prisons undermine the ability to restore balance and relationships with Maori communities.
Colonial and global history of punishment in mass incarceration
Prisons were exported through colonial expansion to control colonized populations (e.g., Suppression of Rebellion Act and related legal tools).
The penitentiary model emerged in late 18th/early 19th centuries, especially in the US, reframing incarceration as punishment itself rather than a pre-punishment holding pattern.
Bentham’s Panopticon: a circular design enabling constant surveillance, symbolic of disciplinary power; later theorized by Foucault as a model of governmentality and pervasive surveillance.
Angela Davis’s critique: imprisonment was not new to the US or the world; it became a mass, systemic tool during the penitentiary era.
Notable scholars and movements
Global abolitionists: Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Mariama Kaba; networks like Critical Resistance; in NZ: Lemousse, McIntosh, Moana Jackson; groups Just Speak, People Against Prisons in Aotearoa.
Prison abolition in contrast with prison reform
Prison reform
View: prisons can and should be improved to be more humane and effective; prisons remain central to punishment and social control.
Strategy: reforms that make the system more humane or better at achieving stated aims; could include better conditions, safer environments, more humane rehabilitation programs.
Prison abolition
End goal: dismantle the prison system as the primary means of dealing with harm; shift to non-carceral responses and community-based supports.
Approach: some reforms may be used strategically, but they should reduce the prison system’s power and scope over time; avoid reforms that entrench the prison system.
Core claim: prisons are obsolete, harmful, and fail to achieve their stated purposes (rehabilitation, deterrence, safety, and justice for victims).
Pillars of abolition (three core pillars; plus NZ-specific emphasis)
Moratorium
Definition: an immediate end to new prison construction; halt expansion of the capacity to incarcerate.
Rationale: capacity drives incarceration numbers; reducing capacity reduces potential incarceration.
Related concept: stop “double banking” (the practice of keeping people in prison spaces for longer or moving them between facilities to bolster counts).
Decarceration
Definition: reduce the number of people in prison by examining who should be there and for how long; implement release and parole reforms, amnesties, or reduced sentences where appropriate; decriminalize victimless crimes (e.g., certain offenses) and reassess long-term sentences.
Examples: earlier parole, retroactive releases, reducing durations, amnesties.
Excarceration
Definition: reduce the size and reach of the prison system by not sending people to prison in the first place; create diversionary and alternative pathways outside formal criminal justice processes.
Strategies: decriminalization (e.g., cannabis legalization), diversion programs for youth, and minimization of state intervention in certain practices.
Constitutional transformation (NZ-specific pillar)
Emphasis: restructure power relations between the Crown and Tangata Whenua (Maori) in line with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Mechanism: the Mai Ti ki Mai framework for genuine partnership and tino rangatiratanga (Maori sovereignty) including authority to engage in tikanga Maori practices addressing harm.
Rationale: constitutional reform is seen as the most politically important step toward meaningful abolition in Aotearoa, enabling a justice system that reflects Maori values and reduces reliance on prison incarceration.
Note on scope and contingency
The NZ pillar reflects a particular contextual emphasis; other abolitionists may emphasize different structural transformations depending on local histories and legal frameworks.
Three pillars: detailed implications and examples
Moratorium: concrete ideas
Stop building new prisons; reassess the need for current facilities.
Stop double-banking and capacity-led expansion; reduce incentives to expand incarceration.
Decarceration: concrete ideas
Release or reduce sentences for non-dangerous offenders; expand parole and early-release options.
Decriminalize victimless crimes; re-evaluate long sentences.
Excarceration: concrete ideas
Decriminalize and divert more activities from criminal justice system; expand community programs and restorative approaches.
Minimize state intervention in certain practices; ensure that criminal sanctions are not imposed unnecessarily.
Constitutional transformation (NZ emphasis)
Connect abolition to Te Tiriti obligations; ensure Maori self-determination in justice processes.
Promote tikanga-based responses to harm; create structures that support collective healing rather than confinement.
Alternatives to imprisonment (preview for next week)
Restorative justice and other non-carceral approaches
Emphasis on healing, accountability, and relationships rather than punishment.
Will be explored as an alternative to imprisonment in upcoming sessions.
Abolitionist critiques: summarized takeaways
Core claims
Prisons do not rehabilitate effectively; they do not deter crime; they do not adequately protect victims or promote safety.
Prisons generate harm, reproduce social inequalities, and disproportionately target marginalized communities (e.g., Māori in NZ).
They are expensive and politically embedded in colonial and racist structures; they fail to address root causes of harm.
The concept of mass incarceration shows that punishment rates are driven by policy, capacity, and policing practices, not simply by crime rates.
A broader transformation of social conditions (poverty, inequality, racism, colonization) is required to achieve true safety and justice.
The role of tikanga Maori and the critique of colonial legacies
The current system is often incompatible with tikanga Maori; translating to restoration-oriented justice requires constitutional and cultural reform.
Prisons as a mechanism of marginalization and social control, not as guardians of safety.
Practical implications for exam study
Distinguish clearly between: (a) why abolitionists critique each prison justification; (b) the pillars and strategies for achieving abolition; (c) the NZ-specific context (tikanga, Te Tiriti, constitutional transformation).
Be ready to discuss the differences between abolition and reform; understand the nuances in the NZ context (moratorium, decarceration, excarceration, and constitutional transformation).
Quick reference: key terms, figures, and data to remember
Key terms
Prison abolition, prison reform, penitentiary model, panopticon, prisonization, mass incarceration, Tikanga Maori, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, tino rangatiratanga, constitutional transformation, double banking, decarceration, excarceration, restorative justice, victimization.
Major figures and scholars
Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Mariama Kaba (global abolitionist scholars).
In Aotearoa: Lemousse, McIntosh, Moana Jackson; groups Just Speak, People Against Prisons in Aotearoa.
David Garland (mass incarceration concept).
Bentham (panopticon; classicist criminology).
Foucault (disciplinary power and governmentality).
Key NZ-specific statistics and comparisons
Maori incarceration rate: $685/100{,}000$; non-Maori: $119/100{,}000$.
One in five Maori men imprisoned before age 35 vs one in twelve non-Maori men.
Reconviction rate after release: $60.9\%$; reimprisonment within two years: $43.2\%$.
Victimization (2017-2018): $1{,}777{,}000$ victimizations; $29\%$ of NZers experienced victimization; about 75% of these victimizations were not reported to police.
Imprisonment sentences in 2017-2018: $7{,}378$ people.
Tax fraud imprisonment: $1\%$; Beneficiary fraud imprisonment: $16\%$.
Core conceptual contrasts to remember
Abolition vs reform: end goal (abolition) vs incremental improvements (reform).
Deterrence critique: rational actor model challenged; crime rates do not map cleanly onto imprisonment rates.
Rehabilitation critique: environment matters; community-based rehabilitation may be more effective than prison-based efforts.
Structural drivers: poverty, trauma, health, and colonization as root causes; prisons often reproduce these harms.
Exam-ready recap (condensed bullets)
Prisons are commonly justified by retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation; abolitionists challenge each claim with evidence of harm, ineffectiveness, and structural critique.
Rehabilitation is unlikely to succeed in prison due to institutional factors (volatility, violence, health harms); community-based rehabilitation is more promising.
Deterrence fails to prevent crime in practice; recidivism data and rational-actor assumptions undermine the rationale for prison-based deterrence.
The relationship between crime rates and imprisonment rates is not causal; policy changes (e.g., bail laws) can drive prison populations independently of crime.
Abolition emphasizes transforming social conditions (poverty, inequality, racism, colonization) and adopting care-based alternatives like restorative justice.
NZ context foregrounds Tikanga Maori, Te Tiriti, and the push for constitutional transformation as central to abolition.
The three core pillars are Moratorium, Decarceration, Excarceration; with an additional NZ-specific pillar of Constitutional Transformation to honor Maori rights and governance.
Mass incarceration is racialized and linked to colonial histories; the NZ data show stark Maori-vs-non-Maori disparities; abolitionists argue for addressing these root causes rather than expanding prisons.
Ongoing debates about alternatives: some scholars argue for a phase of reform and then abolition; others push directly toward abolition with restorative justice on the horizon as a key alternative.