Prisons - AFF
1ACs
Obviously don’t read both racism and gender – pick one and then read framing.
1AC – Racism
Harsh sentencing laws render those who commit minor crimes dangerous felons who
are now barred from mainstream society and relegated to second-class status.
Michelle Alexander 10, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio State University, 2010, “The new Jim Crow:
Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.”,
http://www.kropfpolisci.com/racial.justice.alexander.pdf
Once a person is labeled a felon, he or she is ushered into a parallel universe in which discrimination,
stigma, and exclusion are perfectly legal, and privileges of citizenship such as voting and jury service are
off-limits. It does not matter whether you have actually spent time in prison; your second-class citizenship begins the
moment you are branded a felon. Most people branded felons, in fact, are not sentenced to prison. As of 2008, there
were approximately 2.3 million people in prisons and jails, and a staggering 5.1 million people under
"community correctional supervision"—i.e., on probation or parole.89 Merely reducing prison terms does not have a
major impact on the majority of people in the system . It is the badge of inferiority — the felony
record— that relegates people for their entire lives, to second-class status . As described in chapter 4, for drug
felons, there is little hope of escape. Barred from public housing by law, discriminated against by private
landlords, ineligible for food stamps, forced to "check the box" indicating a felony conviction on
employment applications for nearly every job, and denied licenses for a wide range of professions,
people whose only crime is drug addiction or possession of a small amount of drugs for recreational use
find themselves locked out of the mainstream society and economy—permanently.
Statistics show that African Americans are disproportionately surveilled and abused
by police officers
Nkechi Taifa 97, clinical instructor at Howard University School of Law and Director of Howard Clinical
Law Center's Public Service Program, Spring 1997, ‘THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (CERD): ARTICLE: Codification or Castration?
The Applicability of the International Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Racial Discrimination to the
U.S. Criminal Justice System,” Howard Law Journal, 40 How. L.J. 641
Statistics reveal that African Americans are far more likely to be physically abused and/or murdered by
police officers charged to protect them. n157 Indeed, by the admission of some police officers, race is [*671]
used as a determinative factor in deciding who to follow, detain, search, and arrest. n158¶ The lengthy
history of police brutality against people of color is legion, and is still very prevalent today. The Justice
Department's Civil Rights Division receives about 8,000 complaints each year, with 75 to 85 percent of them involving problems with police.
Most of these allegations are made by people of color. n159 "Police
brutality as it relates to African Americans and
minorities is real," observed Congressional Black Caucus Chairperson Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA).
" The bigger and blacker you are, the more at risk you are ." n160¶ On March 3, 1991, eighty-one seconds
of videotape filmed by a private citizen brought into national focus the blatant police brutality that is a
tragic part of the African American experience. Rodney King, unarmed and clearly no visible threat to the fifteen or
more policemen that surrounded him, received fifty-six blows and electric shocks from four White police officers.
n161 Beamed into homes across the country was the image of Sergeant Stacey Koon twice firing a 50,000-volt Taser "stun
gun" at the prostrate King, while three other members of the LAPD "took turns kicking him and smashing him
in the head, neck, kidneys and legs with their truncheons." n162 As a result of this severe beating, King received 11 skull
fractures, a crushed cheekbone, a broken ankle, internal injuries, a burn on his chest, and brain damage. n163 Unfortunately, this was not the
first, nor the last incident of police brutality and, absent
videotaped footage, it probably would have been ignored.¶
Statistics reveal that there are disproportionately high rates of the use of excessive and deadly force
by police against people of color. n164 Research has shown that a variety of factors contribute to the problem of police brutality,
including racism and prejudice, unfettered police discretion, the infamous police "code of silence," inadequate discipli- [*672] nary measures by
police departments and administrators, and the ineffectiveness of current remedies. n165
Drug use serves as a prime example of institutionalized and condoned racism - Black
men are arrested on drug charges 13 times as often as white men even though white
men are more likely to use and sell drugs.
Michelle Alexander 10, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio State University, 2010, “The new Jim Crow:
Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.”,
http://www.kropfpolisci.com/racial.justice.alexander.pdf
There is, of course, an official explanation for all of this: crime rates. This explanation has tremendous appeal—before you know the facts—for
it is consistent with, and reinforces, dominant racial narratives about crime and criminality dating back to slavery. The truth, however, is that
rates and patterns of drug crime do not explain the glaring racial disparities in our criminal justice
system. People of all races use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates.10 If there are significant
differences in the surveys to be found, they frequently suggest that whites, particularly white youth, are more
likely to engage in illegal drug dealing than people of color.11 One study, for example, published in 2000 by
the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported that white students use cocaine at seven times the rate of
black students, use crack cocaine at eight times the rate of black students, and use heroin at seven times
the rate of black students.12 That same survey revealed that nearly identical percentages of white and black high
school seniors use marijuana. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported in 2000 that
white youth aged 12—17 are more than a third more likely to have sold illegal drugs than African
American youth.13 Thus the very same year Human Rights Watch was reporting that African Americans
were being arrested and imprisoned at unprecedented rates, government data revealed that blacks
were no more likely to be guilty of drug crimes than whites and that white youth were actually the most
likely of any racial or ethnic group to be guilty of illegal drug possession and sales. Any notion that drug use
among blacks is more severe or dangerous is belied by the data; white youth have about three times the number of drugrelated emergency room visits as their African American counterparts.14 The notion that whites
comprise the vast majority of drug users and dealers—and may well be more likely than other racial groups to commit drug
crimes—may seem implausible to some, given the media imagery we are fed on a daily basis and the racial
composition of our prisons and jails. Upon reflection, however, the prevalence of white drug crime—including drug
dealing—should not be surprising. After all, where do whites get their illegal drugs? Do they all drive to the ghetto to purchase them
from somebody standing on a street corner? No. Studies consistently indicate that drug markets, like American
society generally, reflect our nation's racial and socioeconomic boundaries. Whites tend to sell to
whites; blacks to blacks.15 University students tend to sell to each other.16 Rural whites, for their part, don't make a special trip to the
'hood to purchase marijuana. They buy it from somebody down the road.17 White high school students typically buy drugs from white
classmates, friends, or older relatives. Even Barry McCaffrey, former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, once
remarked, if your child bought drugs, "it was from a student of their own race generally."18 The
notion that most illegal drug use
and sales happens in the ghetto is pure fiction. Drug trafficking occurs there, but it occurs everywhere else in America as well.
Nevertheless, black men have been admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is more than
thirteen times higher than white men.19 The racial bias inherent in the drug war is a major reason that 1
in every 14 black men was behind bars in 2006, compared with 1 in 106 white men.20 For young black men, the
statistics are even worse. One in 9 black men between the ages of twenty and thirty-five was behind bars in
2006, and far more were under some form of penal control—such as probation or parole.21 These gross racial disparities
simply cannot be explained by rates of illegal drug activity among African Americans.
The criminal justice system serves as a gateway into the larger system of
institutionalized racism and mass incarceration that permanently marks people of
color as members of America’s under caste.
Michelle Alexander 10, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio State University, 2010, “The new Jim Crow:
Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.”,
http://www.kropfpolisci.com/racial.justice.alexander.pdf
It may be helpful, in attempting to understand the basic nature of the new caste system , to think of the criminal
justice system—the entire collection of institutions and practices that comprise it—not as an
independent system but rather as a gateway into a much larger system of racial stigmatization and
permanent marginalization. This larger system, referred to here as mass incarceration, is a system that
locks people not only behind actual bars in actual prisons, but also behind virtual bars and virtual walls—
walls that are invisible to the naked eye but function nearly as effectively as Jim Crow laws once did at
locking people of color into a permanent second-class citizenship. The term mass incarceration refers
not only to the criminal justice system but also to the larger web of laws, rules, policies, and customs
that control those labeled criminals both in and out of prison. Once released, former prisoners enter a
hidden underworld of legalized discrimination and permanent social exclusion. They are members of
America's new undercaste.
Critiquing Criminal Justice Institutions allows for a broader debate about the unending
racial stigmatization that African Americans are forced to live through both in and out
of prison.
Michelle Alexander 10, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio State University, 2010, “The new Jim Crow:
Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.”,
http://www.kropfpolisci.com/racial.justice.alexander.pdf
The language of caste may well seem foreign or unfamiliar to some. Public discussions about racial caste in America are
relatively rare. We avoid talking about caste in our society because we are ashamed of our racial history. We also avoid talking about
race. We even avoid talking about class. Conversations about class are resisted in part because there is a tendency to imagine that one's class
reflects upon one's character. What is key to America's understanding of class is the persistent belief—despite all evidence
to the contrary—that anyone, with the proper discipline and drive, can move from a lower class to a higher class. We recognize
that mobility may be difficult, but the key to our collective self-image is the assumption that mobility is always possible, so failure to move up reflects on one's
character. By extension, the
failure of a race or ethnic group to move up reflects very poorly on the group as a
whole. What is completely missed in the rare public debates today about the plight of African Americans
is that a huge percentage of them are not free to move up at all. It is not just that they lack opportunity,
attend poor schools, or are plagued by poverty. They are barred by law from doing so. And the major institutions
with which they come into contact are designed to prevent their mobility. To put the matter starkly: The current system of control
permanently locks a huge percentage of the African American community out of the mainstream society
and economy. The system operates through our criminal justice institutions, but it functions more like a
caste system than a system of crime control. Viewed from this perspective, the so-called underclass is better
understood as an undercaste—a lower caste of individuals who are permanently barred by law and
custom from mainstream society. Although this new system of racialized social control purports to be
colorblind, it creates and maintains racial hierarchy much as earlier systems of control did. Like Jim Crow
(and slavery), mass incarceration operates as a tightly networked system of laws, policies, customs, and
institutions that operate collectively to ensure the subordinate status of a group defined largely by race.
Colorblindness has legitimized mass incarceration by failing to see the creation of a
racial under caste – only a massive shift in policy can change dominant views.
Michelle Alexander 10, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio State University, 2010, “The new Jim Crow:
Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.”,
http://www.kropfpolisci.com/racial.justice.alexander.pdf
Saying that colorblindness is the problem may alarm some in the civil rights community, especially the pollsters
and political consultants who have become increasingly influential in civil rights advocacy. For decades, civil rights leaders have been
saying things like "we all want a colorblind society, we just disagree how to get there" in defense of
race-conscious programs like affirmative action or racial data collection.35 Affirmative action has been framed as a
legitimate exception to the colorblindness principle—a principle now endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the American electorate. Civil
rights leaders are quick to assure the public that when we reach a colorblind nirvana, race consciousness will no longer be necessary or
appropriate. Far
from being a worthy goal, however, colorblindness has proved catastrophic for African
Americans. It is not an overstatement to say the systematic mass incarceration of people of color in the
United States would not have been possible in the post—civil rights era if the nation had not fallen
under the spell of a callous colorblindness. The seemingly innocent phrase, " I don't care if he's black . .
." perfectly captures the perversion of M artin L uther K ing Jr. 's dream that we may, one day, be able
to see beyond race to connect spiritually across racial lines. Saying that one does not care about race is offered as an
exculpatory virtue, when in fact it can be a form of cruelty. It is precisely because we, as a nation, have not cared much
about African Americans that we have allowed our criminal justice system to create a new racial
undercaste. The deeply flawed nature of colorblindness, as a governing principle, is evidenced by the
fact that the public consensus supporting mass incarceration is officially colorblind. It purports to see black and
brown men not as black and brown, but simply as men—raceless men—who have failed miserably to play by the rules the rest of us follow
quite naturally. The
fact that so many black and brown men are rounded up for drug crimes that go largely
ignored when committed by whites is unseen. Our collective colorblindness prevents us from seeing this basic fact. Our
blindness also prevents us from seeing the racial and structural divisions that persist in society: the
segregated, unequal schools, the segregated, jobless ghettos, and the segregated public discourse—a
public conversation that excludes the current pariah caste. Our commitment to colorblindness extends
beyond individuals to institutions and social arrangements. We have become blind, not so much to
race, but to the existence of racial caste in America.
Prisons dehumanize inmates by seizing their privacy, stripping them of their
personhood, and reducing all inmates to a disposable number
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
*edited for gendered language
Prisons are places of intense brutality, violence, and dehumanization.70 In his seminal study of the New Jersey State
Prison, The Society of Captives, sociologist Gresham M. Sykes carefully exposed how the fundamental structure of
the modern U.S. prison degrades the inmate’s basic humanity and sense of selfworth.71 Caged or
confined and stripped of his [their] freedom, the prisoner is forced to submit to an existence without the
ability to exercise the basic capacities that define personhood in a liberal society.72 The inmate’s
movement is tightly controlled, sometimes by chains and shackles, and always by orders backed with the
threat of force;73 his [their] body is subject to invasive cavity searches on command;74 he [he/she] is
denied nearly all personal possessions; his [their] routines of eating, sleeping, and bodily maintenance
are minutely managed; he [he/she] may communicate and interact with others only on limited terms
strictly dictated by his jailers; and he [he/she]is reduced to an identifying number, deprived of all that
constitutes his [their] individuality.75 Sykes’s account of “the pains of imprisonment”76 attends not only
to the dehumanizing effects of this basic structure of imprisonment—which remains relatively unchanged from the
New Jersey penitentiary of 1958 to the U.S. jails and prisons that abound today77—but also to its violent effects on the
personhood of the prisoner:
Solitary confinement degrades humans---often worse than torture, it causes
hallucinations, violent reactions and violates the UN convention on torture.
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
As incarcerated populations have increased, solitary confinement has emerged as a primary mechanism for internal
jail and prison discipline, such that the actual number of individuals confined to a small cell for twentythree hours per day remains unknown and may be significantly in excess of 80,000.88 Some people are
sentenced to “Super-Max” facilities that only contain solitary cells; other people are placed in solitary
confinement as punishment for violating prison rules or for their own protection. Stays in solitary
confinement are often lengthy, even for relatively minor disciplinary rule violations, and may be
indefinite. For example, one young prisoner caught with seventeen packs of Newport cigarettes was sentenced to fifteen days solitary
confinement for each pack of cigarettes, totaling more than eight months of solitary confinement.89 Another prisoner in New Jersey spent
eighteen years in solitary confinement. Although his solitary confinement status was subject to review every ninety days, this prisoner
explained that he eventually stopped participating in the reviews as he felt they were “a sham, with no real investigation,” and lost hope that
he would ever be able to leave.90 Solitary
confinement has become a widely tolerated and “ regular part of the
rhythm of prison life ,”91 yet this basic structure of prison discipline in the United States entails
profound violence and dehumanization ; indeed, solitary confinement produces effects similar to
physical torture. Psychiatrist Stuart Grassian first introduced to the psychiatric and medical community in
the early 1980s that prisoners living in isolation suffered a constellation of symptoms including
overwhelming anxiety, confusion, hallucinations, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts.92
This pattern of debilitating symptoms, sufficiently consistent among persons subject to solitary confinement (otherwise known as the Special
Housing Unit (SHU)), gave rise to the designation of SHU Syndrome.93 Partly on this basis, the
United Nations Special Rapporteur
on Torture has found that certain U.S. practies of solitary confinement violate the U.N. Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Punishment.94 Numerous psychiatric studies
likewise corroborate that solitary confinement produces effects tantamount to torture.95 Bonnie
Kerness, Associate Director of the American Friends Service Committee’s Prison Watch, testified before the
Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons that while visiting prisoners in solitary confinement, she spoke
repeatedly “with people who begin to cut themselves, just so they can feel something.”96 Soldiers who are
captured in war and subjected to solitary confinement and severe physical abuse also report the suffering of isolation to be as awful as, and
even worse than, physical torture.97 But
despite its more apparent horrors, solitary confinement is simply an
extension of the logic and basic structure of prison-backed punishment—punitive isolation and
surveillance—to the disciplinary regime of the prison itself. Solitary confinement’s justification and presumed efficacy flows from the
assumed legitimacy of prison confinement in the first instance. Prison or jail confinement isolates the detained individual
from the social world he inhabited previously, stripping that person of his capacity to move of his own
volition, to interact with others, and to exercise control over the details of his own life. Once that initial form of
confinement and deprivation of basic control over one’s own life is understood to be legitimate, solitary confinement merely applies the same
approach to discipline within prison walls.
by the initial incarceration.
But the basic physical isolation and confinement is already countenanced
Abolition of prisons as the dominant mode of thinking is needed in order to address
racism – reforms will only help the system to grow.
Angela Davis, and Dylan Rodriguez 00, Davis teaches in the History of Consciousness program at
the University of California and has been actively involved in prison-related campaigns and Rodriguez is
an Assistant Professor at University of California - Riverside and was involved in the formation of Critical
Resistance, 2000, “The Challenge of Prison Abolition: A Conversation”,
http://www.bowdoin.edu/news/events/archives/images/Prison%20Abolition.pdf
There are multiple histories of prison abolition. The Scandinavian scholar/activist Thomas Mathieson
first published his germinal text, The Politics of Abolition, in 1974, when activist movements were calling
for the disestablishment of prisons -- in the aftermath of the Attica Rebellion and prison uprisings
throughout Europe. He was concerned with transforming prison reform movements into more radical
movements to abolish prisons as the major institutions of punishment. There was a pattern of
decarceration in the Netherlands until the mid-1980s, which seemed to establish the Dutch system as a
model prison system, and the later rise in prison construction and the expansion of the incarcerated
population has served to stimulate abolitionist ideas. Criminologist Willem de Haan published a book in
1990 entitled The Politics of Redress: Crime, Punishment, and Penal Abolition. One of the most
interesting texts, from the point of view of U.S. activist history is Fay Honey Knopp's volume Instead of
Prison: A Handbook for Prison Abolitionists, which was published in 1976, with funding from the
American Friends. This handbook points out the contradictory relationship between imprisonment and
an "enlightened, free society." Prison abolition, like the abolition of slavery, is a long-range goal and the
handbook argues that an abolitionist approach requires an analysis of "crime" that links it with social
structures, as opposed to individual pathology, as well as "anticrime" strategies that focus on the
provision of social resources. Of course, there are many versions of prison abolitionism -- including those
that propose to abolish punishment altogether and replace it with reconciliatory responses to criminal
acts. In my opinion, the most powerful relevance of abolitionist theory and practice today resides in the
fact that without a radical position vis-a-vis the rapidly expanding prison system, prison architecture,
prison surveillance, and prison system corporatization, prison culture, with all its racist and totalitarian
implications, will continue not only to claim ever increasing numbers of people of color, but also to
shape social relations more generally in our society. Prison needs to be abolished as the dominant mode
of addressing social problems that are better solved by other institutions and other means. The call for
prison abolition urges us to imagine and strive for a very different social landscape.
Abolition is not an institutional change but instead challenges the moral legitimacy
behind the idea of confinement
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
In contrast to leading scholarly and policy efforts to reform criminal law,¶ abolition decidedly does not seek merely to replace
incarceration with alternatives¶ that are closely related to imprisonment, such as punitive policing, noncustodial¶
criminal supervision, probation, civil institutionalization, and parole.25 Abolition instead entails a
rejection of the moral legitimacy of confining people in cages , whether that caging is deemed “civil” or
whether it follows a failure to comply¶ with technical terms of supervised release or a police order.26 So too the
positive¶ project of abolition addressed in this Article is decidedly not an effort to replicate the institutional transfer
that occurred in the aftermath of the deinstitutionalization of mental institutions.27 An abolitionist
framework requires positive¶ forms of social integration and collective security that are not organized
around criminal law enforcement, confinement, criminal surveillance, punitive policing, or punishment.
Racism must be rejected in every instance without surcease. It justifies atrocities, and
is truly the capital sin.
Memmi 2k – Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ Unv. Of Paris, Albert (RACISM, translated by
Steve Martinot, pp.163-165)
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never
achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without
concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house, especially not in a
mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people which is to
diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear,
injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live.
It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which [person] man is not [themself] himself an
outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the
dominated ; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition . The anti-racist struggle,
difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality
to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral
conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its
consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order
One cannot found a moral order, let alone a
legislative order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her
subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious
language, racism is “ the truly capital sin. ”fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions
counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for
the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested
commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we
for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy.
have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think
that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest.
One
day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own
death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall,” says
the bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger
It is an ethical and a practical appeal – indeed, it is a contract,
however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical
morality . Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice . A just society must be a
society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and
destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager,
but the stakes are irresistible.
yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday.
The federal system of incarceration creates a perpetual cycle of discrimination—once
felons, people are stripped of basic rights—only total elimination of the system will
solve, sentencing reform is not enough
Michelle Alexander 10, associate professor of law at Stanford Law School, civil rights lawyer, advocate
and legal scholar, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, 2010, p. 93-6
The Prison Label¶ Most people imagine that the explosion in the U.S. prison population during the past twenty-five years reflects changes in
crime rates. Few would guess that our prison population leaped from approximately 350,000 to 2.3 million in such a short period of time due to
changes in laws and policies, not changes in crime rates. Yet it
has been changes in our laws—particularly the dramatic
increases in the length of prison sentences—that have been responsible for the growth of our prison
system, not increases in crime. One study suggests that the entire increase in the prison population
from 1980 to 2001 can be explained by sentencing policy changes .88 Because harsh sentencing is a
major cause of the prison explosion, one might reasonably assume that substantially reducing the length
of prison sentences would effectively dismantle this new system of control . That view, however, is
mistaken . This system depends on the prison label, not prison time.¶ Once a person is labeled a felon,
he or she is ushered into a parallel universe in which discrimination, stigma, and exclusion are perfectly
legal, and privileges of citizenship such as voting and jury service are off-limits. It does not matter whether you
have actually spent time in prison; your second-class citizenship begins the moment you are branded a felon. Most people branded felons, in
fact, are not sentenced to prison. As of 2008, there were approximately 2.3 million people in prisons and jails, and a staggering 5.1 million
people under “community correctional supervision”—i.e., on probation or parole.89 Merely
reducing prison terms does not
have a major impact on the majority of people in the system. It is the badge of inferiority— the felony
record—that relegates people for their entire lives, to secondclass status. As described in chapter 4, for drug
felons, there is little hope of escape. Barred from public housing by law, discriminated against by private
landlords, ineligible for food stamps, forced to “check the box” indicating a felony conviction on
employment applications for nearly every job, and denied licenses for a wide range of professions, people whose only
crime is drug addiction or possession of a small amount of drugs for recreational use fi nd themselves
locked out of the mainstream society and economy—permanently.¶ No wonder, then, that most people labeled felons
find their way back into prison. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics study, about 30 percent of released prisoners in its sample were
rearrested within six months of release. 90 Within three years, nearly 68 percent were rearrested at least once for a new offense.91 Only a
small minority are rearrested for violent crimes; the vast majority are rearrested for property offenses, drug offenses, and offenses against the
public order.92¶ For
those released on probation or parole, the risks are especially high. They are subject to regular
surveillance and monitoring by the police and may be stopped and searched (with or without their consent) for any reason or
no reason at all. As a result, they are far more likely to be arrested (again) than those whose behavior is not subject to constant scrutiny by law
enforcement. Probationers and parolees are at increased risk of arrest because their lives are governed by additional rules that do not apply to
everyone else.
Myriad restrictions on their travel and behavior (such as a prohibition on associating with other felons), as well
create opportunities for
arrest. Violation of these special rules can land someone right back in prison. In fact, that is what happens a good deal of the time.¶ The
extraordinary increase in prison admissions due to parole and probation violations is due almost entirely
to the War on Drugs. With respect to parole, in 1980, only 1 percent of all prison admissions were parole violators. Twenty years later,
as various requirements of probation and parole (such as paying fi nes and meeting with probation offi cers),
more than one third (35 percent) of prison admissions resulted from parole violations.93 To put the matter more starkly: About as many people
were returned to prison for parole violations in 2000 as were admitted to prison in 1980 for all reasons.94 Of all parole violators returned to
prison in 2000, only one-third were returned for a new conviction; twothirds were returned for a technical violation such as missing
appointments with a parole offi cer, failing to maintain employment, or failing a drug test.95 In this system of control, failing to cope well with
one’s exile status is treated like a crime. If you fail, after being released from prison with a criminal record—your personal badge of inferiority—
to remain drug free, or if you fail to get a job against all the odds, or if you get depressed and miss an appointment with your parole offi cer (or
if you cannot afford the bus fare to take you there), you can be sent right back to prison—where society apparently thinks millions of Americans
belong.¶ This
disturbing phenomenon of people cycling in and out of prison, trapped by their second-class
status, has been described by Loïc Wacquant as a “closed circuit of perpetual marginality.”96 Hundreds of thousands
of people are released from prison every year, only to find themselves locked out of the mainstream society and economy. Most ultimately
return to prison, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Others are released again, only to find themselves in precisely the circumstances they
occupied before, unable to cope with the stigma of the prison label and their permanent pariah status. ¶ Reducing
the amount of
time people spend behind bars—by eliminating harsh mandatory minimums—will alleviate some of the
unnecessary suffering caused by this system, but it will not disturb the closed circuit. Those labeled
felons will continue to cycle in and out of prison, subject to perpetual surveillance by the police, and
unable to integrate into the mainstream society and economy. Unless the number of people who are
labeled felons is dramatically reduced, and unless the laws and policies that keep ex-offenders
marginalized from the mainstream society and economy are eliminated, the system will continue to
create and maintain an enormous undercaste.
1AC – Gender
Contention __ is Gender
Prisons are running rampant with sexual victimization, female prisoners suffer brutal
treatment equivalent to torture in maximum security facilities
Dave W. Frank, 14, Attorney at Christopher C. Myers & Associates , Ohio Northern University—Claude
W. Pettit College of Law, 2/14/14, “Commentary: Abandoned: Abolishing Female Prisons to Prevent
Sexual Abuse and Herald an End to Incarceration”,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=bglj
A few months before the U.S. Department of Justice’s 2012 inspection of Julia Tutwiler Prison for
Women,65 it released the first national survey to comprehensively document the extent of sexual abuse
in U.S. prisons.66 In this report, the Department of Justice relied on reports by former prisoners rather
than reports by prison officials67 or inmates still in prison—a departure from the methods used in
previous national surveys. 68 The 2012 survey gave a clear picture of what many had suspected:69
Prisoners commonly suffer “brutality [that] is the equivalent of torture.” 70 ¶ Within the U.S. system of
mass incarceration, nearly one out of six women and close to one out of ten of all prisoners has been
sexually victimized,71 according to the Justice Department.72 Anal tearing, vaginal tearing, chipped
teeth, and lost teeth are the most common injuries experienced by former prisoners who report sexual
victimization.73 Among former prisoners who reported unwilling sexual activity with staff,
approximately one quarter were coerced into such activity through blackmails or bribes by staff, and
nearly one half were coerced through offers of favors or special privileges by staff.74 Sexual
victimization by staff most often occurs in a closet, office, or locked room, while inmate-on inmate
assault, which constitutes the majority of victimization, most often occurs in the victim’s cell.75 A
Human Rights Watch report affirmed that “being a woman prisoner in a U.S. state prison can be a
terrifying experience.” 76 Further, the likelihood of female prisoner sexual victimization, according to
the DOJ survey, generally increases in accordance with the length of prison sentences and level of
confinement.77 The majority of sexual abuse occurs in prisons, a much smaller percentage occurs in
local jails, and almost none occurs at post-release community treatment facilities.78 Female sexual
victimization, accordingly, is highest in maximum-security facilities like Tutwiler and lowest in facilities
that allow daytime release. 79¶ A prison’s ability to control, confine, and inspect a prisoner necessarily
defines its ability to abuse her body.80 Efforts toward reform that intensify or expand incarceration only
recast the problem.81 If prison is the total governance of the prisoner, greater control of physical bodies
will not reduce the instance of a problem shown to increase with a punishment’s severity. Unlike the
U.S. Prison Rape Elimination Act, the U.K proposal would by its nature end sexual abuse in female
prisons and drive incarceration and punishment into obsolescence.
Male Guards regularly abuse female prisoners--- forced sex, harassment, groping, and
hostility form a highly sexualized and patriarchal environment
Angela Y. Davis 03, Professor of Feminist Studies at University of CA Santa Cruz, 2003, “Are Prisons
Obsolete?”, http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Angela-DavisAre_Prisons_Obsolete.pdf
As the level of repression in women's prisons increases, and, paradoxically, as the influence of domestic prison regimes
recedes, sexual abuse—which, like domestic violence, is yet another dimension of the privatized punishment of
women—has become an institutionalized component of punishment behind prison walls. Although
guard- on-prisoner sexual abuse is not sanctioned as such, the wide- spread leniency with which offending
officers are treated suggests that for women, prison is a space in which the threat of sexualized violence
that looms in the larger society is effectively sanctioned as a routine aspect of the land- scape of
punishment behind prison walls. According to a 1996 Human Rights Watch report on the sexual abuse of women in
U.S. prisons: Our findings indicate that being a woman prisoner in U.S. state prisons can be a terrifying experience.
If you are sexually abused , you cannot escape from your abuser . Grievance or investigatory
procedures, where they exist, are often ineffectual, and correctional employees continue to engage in
abuse because they believe they will rarely be held accountable, administratively or criminally. Few people
outside the prison walls know what is going on or care if they do know. Fewer still do anything to
address the problem. The following excerpt from the summary of this report, entitled All Too Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in U.S.
State Prisons, reveals the extent to which women's prison environments are violently sexualized, thus recapitulating the familiar violence that
male correctional employees have vaginally, anally, and
orally raped female prisoners and sexually assaulted and abused them. We found that in the course of
committing such gross mis- conduct, male officers have not only used actual or threatened physical
force, but have also used their near total authority to provide or deny goods and privileges to female
prisoners to compel them to have sex or, in other cases, to reward them for having done so. In other cases, male officers
have violated their most basic professional duty and engaged in sexual contact with female prisoners
absent the use of threat of force or any material exchange. In addition to engaging in sexual relations with prisoners,
male officers have used mandatory pat-frisks or room searches to grope women's breasts, buttocks,
and vaginal areas and to view them inappropriately while in a state of undress in the housing or
bathroom areas. Male correctional officers and staff have also engaged in regular verbal degradation
and harassment of female prisoners, thus contributing to a custodial environment in the state prisons
for women that is often highly sexualized and excessively hostile."
characterizes many women's private lives: We found that
Prisons dehumanize inmates by seizing their privacy, stripping them of their
personhood, and reducing all inmates to a disposable number
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
*edited for gendered language
Prisons are places of intense brutality, violence, and dehumanization.70 In his seminal study of the New Jersey State
Prison, The Society of Captives, sociologist Gresham M. Sykes carefully exposed how the fundamental structure of
the modern U.S. prison degrades the inmate’s basic humanity and sense of selfworth.71 Caged or
confined and stripped of his freedom, the prisoner is forced to submit to an existence without the ability
to exercise the basic capacities that define personhood in a liberal society.72 The inmate’s movement is
tightly controlled, sometimes by chains and shackles, and always by orders backed with the threat of
force;73 his [their] body is subject to invasive cavity searches on command;74 he [he/she] is denied nearly
all personal possessions; his [their] routines of eating, sleeping, and bodily maintenance are minutely
managed; he [he/she] may communicate and interact with others only on limited terms strictly dictated
by his jailers; and he [he/she]is reduced to an identifying number, deprived of all that constitutes his
[their] individuality.75 Sykes’s account of “the pains of imprisonment”76 attends not only to the
dehumanizing effects of this basic structure of imprisonment—which remains relatively unchanged from the New Jersey
penitentiary of 1958 to the U.S. jails and prisons that abound today77—but also to its violent effects on the personhood of
the prisoner:
Solitary confinement degrades humans---often worse than torture, it causes
hallucinations, violent reactions and violates the UN convention on torture.
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
As incarcerated populations have increased, solitary confinement has emerged as a primary mechanism for internal
jail and prison discipline, such that the actual number of individuals confined to a small cell for twentythree hours per day remains unknown and may be significantly in excess of 80,000.88 Some people are
sentenced to “Super-Max” facilities that only contain solitary cells; other people are placed in solitary
confinement as punishment for violating prison rules or for their own protection. Stays in solitary
confinement are often lengthy, even for relatively minor disciplinary rule violations, and may be
indefinite. For example, one young prisoner caught with seventeen packs of Newport cigarettes was sentenced to fifteen days solitary
confinement for each pack of cigarettes, totaling more than eight months of solitary confinement.89 Another prisoner in New Jersey spent
eighteen years in solitary confinement. Although his solitary confinement status was subject to review every ninety days, this prisoner
explained that he eventually stopped participating in the reviews as he felt they were “a sham, with no real investigation,” and lost hope that
he would ever be able to leave.90 Solitary
confinement has become a widely tolerated and “ regular part of the
rhythm of prison life ,”91 yet this basic structure of prison discipline in the United States entails
profound violence and dehumanization ; indeed, solitary confinement produces effects similar to
physical torture. Psychiatrist Stuart Grassian first introduced to the psychiatric and medical community in
the early 1980s that prisoners living in isolation suffered a constellation of symptoms including
overwhelming anxiety, confusion, hallucinations, and sudden violent and self-destructive outbursts.92
This pattern of debilitating symptoms, sufficiently consistent among persons subject to solitary confinement (otherwise known as the Special
Housing Unit (SHU)), gave rise to the designation of SHU Syndrome.93 Partly on this basis, the
United Nations Special Rapporteur
on Torture has found that certain U.S. practies of solitary confinement violate the U.N. Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Punishment.94 Numerous psychiatric studies
likewise corroborate that solitary confinement produces effects tantamount to torture.95 Bonnie
Kerness, Associate Director of the American Friends Service Committee’s Prison Watch, testified before the
Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons that while visiting prisoners in solitary confinement, she spoke
repeatedly “with people who begin to cut themselves, just so they can feel something.”96 Soldiers who are
captured in war and subjected to solitary confinement and severe physical abuse also report the suffering of isolation to be as awful as, and
even worse than, physical torture.97 But
despite its more apparent horrors, solitary confinement is simply an
extension of the logic and basic structure of prison-backed punishment—punitive isolation and
surveillance—to the disciplinary regime of the prison itself. Solitary confinement’s justification and presumed efficacy flows from the
assumed legitimacy of prison confinement in the first instance. Prison or jail confinement isolates the detained individual
from the social world he inhabited previously, stripping that person of his capacity to move of his own
volition, to interact with others, and to exercise control over the details of his own life. Once that initial form of
confinement and deprivation of basic control over one’s own life is understood to be legitimate, solitary confinement merely applies the same
approach to discipline within prison walls.
But the basic physical isolation and confinement is already countenanced
by the initial incarceration.
Specifically, the strip search represents the routinization of sexual abuse and coercion
within prisons.
Angela Y. Davis 03, Professor of Feminist Studies at University of CA Santa Cruz, 2003, “Are Prisons
Obsolete?”, http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Angela-DavisAre_Prisons_Obsolete.pdf
Sexual abuse is surreptitiously incorporated into one of the most habitual aspects of women's
imprisonment, the strip search. As activists and prisoners themselves have pointed out, the state itself is directly
implicated in this routinization of sexual abuse both in permitting such conditions that render women
vulnerable to explicit sexual coercion carried out by guards and other prison staff and by
incorporating into routine policy such practices as the strip search and body cavity search. Australian
lawyer/activist Amanda George has pointed out that at a November 2001 conference on women in prison held by the Brisbane-based
organization Sisters Inside, Amanda George described an action performed before a national gathering of correctional
personnel working in women's prisons. Several women seized control of the stage and, some playing guards,
others playing the roles of prisoners, dramatized a strip search. According to George, the gathering was so repulsed by
this enactment of a practice that occurs routinely in women's prisons everywhere that many of the
participants felt compelled to disassociate themselves from such practices, insisting that this was not what they
did. Some of the guards , George said, simply cried upon watching representations of their own actions
outside the prison context. What they must have realized is that " without the uniform, without the power of the
state, (the strip search would be sexual assault ."99 But why is an understanding of the pervasiveness of sexual abuse in
women's prisons an important element of a radical analysis of the prison system, and especially of those forward-looking analyses that lead us
in the direction of abolition? Because the
call to abolish the prison as the dominant form of punishment cannot
ignore the extent to which the institution of the prison has stockpiled ideas and practices that are
hopefully approaching obsolescence in the larger society, but that retain all their ghastly vitality behind
prison walls. The destructive combination of racism and misogyny, however much it has been challenged by social
movements, scholarship, and art over the last three decades, retains all its awful consequences within women's prisons.
The relatively uncontested presence of sexual abuse in women's prisons is one of many such examples.
The increasing evidence of a U.S. prison industrial complex with global resonances leads us to think about the extent to which the many
corporations that have acquired an investment in the expansion of the prison system are, like the state, directly implicated in an institution that
perpetuates violence against women.
The prison system turns female prisoners into “fallen women” whose only purpose is
domestic service and subjugation to men.
Angela Y. Davis 03, Professor of Feminist Studies at University of CA Santa Cruz, 2003, “Are Prisons
Obsolete?”, http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Angela-DavisAre_Prisons_Obsolete.pdf
According to dominant views, women convicts were irrevocably fallen women , with no possibility of
salvation. If male criminals were considered to be public individuals who had simply violated the social contract, female criminals
were seen as having transgressed fundamental moral principles of womanhood. The reformers, who,
following Elizabeth Fry, argued that women were capable of redemption, did not really contest these ideological
assumptions about women's place. In other words, they did not question the very notion of "fallen women."
Rather, they simply opposed the idea that "fallen women" could not be saved. They could be saved, the reformers
contended, and toward that end they advocated separate penal facilities and a specifically female approach to
punishment. Their approach called for architectural models that replaced cells with cottages and "rooms" in a way that
was supposed to infuse domesticity into prison life. This model facilitated a regime devised to
reintegrate criminalized women into the domestic life of wife and mother . They did not, however,
acknowledge the class and race underpinnings of this regime. Training that was, on the surface, designed
to produce good wives and mothers in effect steered poor women (and especially black women) into "free
world" jobs in domestic service. Instead of stay-at-home skilled wives and mothers, many women prisoners, upon
release, would become maids, cooks, and washerwomen for more affluent women. A female custodial staff, the
reformers also argued, would minimize the sexual temptations, which they believed were often at the root of female criminality.
Prisons inherently perpetuate rape culture and foster sexual assault and rape within
their institutions, affirming the patriarchal norms that dominate society – reforms
can’t solve.
Josh Kitto, 15, freelance political journalist who has written for the Guardian, Vice, and Truthout. He is
particularly interested in LGBTQ and feminist issues, protest movements, prisons, immigration, and
counterterrorism policy, 2/24/15, “Rape culture: would prison abolition help women?”,
https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/josh-kitto/rape-culture-would-prison-abolition-helpwomen
Prisons “both require and foster violence”, criminology professor Sarah Lamble argues. The entire system of
incarceration, from prisons and the police to immigration detention centres, are simply another one of
rape culture's functions. In turn, rape and assault provides a perverse stability to the prison system. This
further prevents the realisation of transformative justice for survivors.¶ Often upending the patriarchal
violence ingrained within the prison system is considered more disruptive than the violence itself. As
Michael Denzel Smith states: “The fact that we do little to enforce those laws is the tacit recognition that in
order for the current system to remain intact, a degree of violence against women is necessary”.¶
What's more, relocating rapists incubates rape culture. Statistics on UK prison rape are more vague than in the US, with
Justice Secretary Christ Grayling blocking a Howard League investigation into the issue - the Ministry of Justice says questions about assault are
‘intrusive’. Research suggests guards routinely sexually coerce women prisoners (a third of who are survivors of sexual abuse). There are also
revelations of endemic sexual assault and harassment of women detainees at Yarl's Wood immigration detention centre, for example.¶ In the
US, the response
to prison rape is to move the victim to ‘protective custody', or solitary confinement. But
this is also a tool employed to silence women who report sexual assault by guards. Further, Solitary
Watch estimate half of trans women in New York prisons have been sexually assaulted by guards while
in solitary confinement.¶ But showing that prisons are sites of systemic sexual violence does not establish that immediate abolition
would lead to quantitatively fewer rapes. The question is then if these carceral functions cannot provide the
framework for eliminating rape and assault, what alternative structures can be established?¶ One option
is ‘restorative justice’, involving facilitated meetings between the perpetrator and victim - to enable
answers for any questions the victim has of the perpetrator, or acknowledgement of the harm caused.
The New Zealand-based Project Restore is prominent in advocating this approach, which stems out of Maori accountability practices. In theory,
this might provide some conciliation - equilibrium can be restored to the disrupted families, communities, and networks, if only by having the
perpetrator acknowledge fault.¶ However, even Project Restore concedes the limits of such an approach. It does not, by itself, create conditions
that enable safety and resistance to violence and oppression - or provide reparations to victims. Indeed, these projects gained traction within
neoliberal approaches seeking cheaper alternatives to incarceration. Even the name, 'restorative’ justice, reveals the limits of its intended
effect. Rather than accountability for the victim and recognition of their needs, the peace of communities and families that failed to protect the
victim from violence is intended – to restore things as they were.¶ Another
alternative is 'transformative justice', which
focuses on developing 'community accountability' structures to disrupt cycles of abuse and assault. This
framework has been developed by women of colour-led US groups like INCITE!, Sista II Sista, and Communities Against Rape and Abuse (CARA),
who organise against interpersonal and state violence. The
idea is that support groups from the community facilitate a
process between the victim and the perpetrator, and a process of dialogue and admission of
responsibility by the perpetrator then approximates the necessary steps to repair harm. The support groups
then monitor whether these steps are maintained.¶ 'Transformative justice' is centred in developing the community's autonomy in order to
prevent violence. It sees retribution as reactive, and incarceration as unable and incapable of unpacking more difficult questions about state
violence, or the complicity of communal networks that feel obligated to intervene to stop drink driving, for example, but not child abuse.¶ But a
'transformative' solution cannot simply involve a sentimentalised restorative justice system with a neoliberal renovation i.e. one that prioritises
restoring unequal power relations for the sake of 'peace' or expense, or transferring arbitrary judicial functions to communities, assuming this
accounts for all of the survivor's needs.¶
Patriarchy causes poverty, environmental degradation, wars, and extinction –
ontological shift is key
Jytte Nhanenge- Development Consultant studies development policies in Africa; February 2007;
“Ecofeminism: Towards Integrating The Concerns of Women, Poor People and Nature Into
Development”
Chapter 2 argued that the
modern, mechanistic, scientific world-view to a large extend is responsible for the four
crises. Its over-reward of quantitative activities means that the quality of life for society and nature is deteriorating.
Chapter 5 and 6 discussed that science - especially the discipline of economics and its technology, together with the scientific program
of Third World development - consistently are dominating and exploiting women, Others and nature. The root cause
relates to the fact that only masculine or yang forces are included in the scientific view of reality. Feminine
or yin forces are oppositely excluded. This dualised patriarchal ideology must logically manifest in
domination of women, Others and nature. Science, economics, technology, politics and social organization
consequently only include half of reality. The other half is considered of little value and as a resource for
exploitation. Hence not only women, Others and nature, but also all other feminine or yin issues are considered as
being subordinate. This imbalance has meant that there is an exaggerated focus on masculine human
characteristics, like rationality, individualism, competition, egoism, greed and profit-maximization. At the same time
the feminine human characteristics of emotion, community, cooperation and conservation have been
overlooked. This has lead to unethical human behaviour and dominant relationship among many people,
specifically between men and women, adults and children, white and coloured people, modern and traditional people, rich and poor people.
The priority on masculine traits has also resulted in an
almost complete lack of relationship between human beings
and nature. Deficiency of balance between yang and yin has moreover meant that feminine experiences including
indigenous knowledge cannot officially be included in the current masculine knowledge system. The
product is a distorted knowledge system. Since this knowledge system is the foundation of modern political,
economic and social organisation, it has resulted in absence of care and concern for creation and maintenance
of sustainable social and natural inter-relations. The exclusion of feminine attributes has consequently created disharmony,
which has culminated in the crises of war and violence, poverty and inequality, environmental
destruction and human repression. The main sufferers from these crises are women, Others and nature. 515 Since these
crises continuously are intensifying, and extinction of the human race has become an issue of public
concern, it is increasingly important to change the masculine perception of reality. This dissertation suggests that
the solution must be a replacement of the exclusive, masculine world-view by an inclusive ontology, which has
a dynamic tension between masculine and feminine elements. In chapter 3 Smuts' holism, the general systems theory and the Chinese I Ching
(yin/yang) schemes were suggested as possible alternatives. They present a shift from a reductionist to a holistic perception of reality, hence all
three models would logically include the perception of women, Others and nature. Such
a transformation would require a redefinition of the current basic scientific concepts like its definition of a person; its quantitative knowledge generation;
its perception of human communities, and essentially its militaristic manner of enforcing peace. The aim of this chapter is, in a
limited way, to try and suggest what should be included in these new, holistic concepts.
Highly militaristic views of the world endorsed by patriarchy serves as the root cause
to all other impacts
Warren –chair of the philosophy department at Macalester College and Cady - professor of
philosophy at Hamline University, 94 [Karen and Duane, “Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections”, Hypatia, Volume 9, Issue 2,
p. 16]
Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise, (c), and the
unmanageability, (d), which results. For example,
in the United States, current estimates are that one out of every three or
four women will be raped by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual harassment, spouse-beating,
and sado-masochistic pornography are examples of behaviors practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated
within patriarchy . In the realm of environmentally destructive behaviors, strip-mining, factory farming, and pollution
of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and sanctioned within patriarchy. They,
too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to "rape the earth," that it is "man's God-given right" to
have dominion (that is, domination) over the earth , that nature has only instrumental value, that environmental
destruction is the acceptable price we pay for "progress."And the presumption of warism, that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to
impose dominion on a people or nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of nations and ultimately to
international unmanageability. Much
of the current" unmanageability" of contemporary life in patriarchal
societies, (d), is then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events, and
experiences that reflect historically male-gender identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions.
Included among these real-life consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation,
war, environmental destruction, and violence toward women , which many feminists see as the logical
outgrowth of patriarchal thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviors-the symptoms of
dysfunctionality that one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and perpetuate them. When patriarchy is understood as a
dysfunctional system, this "unmanageability" can be seen for what it is-as a predictable and thus logical consequence of patriarchy.'1 The
theme that global environmental crises, war, and violence generally are predictable and logical consequences of sexism and patriarchal culture
is pervasive in ecofeminist literature (see Russell 1989, 2). Ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak, for instance, argues that " militarism
and
warfare are continual features of a patriarchal society because they reflect and instill patriarchal
value s and fulfill needs of such a system. Acknowledging the context of patriarchal conceptualizations that feed militarism is a
first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on Earth" (Spretnak 1989, 54). Stated in terms of the foregoing model of patriarchy
as a dysfunctional social system, the claims by Spretnak and other feminists take on a clearer meaning:
Patriarchal conceptual
frameworks legitimate impaired thinking (about women, national and regional conflict, the
environment) which is manifested in behaviors which, if continued, will make life on earth difficult, if
not impossible . It is a stark message, but it is plausible. Its plausibility lies in understanding the conceptual roots of various womannature-peace connections in regional, national, and global contexts.
Only complete abolition can solve the impacts--- it spills over to the abolition of all
prisons and prompts a massive discussion on gender in society.
Dave W. Frank, 14, Attorney at Christopher C. Myers & Associates , Ohio Northern University—Claude
W. Pettit College of Law, 2/14/14, “Commentary: Abandoned: Abolishing Female Prisons to Prevent
Sexual Abuse and Herald an End to Incarceration”,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=bglj
Female prison abolition would end the sexual abuse common in those facilities and begin a
movement to end all incarceration in the U.S . The alternatives to prison advocated by the U.K.
reformers, such as increasing social services support and community involvement, are the proper
replacements for current confinement practices. ¶ Alternatives to incarceration that reproduce the
methodology and motivations of imprisonment are not enough. These alternatives merely displace the
vengeance, violence, control, surveillance, and cruelty that underlie our current incarceration system.
Punishment that takes place in the community, rather than inside a jail, still encourages society to
persecute rather than aid a disfavored minority – people accused and convicted of crimes. ¶ As Clarence
Darrow wrote in Resist Not Evil, “[i]n the rule of force the weak must always fall.” 162 Insistence on
imprisonment or prison-like punishments, especially when alternatives exist, reveals vengeance as the
true purpose carceral confinement. The U.S. should renounce this self-imposed duty to punish, and
instead bring an end to the collective sexual victimization of female prisoners.¶ The proposal of female
prison abolition in the U.S. as the best solution to eradicating sexual abuse in these facilities relies on a
few key premises. First, the U.S. cannot reasonably guarantee incarcerated women will be free from
sexual victimization.163 Second, alternatives to incarceration sufficiently address the aims of
correction.164 Third, the continued incarceration of U.S. women in facilities where they face a
substantial danger of sexual victimization is unconscionable. 165 Any argument for the value of carceral
punishment in spite of the danger of sexual victimization is not compelling.166 If the sexual victimization
of women is inherent to the U.S. prison system, and if an alternative model is available, and further, if
that alternative model addresses the legitimate needs of society, then the U.S. should favor the
alternative as a replacement for incarceration.167 An alternative approach based on the U.K. model of
community care and support is the solution needed.¶
Abolition is not an institutional change but instead challenges the moral legitimacy
behind the idea of confinement
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
In contrast to leading scholarly and policy efforts to reform criminal law,¶ abolition decidedly does not seek merely to replace
incarceration with alternatives¶ that are closely related to imprisonment, such as punitive policing, noncustodial¶
criminal supervision, probation, civil institutionalization, and parole.25 Abolition¶ instead entails a
rejection of the moral legitimacy of confining people in cages ,¶ whether that caging is deemed “civil”
or whether it follows a failure to comply¶ with technical terms of supervised release or a police order.26 So too the
positive¶ project of abolition addressed in this Article is decidedly not an effort to replicate¶ the institutional transfer
that occurred in the aftermath of the deinstitutionalization¶ of mental institutions.27 An abolitionist
framework requires positive¶ forms of social integration and collective security that are not organized
around¶ criminal law enforcement, confinement, criminal surveillance, punitive policing,¶ or punishment.
The federal system of incarceration creates a perpetual cycle of discrimination—once
felons, people are stripped of basic rights—only total elimination of the system will
solve, sentencing reform is not enough
Michelle Alexander 10, associate professor of law at Stanford Law School, civil rights lawyer, advocate
and legal scholar, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, 2010, p. 93-6
The Prison Label¶ Most people imagine that the explosion in the U.S. prison population during the past twenty-five years reflects changes in
crime rates. Few would guess that our prison population leaped from approximately 350,000 to 2.3 million in such a short period of time due to
changes in laws and policies, not changes in crime rates. Yet it
has been changes in our laws—particularly the dramatic
increases in the length of prison sentences—that have been responsible for the growth of our prison
system, not increases in crime. One study suggests that the entire increase in the prison population
from 1980 to 2001 can be explained by sentencing policy changes .88 Because harsh sentencing is a
major cause of the prison explosion, one might reasonably assume that substantially reducing the length
of prison sentences would effectively dismantle this new system of control . That view, however, is
mistaken . This system depends on the prison label, not prison time.¶ Once a person is labeled a felon,
he or she is ushered into a parallel universe in which discrimination, stigma, and exclusion are perfectly
legal, and privileges of citizenship such as voting and jury service are off-limits. It does not matter whether you
have actually spent time in prison; your second-class citizenship begins the moment you are branded a felon. Most people branded felons, in
fact, are not sentenced to prison. As of 2008, there were approximately 2.3 million people in prisons and jails, and a staggering 5.1 million
people under “community correctional supervision”—i.e., on probation or parole.89 Merely
reducing prison terms does not
have a major impact on the majority of people in the system. It is the badge of inferiority— the felony
record—that relegates people for their entire lives, to secondclass status. As described in chapter 4, for drug
felons, there is little hope of escape. Barred from public housing by law, discriminated against by private
landlords, ineligible for food stamps, forced to “check the box” indicating a felony conviction on
employment applications for nearly every job, and denied licenses for a wide range of professions, people whose only
crime is drug addiction or possession of a small amount of drugs for recreational use fi nd themselves
locked out of the mainstream society and economy—permanently.¶ No wonder, then, that most people labeled felons
find their way back into prison. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics study, about 30 percent of released prisoners in its sample were
rearrested within six months of release. 90 Within three years, nearly 68 percent were rearrested at least once for a new offense.91 Only a
small minority are rearrested for violent crimes; the vast majority are rearrested for property offenses, drug offenses, and offenses against the
public order.92¶ For
those released on probation or parole, the risks are especially high. They are subject to regular
surveillance and monitoring by the police and may be stopped and searched (with or without their consent) for any reason or
no reason at all. As a result, they are far more likely to be arrested (again) than those whose behavior is not subject to constant scrutiny by law
enforcement. Probationers and parolees are at increased risk of arrest because their lives are governed by additional rules that do not apply to
everyone else.
Myriad restrictions on their travel and behavior (such as a prohibition on associating with other felons), as well
create opportunities for
arrest. Violation of these special rules can land someone right back in prison. In fact, that is what happens a good deal of the time.¶ The
extraordinary increase in prison admissions due to parole and probation violations is due almost entirely
to the War on Drugs. With respect to parole, in 1980, only 1 percent of all prison admissions were parole violators. Twenty years later,
as various requirements of probation and parole (such as paying fi nes and meeting with probation offi cers),
more than one third (35 percent) of prison admissions resulted from parole violations.93 To put the matter more starkly: About as many people
were returned to prison for parole violations in 2000 as were admitted to prison in 1980 for all reasons.94 Of all parole violators returned to
prison in 2000, only one-third were returned for a new conviction; twothirds were returned for a technical violation such as missing
appointments with a parole offi cer, failing to maintain employment, or failing a drug test.95 In this system of control, failing to cope well with
one’s exile status is treated like a crime. If you fail, after being released from prison with a criminal record—your personal badge of inferiority—
to remain drug free, or if you fail to get a job against all the odds, or if you get depressed and miss an appointment with your parole offi cer (or
if you cannot afford the bus fare to take you there), you can be sent right back to prison—where society apparently thinks millions of Americans
belong.¶ This
disturbing phenomenon of people cycling in and out of prison, trapped by their second-class
status, has been described by Loïc Wacquant as a “closed circuit of perpetual marginality.”96 Hundreds of thousands
of people are released from prison every year, only to find themselves locked out of the mainstream society and economy. Most ultimately
return to prison, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Others are released again, only to find themselves in precisely the circumstances they
occupied before, unable to cope with the stigma of the prison label and their permanent pariah status.¶ Reducing
the amount of
time people spend behind bars—by eliminating harsh mandatory minimums—will alleviate some of the
unnecessary suffering caused by this system, but it will not disturb the closed circuit. Those labeled
felons will continue to cycle in and out of prison, subject to perpetual surveillance by the police, and
unable to integrate into the mainstream society and economy. Unless the number of people who are
labeled felons is dramatically reduced, and unless the laws and policies that keep ex-offenders
marginalized from the mainstream society and economy are eliminated, the system will continue to
create and maintain an enormous undercaste.
Plan Texts
Thus the plan: The United States Federal Government should abolish federal prisons.
Framing
Utilitarianism disregards respect for the individual and perpetuates societal inequality
by evaluating utility as a whole
Freeman 94 – Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard
University, J.D. University of North Carolina (Samuel, “Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of
Right,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn, pp. 313-349,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)
The inclusion of all sentient beings in the calculation of interests severely undermines the force of any
claim that utilitarianism is an "egalitarian" doctrine, based in some notion of equal concern and respect
for persons. But let us assume Kymlicka can restore his thesis by insisting that it concerns, not utilitarianism as a general moral doctrine,
but as a more limited thesis about political morality. (Here I pass over the fact that none of the utilitarians he relies on to support his egalitarian
interpretation construe the doctrine as purely political. The drift of modern utilitarian theory is just the other way: utilitarianism
is not
seen as a political doctrine, to be appealed to by legislators and citizens, but a nonpublic criterion of
right that is indirectly applied [by whom is a separate issue] to assess the nonutilitarian public political
conception of justice.) Still, let us assume it is as a doctrine of political morality that utilitarianism treats persons, and only persons, as
equals. Even in this form it cannot be that maximizing utility is "not a goal" but a "by-product," "entirely
derived from the prior requirement to treat people with equal consideration" (CPP, p. 31) Kymlicka says, "If
utilitarianism is best seen as an egalitarian doctrine, then there is no independent commitment to the idea of maximizing welfare" (CPP, p. 35,
emphases added). But how can this be? (i) What is there about the formal principle of equal consideration (or for that matter occupying a
universal point of view) which would imply that we maximize the aggregate of individuals' welfare? Why not assume, for example, that equal
consideration requires maximizing the division of welfare (strict equality, or however equal division is to be construed); or, at least maximize
the multiple (which would result in more equitable distributions than the aggregate)? Or, why not suppose equal consideration requires equal
proportionate satisfaction of each person's interests (by for example, determining our resources and then satisfying some set percentage of
each person's desires) . Or finally we might rely on some Paretian principle: equal consideration means adopting measures making no one
worse off. For reasons I shall soon discuss, each of these rules is a better explication of equal consideration of each person's interests than is
the utilitarian aggregative method, which in effect collapses distinctions among persons. (2) Moreover, rather than
construing individuals' "interests" as their actual (or rational) desires, and then putting them all on a par and measuring according to intensity,
why not construe their interests lexically, in terms of a hierarchy of wants, where certain interests are, to use Scanlon's terms, more "urgent"
than others, insofar as they are more basic needs? Equal consideration would then rule out satisfying less urgent interests of the majority of
people until all means have been taken to satisfy everyone's more basic needs. (3) Finally, what is there about equal consideration, by itself,
that requires maximizing anything? Why does it not require, as in David Gauthier's view, optimizing constraints on individual utility
maximization? Or why does it not require sharing a distribution? The point is just that, to
say we ought to give equal
consideration to everyone's interests does not, by itself, imply much of anything about how we ought to
proceed or what we ought to do. It is a purely formal principle, which requires certain added, independent assumptions,
to yield any substantive conclusions. That (i) utilitarian procedures maximize is not a "by-product" of equal
consideration. It stems from a particular conception of rationality that is explicitly incorporated into the procedure. That (2)
individuals' interests are construed in terms of their (rational) desires or preferences, all of which are
put on a par, stems from a conception of individual welfare or the human good: a person's good is
defined subjectively, as what he wants or would want after due reflection. Finally (3), aggregation stems from the fact that, on the
classical view, a single individual takes up everyone's desires as if they were his own, sympathetically
identifies with them, and chooses to maximize his "individual" utility. Hare, for one, explicitly makes this move. Just as
Rawls says of the classical view, Hare "extend[s] to society the principle of choice for one man, and then, to make this extension work,
conflat[es] all persons into one through the imaginative acts of the impartial sympathetic spectator" (TJ, p. 27). If these are independent
premises incorporated into the justification of utilitarianism and its decision procedure, then maximizing
aggregate utility cannot
be a "by-product" of a procedure that gives equal consideration to everyone's interests. Instead, it
defines what that procedure is. If anything is a by-product here, it is the appeal to equal consideration.
Utilitarians appeal to impartiality in order to extend a method of individual practical rationality so that it may be applied to society as a whole
(cf. TJ, pp. 26-27). Impartiality, combined with sympathetic identification, allows a hypothetical observer to experience the desires of others as
if they were his own, and compare alternative courses of action according to their conduciveness to a single maximand, made possible by equal
consideration and sympathy. The
significant fact is that, in this procedure, appeals to equal consideration have
nothing to do with impartiality between persons. What is really being given equal consideration are
desires or experiences of the same magnitude. That these are the desires or experiences of separate
persons (or, for that matter, of some other sentient being) is simply an incidental fact that has no substantive effect
on utilitarian calculations. This becomes apparent from the fact that we can more accurately describe the utilitarian principle in terms
of giving, not equal consideration to each person's interests, but instead equal consideration to equally intense interests, no matter where they
occur. Nothing is lost in this redescription, and a great deal of clarity is gained. It is in this sense that persons
enter into utilitarian
calculations only incidentally. Any mention of them can be dropped without loss of the crucial
information one needs to learn how to apply utilitarian procedures. This indicates what is wrong with
the common claim that utilitarians emphasize procedural equality and fairness among persons, not
substantive equality and fairness in results. On the contrary, utilitarianism, rightly construed, emphasizes neither procedural
nor substantive equality among persons. Desires and experiences, not persons, are the proper objects of equal concern in utilitarian
procedures. Having in effect read persons out of the picture at the procedural end, before decisions on distributions even get underway, it
is
little wonder that utilitarianism can result in such substantive inequalities. What follows is that utilitarian
appeals to democracy and the democratic value of equality are misleading. In no sense do utilitarians seek to give
persons equal concern and respect.
Policy decisions directed at maintaining human survival through whatever means will
encourage genocide, war, and the destruction of moral values
Callahan 73 – Co-Founder and former director of The Hastings Institute, PhD in philosophy from
Harvard University (Daniel, “The Tyranny of Survival”, p 91-93)
The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it has been. In the
name of survival,
all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including
the right to life. The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decades fueled the drive of
militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs. During World War
II, native Japanese-Americans were herded, without due process of law, to detention camps. This policy was later upheld by the Supreme Court
in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in the general context that a threat to national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable.
The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, the
government of South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. The Vietnamese war has seen one of
the greatest of the many absurdities tolerated in the name of survival: the destruction of villages in order to save them. But it is not only in a
political setting that survival has been evoked as a final and unarguable value. The
main rationale B. F. Skinner offers in Beyond
Freedom and Dignity for the controlled and conditioned society is the need for survival. For Jacques Monod, in Chance
and Necessity, survival requires that we overthrow almost every known religious, ethical and political system. In genetics, the survival of the
gene pool has been put forward as sufficient grounds for a forceful prohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traits from marrying and bearing
children. Some have even suggested that we do the cause of survival no good by our misguided medical efforts to find means by which those
suffering from such common genetically based diseases as diabetes can live a normal life, and thus procreate even more diabetics. In the field
of population and environment, one can do no better than to cite Paul Ehrlich, whose works have shown a high dedication to survival, and in its
holy name a willingness to contemplate governmentally enforced abortions and a denial of food to surviving populations of nations which have
not enacted population-control policies. For all these reasons it
is possible to counterpoise over against the need for
survival a "tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to
inflict on another for sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is
easy, of course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but
only about the need to defend the fatherland to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. It is
directed even at a legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy
other fundamental human rights and values. The potential tyranny
survival as value is that it is capable, if not treated
sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive single-mindedness
that will stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is
basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the
premise of a right to life—then how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, in the process, destroying
everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival. To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then
there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories. Yet it
would be the defeat of all defeats if, because human beings could not properly manage their need to survive, they succeeded in not doing so.
Utilitarianism destroys value to life by forcing the individual to take risks on a costbenefit basis in an effort to increase overall utility of an entity, while demoralizing the
individual’s own system of values
Schroeder 86 – Professor of Law at Duke (Christopher H., Prof of Law at Duke, “Rights Against Risks,”,
April, Columbia Law Review, pp. 495-562, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1122636)
From the individual's point of view, the balancing of costs and benefits that utilitarianism
endorses renders the status of any individual risk bearer profoundly insecure. A risk bearer
cannot determine from the kind of risk being imposed on him whether it is impermissible or
not. The identical risk may be justified if necessary to avoid a calamity and unjustified if the product of an act of profitless carelessness,
but the nature and extent of the underlying benefits of the risky action are fre quently unknown to
the risk bearer so that he cannot know whether or not he is being wronged. Furthermore, even
when the gain that lies behind the risk is well-known, the status of a risk bearer is insecure because
individuals can justifiably be inflicted with ever greater levels of risk in conjunction with
increasing gains. Certainly, individual risk bearers may be entitled to more protection if the risky action exposes many others to
the same risk, since the likelihood that technological risks will cause greater harm increases as more and more people experience that
that insight seems scant comfort to
an individual, for it reinforces the realization that, standing alone, he does not count for much.
risk. This makes the risky action less likely to be justifiable. Once again, however,
A
strategy of weighing gains against risks thus renders the status of any specific risk victim substantially contingent upon the claims of
others, both those who may share his victim status and those who stand to gain from the risky activity. The anxiety to preserve
some fundamental place for the individual that cannot be overrun by larger social considerations underlies what H.L.A. Hart has aptly
despite its famous slogan, "everyone
[is] to count for one,"59 utilitarianism ultimately denies each individual a primary place in its
system of values. Various versions of utilitarian ism evaluate actions by the consequences of those actions to maximize
happiness, the net of pleasure over pain, or the satisfaction of desires.60 Whatever the specific formulation, the goal of
maximizing some mea sure of utility obscures and diminishes the status of each individual. It
termed the "distinctively modern criticism of utilitarianism,"58 the criticism that,
reduces the individual to a conduit, a reference point that registers the appropriate "utiles," but does not count for anything
It also produces moral requirements that can trample an
individual, if necessary, to maximize utility, since once the net effects of a proposal on the
maximand have been taken into account, the individual is expendable. Counting pleasure and pain
independent of his monitoring function.61
equally
across individuals is a laudable proposal, but counting only plea sure and pain permits the grossest inequities among individuals and
the trampling of the few in furtherance of the utility of the many.
In sum, utilitarianism makes the status of any
individual radically contingent.
The individual's status will be preserved only so long as that status con tributes to
increasing total utility. Otherwise, the individual can be discarded.
The only way to preserve individualism is to allow all persons to have the right to own
themselves regardless of any negative consequentialist impacts
Schroeder 86 – Professor of Law at Duke (Christopher H., Prof of Law at Duke, “Rights Against Risks,”,
April, Columbia Law Review, pp. 495-562, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1122636)
2. Liberal Theories in the "Rights" Tradition. A second group of theories avoids the modern criticism of utilitarianism
by making the individual central. Contemporary theorists as diverse as John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Richard Epstein, Charles Fried,
and Ronald Dworkin continue a tradition variously described as the Kantian, natural rights, or "rights" tradition.62 They all define the
requirements of justice in terms of recognizing and preserving the essential characteristics of individuals
as free and autonomous moral agents.63 In this approach, the individual is defined prior to articulating
the terms under which that individual can be acted upon or interacted with, and those terms are
consequently specified so as to protect and preserve what is essential to the individual. In this context, rights
have been called "trumps" since they constrain what society can do to the individual.64 These theories all aspire to
make the individual more secure than he is under utilitarianism. In the rights tradition, the crucial criteria for assessing
risks derive from the impact of those risks on risk victims, and the criteria are defined independently of the benefits flowing from risk creation.
To be plausible, such a program cannot totally prohibit risk creation, but the ostensible advantage of this program over utilitarianism is that risk
creation is circumscribed by criteria exclusively derived from considerations of the integrity of the individual, not from any balancing or
weighing process.65 The root idea is that nonconsensual risks are violations of "individual entitlements to personal security and autonomy."66
This idea seems highly congruent with the ideology of environmentalism expressed in our national legislation regulating technological risk.
Indeed, two scholars have recently suggested a modern rendering of Kant's categorical imperative: "All
rational persons have a right
not to be used without their consent even for the benefit of others."67 If imposing risk amounts to using another, this
tradition seems to be the place to look to secure the status of the individual.
Case – 2AC
Abolition Solvency
Abolition is a gradual process, that will transform criminal law and people’s
livelihoods
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
If prison abolition is conceptualized as an immediate and indiscriminate¶ opening of prison doors—that is,
the imminent physical elimination of all structures¶ of incarceration—rejection of abolition is perhaps warranted. But
abolition¶ may be understood instead as a gradual project of decarceration, in which radically¶ different
legal and institutional regulatory forms supplant criminal law enforcement.¶ These institutional
alternatives include meaningful justice reinvestment to¶ strengthen the social arm of the state and
improve human welfare; decriminalizing¶ less serious infractions ; improved design of spaces and
products to reduce opportunities for¶ offending; urban redevelopment and “greening” projects ;
proliferating¶ restorative forms of redress; and creating both safe harbors for individuals at risk¶ of or fleeing
violence and alternative livelihoods for persons otherwise subject to¶ criminal law enforcement. When
abolition is conceptualized in these terms—as¶ a transformative goal of gradual decarceration and positive
regulatory substitution¶ wherein penal regulation is recognized as morally unsustainable—then
inattention¶ to abolition in criminal law scholarship and reformist discourses comes into¶ focus as a
more troubling absence.16 Further, the rejection of abolition as a horizon¶ for reform mistakenly assumes that
reformist critiques concern only the occasional,¶ peripheral excesses of imprisonment and prison-backed
policing rather¶ than more fundamentally impugning the core operations of criminal law enforcement,¶
and therefore requiring a departure from prison-backed criminal¶ regulation to other regulatory frameworks.
Even if abolition has problems, its important to image to set the agenda for
decarcerative politics
Angela Y. Davis 03, Professor of Feminist Studies at University of CA Santa Cruz, 2003, “Are Prisons
Obsolete?”, http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Angela-DavisAre_Prisons_Obsolete.pdf
Creating agendas of decarceration and broadly casting the net of alternatives helps us to do the
ideological work of pulling apart the conceptual link between crime and punishment. This more nuanced
understanding of the social role of the punishment system requires us to give up our usual way of thinking about punishment as an inevitable
consequence of crime. We
would recognize that "punishment" does not follow from "crime" in the neat and
logical sequence offered by discourses that insist on the justice of imprisonment, but rather
punishment—primarily through imprisonment (and sometimes death)—is linked to the agendas of politicians,
the profit drive of corporations, and media representations of crime. Imprisonment is associated with
the racialization of those most likely to be punished. It is associated with their class and, as we have
seen, gender structures the punishment system as well. If we insist that abolitionist alternatives trouble these
relationships, that they strive to disarticulate crime and punishment, race and punishment, class and punishment, and gender and punishment,
then our
focus must not rest only on the prison system as an isolated institution but must also be directed
at all the social relations that support the permanence of the prison. An attempt to create a new
conceptual terrain for imagining alternatives to imprisonment involves the ideological work of
questioning why "criminals" have been constituted as a class and, indeed, a class of human beings
undeserving of the civil and human rights accorded to others. Radical criminologists have long pointed out that the
category "law- breakers" is far greater than the category of individuals who are deemed criminals since,
many point out, almost all of us have broken the law at one time or another. Even President Bill Clinton admitted that he
had smoked marijuana at one time, insisting, though, that he did not inhale. However, acknowledged disparities in the intensity of police
surveillance—as indicated by the present-day currency of the term "racial profiling" which ought to cover far more territory than "driving while
black or brown"—account in part for racial and class-based disparities in arrest and imprisonment rates. Thus,
if we are willing to take
seriously the consequences of a racist and class-biased justice system, we will reach the conclusion that
enormous numbers of people are in prison simply because they are, for example, black Chicano,
Vietnamese, Native American or poor, regardless of their ethnic background. They are sent to prison, not so much
because of the crimes they may have indeed commit- ted, but largely because their communities have
been criminalized. Thus, programs for decriminalization will not only have to address specific activities
that have been criminalized—such as drug use and sex work—but also criminalized populations and communities.
It is against the backdrop of these more broadly conceived abolitionist alternatives that it makes sense to take up the question of radical
transformations within the existing jus- tice system. Thus, aside from minimizing, through various strategies, the kinds of behaviors that will
bring people into contact with the police and justice systems, there
is the question of how to treat those who assault the
rights and bodies of others. Many organizations and individuals both in the United States and other countries offer alternative modes
of making justice. In limited instances, some governments have attempted to implement alternatives that
range from conflict resolution to restorative or reparative justice. Such scholars as Herman Bianchi have suggested that
crime needs to be defined in terms of tort and, instead of criminal law, should be reparative law. In his
words, "(The lawbreaker) is thus no longer an evil-minded man or woman, but simply a debtor, a liable
person whose human duty is to take responsibility for his or her acts, and to assume the duty of repair.
AT: State Prisons Alt Cause
Federal prisons are the largest proportion of prisoners in the US
Pew Trusts 15, Federal Prison System Shows Dramatic Long-Term Growth: Policy decisions contribute
to steep rise in inmate population and costs, February 27, 2015,
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2015/02/federal-prison-systemshows-dramatic-long-term-growth
From 1980 to 2013, the number of offenders incarcerated in federal prisons increased from
approximately 24,000 to more than 215,000, making the federal system the largest in the nation .1
Policy choices contributed significantly to this expansion as lawmakers added criminal laws to the books,
lengthened sentences, and abolished parole.2 To accommodate the growing inmate population, the number of
federal prisons nearly tripled, driving a surge in corrections spending.3 Taxpayers spent almost as much on federal
prisons in 2013—$6.7 billion—as they spent to fund the entire U.S. Department of Justice in 1980, after
adjusting for inflation.4 Despite these expenditures, recent data show that a third of all offenders who leave federal prisons under community
supervision return to custody for violating the terms of their release.5
More Util
Owning oneself is a moral imperative – utilitarianism imposes interpersonal
obligations to society, which destroys morality
Freeman 94 – Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard
University, J.D. University of North Carolina (Samuel, “Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of
Right,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn, pp. 313-349,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)
Kymlicka distinguishes two interpretations of utilitarianism: teleological and egalitarian. According to Rawls's teleological
interpretation, the "fundamental goal" (LCC, p. 33) of utilitarianism is not persons, but the goodness of
states of affairs. Duty is defined by what best brings about these states of affairs. " [M] aximizing the good is primary, and we count
individuals equally only because that maximizes value. Our primary duty isn't to treat people as equals, but to bring
about valuable states of affairs" (LCC, p. 27). It is difficult to see, Kymlicka says, how this reading of utilitarianism
can be viewed as a moral theory. Morality, in our everyday view at least, is a matter of interpersonal
obligations-the obligations we owe to each other. But to whom do we owe the duty of maximizing
utility? Surely not to the impersonal ideal spectator . . . for he doesn't exist. Nor to the maximally valuable state of
affairs itself, for states of affairs don't have moral claims." (LCC, p. 28-29) Kymlicka says, "This form of utilitarianism does not merit serious
consideration as a political morality" (LCC, p. 29). Suppose we see utilitarianism differently, as a theory whose "fundamental principle" is "to
treat people as equals" (LCC, p. 29). On this egalitarian reading, utilitarianism is a procedure for aggregating individual interests and desires, a
procedure for making social choices, specifying which trade-offs are acceptable. It's a moral theory which purports to treat people as equals,
with equal concern and respect. It does so by counting everyone for one, and no one for more than one. (LCC, p. 25)
Utilitarianism promotes inequity and inherently discriminates against minority like
slavery
Odell, 04 – University of Illinois is an Associate Professor of Philosophy (Jack, Ph.D., “On
Consequentialist Ethics,” Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, Inc., pp. 98-103)
A classic objection to both act and rule utilitarianism has to do with inequity, and is related to the kind of objection
raised by Rawls, which I will consider shortly. Suppose we have two fathers-Andy and Bob. Suppose further that they are alike in all relevant
respects, both have three children, make the same salary, have the same living expenses, put aside the same amount in savings, and have left over each week
fifteen dollars. Suppose that every week Andy and Bob ask themselves what they are going to do with this extra money, and Andy decides anew each week (AU) to
divide it equally among his three children, or he makes a decision to always follow the rule (RU) that each child should receive an equal percentage of the total
allowance money. Suppose further that each of his children receive five degrees of pleasure from this and no pain. Suppose on the other hand, that Bob, who
strongly favors his oldest son, Bobby, decides anew each week (AU) to give all of the allowance money to Bobby, and nothing to the other two, and that he instructs
Bobby not to tell the others, or he makes a decision to follow the rule (RU) to always give the total sum to Bobby. Suppose also that Bobby gets IS units of pleasure
from his allowance and that his unsuspecting siblings feel no pain. The end result of the actions of both fathers is the same-IS units of pleasure. Most, if not all, of us
would agree that although Andy's conduct is exemplary, Bob's is culpable. Nevertheless, according to both AU and RU the fathers in question are morally equal.
Neither father is more or less exemplary or culpable than the other. I will refer to the objection implicit in this kind of example as (H) and state
it as: ' (H) Both
act and rule utilitarianism violate the principle of just distribution. What Rawls does is to
elaborate objection (H). Utilitarianism, according to Rawls, fails to appreciate the importance of
distributive justice, and that by doing so it makes a mockery of the concept of "justice." As I pointed out when I
discussed Russell's views regarding partial goods, satisfying the interests of a majority of a given population while at
the same time thwarting the interests of the minority segment of that same population (as occurs in
societies that allow slavery) can maximize the general good, and do so even though the minority group
may have to suffer great cruelties. Rawls argues that the utilitarian commitment to maximize the good in the world is due to its
failure to ''take seriously the distinction between persons."· One person can be forced to give up far too much to insure
the maximization of the good, or the total aggregate satisfaction, as was the case for those young Aztec women chosen by their
society each year to be sacrificed to the Gods for the welfare of the group.
**Other Possible Advantages
Targeting the homeless
The homeless are targeted by the Prison Industrial Complex---their circumstances are
abused by the police to constantly arrest them.
Critical resistance 04, abolitionist website, 2004, “Information Sheets”,
http://criticalresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Ab-Toolkit-Part-2.pdf
THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT THREATEN THE SAFETY OF THE HOMELESS. Not having a reliable place
to live creates many of those problems. Without a place to rest or keep clean, it's hard to meet the basic
expectations for holding a job. Homeless people are forced to sleep, cook, use the bath- room, and store
possessions in public. Homeless people are left open to having these activities criminalized. More and more,
our society uses police, prisons, and courts to punish the home- less. People's basic needs, and the causes of
homelessness, all go ignored. Advocates for the homeless can work toward abolition by seeing the PIC as
getting in the way of people's safety and basic needs. .Housing costs are way too high for many people, including the
working poor. Minimum wage income is not enough to cover fair market rent in any city or county in the US. (See the "Rental Housing" report).
.A
study found that out of 57 cities surveyed , not a single one had enough shelter beds for all of the
homeless. .Not having a mailing address makes it hard to register to vote, receive government benefits,
or apply for a job. .Homeless people are punished for non-harmful activities like loitering. These "quality
of life" laws are mostly enforced against homeless people. Tourists drinking in public, or napping on a blanket in a park
probably wouldn't be arrested. But a homeless person sleeping on a piece of cardboard probably would be. 'In one year, 43,000
people were cited for breaking "quality of life" laws in San Francisco. People who are cited usually have to pay a fine.
If they can't pay the fine, they are put in jail. .Homeless people in Baltimore, for example, spend an average of 35 days
per year in jail. 'Because some homeless people end up having criminal records, they have an even
harder time finding housing and jobs.
Targeting queer people
Queer people are routinely harassed by police officers---their identities are abused
both by guards and other prisoners.
Andrew Cohen 13, fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, legal analyst, and contributing editor at
The Atlantic, 12-14-13, “Government Watchdog: We Have a Growing Federal Prison 'Crisis'”,
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/government-watchdog-we-have-a-growingfederal-prison-crisis/282341/
QUEER PEOPLE FACE HIGHER SURVEILLANCE AND REPRESSION BASED ON THEIR ACTIONS AND APPEAR- ANCES. Some queer people
are not safe at home and end up spending more of their time on the street, which can mean facing the
threat of police harassment every day. For queer people who are locked up, their identities are abused
and denied. All of the gender "cages" in our society, mixed with surveillance , policing, and
imprisonment , put queer people at risk of violence . The risks are even higher for queer youth, queers
of color, queer sex workers, transgendered people, low-income queers, and other marginalized queers.
Abolition would mean putting an end to tracking people's bodies and behavior based on gender and sexuality. .Many
queer youth are denied a caring home because of their sexuality. They are put in foster care homes that are hostile, where they often
experience violence. Or they are forced onto the streets. '100% of queer youth in group homes have experienced heterosexist verbal abuse in
their foster care. 70% have experience physical violence there. 035-50% of homeless youth are queer. '"Quality
of life" laws also
target queer youth. They are fined or jailed just for being outside. 'Policing and surveillance often target
public displays of affection by queers. Cops often read transgendered people as sex workers. '49% of attacks
on transgendered people in San Francisco are committed by police. .Prisoners are forced into living conditions segregated
"male" and "female." .A prisoner who doesn't identify with either of those gender labels, or who
identifies with a gender that guards and police don't agree "match" the prisoner's genitals, is often
forced into solitary confinement or a cell with people of different genders. However prisoners are classified, it's
not based on their choice, or with concern for their safety. 'People using hormones are often denied access, or regular
access, to hormones in prison. 'Queer people in prison are at high risk of verbal and physical abuse, from
guards and other prisoners.
Social/Enviro problems
Prisons are also social and environmental catastrophes---purposely built in poor
communities of color, they use water and land, only to give back sewage and
hazardous chemicals.
Andrew Cohen 13, fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, legal analyst, and contributing editor at
The Atlantic, 12-14-13, “Government Watchdog: We Have a Growing Federal Prison 'Crisis'”,
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/government-watchdog-we-have-a-growingfederal-prison-crisis/282341/
ENVIRONMENI'AL RACISM CAN MEAN NOT ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, when people of color are the ones mostly harmed. It can also
mean choosing to build toxic waste disposal sites only in communities of color. Communities of color
and poor communities
suffer an unfair number of environmentally destructive land uses-- land uses that take from the community but don't
give back to it. Prisons don't only harm the communities where prisoners come from. Prisons are also
environmental and social disasters for the towns where prisons are built . Part of abolishing the PIC also means
building communities that have the power to decide how their resources are best used. Many US states build most prisons
where the poor and people of color live. .Communities are often shut out of the process of deciding whether a prison should be
built in their town. 'In Mendota California, the Federal Bureau of Prisons refused to translate its 1000 page environmental impact report into
Spanish. 8696 of Mendota residents are native Spanish speakers. IT's IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHY PRISONS MAKE BAD
NEIGHBORS. It's not because of the peo- ple who are locked inside. It's not because of the prisoners' family members (who rarely move to the
prison town anyway). It's because prison
buildings themselves are environmental haz- ards. . Prisons use up
scarce water resources and create huge amounts of sewage waste. 'To dispose of waste products,
boilers in prisons can burn coal and diesel. These release the same chemicals as hazardous waste
incinerators. .Prison guards usually commute to the prison from dozens of miles away. This creates huge
amounts of air pollution. This is one of the reasons why the San Joaquin Valley in California (which has several prisons) surpassed Ins
Angeles as having the second wol$t air in the country. 'Prisons use up land that was once used to grow food. This
valuable land no longer creates jobs or public resources.
Financially inefficient
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is financially inefficient---it has received an increase in
inmates and a decrease in funding
Andrew Cohen 13, fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, legal analyst, and contributing editor at
The Atlantic, 12-14-13, “Government Watchdog: We Have a Growing Federal Prison 'Crisis'”,
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/government-watchdog-we-have-a-growingfederal-prison-crisis/282341/
The first part of the prison crisis is financial and the math behind it is relatively simple: the number of federal
inmates has increased dramatically over the past few years while the government funding available to
safely house those federal inmates has decreased. " It's a zero sum game ," Horowitz says. "Every dollar spent
on prisons is a dollar that is going to come from somewhere else in the Department. That forces leadership to
look hard at what tools it has."¶ From the report:¶ After enjoying an increase in its discretionary budget from $21.5
billion in fiscal year (FY) 2001 to $28.9 billion in FY 2011, the Department’s discretionary budget decreased in FY
2012 to $28.3 billion, and by 10 percent in FY 2013 to $25.5 billion. During this same period, the prison
population in the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) facilities grew from about 157,000 inmates in FY 2001
to about 219,000 inmates presently.
Empirics prove---incarceration is vastly inefficient and costly.
Louis Michael Seidman 10, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown
University Law Center, 2010, “Hyper-Incarceration and Strategies of Disruption: Is There a Way Out?”,
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=fwps_papers
A deficiency of the economic model is that it seems descriptively inaccurate, or at least quite incomplete. Anyone who has studied
the politics of crime control knows that it is driven at least as much by anger and fear as by careful costbenefit calculations.16 Policy makers can talk openly about the costs and benefits of, say, increasing the
speed limit on highways, but no one says publicly that there is an optimal level of rape and murder. It is
not surprising then, that our actual policies depart substantially from the results we would attain if we focused
solely on economic efficiency. For example, Bruce Western estimates that from 1993 to 2001, increases in
incarceration rates produced a 2 to 5 percent drop in serious crime at a cost of $53 billion.17 This figure
represents just the direct economic costs of imprisonment. It includes none of the huge costs to individual
lives and communities imposed by our gargantuan imprisonment program. Whether any particular drop in crime is
worth the cost obviously depends on how one values crime avoidance, but almost everyone would say that this is an
exorbitant price to pay for relatively insignificant benefits. Of course, not everyone agrees with Western’s analysis,18
practice of incarcerating superannuated prisoners who continue to serve very long sentences into their dotage involves a great deal of waste.19
Topicality
Prisons = Surveillance
Surveillance means to keep watch over prisoners and prisons
Random House Dictionary 15, accessed at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surveillance on
7/6/15
surveillance
noun
1.a watch kept over a person, group, etc., especially over a suspect , prisoner, or the like:
The suspects were under police surveillance.
2. continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information:
video cameras used for covert surveillance.
See also electronic surveillance.
3. attentive observation, as to oversee and direct someone or something:
increased surveillance of patients with chronic liver disease.
Prisoners are constantly under surveillance, both in and out of prison
Timothy J. Flanagan, 95, PRESIDENT AND PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, FRAMINGHAM STATE UNIVERSITY,
4/6/1995, “Long-Term Imprisonment”,
The prison context affords very little privacy, and in Durham the women are confined together, for long periods at a time, in a small unit that
in other prisons, their activities are also under constant surveillance
by staff. Of particular concern to the women was the censorship of all mail, both in and out of the prison, and the close
permits low opportunities for seclusion. As
supervision of visits. Together, these measures were said to severely inhibit meaningful communication with family and friends and to deny the
women any opportunity to reveal their emotions to those closest to them.
CI- Fed Prisons = Custody
Counter-interpretation:
a. Surveillance is keeping people in custody
Collins English Dictionary 12, accessed at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surveillance on
7/6/15
surveillance
noun
1. close observation or supervision maintained over a person, group, etc, esp one in custody or under
suspicion
b. Federal prisons are places where people confined for continuous custody
Bureau of Justice Statistics no date, “Terms & Definitions: State And Federal Prisoners And Prison
Facilities
Custody,” http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tdtp&tid=13
To have custody of a prisoner, a state or the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) must physically hold that
person in one of its facilities. A locality, state, or the BOP may hold inmates over whom a different government maintains
jurisdiction.
Custody count
The number of offenders in custody. To have custody of a prisoner, a state or the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) must
physically hold that person in one of its facilities. A locality, state, or the BOP may have custody of a prisoner over whom a
different government maintains jurisdiction.
Design capacity
The number of inmates that planners or architects intended for the facility.
Federal prisons
Prison facilities run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Prisoners housed in these facilities are under the legal
authority of the federal government. This excludes private facilities under exclusive contract with BOP.
Imprisoned population
The population of inmates confined in prison or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the state or Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Imprisonment rate
The number of prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction sentenced to more than one year, per 100,000 U.S. residents.
Incarcerated population
Incarcerated population is the population of inmates confined in a prison or a jail. This may also include halfway-houses,
bootcamps, weekend programs, and other facilities in which individuals are locked up overnight.
Institutional corrections
Institutional corrections refers to those persons housed in secure correctional facilities. There are many different types of
correctional facilities, operated by different government entities. Local jails are operated by county or municipal authorities,
and typically hold offenders for short periods ranging from a single day to a year. Prisons serve as long-term confinement
facilities and are only run by the 50 state governments and the federal Bureau of Prisons. Private correctional facilities also
operate under contracts for a wide variety of local, state and federal agencies. Other correctional facilities are operated by
special jurisdictions such as the U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. territories and federal agencies such as Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement (ICE).
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction generally refers to a unit of government or to the legal authority to exercise governmental power. In corrections, it
refers to the government which has legal authority over an inmate (state or federal). Prisoners under a given state's jurisdiction
may be housed in another state or local correctional facility.
Jurisdiction count
Includes prisoners under legal authority of state or federal correctional authorities who are housed in prison facilities (e.g.,
prisons, penitentiaries and correctional institutions; boot camps; prison farms; reception, diagnostic, and classification centers;
release centers, halfway houses, and road camps; forestry and conservation camps; vocational training facilities; prison
hospitals; and drug and alcohol treatment facilities for prisoners), regardless of which state they are physically held in. This
number also includes prisoners who are temporarily absent (less than 30 days), out to court, or on work release; housed in local
jails, private facilities, and other states' or federal facilities; serving a sentence for two jurisdictions at the same time. This count
excludes prisoners held in a state or federal facility for another state or the Federal Bureau of Prisons. However, prisoners
housed in another state and under the legal authority of the governing state are included.
Movement
In corrections, a movement refers to an admission or a release from a status such as prisoner, parolee, or probationer. Unless
specifically noted, a transfer between facilities does not count as a movement.
Operational capacity
The number of inmates that can be accommodated based on a facility's staff, existing programs, and services.
Parole
Parole refers to criminal offenders who are conditionally released from prison to serve the remaining portion of their sentence
in the community. Prisoners may be released to parole by a parole board decision (discretionary release/discretionary parole),
according to provisions of a statute (mandatory release/mandatory parole), through other types of post-custody conditional
supervision, or as the result of a sentence to a term of supervised release. In the federal system, a term of supervised release is
a sentence to a fixed period of supervision in the community that follows a sentence to a period of incarceration in federal
prison, both of which are ordered at the time of sentencing by a federal judge. Parolees can have a number of different
supervision statuses including active supervision, which means they are required to regularly report to a parole authority in
person, by mail, or by telephone. Some parolees may be on an inactive status which means they are excluded from regularly
reporting, and that could be due to a number of reasons. For instance, some may receive a reduction in supervision, possibly
due to compliance or meeting all required conditions before the parole sentence terminates, and therefore may be moved
from an active to inactive status. Other supervision statues include parolees who only have financial conditions remaining, have
absconded, or who have active warrants. Parolees are also typically required to fulfill certain conditions and adhere to specific
rules of conduct while in the community. Failure to comply with any of the conditions can result in a return to incarceration.
Prison
Compared to jail facilities, prisons are longer-term facilities owned by a state or by the Federal Government.
Prisons typically hold felons and persons with sentences of more than a year; however, the sentence length may vary by state.
Six states (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Alaska, and Hawaii) have an integrated correctional system that
combines jails and prisons. There are a small number of private prisons, facilities that are run by private prison corporations
whose services and beds are contracted out by state or federal governments.
Prisoners
Prisoners are inmates confined in long-term facilities run by the state or federal government or private
agencies. They are typically felons who have received a sentence of incarceration of 1 year or more. (Sentence length may vary
by state because a few states have one integrated prison system in which both prison and jail inmates are confined in the same
types of facilities.)
PTX - AFF
Plan NOW
The time is NOW, Obama is already speaking about the issue of prisons
Angela Davis, 14, leading advocate for prison abolition, a professor emerita at University of California,
Santa Cruz, and the subject of the recent documentary, "Free Angela and All Political Prisoners," 3/6/14
“Angela Davis on Prison Abolition, the War on Drugs and Why Social Movements Shouldn’t Wait on
Obama”, http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/6/angela_davis_on_prison_abolition_the
ANGELA DAVIS: Well, yes. I think that this is a pivotal moment. There are openings. And I think it’s very
important to point out that people have been struggling over these issues for years and for decades.
This is also a problematic moment. And those of us who identify as prison abolitionists, as opposed to
prison reformers, make the point that oftentimes reforms create situations where mass incarceration
becomes even more entrenched; and so, therefore, we have to think about what in the long run will
produce decarceration, fewer people behind bars, and hopefully, eventually, in the future, the
possibility of imagining a landscape without prisons, where other means are used to address issues of
harm, where social problems, such as illiteracy and poverty, do not lead vast numbers of people along a
trajectory that leads to prison.¶ JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’m wondering, in term—the first term of President
Obama was often referred to by some through the myth of post-racial America, represented by the
election of President Obama. But even he has shied away, until recently, dealing with some of the racial
inequities of our system, especially the prison system. I’m wondering if you can see a movement or
transformation in the president himself in how he deals with some of these issues?¶ ANGELA DAVIS:
Well, this is his second term. He really has nothing to lose. And it really is about time that he began to
address what is one of the most critical issues in this country. It’s pretty unfortunate that Obama has
waited until now to speak out, but it’s good that he is speaking out. And I think we can use this
opportunity to perhaps achieve some important victories.¶
Plan Popular
Bipartisan support for decarceration, Republicans have been getting on board with the
Dems
Ovetta Wiggins, 6-18, reporter for the Washington Post, 6/18/15, “How Republicans are
experimenting with criminal justice reform”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/howrepublicans-are-experimenting-with-criminal-justice-reform/2015/06/18/a26e04fa-12ab-11e5-9518f9e0a8959f32_story.html
Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) rattled off numbers for the mostly white, mostly older crowd of Maryland Republicans, explaining how blacks are arrested
for marijuana offenses in Baltimore at a higher rate than whites.¶ “If you do surveys, the statistics are pretty close between black and white
marijuana use,” the Republican presidential hopeful said at a state party fundraiser last week. “I’m not saying it’s racism. Many of the officials
[in Baltimore] are black. So it’s not racism. But something is wrong with the war on drugs when we decide to lock people up for five, 10, 15
years for making mistakes.”¶ The crowd broke into applause.¶
As the crime rate falls and the number of high-profile
cases in which police officers are accused of racial bias escalates, Republicans increasingly are joining
what had long been a Democratic conversation: how to reduce the size of the prison population and
help ex-offenders turn their lives around.¶ In Maryland, Gov. Larry Hogan this year became the latest Republican state
leader to back bills intended to reduce recidivism and help ex-offenders find jobs. And while Hogan also
vetoed a bill that would have expanded felon voting rights, advocates say he and other Republicans have
shown a willingness to rethink long-held theories about how to reduce crime.¶ “There’s a change in
climate in criminal justice reform,” said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, a national advocacy group that
has worked to change the way Americans view crime and punishment.¶ The shift by Republicans is largely motivated by
costs, Democrats say. Fiscally conservative Republicans see prison expenses as a drain on strained
budgets and are starting to work with Democrats to find less costly approaches.¶ The declining crime rate, Mauer
said, has made the debate “less emotional and less political” for lawmakers.¶
The “stars are aligned” -- the time for reducing incarceration rates is NOW -- bipartisan
support for prison reform
Russel Berman, 7-10, a senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where he covers political news. He
was previously a congressional reporter forThe Hill and a Washington correspondent for The New York
Sun, 7/10/15, “Is This Obama's Moment for Criminal-Justice Reform?”,
http://www.govexec.com/management/2015/07/obamas-moment-criminal-justice-reform/117481/
Yet despite no
shortage of proposals for reform in recent years, Congress has done virtually nothing. That
may, finally, be about to change, as an emboldened President Obama eyes what might be the last major
addition to his domestic legacy in the White House.¶ Speaking at a press conference last week, the president was asked how
he might follow the remarkable string of victories he earned in late June, which included a congressional win on trade, a pair of legacy-setting
Supreme Court decisions, and a widely-praised eulogy in Charleston. He ticked off several unchecked boxes on his economic agenda, including a
major infrastructure bill and enactment of his proposals to boost job training and access to community college. But the
big-ticket item
Obama mentioned that actually holds the most promise in the Republican Congress is a long-awaited
overhaul of the nation’s criminal-justice system. “We’ve seen some really interesting leadership from
some unlikely Republican legislators very sincerely concerned about making progress there,” the
president observed.¶ He’s right. The bipartisan coalition pushing to reduce incarceration rates in the
world’s most crowded prison system has been building for years, bringing together ardent foes like the
Koch Brothers and the ACLU, and Rand Paul and Cory Booker, among others. Various proposals to eliminate
mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes, and to keep young, nonviolent offenders from receiving long, crippling prison
sentences have circulated for a while without going anywhere. Yet that movement is cresting now, providing what lawmakers and advocates
say is a genuine opportunity to enact legislation before the end of the year. “I
am very optimistic that we will get something
done. If you had told me a couple years ago, I would not have believed it,” said Representative Elijah
Cummings, a Maryland Democrat who is not known as a congressional Pollyanna.¶ As usual, however,
Cummings’s rosy view comes with a key caveat repeated by other advocates I interviewed: the looming
presidential election. “I think the stars have aligned,” Cummings said. “I do believe, however, that if we
don’t get it done now, I don’t know that the stars will align like this again.” Obama talked up the
prospect of criminal-justice reform just a few days after lawmakers in the House unveiled the most
ambitious and comprehensive proposal to modernize the system to date. Over the weekend, The New York Times
reported that Obama was soon likely to commute the sentences of dozens of nonviolent drug offenders—an act of presidential clemency
unprecedented in scope that would seek to galvanize the push for reform in Congress.
Reform Popular
Federal prison reform popular, Horowitz’s statement is enough to sway opposition to
reform
Andrew Cohen, 14, commentary editor of the Marshall Project, the legal analyst for 60 Minutes and
CBS Radio News, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, and a contributing editor at The Atlantic,
11/17/14, “Obama’s Prison Crisis”, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/17/a-crisis-at-thebureau-of-prisons-persists-says-doj-watchdog
Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s Inspector General, is nothing if not consistent. Last
December, in his annual State-of-the-Department message, he warned of “growing” federal prison crisis.
And now he is back, 50 weeks later in his same year-ender message, warning of a “persistent” crisis at
the Bureau of Prisons consisting of two main parts. From his memorandum, released Monday morning:¶
First, despite a slight decrease in the total number of federal inmates in fiscal year (FY) 2014, the
Department projects that the costs of the federal prison system will continue to increase in the years
ahead, consuming a large share of the Department’s budget.¶ Second, federal prisons remain
significantly overcrowded and therefore face a number of important safety and security issues.¶ These
two sentences, I suspect, will drive a great deal of the coming political debate over criminal justice
reform at the federal level. First, they represent a continuing failure on the part of the Justice
Department (and Obama Administration) to reign in the Bureau of Prisons, a vast bureaucracy whose
officials have been repeatedly warned by Congress (and the federal courts, for that matter) that they
need to change the way they do business. Eric Holder has been an outspoken critic of the federal prison
policies at issue here — and yet they, to use Horowitz’s word, “persist.” That’s on Holder — and also on
BOP Director Charles Samuels.¶ Second, Horowitz’s warning ought to give cover to any politician (like
Sen. Rand Paul, the Republican from Kentucky) who already is inclined to endorse sentencing reform
and give pause to any politician (like Sen. Charles Grassley, the Republican from Iowa) who is not. There
is very little room to spin the figures the Justice Department is tossing out here — and very little reason
to accuse Horowitz of doing so. It is not a mystery, or a Washington parlor game, that the Justice
Department budget is zero sum; that funds used to house a growing number of inmates are funds that
cannot be used on other law enforcement priorities.¶ So let’s take the first Horowitz sentence first. The
Bureau of Prison’s budget now ($6.9 billion) is nearly twice what it was ($3.8 billion) in 2000, Horowitz
tells us, an increase at “almost twice the rate of growth of the rest of the Department.” Worse, he
writes, even though federal prison officials have been warned that their part of the budget is draining
funding away from other Justice Department programs (like those that support victims groups) they
asked for more money this past budget cycle.¶ (Here is a handy online guide to inmates statistics in the
federal system. As of last Thursday, the last updated figures, there are 213,461 federal inmates, or
roughly 10 percent of the nation’s total number of prisoners, which most observers place at 2.2 million.
Here is an interactive guide to incarceration at the state level. Many states have many of the same
problems — costs, overcrowding, poor health care for inmates — we see in the federal system).
Legislation Key
Prisons are becoming increasingly expensive due to the growing population, and
programs to decrease the expense are not effective- continued legislative reforms key
Andrew Cohen, 14, commentary editor of the Marshall Project, the legal analyst for 60 Minutes and
CBS Radio News, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, and a contributing editor at The Atlantic,
11/17/14, “Obama’s Prison Crisis”, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/17/a-crisis-at-thebureau-of-prisons-persists-says-doj-watchdog
Horowitz didn’t mince words, either, about what is costing so much. The federal prison population is
aging at a fast pace. “From FY 2009 to FY 2013, the population of sentenced inmates age 50 and over in
BOP-managed facilities increased 25 percent, while the population of sentenced inmates under the age
of 30 decreased by 16 percent,” he notes. As a result, “the cost for providing healthcare services to
inmates increased 55 percent from FY 2006 to FY 2013.” And here is his kicker:¶ The BOP spent over $1
billion on inmate healthcare services in FY 2013, which nearly equaled the entire budget of the U.S.
Marshals Service (USMS) or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).¶ And if it is
not elderly prisoners it’s those who are sick. “New prescription drug treatments, particularly for chronic
hepatitis C (HCV), could exponentially increase costs in the coming years,” Horowitz warns. “The BOP
currently spends $6,600 per patient for a standard HCV treatment regimen. However, the treatment
regimen newly approved by the Food and Drug Administration could cost an additional $20,000 to
$40,000 per patient… meaning that the BOP could face additional costs for these patients of
approximately $220 million to $440 million.Ӧ What to do about all this? Horowitz says the Bureau of
Prisons has to do more to release ill or elderly prisoners through the use of its Compassionate Release
Program, which the Office of Inspector General determined in April 2013 was “poorly managed and
implemented inconsistently.” Horowitz also says the Bureau of Prisons now must do more to release
inmates back to their native countries through the International Prisoner Transfer Program, which the
Inspector General determined in December 2011 was not being efficiently administered by federal
prison officials.¶ Combine a renewed commitment to these existing programs with legislative and
administrative sentencing reforms, Horowitz asserts, and the costs of federal prisons will begin to ease.
What he is saying, year after year it seems, is that we need to make sure that fewer Americans are being
sent to federal prison while sending home more quickly those who no longer need to be there. This is
what Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat, meant when he told me Monday afternoon that the
policies that created these costs have been “disproven” and are “simply unjust.”
Crime DA – AFF
Recidivism high now
Prisoners are locked into a cycle of marginality that causes them to almost always be
arrested after their release from prison.
Michelle Alexander 10, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio State University, 2010, “The new Jim Crow:
Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.”,
http://www.kropfpolisci.com/racial.justice.alexander.pdf
No wonder, then, that most people labeled felons find their way back into prison. According to a Bureau of
Justice Statistics study, about 30 percent of released prisoners in its sample were rearrested within six
months of release.90 Within three years, nearly 68 percent were rearrested at least once for a new offense.91
Only a small minority are rearrested for violent crimes; the vast majority are rearrested for property
offenses, drug offenses, and offenses against the public order.92 For those released on probation or
parole, the risks are especially high. They are subject to regular surveillance and monitoring by the
police and may be stopped and searched (with or without their consent) for any reason or no reason at
all. As a result, they are far more likely to be arrested (again) than those whose behavior is not subject to constant
scrutiny by law enforcement. Probationers and parolees are at increased risk of arrest because their lives are
governed by additional rules that do not apply to everyone else. Myriad restrictions on their travel and behavior
(such as a prohibition on associating with other felons), as well as various requirements of probation and parole (such as paying fines and
meeting with probation officers), create
opportunities for arrest. Violation of these special rules can land someone right back in
fact, that is what happens a good deal of the time. The extraordinary increase in prison
admissions due to parole and probation violations is due almost entirely to the War on Drugs. With respect
prison. In
to parole, in 1980, only 1 percent of all prison admissions were parole violators. Twenty years later, more than one third (35 percent) of prison
admissions resulted from parole violations.93 To put the matter more starkly: About as many people were returned to prison for parole
violations in 2000 as were admitted to prison in 1980 for all reasons.94 Of all parole violators returned to prison in 2000, only one-third were
returned for a new conviction; two-thirds were returned for a technical violation such as missing appointments with a parole officer, failing to
maintain employment, or failing a drug test.95 In
this system of control, failing to cope well with one's exile status is
treated like a crime. If you fail, after being released from prison with a criminal record—your personal badge of inferiority—to remain
drug free, or if you fail to get a job against all the odds, or if you get depressed and miss an appointment with your parole officer (or if you
cannot afford the bus fare to take you there), you can be sent right back to prison—where society apparently thinks millions of Americans
This disturbing phenomenon of people cycling in and out of prison, trapped by their secondclass
status, has been described by Loic Wacquant as a "closed circuit of perpetual marginality ."96
Hundreds of thousands of people are released from prison every year, only to find themselves locked
out of the mainstream society and economy. Most ultimately return to prison, sometimes for the rest of
their lives. Others are released again, only to find themselves in precisely the circumstances they
occupied before, unable to cope with the stigma of the prison label and their permanent pariah status.
belong.
Only a massive overhaul in prison policy can end the cycle of suffering that a life
behind bars introduces.
Michelle Alexander 10, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio State University, 2010, “The new Jim Crow:
Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.”,
http://www.kropfpolisci.com/racial.justice.alexander.pdf
Reducing the amount of time people spend behind bars—by eliminating harsh mandatory minimums—will alleviate
some of the unnecessary suffering caused by this system, but it will not disturb the closed circuit. Those
labeled felons will continue to cycle in and out of prison, subject to perpetual surveillance by the
police, and unable to integrate into the mainstream society and economy . Unless the number of
people who are labeled felons is dramatically reduced,- and unless the laws and policies that keep ex-
offenders marginalized from the mainstream society and economy are eliminated, the system will
continue to create and maintain an enormous undercaste.
Empirics prove---the PIC only increases rates of recidivism---releasing prisoners early
has been found to decrease the reoccurrence of crime.
Mark Morris, 76, editor of “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists”, part of the Prison
Research Education Action Project, 1976, “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionsists”,
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter2.shtml
One commonly cited occurrence which illustrates the dubious nature of the protection theory followed
a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1963 known as Gideon v. Wainwright, which affirmed the right of
indigent felony defendants to counsel. Those convicted without counsel and sent to prison were
ordered released. As a result, the State of Florida released 1,252 indigent felons before their sentences were
completed. There was fear that such a mass exodus from prison might result in an increase in crime.
However, after 28 months, the Florida Department of Corrections found that the recidivism rate for
these ex-prisoners was only 13.6 percent, compared to 25 percent for those released after completing
their full sentences. An American Bar Association committee commenting on the case observed:¶ Baldly stated, . . . if we, today,
turned loose all of the inmates of our prisons without regard to the length of their sentences, and with
some exceptions, without regard to their previous offenses, we might reduce the recidivism rate over what it
would be if we kept each prisoner incarcerated until his sentence expired. [66]¶ For more than a century,
statisticians have demonstrated that regardless of imprisonment, the crime rate remains constant.
Removing some few people from society simply means an unapprehended majority continue in criminal
activity. If that one to three percent who end up in prison were released, they would not significantly increase the lawbreaking population.
Ex-Prisoners are cast out of society---they have significantly less chances of getting a
job, getting married, or receive governmental benefits, which results increased rates
of recidivism.
Becky Pettit and Bruce Western 04, Pettit – Professor of Sociology at University of Washington,
Western – Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, 2004, “Mass I Imprisonment a and t the L Life
C Course: Race a and C Class I Inequality i in U U.S. I Incarceration”, AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW,
2 2004, VOL. 6 69 (April: 151–169)
Edited for gendered language.
Imprisonment significantly alters the life course. In most cases, men [and women] entering prison will
already be “off-time.” Time in juvenile incarceration and jail and weak connections to work and family divert
many prison inmates from the usual path followed by young adults. Spells of imprisonment—thirty to forty
months on average—further delay entry into the conventional adult roles of worker, spouse and parent. More
commonly military service, not imprisonment, is identified as the key institutional experience that redirects life trajectories (Hogan 1981; Elder
1986; Xie 1992). Elder (1987:543) describes military service as a “legitimate timeout” that offered disadvantaged servicemen in World War Two
an escape from family hardship. Similarly, imprisonment can provide a chance to re-evaluate life’s direction (Sampson and Laub 1993, 223;
Edin, Nelson, and Paranal 2001). Typically, though, the
effects of imprisonment are clearly negative. Ex-prisoners earn
lower wages and experience more unemployment than similar men who have not been incarcerated
(Western, Kling and Weiman 2001 review the literature). They are also less likely to get married or cohabit with the
mothers of their children (Hagan and Dinovitzer 1999; Western and McLanahan 2000). By eroding employment and
marriage opportunities, incarceration may also provide a pathway back into crime (Sampson and Laub 1993;
Warr 1998). The volatility of adolescence may thus last well into midlife among men serving prison time.
Finally, imprisonment is an illegitimate timeout that confers an enduring stigma. Employers of low-skill workers are extremely
reluctant to hire men [people]with criminal records (Holzer 1996; Pager 2003). The stigma of a prison record
also creates legal barriers to skilled and licensed occupations, rights to welfare benefits, and voting
rights (Office of the Pardon Attorney 1996; Hirsch et al. 2002; Uggen and Manza 2002). In short, going to prison is a turning point
in which young crime-involved men [ex-prisoners] acquire a new status involving diminished life chances
and an attenuated form of citizenship. The life course significance of imprisonment motivates our analysis of the evolving
probability of prison incarceration over the life cycle.
Felony Charges Turn
Felony charges are more likely to keep people in the system and increase crime
Michelle Alexander 10, associate professor of law at Stanford Law School, civil rights lawyer, advocate
and legal scholar, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, 2010, p. 89-90
Once convicted of felony drug charges, one’s chances of being released from the system in short order
are slim, at best. The elimination of judicial discretion through mandatory sentencing laws has forced judges to impose sentences for
drug crimes that are often longer than those violent criminals receive. When judges have discretion, they may consider a defendant’s
background and impose a lighter penalty if the defendant’s personal circumstances— extreme poverty or experience of abuse, for example—
warrant it. This flexibility—which is important in all criminal cases—is especially important in drug cases, as studies have indicated that many
drug defendants are using or selling to support an addiction.75
Referring a defendant to treatment, rather than sending
him or her to prison, may well be the most prudent choice—saving government resources and
potentially saving the defendant from a lifetime of addiction. Likewise, imposing a short prison sentence (or none at all)
may increase the chances that the defendant will experience successful re-entry. A lengthy prison term may increase the odds
that reentry will be extremely difficult, leading to relapse, and re-imprisonment. Mandatory drug
sentencing laws strip judges of their traditional role of considering all relevant circumstances in an effort
to do justice in the individual case.
Crime Link Turns
Empirics prove---the PIC only increases rates of recidivism---releasing prisoners early
has been found to decrease the reoccurrence of crime.
Mark Morris, 76, editor of “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists”, part of the Prison
Research Education Action Project, 1976, “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionsists”,
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter2.shtml
One commonly cited occurrence which illustrates the dubious nature of the protection theory followed
a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1963 known as Gideon v. Wainwright, which affirmed the right of
indigent felony defendants to counsel. Those convicted without counsel and sent to prison were
ordered released. As a result, the State of Florida released 1,252 indigent felons before their sentences
were completed. There was fear that such a mass exodus from prison might result in an increase in
crime. However, after 28 months, the Florida Department of Corrections found that the recidivism rate
for these ex-prisoners was only 13.6 percent, compared to 25 percent for those released after
completing their full sentences. An American Bar Association committee commenting on the case
observed:¶ Baldly stated, . . . if we, today, turned loose all of the inmates of our prisons without regard
to the length of their sentences, and with some exceptions, without regard to their previous offenses,
we might reduce the recidivism rate over what it would be if we kept each prisoner incarcerated until
his sentence expired. [66]¶ For more than a century, statisticians have demonstrated that regardless of
imprisonment, the crime rate remains constant. Removing some few people from society simply means
an unapprehended majority continue in criminal activity. If that one to three percent who end up in
prison were released, they would not significantly increase the lawbreaking population.
AT: Prisons prevent crime
The idea that prisons keep people safe is a total MYTH-in reality they do little to
protect society, they only function to control certain segments of society
Mark Morris, 76, editor of “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists”, part of the Prison
Research Education Action Project, 1976, “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionsists”,
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter2.shtml
Myth: Prisons protect society from "criminals."¶ Reality: Prisons fail to protect society from
"criminals," except for a very small percentage and only temporarily. Prisons "protect" the
public only from those few who get caught and convicted, thereby serving the primary function
of control over certain segments of society.¶ According to Norman Carlson, director of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, "The goal of our criminal justice system is to protect law-abiding citizens from crime,
particularly crimes of violence, and to make them secure in their lives and property." [59] Despite shifts
in "correctional" emphases, restraint or keeping the "criminal" out of circulation continues to
be a key purpose of prisons. However, it is questionable how much real protection prisons
afford, because only a small percent of all law-breakers end up in prison and most of these few
remain in prison for a relatively short period of time.¶ Prisons have pacified the public with the
image of "safety," symbolized by walls and cages located in remote areas. But prisons are a massive
deception: seeming to "protect," they engender hostility and rage among all who are locked
into the system, both prisoner and keeper. Society is victimized by the exploitation of its fear of
crime.¶ Indeed, rather than protecting society from the harmful, prisons are in themselves
harmful. It is likely that persons who are caged will become locked into a cycle of crime and
fear, returning to prison again and again. Prisons are selectively damaging to specific groups in
society; namely, Blacks and other minorities.¶
The prison system fails, they don’t protect society and disproportionately affect a
small group of people the poor, the minorities, and the young
Mark Morris, 76, editor of “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists”, part of the Prison
Research Education Action Project, 1976, “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionsists”,
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter2.shtml
The failure of prisons to protect is bound up with the reality of who actually gets caught.
According to the system managers, true protection would require a high degree of
effectiveness. [60] The system, however, is highly ineffective. Few lawbreakers are
apprehended and most studies show that only one to three percent of all reported crime
results in imprisonment. In one study, out of 100 major crimes (felonies): 50 were reported to the
police; suspects were arrested in 12 of the cases; six persons were convicted; one or two went to prison.
[61]¶ Those who find themselves entrapped in the criminal (in)justice systems most often are a
select group, usually stereotype "criminals"-a threat in some way to those in power: the poor,
minorities, the young. Very few of the total lawbreaking population are ever caught, [62] and
an estimated one-half to three-fourths [63] of all crime is never reported. How can prison-asprotection be anything but an illusion?¶ The objection is often raised: "Better to be protected at
least from that small minority of lawbreakers who are convicted." What, then, is the nature of this
protection?¶ Society may have intended prisons to be "protective" mechanisms, but like
infected tonsils they have become overloaded carriers of precisely the germs or problems
against which they were directed . A removal operation is necessary for the protection and health
of the body politic.¶ —Ron Bell, chaplain at Somerset, New Jersey County Jail,Fortune News, June
1974¶ The prison, the reformatory, and the jail have achieved only a shocking record of failure.
There is overwhelming evidence that these institutions create crime rather than prevent it.
Their very nature insures failure.¶ -Corrections, National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals, p. 597¶ People who feel reassured by the high walls of the prison, its sentries,
control towers and its remoteness from population centers are naive. Most prisoners leave their
institutions at some point. In the United States, 95 percent are released after an average
imprisonment of 24 to 32 months.... So the protection offered by the prison during the
incarceration of the offender is surely a short term insurance policy and a dubious one at that.
[64]¶ We can see then, that if prison protects at all, warehousing is only temporary, for most all
prisoners are ultimately released back into society, [65] usually within two to three years.
Moreover, the deterrent effect of prisons, on individuals and on the larger society, is highly
questionable. There is no insurance of further "protection" from criminal activity beyond
release.
There are strategies for decarceration and alternative solutions for the decarceration
of prisons-prisons aren’t key to preventing crime-only takes 10 years before prisons
could be closed
Mark Morris, 76, editor of “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists”, part of the Prison
Research Education Action Project, 1976, “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionsists”,
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter5.shtml
A second strategy for decarcerating prisons was enthusiastically cheered at the First National
Conference on Alternatives to Incarceration.[2] Ira Lowe, for 25 years a Washington, D. C. trial lawyer
and civil libertarian, whose clients have ranged from antiwar activist Tom Hayden to John Ehrlichman of
Watergate, briefly outlined a ten-year release time-plan. Basing rapidity of release on potential threat to
public safety, he prefaced his remarks by pointing out that "the judiciary and all of us must accept the
fact that there is no such thing as good and bad torture; no such thing as a good prison. We must accept
the fact that they must be emptied. Once we set that as a goal we can begin to act."¶ Lowe's plan calls
for (1) a moratorium on all prison sentences beginning immediately. (2) Attorneys and judges would
propose and structure alternative sanctions. (3) Victimless crimes would carry no more sentences. (4)
No prison sentences at all would be allowed until the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt
that they have tried alternatives unsuccessfully. (5) Attorneys would be required to present alternatives
to the court and (6) all probation reports would recommend alternatives.¶ Lowe further advocated
dividing current inmates into four classes with an equal number of task forces of law enforcement
officials, aided by citizens, assigned to administer a weeding out process and administration of
punishments. Each task force to start at once:¶ (1) The first group-approximately 15 to 20 percent of the
prison population-perpetrators of "victimless crimes" such as gambling, prostitution, marijuana use and
homosexuality-would be identified and released from prison immediately. Release of this group should
take less than a year.¶ (2) The second group-between 45 and 55 percent of the prison populationpersons who even prison officials would clearly consider releasable, offenders of nonviolent crimes such
as crimes against property without weapons or violence, would be released from prison and allowed to
complete their term of sentence by performing a public service to society and, where applicable, specific
restitution to their victim(s). This task force could accomplish its purpose within five years.¶ (3) Lowe
believes that of the remaining 30 percent, about half are borderline cases and eventually releasable. The
third task force, then, would cull out this 15 percent for in-community sanctions, "not taking chances of
releasing anyone who is a physical danger." Lowe recommends a seven year weeding out process for
this group.¶ (4) The fourth group, the final 15 percent, should be given full medical and psychological
study. In the new environment some knowledge may result on how to deal with such persons and
hopefully how to prevent others from following their patterns. A ten year transition period for this last
group's transfer would be required. And the prisons could be closed.
Prisons don’t cure prisoners- banning indeterminate sentencing is a key step to
decarceration and abolition of prisons
Mark Morris, 76, editor of “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists”, part of the Prison
Research Education Action Project, 1976, “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionsists”,
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter5.shtml
According to one California ex-prisoners' group, [6] indeterminate sentencing comes under widespread
attack because it violates four basic principles of justice:¶ (1) Lack of equity. Men and women do very
different amounts of time for commission of the same crime. No psychiatrist, ex-prison guard, or any
other human being can say with reasonable accuracy when a person is "rehabilitated."¶ (2) Lack of
predictability. The uncertainty in a prisoner's mind as to when s/he will be released is a prime source of
anxiety, frustration, bitterness and violence in prisons.¶ (3) Length of time served. Under the
indeterminate sentence law, terms in California have lengthened. They are now among the longest
served anywhere in the world.¶ (4) Procedural due process. When decisions are being made affecting a
person's liberty, it is essential that the relevant evidence and arguments be fairly tested for accuracy.
Without procedures insuring due process, it is unlikely the truth will be found.¶ Richard McGee, for 23
years director of the California Department of Corrections and one of the strongest advocates of
indeterminate sentencing and the medical model, did a complete about face when he finally realized its
basic assumptions had been proven false. In an interview with an ex-prisoners' group, he advocated
abolishing indeterminate sentences along with parole boards:¶ Those are the most radical things I've
said in some time .... I was an early advocate of the indeterminate sentence ... but I have reversed
myself completely .... We assumed we knew how to treat criminality but we found out we don't know ...
we let people believe that we know when a prisoner should be let go.¶ The mistake made in pushing for
indeterminate sentencing is that we used a false analogy, a medical analogy. The assumption was that a
prison is like a hospital, where the inmate is cured and released when the doctors, or the prison officials,
say so. But prison officials don't cure prisoners and it is the parole board, not the officials, who decide
when a prisoner is released ... the indeterminate sentence has proven out generally, to mean an
increased sentence, roughly 24 to 40 months more time, for the prisoners ... with abolition of the
indeterminate sentence and of the parole board, we should give it all back to the courts who are
equipped by training to deal with it.¶ -The Outlaw, July 1974¶ Voices against indeterminacy¶ Many
other prisoner-related groups and organizations advocate abolishing indeterminate sentences and/or
the present parole system. Among them:¶ ÒWhatever sanction or short sentence is imposed is to be
fixed by law. There is to be no discretion in setting sentences, no indeterminate sentences, and
unsupervised street release is to replace parole."¶ -Struggle for Justice, p. 144¶ The Western
Association of Prisons in America completed a four-day meeting on September 16 with a call for the
elimination of parole and use of the indeterminate sentence. Any release from an institution should be
"a complete discharge, rather than a conditional release," stated the association.¶ Claiming the
indeterminate sentence has left administrators with too much discretion to authorize an individual's
release, the association alleged that it has "encouraged excessive and unequal confinement in the name
of treatment." To counteract the indeterminate sentence, the organization called for a reduction in the
maximum terms associated with some crimes and advised that standards be set and adhered to.¶ -Free
World Times, October 1973¶ Indeterminate sentences must be ended. Maintaining incarceration
because it is predicted that the prisoner presents some future danger must also come to an end.¶ Statement of Ex-Prisoners Advisory Group, Toward a New Corrections Policy: Two Declarations of
Principles¶ The indeterminate sentence has not had the salutary effects predicted. Instead it has
resulted in the exercise of a wide discretion without the guidance of standards and in longer periods of
time served in prison .... There should, therefore, be strict limitations on the judicial and quasi-judicial
exercise of discretion in the fixing of terms of imprisonment; the definite sentence would automatically
eliminate administrative parole board procedures which now consist largely of an untrammeled
discretion which reduce prisoners to little more than supplicants. The ultimate goal should be no
indeterminacy whatsoever in sentences.¶ -A Program for Prison Reform, p. 12¶ The interim or
transitional replacements for the old systems of indeterminate sentences and parole are crucial. Even
minor legislative revisions to criminal codes drastically affect the lives of millions of individuals who are
caught in the criminal (in)justice systems. Thus, proposed interim penal codes must be carefully
scrutinized and approved by those whose lives are directly affected.¶ In 1975 there appeared to be a
healthy movement developing toward abolishing indeterminate sentences and parole. Examining some
of the issues raised by results in Maine and California helps us to define some of the paradoxes and
problems inherent in interim reforms.
Prison Spending T/O
Prison spending trades off with other crime fighting efforts such as counterterror and
the FBI- turns the disad
Mike, Adams, 15, Mike Adams writes for stoners and smut enthusiasts in HIGH TIMES, Playboy’s The
Smoking Jacket and Hustler Magazine, 7/1/15, “Groundbreaking Legislation Would Abolish Federal
Sentences for Drug Crimes”, http://www.hightimes.com/read/groundbreaking-legislation-wouldabolish-federal-sentences-drug-crimes
A group of national lawmakers are working to eliminate the use of the federal prison system for minor
drug offenders, submitting a proposal earlier this week aimed at designating these facilities for serious
offenders only. On Thursday, Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Bobby Scott of
Virginia introduced a bill that some are calling one of the most groundbreaking pieces of sentencing
reform to ever be considered in the United States.¶ The bill, which is called the “Safe, Accountable, Fair,
and Effective (SAFE) Justice Act of 2015,” would begin to chip away at the federal prison crisis across the
nation—a problem that has manifested over a 500-percent upsurge in incarceration rates over the past
few decades. The goal of the latest measure is to do away with federal sentences for minor drug
possession by allowing those cases to be dealt with on a state-by-state basis. It also seeks to put
restrictions on mandatory minimums, setting aside these penalties for major drug traffickers, while only
applying “life sentences” for the most abominable cases. The bill would also expand on compassionate
release programs for low-risk elderly and terminally ill offenders. ¶ The SAFE Act simply begs the
reduction of over-federalization and over-criminalization by providing more flexibility between state and
federal law when it comes to prosecuting drug-related crime. The proposal encompasses numerous
factors, ranging from the creation of a citizen complaint process to establishing probationary sentences,
all in an effort to diminish prison overcrowding and to save citizens billions of dollars.¶ “Taxpayers will
pour $6.9 billion into the Bureau of Prisons this year, with substantial increases each year into the
foreseeable future unless Congress fixes the system,” former U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich and
political activist Pat Nolan wrote in The Washington Times. “ The inspector general of the Department
of Justice has said that this level of spending is 'unsustainable.' Federal prisons are squeezing out
spending for counterterrorism agencies, victim services, the FBI, and other important crime-fighting
initiatives. " ¶ Perhaps most importantly, this bill would ensure that citizens who buy drugs on the black
market would no longer be in violation of federal law. Offenders would simply be held accountable
under the statutes of their respective state. This combined with the reduction of mandatory minimum
sentences, in theory, could be sufficient enough to drastically reduce the number of people stuck in U.S.
penitentiaries for drug crimes.¶ “Today, we know what works in the correctional field and what doesn’t,
and the debate is no longer about whether we need reform,” Gingrich and Nolan continued. “There is
bipartisan consensus that reforms are imperative. Now is the time for conservatives to lead the
charge."¶ This legislation has bipartisan backing, as well as the support of all of the usual suspects,
including Families Against Mandatory Minimums and the American Civil Liberties Union.
AT: Serial Killers
The “dangerous few” that society highlights devise only a miniscule portion of those
incarcerated.
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
If there are indeed some small subset of people properly denominated the dangerous few, they are only
those who are intent on perpetrating acts of vicious harm against others such that they are an imminent
threat to all those around them regardless of their circumstances. An abolitionist framework is not necessarily
committed to denying the existence of these dangerous few persons, though the dangerous few are
vastly outnumbered by many millions of nondangerous individuals living under criminal supervision
and any such dangerousness on the part of those incarcerated currently is exacerbated by features of prison society that a wider embrace of an
abolitionist ethic and framework would improve. Because
any such dangerous few persons constitute at most only a
small minority of the many millions of people under criminal supervision in the United States—the one
of every thirty-five American adults under criminal supervision of some form 65—the question of the
danger these few may pose can be deferred for some time as decarceration could by political necessity
only proceed gradually. And so the question of the dangerous few ought not to eclipse or overwhelm the
urgency of a thorough consideration of abolitionist analyses and reformist projects of displacement of
criminal regulation by other regulatory approaches. In any event, an abolitionist ethic recognizes that even if
a person is so awful in her violence that the threat she poses must be forcibly contained , this course of
action ought to be undertaken with moral conflict, circumspection, and even shame, as a choice of
the lesser of two evils, rather than as an achievement of justice. To respond to victims of violence
justly would be to make them whole and to address forms of collective vulnerability so those and other persons
are less likely to be harmed again. Even when confronting the dangerous few, on an abolitionist account, justice is not
meaningfully achieved by caging, degrading, or even more humanely confining, the person who
assaulted the vulnerable among us.
Prisons are used to perpetuate the idea of “dangerous people” instead of looking into
the problems of people-this leads to the destruction of THOUSANDS of lives
Mark Morris, 76, editor of “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionists”, part of the Prison
Research Education Action Project, 1976, “Instead of Prisons: A Handbook for Abolitionsists”,
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/instead_of_prisons/chapter7.shtml
The selective and arbitrary process of labeling dangerousness is inherently political. Such labels are the basis of "preventative detention" and
other forms of "treatment" which result in the violent (non)solution of caging. It is crucial that abolitionists examine the political implications
and reliability of "dangerous" labels and predictions:¶ We
might expect the origins of the word "danger" to be related
to... its current use in denoting physical objects and events that might damage property or injure
people. Surprisingly ... the term seems to have shaped out of linguistic roots that signified relative
position in a social structure, a relationship between roles on a power dimension. The root is found in
Latin in a derivative of dominium, meaning lordship or sovereignty .... The implication ... leads us ... into
the conception of danger as a symbol denoting relative power in social organization .... Those persons or
groups that threaten the existing power structure are dangerous. In any historical period, to identify an individual
whose status is that of member of the "dangerous classes," (i.e., the classes that threaten the dominium or power structure) the label "criminal
"has been handy.¶ -Theodore R. Sarbin, The Myth of the Criminal Type, pp. 16-17¶ People do
not come into the world labeled
"chattel" and "not chattel," "schizophrenic" and "not schizophrenic," "dangerous" and "not dangerous."
We-slave traders and plantation owners, psychiatrists and judges-so label them.¶ -Thomas Szasz, "On Involuntary
Psychiatry," New York Times, August 4, 1975¶ Prisons have been used to limit the movement of persons labeled as
"dangerous," "psychotic" or "disturbed," a labeling process which began in the community, in the bad
schools and continued thru each stage of the criminal justice system. The result has been the
destruction of thousands of lives. We have been so concerned with containment, with limiting
movement, that we haven't looked for the real troubles in people, in communities, in our social and
economic system.¶ -John Boone, Former Director of Corrections, State of Massachusetts, Fortune News, May 1975¶ It is no wonder that
today preventive detention proposals are so intensely opposed by Black organizations. They recognize correctly that their movement for
freedom and self-determination is seen as "dangerous" by established white America. We approach the concept of "dangerousness" with
considerable skepticism, for it has little meaning apart from its social and political concept.¶ -Struggle for Justice, p. 78¶ Men in prison are
dangerous because they are threatened with sophisticated forms of extinction in the hands of simple minded wage earners who claim they are
"only doing their duty" or "just following orders" as five or six of them are wrestling you to the floor to stick a needle in your arm or ass.¶ Howard A. Lund, prisoner, NEPA News, March 1974¶ The defenders of these treatment models refuse to acknowledge that society, thru its
injustices which are magnified inside prison walls, remains the principle impetus to violent behavior. Almost inevitably, those prisoners who
refuse to accept the authoritarian, dehumanizing conditions of prison and who organize disruptive political behavior, exhibit repeated, angry
"acting out" behavior, and flood the courts with litigation are the prisoners deemed candidates for DSU (Departmental Segregation Unit) or
other "special offender" programs.¶ -Donna Parker, NEPA News, June 1974
Terrorism DA
AT: Terrorism DA
The discourse of terrorism is inexorably linked with our critique of the racist construct
of the criminal- the DA links to our critique.
Angela Davis 11, professor in the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture (Open Media Series), ebook no
pages
In your essay “Race and Criminalization” you write: “The figure of the criminal—the racialized figure of the criminal—
has come to represent the most menacing enemy of ‘American Society.’ Virtually anything is
acceptable—torture, brutality, vast expenditures of public funds—as long as it is done in the name of
public safety.” Do you think the “terrorist” is our new racialized criminal?¶ I remember that when I wrote that essay
I was thinking about the “criminal” as surrogate for “communist” in the era of “law and order.” I thought about this new
discursive figure of the criminal, which absorbed much of the discourse of the communist enemy. In the
aftermath of 9/11, the figure of the “terrorist” mobilizes collective fear in ways that recapitulate and
consolidate previous ideologies of the national enemy. Yes, the terrorist is the contemporary enemy. The
rhetoric, the attendant anxieties, and the diversionary strategies produced by the deployment of the
figure of the terrorist are very similar to, and rely in very concrete ways on, the production of the
criminal as pervasive threat.
Reform CP - AFF
Perm Do Both
The idea of abolition does not exclude reform but instead views it as a stepping stone
to complete abolition.
Angela Y. Davis 05, Professor in the History of Consciousness program at the University of California,
2005, “The Challenge of Prison Abolition: A Conversation”,
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/davisinterview.html
The seemingly unbreakable link between prison reform and prison development -- referred to by Foucault in his
analysis of prison history -- has created a situation in which progress in prison reform has tended to render the
prison more impermeable to change and has resulted in bigger, and what are considered "better," prisons. The most
difficult question for advocates of prison abolition is how to establish a balance between reforms that are
clearly necessary to safeguard the lives of prisoners and those strategies designed to promote the eventual abolition of
prisons as the dominant mode of punishment. In other words, I do not think that there is a strict dividing line
between reform and abolition. For example, it would be utterly absurd for a radical prison activist to refuse
to support the demand for better health care inside Valley State, California's largest women's prison,
under the pretext that such reforms would make the prison a more viable institution. Demands for
improved health care, including protection from sexual abuse and challenges to the myriad ways in which prisons violate prisoners'
human rights, can be integrated into an abolitionist context that elaborates specific decarceration
strategies and helps to develop a popular discourse on the need to shift resources from punishment to
education, housing, health care, and other public resources and services.
Reform Fails
Only complete abolition of federal prisons solves---imprisonment is inextricably linked
to violence and depersonalization.
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
It is insufficient to simply seek to reform the most egregious instances of violence and abuse that occur
in prison while retaining a commitment to prison backed criminal law enforcement as a primary social regulatory
framework. Of course, less violence in these places would undoubtedly render prisons more habitable, but the
degradation associated with incarceration in the United States is at the heart of the structure of
imprisonment elucidated decades ago by Sykes: Imprisonment in its basic structure entails caging or imposed
physical constriction, minute control of prisoners’ bodies and most intimate experiences , profound
depersonalization, and institutional dynamics that tend strongly toward violence . These
dehumanizing aspects of incarceration are unlikely to be meaningfully eliminated in the U.S., following
decades of failed efforts to that end, while retaining a commitment to the practice of imprisonment. This
is especially so in the United States for reasons related to the specific historical and racially subordinating legacies of American incarceration
and punitive policing. Two
hundred and forty years of slavery and ninety years of legalized segregation,
enforced in large measure through criminal law administration, render U.S. carceral and punitive
policing practices less amenable to the reforms undertaken, for example, in Scandinavian countries, which have more
substantially humanized their prisons.127
Reformism doesn’t fix a flawed system because the prison system can’t be fixedabolition is key
Lex Horan, 10, skilled in facilitating conversations and trainings around numerous topics, including the
prison system, LGBT issues (particularly trans politics), class privilege, and organizational
development/strategic planning, April 2010, “Against a Better Prison: Gender Responsiveness and the
Changing Terrain of Abolition”,
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=etd_hon_theses
Reformist activism builds on a few basic premises that determine the types of changes that are included
on reformist agendas. Of course, there is no single reformist perspective on the prison system that can
be assessed as a coherent whole: reformist organizations and campaigns vary widely in the extent of
their critiques of the prison system and in the changes they call for. However, for the sake of this
project, I am defining “reformist” work according to the interpretations of the prison system that inform
it. There are a few key premises that I will focus on in my discussion of gender responsiveness, and
which I propose are inherent in all reformist perspectives: namely, that the harms of imprisonment are
indicators of flaws (or brokenness) in the prison system, and that prisons can be “improved” in order to
function more effectively or more justly. 83 ¶ A reformist perspective conceptualizes prisons as
perfectible and often pursues changes that aim to make prisons “better.” This language is ubiquitous in
theories of gender responsiveness. In the preface to the report Gender-Responsive Strategies, authors
Bloom, Owen, and Covington summarize their findings:¶ “Policies, programs, and procedures that reflect
these empirical, genderbased differences can accomplish the following: • Make the management of
women offenders more effective. • Enable correctional facilities to be more suitably staffed and funded.
• Decrease staff turnover and sexual misconduct. • Improve program and service delivery. • Decrease
the likelihood of litigation against the criminal justice system. • Increase the gender-appropriateness of
services and programs.” (Bloom, Owen, and Covington 2003, vi, emphasis added)¶ The preface
concludes, “Managing women offenders more effectively in correctional settings and providing more
effective programs and services will benefit the women, increase community safety, and help build a
more effective criminal justice system” (viii, emphasis added). This is quintessential reformist language.
Its repeated deployment of words like “effective,” “improve,” and “manage” speaks to its underlying
conception of the prison system as an imperfect but redeemable set of institutions. Moreover, there is a
clear investment in maintaining the institutional stability of both individual prisons and the prison
system more broadly. While the report gestures briefly to the reality of sexual abuse (“misconduct”), it
seems that the authors are more concerned with minimizing staff turnover, securing “suitable” funding
for prisons, and decreasing litigation than they are with addressing deplorable conditions facing
prisoners. This position belies the investment that gender responsiveness, and many other reformist
programs, has in bolstering the prison system against external threats. ¶ The effort to “improve” prisons
stems from a slippage whereby the harms associated with imprisonment are attributed to the “failures”
or ineffectiveness of the 84 prison system . Staff abuse, insufficient health care, corruption, lack of
oversight, and high recidivism rates are all understood to be symptoms of a system that is working
incorrectly . Gender responsiveness theories are situated firmly within these assumptions, asserting that
the criminal legal system is failing women. Gender-Responsive Strategies is filled with such examples.
Because most prison classification schemas and “risk assessments” were originally designed for men,
women are often “overclassified”—that is, placed in higher security facilities than “their actual level of
violence or escape potential” should call for (Bloom, Owen, and Covington 2003, 19). Prison staff are
inadequately trained to address “female offender issues” (16). Women’s prisons have fewer
programming opportunities than men’s prisons. “Staff sexual misconduct” is a serious issue in women’s
prisons (25). Since most women in prison are mothers, imprisonment poses a strain on family
relationships and increases the pressure during reentry when women are released from prison.
California proves that while prisons fail the prison-industrial complex does what it is
designed to do, reforms only worsen the problem-the system MUST be eliminated
Lex Horan, 10, skilled in facilitating conversations and trainings around numerous topics, including the
prison system, LGBT issues (particularly trans politics), class privilege, and organizational
development/strategic planning, April 2010, “Against a Better Prison: Gender Responsiveness and the
Changing Terrain of Abolition”,
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=etd_hon_theses
The discourse of a “failing” prison system is nowhere more present than in California in the midst of its
“prison crisis.” Progressives and prison reformers 85 consistently use the state’s 70% recidivism rate and
thirty-three prisons filled to bursting to argue that California prisons must be doing something wrong.
However, to describe the prison system as “failing” (or to articulate a parallel call for more “effective” or
“evidence-based” prison policy) is to assume a set of foundational intentions of the prison system that
are far from given. For recidivism and skyrocketing rates of imprisonment to be read as indicators of
failure, one must assume that the primary goal of the prison system is to diminish and prevent future
imprisonment (and perhaps even by extension to eliminate itself altogether). Critiques of the notion of
the “failing” prison system have been articulated by many different actors. Critical Resistance argues
that “The PIC [prison industrial complex] … isn’t a broken system. It works extremely well to do what is
designed to do (kill and disappear those people who pose the biggest challenges to those with the most
power: poor people, people of color, queer and gender queer people, young people, etc.). This system
doesn’t need fixing. It needs to be eliminated ” (Critical Resistance, “PIC Talking Points”). While nearly
all reformist examinations of the prison system point to the disproportionate incarceration of Black
people, other people of color, and poor people, this phenomenon is often framed as an unintended
consequence of the U.S.’s massive war on drugs, or at best as an inevitable outcome of a racialized
distribution of poverty. However, in “The Challenge of Prison Abolition: A Conversation,” Angela Davis
and Dylan Rodríguez situate the prison industrial complex’s targeting of poor Black people at the very
center of that system’s working, not as an aberration or an unfortunate demographic error but as
integral to the U.S. social and racial order. Davis takes her own experiences as a political prisoner as a
point of departure: “If prison was the state- 86 sanctioned destination for activists such as myself, it was
also used as a surrogate solution to social problems associated with poverty and racism” (Davis and
Rodríguez 200, 212). Rodríguez, speaking to Davis, goes even further, asserting that“[t]he logic of the
prison-industrial complex is closer to what you, George Jackson, and others were forecasting back then
as mass containment, the effective elimination of large numbers of (poor, black) people from the realm
of civil society” (213). This vantage point, produced by radical thinkers situated in the U.S. state
constituted by the post-1970 prison boom, makes a clear argument about the foundations of the U.S.
prison industrial complex.
Reforms only fuel the prison system and perpetuates discrimination against POC and
women, abolition is key
Nathan Goodman, 14, the Lysander Spooner Research Scholar in Abolitionist Studies at the Center for
a Stateless Society (C4SS). In addition to writing at C4SS, he blogs at Dissenting Leftist, 11/29/14,
“Prisons: The Case for Abolition”, http://s4ss.org/from-nl-1-3-prisons-the-case-for-abolition-nathangoodman/
Attempts to reform the prison system are likely to fuel the prison system because of the perverse
incentives that structure our political system. Prison guards, private prison companies like the
Corrections Corporation of America, contractors that provide services in prisons, and firms that profit off
prison labor are all concentrated interest groups that benefit from incarceration. Meanwhile, the costs
of operating prisons are widely dispersed across a population that has little incentive to research prisons
and largely thinks prisons are necessary for their protection. Those most substantially harmed by the
prison system are prisoners, who are not able to vote or go lobby their representatives. Felon
disenfranchisement limits their political power even after they are released from prison. Their family
members and neighbors have their political power limited, because prisoners are often counted on the
census for the area they are incarcerated, not the area they were forcibly taken from. This means that
regions that profit from prisons have increased political representation, while regions that are scarred
by mass incarceration are disenfranchised. This phenomenon is called “prison based gerrymandering.”¶
Political incentives have given us a prison system that may be immune to humane reform. Given the
violence and harm caused by the prison system, the goal should be something more radical: prison
abolition. We should use every tool at our disposal to help keep people out of the state’s brutal prison
system. This can mean filming cops, helping people encrypt possibly incriminating communications and
transactions, or urging juries to nullify unjust laws. We should support those caged by this system. This
can mean writing them letters or donating to their legal defense fund or commissary.¶ But perhaps
most importantly, we should acut to end the state’s monopoly on law, security, and justice. As Bruce
Benson documents in The Enterprise of Law, prisons and criminal law displaced a system of customary
tort law. A customary legal system based on restitution for victims was replaced by an authoritarian
system that diverted resources towards the state’s rulers and their cronies. That authoritarian plunder is
precisely how our current justice system operates, and it has disastrous consequences. Police have
incentives to focus on victimless “crimes” like drug dealing and sex work, because investigating such
crimes allows them to profit from civil asset forfeiture in a way they cannot in rape or murder cases. This
emphasis on vice crimes leads to discriminatory enforcement and the criminalization of
entrepreneurship that is essential for some people’s survival, particularly those who are excluded from
the formal economy. Moreover, criminal law is not based on demonstrating harm, but on state edict.
Therefore, a litany of crimes can be created on the whims of rent seeking special interest groups and
moralist busybodies alike. So we see a long parade of bootleggers and Baptists producing authoritarian
law after authoritarian law, filling the state’s cages.¶ Ultimately, this leaves many people unable to rely
on the state’s system of law enforcement. Communities of color see police as an occupying army rather
than their protectors. Drug dealers and sex workers are surely unable to trust police, as their professions
are treated as crimes. Immigrants fear that contact with police means they will be swept up by the
federal government’s Secure Communities program and deported. Surveys show that a majority of
transgender individuals are uncomfortable seeking police assistance. Sexual assault survivors correctly
fear that police will dismiss them and victim blame them. If a rape kit is taken, it will likely join a massive
backlog of untested rape kits while police resource are funneled towards militarization and vice
enforcement’s lucrative legal plunder.¶ Prison abolitionists should create entrepreneurial alternatives to
the state’s monopoly on law, security, and justice. The Audre Lorde Project in New York City runs the
Safe OUTside the System Collective[5] to help combat hate violence without calling the police. Such
community projects are one way to fill the void. Private security firms are another. Cryptography and
other innovations have potential to help us build the new law in the shell of the old faster than we ever
could before.¶ The state’s legal system is a predatory system. It is a system of plunder and violence that
exacerbates inequality, ruins lives, and enables the very crimes it claims to punish. It’s time to abolish
prisons. And to abolish prisons, we must abolish the state.
AT: PICs
Must Oppose All Forms- Cant Tinker
Abolition cannot include replacing prison with other alternatives
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
In contrast to leading scholarly and policy efforts to reform criminal law,¶ abolition decidedly does not seek merely to replace
incarceration with alternatives¶ that are closely related to imprisonment, such as punitive policing, noncustodial¶
criminal supervision, probation, civil institutionalization, and parole.25 Abolition¶ instead entails a
rejection of the moral legitimacy of confining people in cages ,¶ whether that caging is deemed “civil”
or whether it follows a failure to comply¶ with technical terms of supervised release or a police order.26 So too the
positive¶ project of abolition addressed in this Article is decidedly not an effort to replicate¶ the institutional transfer
that occurred in the aftermath of the deinstitutionalization¶ of mental institutions.27 An abolitionist
framework requires positive¶ forms of social integration and collective security that are not organized
around¶ criminal law enforcement, confinement, criminal surveillance, punitive policing,¶ or punishment.
AT: PIC out of Violent Offenders
Abolition must be total- cant carve out exceptions for certain offenders
Allegra M. McLeod 15, Associate Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, 2015, “Prison
Abolition and Grounded Justice”, UCLA Law Review, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156 (2015),
http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/McLeod_6.2015.pdf
In short, there are many who have committed acts of violence but who, under circumstances of social
coexistence enabled by positive abolition, would pose no threat of harm to themselves or others. A
commitment to any significant decarceration, let alone abolition, entails more than simply eliminating
incarceration for nonviolent, nonserious, nonfelony convictions ,63 or less serious felony convictions
classified as violent.64 Even people convicted of serious, violent felonies are not properly understood as
the dangerous few and should be able to live their lives outside of cages. A commitment to any
significant degree of decarceration requires a willingness to abandon managing perceived risks of violence by banishing and relegating to civil death any person convicted of serious crime. Reducing social
risk by physically isolating and caging entire populations is not morally defensible , even if abandoning
such practices may increase some forms ofsocial disorder.
If there are indeed some small subset of people properly denominated the dangerous few, they are only
those who are intent on perpetrating acts of vicious harm against others such that they are an imminent
threat to all those around them regardless of their circumstances. An abolitionist framework is not
necessarily committed to denying the existence of these dangerousfew persons, though the dangerous
few are vastly outnumbered by many millions of nondangerous individuals living under criminal
supervision and any such dangerousness on the part of those incarcerated currently is exacerbated by
features of prison society that a wider embrace of an abolitionist ethic and framework would improve.
Because any such dangerous few persons constitute at most only a small minority of the many millions
of people under criminal supervision in the United States —the one of every thirty-five American
adults under criminal supervision of some form65—the question of the danger these few may pose can
be deferred for some time as decarceration could by political necessity only proceed gradually. And so
the question of the dangerous few ought not to eclipse or overwhelm the urgency of a thorough
consideration of abolitionist analyses and reformist projects of displacement of criminal regulation by
other regulatory approaches.
AT: Kritiks
AT: Neoliberalism
Prisons have evolved alongside neoliberalism-the plan strikes against the critical
neoliberal tenant of “personal responsibility”
Lex Horan, 10, skilled in facilitating conversations and trainings around numerous topics, including the
prison system, LGBT issues (particularly trans politics), class privilege, and organizational
development/strategic planning, April 2010, “Against a Better Prison: Gender Responsiveness and the
Changing Terrain of Abolition”,
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=etd_hon_theses
Many thinkers have pointed to a complex intersection of factors that gave rise to the prison boom of the
1980s and 1990s. Their analyses call attention to state and market restructuring in the face of political
and economic crisis and imprisonment as a state response to threats raised by social movements of the
1960s. The prison system as we know it today has been created alongside (and many would argue, as a
part of) U.S. economic and political shifts towards neoliberalism that began in the early 1970s. ¶ The
“neoliberal turn” can be traced to political and economic crises of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Christian Parenti argues that the expansion of police forces and prisons must also be situated as a
response to the domestic economic and social crises 60 that faced the United States beginning in the
late 1960s. Parenti’s sketch of the United States in the early 1970s emphasizes that labor had made
unprecedented gains in bargaining power that threatened the owning class, and the revolutionary
upheavals of the 1960s were significant cause for alarm for the political establishment (Parenti 1999). To
manage the dual threats of the economic crisis of “stagflation” and the menace of political power of
labor and Black liberation struggles, Nixon began to slowly turn the country on a trajectory that Ronald
Regan would pick up in the 1980s. Locked together at the core of this shift were enormous cuts to social
spending and unprecedented new investments in police and prisons. Neoliberalism was the politicaleconomic order inaugurated through these changing state and private priorities.¶ In A Brief History of
Neoliberalism, David Harvey defines neoliberal ideology as the belief that “human well-being can best
be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional
framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade” (Harvey 2005,
2). Although neoliberal rhetoric calls for “freedom” from state intervention, the neoliberal state takes an
active role in creating new markets, sustaining apparatuses like the military, police, and prisons to
protect capital, and managing frequent economic crises. Harvey characterizes “the neoliberal turn” in
terms of a massive state-facilitated upward redistribution of capital: “Redistributive effects and
increasing social inequality have in fact been such a persistent feature of neoliberalization as to be
regarded as structural to the whole project” (16). ¶ While the neoliberal state is clearly an active one, it
is also characterized by a staunch disavowal of “big government,” synonymous with any state programs
oriented towards public wellbeing. Ruth Wilson Gilmore calls this “the antistate state,” a 61 formation
that rejects—both in rhetoric and policy—state programs and activities that work to ensure public
wellbeing, especially for vulnerable members of society (Gilmore 2007, 245). A major aspect of
neoliberalism has been the defunding, dismantling, and privatization of those welfare- or serviceoriented branches of the state that make up the social safety net. Gilmore calls this a series of
abandonments of “the weakest members of society” (for example, children) as the state has disavowed
its “responsibility for the alleviation of adversity and inequality” (Gilmore 2007, 52). ¶ Social spending
cuts were central to the economic logic of “Reaganomics.” Specifically, Parenti notes, “In 1982 alone
Reagan cut the real value of welfare by 24 percent, slashed the budget for child nutrition by 34 percent,
reduced funding for school milk programs by 78 percent, urban development action grants by 35
percent, and educational block grants by 38 percent” (Parenti 1999, 40-41). Abandonments like these
have been widely justified with rhetoric of “personal responsibility,” a central tenet of the neoliberal
project. Harvey argues that a “‘personal responsibility system’…is substituted for social protections
(pensions, health care, protections against injury) that were formerly an obligation of employers and the
state” (Harvey 2005, 168). Welfare and “personal responsibility” become incompatible with one
another, since relying on the state is positioned as a fundamental failure to care for oneself. No
apologies are necessary for cuts to state services because these cuts reduce dependency and produce
self-sufficient citizens who can take responsibility for themselves.
AT: Law K
We must call upon the law to change the prison industrial complex
Angela Davis 11, professor in the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture (Open Media Series), ebook no
pages
Which then raises the question of the role of law itself. Does law really make a significant difference in this case? What about
the potential for challenging these abuses? Is the existence of law in the case of the domestic prison system a
potential lever, or ground, by which we can act?¶ While it would be a mistake to consider law as the
ultimate arbiter of social problems, it does have strategic significance in the struggle for progress and
radical transformation. But law can also be one of the most difficult obstacles to change, precisely because it is assumed to be the final
word. Legal challenges have indeed enabled at various moments specific reforms of the prison, but more frequently than not, these reforms
Of course we must call upon law —both at the national and international level,
but we should also recognize the limitations of law. The myriad legal challenges to the death penalty have not yet succeeded
have ultimately solidified the institution.
in abolishing it. ¶ I would agree that we have a stake, but do we have the means of challenging the actions, if we don’t have the law? ¶ I don’t
know. I’m somewhat ambivalent here because I don’t know whether I am willing to concede so much power to the law. In instances where
there have been major victories, in the cases of U.S. prisoners, for example, those victories have been,
for the most part, victories over the law—usually with the pivotal assistance of organized mass
movements. Law does not operate within a vacuum . Yes, we rely on it when it can be used to accomplish what we
call progressive goals, but by itself, it is powerless. It acquires its power from ideological consensus. As someone who has been involved
in work against the prison system for quite a number of years, I think we need to urge individuals and organizations already committed to
working against the race and class inequalities and the generalized repression produced by the domestic prison to reframe their anti-prison
work in order to address and oppose the ongoing atrocities in U.S.-controlled detention centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay.
Prisons - Neg
Case Answers
General
Education is an alt cause to prisons, schools are “feeder institutions” for jails and
creates the justification for the use of prisons
Erica R. Meiners, 07, Educational Inquiry and Curriculum Studies, College of Education, Women's and
Gender Studies, Faculty Affiliate Latino and Latin American Studies, and Faculty Affiliate Justice Studies,
3/26/07, “The Right to be Hostile: Schools, Prisons, and the Making of Public Enemies”, Google Books
pg. 7 & 8
Expanding what counts as education reform is central to prison abolition, not solely because of my
location as a preservice teacher educator, but because schools are "feeder institutions" for jails and
prisons. Architecture, curriculum, socialization processes, and literally the presence of police or other
structures that serve only punitive functions at specific schools results in the outcome that select youth
are prepared through schools to be institutionalized. ¶ When children attend schools that place a
greater value on discipline and security than on knowledge and intellectual development, they are
attending prep schools for prison. If this is the predicament we face today, what might the future hold if
the prison system acquires an even greater presence in our society? In the nineteenth century,
antislavery activists insisted that as long as slavery continued, the future of democracy was bleak
indeed. In the twenty-first century, antiprison activists insist that a fundamental requirement for the
revitalization of democracy is the long over-due abolition of the prison system. (Davis, 2003, 38-39)
Davis's suggestion is that education reform is not just a central component of rethinking our systems
of punishment and justice, but also our democracy . This book is written for educators in order to
consider our collusion, active and passive, in maintaining practices that perpetuate relationships
between schools and jails and to start conversations that imagine futures without overflowing punitive
institutions.
Abolitionism Fails
Prisons keep people safe, there is no evidence that proves alternatives to the prison
system are effective
Robert Whelan, 04, deputy director of Civitas, a community of researchers and supporters committed
to discovering how best to strengthen democracy, uphold limited government, maintain personal
freedom, achieve opportunity for all, and encourage free enterprise, 8/23/04, “Prisons are good for
society”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3609979/Prisons-are-good-forsociety.html
And what an advantage that would be to the rest of us. The Home Office estimates that the average
offender commits 140 offences in a year. If we were to double the prison population from 65,000 to
130,000, we would be protecting the public from more than nine million offences.¶ The advantages of
such a policy are so obvious that it is difficult to think of a counter-argument. This makes no difference,
because the criminal justice system is run by people who do not intend to consider the possibility.¶ If
you were to raise the point at a gathering of these good people, you would be treated as if you had
made a racist remark. People wouldn't attack you, they would just start talking across you.¶ As for the
supposed advantages of the "alternatives to prison", we are still waiting for the evidence that they exist.
Community sentencing, tagging, fines - how wonderful it would be if they worked, then we could allow
criminals to walk the streets without apprehension.¶ Unfortunately, there is very little to be said for any
of these alternatives. Although the criminal justice professionals believe passionately that they reduce
reoffending rates, there is little evidence that they do any good.¶ Tagging is, in the Home Office's tactful
phrase, "broadly neutral" in its effect on behaviour, ie, makes no difference. (The young thug called
Slasher who nearly killed a woman in a London park was tagged.)¶ Probation does not reduce
reoffending, compared with those sentenced to a combination of prison and probation, or community
service. Some studies show higher reoffending rates for probationers. Fines are often not paid and little
effort is put into chasing them. Cognitive behavioural therapy, in which this Government has invested so
much, is so useless it should be scrapped.¶ "I am not at all in favour of this modern fashion for turning
bad people into good people overnight," says one of Oscar Wilde's dowagers. "As a man sows, so should
he reap."¶ Well, she need have no worry. Prison doesn't make bad people good, and neither do the
alternatives, in the majority of cases.¶ Of course, people can change. They may experience a religious
conversion, conquer a drug habit or undergo a revolution in their lifestyle that changes their behaviour.
Getting married is the best way out of crime for young men. But, in the meantime, while we wish all the
best to those who are working to reform criminals, we look to the prisons to keep them out of harm's
way. Our harm, that is.
Abolitonists hyperbolize the harms of prisons and the ineffectiveness of reforms
Joshua A. Miller, 14, editor of The Good Society, direct the JCI Prison Scholars Program, and teach
philosophy, 7/29/14, “Prison Abolition, Reform, and End-State Anxieties”
http://www.anotherpanacea.com/?s=prison+abolition
This is where I find abolitionism frustrating: the project of prison abolition seems like an end-state rather
than an end-in-view. It deliberately ignores (1) the wishes of victims, citizens, and even many of the
incarcerated (all of whom are understood to be duped and epistemically blinded by the ideology of
carcerality unless they adopt abolitionism.) It doesn’t start with our current carcerality and work away
from it, but rather starts with a rejection of the current context and the constraints it creates (2). It’s
inflexible (3) in the sense that it does not allow that some limited carcerality (a la Norway?) might still be
reasonable. Though there’s the sense that that is the direction that abolitionism must proceed, it does
not currently emphasize the development of the skills and abilities (4) that alternatives to incarceration
would require. And though it does aim to foreclose carcerality forever, I do think abolitionists are most
concerned to promote plurality, cooperation, and empowerment (5) for some of the most dominated
people in our world today, which is why I can’t help feeling the pull of abolition even as the other
objections I mention raise red flags.¶ Meliorism, on the other hand, has all the problems that the
abolitionists describe. Reformers work with and within the system to resist it, which requires all sorts of
rhetorical and practical compromises. By chipping at the edges and living too comfortably with
“constraints” and “realism,” (2) meliorists leave the status quo mostly untouched. We adopt democratic
projects and processes (1), but leave the fundamental injustices in place. We develop capacities (4) but
usually we can’t create the institutions and conditions (5) where those capacities will be actualized. We
are, at base, flexible (3) with evil, and thereby compromised by it, while the righteous know that evil
requires inflexibility and even sacrifice.¶ Angela Davis puts it this way at the start of Are Prisons
Obsolete?:¶ “As important as some reforms may be-the elimination of sexual abuse and medical neglect
in women’s prison, for example-frameworks that rely exclusively on reforms help to produce the
stultifying idea that nothing lies beyond the prison. Debates about strategies of decarceration, which
should be the focal point of our conversations on the prison crisis, tend to be marginalized when reform
takes the center stage. The most immediate question today is how to prevent the further expansion of
prison populations and how to bring as many imprisoned women and men as possible back into what
prisoners call the ‘free world.'”¶ No reformer wants to “produce the stultifying idea that nothing lies
beyond prison,” but much of the rest of Davis’s book is devoted to the claim that reform is inextricable
from that consequence. Ultimately, she equates prison reform with the absurdity of “slavery reform.”
America’s prisons are historically and in current practice entangled with the Black Codes, the convictlease system, Jim Crow, sexism, and antiblack racism; therefore, reformers are merely (hopefully
unknowingly) fluffing the pillows while white supremacy and patriarchy is maintained:¶ If the words
“prison reform” so easily slip from our lips, it is because “prison” and “reform” have been inextricably
linked since the beginning of the use of imprisonment as the main means of punishing those who violate
social norms.¶ Yet consider: Davis assumes that the majority of the increase in incarceration has been
driven by the drug war, and that alternatives to incarceration will foreground drug treatment and
decriminalization of drugs. In fact, though the largest group ofarrests are tied to drug use, the largest
group of prisoners are incarcerated for violence; this reflects sentencing differences and the kinds of
treatment diversion programs for which she calls. There’s good evidence that the drug war, poverty, and
racist policing produce some of that violence, but not all of it. Plus, prison populations are already
shrinking, but at least some of this decline is due to the increase of post-release strategies that export
carceral logics into a parolee’s (or even an unindicted suspect’s) everyday life. The goals of
decarceration can fall into the logic of carcerality as easily as the goals of reform. So how much really
separates reformers from abolitionists? A reformer might call for the restoration of prison education
and voting rights, for the creation of schools that teach rather than prepare students for prison, for
decriminalization and treatment of drug abuse, for poverty-reduction and racial justice, while still
thinking that certain kinds of violence should lead to coercive detention, that restorative justice has
dangerous implications when applied to cases of sexual assault or organized violence.
Util
The impossibility to attain knowledge of every outcome or abuse leaves utilitarianism
as the only option for most rational decision-making
Goodin 95 – Professor of Philosophy at the Research School of the Social Sciences at the Australian
National University (Robert E., Cambridge University Press, “Utilitarianism As a Public Philosophy” pg 63)
My larger argument turns on the proposition that there is something special about the situation of public officials that
makes utilitarianism more plausible for them (or, more precisely, makes them adopt a form of utilitarianism that we would
find more acceptable) than private individuals. Before proceeding with that larger argument, I must therefore say what it is that is so special
about public officials and their
situations that makes it both more necessary and more desirable for them to
adopt a more credible form of utilitarianism. Consider, first the argument from necessity. Public officials are obliged
to make their choices under uncertainty, and uncertainty of a very special sort at that. All choices-public and private alike- are
made under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more
complete information on the peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that
alternative possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, at relatively poorly
informed as to the effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do
know are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people
as a result of their various possible choices. But that is all. That is enough to allow public policy makers
to use the utilitarian calculus – if they want to use it at all – to choose general rules of conduct. Knowing aggregates and averages,
they can proceed to calculate the utility payoffs from adopting each alternative possible general rule. But they cannot be sure what
the payoff will be to any given individual or on any particular occasion. Their knowledge of generalities,
aggregates and averages is just not sufficiently fine-grained for that.
We must choose the lesser evil. Utilitarianism limits further atrocities against
civilization.
Issac 02 – Professor of political science at Indiana-Bloomington, Director of the Center for the Study of
Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale (Jeffery C., Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, “Ends, Means,
and Politics,” p. Proquest)
WHAT WOULD IT mean for the American left right now to take seriously the centrality of means in politics? First, it would mean taking seriously
the specific means employed by the September 11 attackers--terrorism. There
is a tendency in some quarters of the left to
assimilate the death and destruction of September 11 to more ordinary (and still deplorable) injustices of the
world system--the starvation of children in Africa, or the repression of peasants in Mexico, or the continued occupation of the West Bank
and Gaza by Israel. But this assimilation is only possible by ignoring the specific modalities of September 11. It
is true that in Mexico, Palestine, and elsewhere, too many innocent people suffer, and that is wrong. It
may even be true that the experience of suffering is equally terrible in each case. But neither the Mexican nor the Israeli
government has ever hijacked civilian airliners and deliberately flown them into crowded office buildings
in the middle of cities where innocent civilians work and live, with the intention of killing thousands of
people. Al-Qaeda did precisely this. That does not make the other injustices unimportant. It simply
makes them different. It makes the September 11 hijackings distinctive, in their defining and malevolent purpose--to kill people and to
create terror and havoc. This was not an ordinary injustice. It was an extraordinary injustice. The premise of
terrorism is the sheer superfluousness of human life. This premise is inconsistent with civilized living anywhere. It threatens
people of every race and class, every ethnicity and religion. Because it threatens everyone, and threatens values central
to any decent conception of a good society, it must be fought. And it must be fought in a way commensurate with its
malevolence. Ordinary injustice can be remedied. Terrorism can only be stopped. Second, it would mean frankly
acknowledging something well understood, often too eagerly embraced, by the twentieth century Marxist left--that it is often politically
necessary to employ morally troubling means in the name of morally valid ends. A just or even a better society
can only be realized in and through political practice; in our complex and bloody world, it will sometimes be necessary to respond to barbarous
tyrants or criminals, with whom moral suasion won't work.
In such situations our choice is not between the wrong that
confronts us and our ideal vision of a world beyond wrong. It is between the wrong that confronts us
and the means--perhaps the dangerous means--we have to employ in order to oppose it. In such
situations there is a danger that "realism" can become a rationale for the Machiavellian worship of
power. But equally great is the danger of a righteousness that translates, in effect, into a refusal to act in
the face of wrong. What is one to do? Proceed with caution. Avoid casting oneself as the incarnation of pure goodness locked in a
Manichean struggle with evil. Be wary of violence. Look for alternative means when they are available, and support the development of such
means when they are not. And never sacrifice democratic freedoms and open debate. Above all, ask the hard questions about the situation at
hand, the means available, and the likely effectiveness of different strategies.
Race
The neg politicizes Identity by submitting the past as a reminder of the failure of
history. Simultaneously they politicize their own identity in relationship to those
histories. They perpetuate the foundation of an identity based in injury, which creates
disciplinary regimes that neutralize difference and reinscribe domination, turns all the
method and the case.
Brown, 1995 (Wendy, Professor of Political Science and Rhetoric at UC-Berkeley, States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late
Modernity, published by Princeton UP, p. 65-66)
Contemporary politicized identity is also potentially reiterative of regulatory,¶ disciplinary society in its
configuration of a disciplinary subject.¶ It is both produced by and potentially accelerates the
production of that¶ aspect of disciplinary society which "ceaselessly characterizes, classifies,¶ and
specializes," which works through "surveillance, continuous registration,¶ perpetual assessment, and
classification," through a social machinery¶ "that is both immense and minute. "19 An example from the¶ world
of local politics makes clear politicized identity's imbrication in¶ disciplinary power, as well as the way in which, as Foucault reminds us,¶
disciplinary power "infiltrates" rather than replaces liberal juridical¶ modalities. 20¶ Recently, the city council of my town reviewed an
ordinance, devised¶ and promulgated by a broad coalition of identity-based political groups,¶ which aimed to ban discrimination in
employment, housing, and public¶ accommodations on the basis of "sexual orientation, transsexuality, age,¶ height, weight, personal
appearance, physical characteristics, race, color,¶ creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, sex, or¶ gender. "21 Here is
a perfect instance of the universal juridical ideal of¶ liberalism and the normalizing principle of disciplinary regimes conjoined¶ and taken up
within the discourse of politicized identity. This¶ ordinance-variously called the "purple hair ordinance" or the "ugly ordinance" by state and
national news media-aims to count every difference¶ as no difference, as part of the seamless whole, but also to count¶ every potentially
subversive rejection of culturally enforced norms as¶ themselves normal, as normalizable, and as normativizable through law.¶ Indeed,
through the definitional, procedural, and remedies sections of¶ this ordinance (e.g., "sexual orientation shall mean
known or assumed¶ homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality") persons are reduced to¶ observable social attributes
and practices defined empirically, positivistically,¶ as if their existence were intrinsic and factual,
rather than¶ effects of discursive and institutional power; and these positivist definitions ¶ of persons
as their attributes and practices are written into law,¶ ensuring that persons describable according to
them will now become¶ regulated through them. Bentham couldn't have done it better. Indeed,¶ here is a perfect instance
of how the language of recognition becomes the¶ language of unfreedom, how articulation in language, in the context of¶
liberal and disciplinary discourse, becomes a vehicle of subordination¶ through individualization,
normalization, and regulation, even as it¶ strives to produce visibility and acceptance. Here, also, is a perfect
instance¶ of the way in which "differences" that are the effects of social¶ power are neutralized through their
articulation as attributes and their¶ circulation through liberal administrative discourse: what do we make
of¶ a document that renders as juridical equivalents the denial of employment¶ to an African American, an obese woman, and a white
middleclass¶ youth festooned with tattoos, a pierced tongue, and fuchsia hair?
Gender
Gender is not the “root cause” of environmental degradation—such claims are
simplistic and wrong
Fox 98 – Center for Environmental Studies
Fellow @ Cent. Env Studies, “The Deep-Ecology-Ecofem debate,” in “Environmental Philosophy” ed.
Zimmerman, p 232-3
To begin with, deep ecologists completely agree with ecofeminists that men have been far more
implicated in the history of ecological destruction than women. However, deep ecologists also agree
with similar charges derived from other social perspectives: for example, that capitalists, whites,
and Westerners have been far more implicated in the history of ecological destruction than precapitalist peoples, blacks, and non-Westerners .21 If ecofeminists also agree with these points, then the question
arises as to why they do not also criticize deep ecology for being neutral with respect to issues
concerning such significant social variables as socioeconomic class, race, and Westernization. There
appears to be two reasons for this. First, to do so would detract from the priority that econfeminists
wish to give to their own concern with androcentrism. Second, and more significantly, these charges
could also be applied with equal force to the ecofeminist focus on androcentrism itself.14 How does
one defend the ecofeminist charge against deep ecology (i.e., that androcentrism is "the real root"
of ecological destruction) in the face of these charges?" For deep ecologists, it is simplistic on both
empirical and logical grounds to think that one particular perspective on human society identifies
the real root of ecological destruction. Empirically, such thinking is simplistic (and thus
descriptively poor) because it fails to give due consideration to the multitude of interacting factors
at work in any given situation. (While on a practical level it can be perfectly reasonable to devote most of one's energy to one
particular 'cause-if only for straightforward reasons to do with time and energy-that, of course, is no excuse for simplistic social theorizing.)
Such thinking falls, in other words, to adopt an ecological perspective with respect to the workings
of human society itself. Logically, such thinking is simplistic (and thus facile) because it implies that
the solution to our ecological problems is close at hand-all we have to do is remove "the real root"
of the problem-when it is actually perfectly possible to conceive of a society that is nonandrocentric,
socioeconomically egalitarian, nonracist, and nonimperialistic with respect to other human
societies, but whose members nevertheless remain aggressively anthropocentric in collectively
agreeing to exploit their environment for their collective benefit in ways that nonanthropocentrists
would find thoroughly objectionable. Indeed, the "green" critique of socialism proceeds from precisely this recognition that a
socially egalitarian society does not necessarily imply an ecologically benign society.
Patriarchy is inevitable—biology proves
Fukuyama 1998 [Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist/economist and author. He’s a senior fellow at the Center on Democracy,
Development, and Rule of Law at Stanford. He has a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard.] “Women and the Evolution of World Politics.”
Foreign Affairs 77.5 (1998). Web. http://www.evoyage.com/Evolutionary%20Feminism/ForAffairWomen&Evolution.htm
A number of authors have extended the noble savage idea to argue that violence and patriarchy were late
inventions, rooted in either the Western Judeo-Christian tradition or the capitalism to which the former gave birth. Friedrich Engels
anticipated the work of later feminists by positing the existence of a primordial matriarchy, which was replaced by a violent and repressive
patriarchy only with the transition to agricultural societies. The
problem with this theory is, as Lawrence Keeley points out in his
the most comprehensive recent studies of violence in hunter-gatherer
societies suggest that for them was actually more frequent, and rates of murder higher, than for modern ones.
book War Before Civilization, that
Surveys of ethnographic data show that only 10-13 percent of primitive societies never or rarely engaged in war or raiding; the others engaged
in conflict either continuously or at less than yearly intervals. Closer examination of the peaceful cases shows that they were frequently refugee
populations driven into remote locations by prior warfare or groups protected by a more advanced society. Of the Yanomamö tribesmen
studied by Napoleon Chagnon in Venezuela, some 30 percent of the men died by violence; the !Kung San of the Kalahari desert, once
characterized as the "harmless people," have a higher murder rate than New York or Detroit. The Sad archaeological evidence from sites like
Jebel Sahaba in Egypt, Talheim in Germany, or Roaix in France indicates that systematic
mass killings of men, women, and children
occurred in Neolithic times. The Holocaust, Cambodia, and Bosnia have each been described as a unique, and often as a uniquely
modern, form of horror. Exceptional and tragic they are indeed, but with precedents stretching back tens if not hundreds of thousands of years.
It is clear that this violence was largely perpetrated by men. While small minorities of human societies have been
matrilineal, evidence of a primordial matriarchy in which women dominated men, or were even relatively equal to men, has
been hard to find. There was no age of innocence. The line from chimp to modern man is
continuous. It would seem, then, that there is something to the contention of many feminists that phenomena like
aggression, violence, war, and intense competition for dominance in a status hierarchy are more closely
associated with men than women. Theories of international relations like realism that see international politics as a remorseless
struggle for power are in fact what feminist call a gendered perspective, describing the behavior of states controlled by men rather than states
per se. A world run by women would follow different rules, it would appear, and it is toward that sort of world that all postindustrial or Western
societies are moving. As women gain power in these countries, the latter should become less aggressive, adventurous, competitive and violent.
The problem with the feminist view is that it sees these attitudes toward violence, power, status as wholly
the products of a patriarchal culture, whereas in fact it appears they are rooted in biology. This
makes these attitudes harder to change in men and consequently in societies. Despite the rise of
women, men will continue to play a major, if not dominant, part in the governance of postindustrial
countries, not to mention less-developed ones. The realms of war and international politics in particular will remain
controlled by men for longer than many feminists would like. Most important, the task of resocializing men to be
more like women - that is, less violent - will run into limits. What is bred in the bone cannot be altered
easily by changes in culture and ideology.
Inherent equality of all beings requires utilitarianism
David Cummiskey, Associate Professor of Philosophy @ Bates College & a Ph.D. from UM, 1996, Kantian Consequentialism, Pg. 145146
In the next section, I will defend this interpretation of the duty of beneficence. For the sake of argument, however, let us first simply assume
that beneficence does not require significant self-sacrifice and see what follows. Although Kant is unclear on this point, we will assume that
significant self-sacrifices are supererogatory. Thus, if I must harm one in order to save many, the individual whom I will harm by my action is not
morally required to affirm the action. On the other hand, I have a duty to do all that I can for those in need. As a consequence I
am faced
with a dilemma: If I act, I harm a person in a way that a rational being need not consent to; if I fail to
act, then I do not do my duty to those in need and thereby fail to promote an objective end. Faced with such a choice, which horn of the
dilemma is more consistent with the formula of the end-in-itself? We must not obscure the issue by characterizing this
type of case as the sacrifice of individuals for some abstract “social entity.” It is not a question of
some persons having to bear the cost for some elusive “overall social good.” Instead, the question is
whether some persons must bear the inescapable cost for the sake of other persons. Robert Nozick, for
example, argues that “to use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact
that he [or she] is a separate person, that his is the only life he [or she] has.” But why is this not
equally true of all those whom we do not save through our failure to act? By emphasizing solely the
one who must bear the cost if we act, we fail to sufficiently respect and take account of the many
other separate persons, each with only one life, who will bear the cost of our inaction. In such a situation,
what would a conscientious Kantian agent, an agent motivated by the unconditional value of rational beings, choose? A morally good
agent recognizes that the basis of all particular duties is the principle that “rational nature exists as an
end in itself.” Rational nature as such is the supreme objective end of all conduct. If one truly believes that all rational
beings have an equal value then the rational solution to such a dilemma involves maximally
promoting the lives and liberties of as many rational beings as possible. In order to avoid this conclusion, the
non-consequentialist Kantian needs to justify agent-centered constraints. As we saw in chapter 1, however, even
most Kantian deontologists recognize that agent-centered constraints require a non-value based
rationale. But we have seen that Kant’s normative theory is based on an unconditionally valuable end. How can a concern for the value of
rational beings lead to a refusal to sacrifice rational beings even when this would prevent other more extensive losses of rational beings? If the
moral law is based on the value of rational beings and their ends, then what is the rationale for prohibiting a moral agent from maximally
promoting these two tiers of value? If
I sacrifice some for the sake of others, I do not use them arbitrarily, and I
do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have “dignity, that is, an
unconditional and incomparable worth” that transcends any market value, but persons also have a
fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others. The
concept of the end-in-itself does not support the view that we may never force another to bear some
cost in order to benefit others. If on focuses on the equal value of all rational beings, then equal consideration suggests
that one may have to sacrifice some to save many.
T – No Consent
A. Interpretation: Surveillance means the target cannot consent.
FISA 78 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Legal Document Outlining Electronic Surveillance Within
The United States For Foreign Intelligence Purposes, “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. 50 us
e 1801,” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1783.pdf)//ghs-VA
(f) "Electronic surveillance" means— (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of
the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the
United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person •'• has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes; (2) the acquisition by an electronic,
mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States,
without the
consent of any party thereto , if such acquisition occurs in the United States ; (3) the intentional acquisition by an
electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the
sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or (4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under
circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
B. Violation: The target has consented to the surveillance.
C. Reasons to prefer
1. Limits – Would justify an infinite number of affs that curtail contracts between the
government and organizations which makes neg prep impossible kills clash.
2. Topic Education – they move the debate away from privacy versus utility which kills
predictability and core topic learning.
3. Extra-topicality – Justifies any number of untopical actions, which kills neg prep and
causes a rush to generics.
Competing interpretations, reasonability makes judge intervention inevitable.
Crime Disad
1NC Shell
Crime is decreasing nationwide
FBI 2013, Federal Bureau of Invesigation Unifrorm Crime Report, 2013, “Violent Crime”,
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violentcrime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final
In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the
2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3
percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated
367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See
Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses
accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent.
(Based on Table 1.) Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 69.0 percent of
the nation’s murders, 40.0 percent of robberies, and 21.6 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for rape.) (See
Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
Abolishing Prisons won’t stop crime, it’ll actually increase it
Nick Hervert July 27, 2008, Nick Herbert is Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs, The
abolitionists' criminal conspiracy,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/27/prisonsandprobation.youthjustice
Last week saw an International Conference on Penal Abolition. With such a heady ambition, what can be
next? A global conference to abolish crime? The ambition of an eccentric minority to abolish prison isn't
just dotty. It's a distraction from a real and pressing agenda, which is to reform prisons which simply
aren't working. A century ago, prisons had hard labour and treadmills. Today, they have colour TVs in
cells. Jails may have changed, but the enduring truth that they are necessary has not. We will always
have a small minority of offenders who, by their behaviour, pose so great a threat to the lives and
property of the law-abiding majority that they must be kept apart from us. Ignoring this reality and
arguing for the total abolition of prison is a hopelessly utopian goal that does the credibility of penal
reformers no service. The case for penal abolition rests on a series of tenuous assertions. Let's set aside
the obvious, if uncomfortable, fact that part of the purpose of prison is to punish. It's said that shortterm prison sentences don't work, because recidivism rates are shockingly high and there is little time
for any restorative programmes to work. But since the evidence is that longer sentences have lower
recidivism rates, and provide the opportunity to rehabilitate offenders, this might be an argument to
lengthen sentences, not abolish them altogether. After all, another purpose of prison is to incapacitate
offenders
The fear caused by crime results in the further subjugation of ethnic minorities and
would worsen civil rights
Mark Moore and Robert Trojaniwikz 1988, A publication of the National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice, and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/111459.pdf
When crimes occur-when a ghetto teenager is shot to death in a gang war, when an elderly woman is
mugged for her social security check, when a nurse is raped in a hospital parking lot, when one driver is
punched by another in a dispute over a parking place, when a black family's new home is vandalizedsociety's attention is naturally focused on the victims and their material losses. Their wounds, bruises,
lost property, and inconvenience can be seen, touched, and counted. These are the concrete signs of
criminal victimization. Behind the immediate, concrete losses of crime victims, however, is a different,
more abstract crime problem-that of fear. For victims, fear is often the largest and most enduring legacy
of their victimization. The raped nurse will feel vulnerable long after her cuts and bruises heal. The
harassed black family suffers far more from the fear of neighborhood hostility than the inconvenience of
repairing their property. For the rest of us---the not-recently, or not-yet victimized fear becomes a
contagious agent spreading the injuriousness of criminal victimization. The gang member's death makes
parents despair of their children's future. The mugging of the elderly woman teaches elderly residents to
fear the streets and the teenagers who roam them. The fight over the parking place confirms the
general fear of strangers. The harassment of the black family makes other minorities reluctant to claim
their rights. In these ways, fear extends the damage of criminal victimization.
An increase of crime will drive an already impoverished community further into
poverty; changes lives forever
Law Library 2004, American Law and Legal Information, Economic and Social Effects of Crime Growing Interest In The Costs Of Crime, Determining Costs, The High Cost Of Crime, Community Efforts
To Avoid Crime Costs, http://law.jrank.org/pages/12125/Economic-Social-Effects-Crime.html
Crime is a major part of every society. Its costs and effects touch just about everyone to some degree.
The types of costs and effects are widely varied. In addition, some costs are short-term while others last
a lifetime. Of course the ultimate cost is loss of life. Other costs to victims can include medical costs,
property losses, and loss of income. Losses to both victims and nonvictims can also come in the form of
increased security expenses including stronger locks, extra lighting, parking in more expensive secure
lots, security alarms for homes and cars, and maintaining guard dogs. Considerable money is spent to
avoid being victimized. Other types of expenses can include a victim or person fearful of crime moving to
a new neighborhood, funeral expenses, legal fees, and loss of school days. Some costs of crime are less
tangible (not easily or precisely identified). These kinds of costs can include pain and suffering, and a
lower quality of life. There are also the traumatic impacts on friends and the disruption of family.
Behavior can be forever changed and shaped by crime, whether it be weighing the risks of going to
certain places or even the fear of making new friends.
Poverty is equivalent to an ongoing nuclear war and makes all forms of violence
inevitable.
James Gilligan 1996 , Faculty – Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Violence: Our Deadly
Epidemic and its Causes (Book)
You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the
criminally insane without being forcibly and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and
discrimination that characterize their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and
friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi’s observation that the deadliest form of
violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their
virulent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence,
especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons
and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only
microcosms. They are not where the major violence of our society takes place, and the perpetrators
who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of
violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence of this country. Focusing merely on those
relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and
learning from those structural causes of violent death that are far more significant from a numerical or
public health, or human, standpoint By “structural violence” I mean the increased rates of death and
disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively
lower death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a
demonstratably large portion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure is itself a
product of society’s collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the
society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting “structural” with “behavioral violence,” by which I
mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals
against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital
punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from behavioral violence in at least three major
respects The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously rather than sporadically,
whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavioral violence occur one at a
time. Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acs; independent of
individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have
lethal consequences for others. Structural violence is normally invisible, because it may appear to have
had other (natural or violent) causes. Neither the existence, the scope and extent, nor the lethal power
of structural violence can be discerned until we shift our focus from a clinical or psychological
perspective, which looks at one individual at a time, to the epidemiological perspective of public health
and preventative medicine. Examples are all around us. [Continues – Page 195] The 14 to 18 million
deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed
conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused
by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and
civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide---or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the
Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 19541973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was
clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year.
In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as
would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 deaths, and every single year, two to three times as
many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews
over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating,
thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetuated on the week and poor every year of every decade,
throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and
epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to
which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is
moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.
Uniqueness
Crime is decreasing nationwide
FBI 2013, Federal Bureau of Invesigation Unifrorm Crime Report, 2013, “Violent Crime”,
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violentcrime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final
In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the
2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3
percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated
367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See
Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses
accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent.
(Based on Table 1.) Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 69.0 percent of
the nation’s murders, 40.0 percent of robberies, and 21.6 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for rape.) (See
Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
Overall crime rate decreasing in every major area
BJS 2013, Bureau of Justice Statistics, IN 2013 VIOLENT AND PROPERTY CRIME RATES DECLINED AFTER
TWO YEARS OF INCREASES, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/cv13pr.cfm
WASHINGTON – The overall violent crime rate declined slightly from 26.1 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 U.S. residents from 2012 to
2013, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The violent crime rate had declined for nearly two
decades before increasing in 2011 and 2012. The 2013 decrease in violent crime was largely the result of a slight decline in simple assault, which is violence that
does not involve a weapon or serious injury. The rate of violence committed by strangers also declined in 2013. However, there
was no statistically significant change in the rate (7.3 per 1,000 in 2013) of serious violence, defined as rape or sexual assault, robbery or aggravated assault. In
addition, there were no significant changes from 2012 to 2013 in the rates of firearm violence (1.3 per 1,000), violence resulting in injury to the victim (6.1),
domestic violence (4.2) or intimate partner violence (2.8). Intimate partner violence is violence committed by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend,
and domestic violence includes crimes by intimate partners and family members. In 2013, 1.2 percent of all U.S. residents age 12 or older (3 million persons)
experienced at least one violent victimization, down from 1.4 percent in 2012. About 0.4 percent (1.1 million persons) experienced at least one serious violent
victimization. The
overall property crime rate, which includes burglary, theft and motor vehicle theft, also decreased after two consecutive years
of increases. From 2012 to 2013, the rate declined from 155.8 to 131.4 victimizations per 1,000 U.S. households. The rate of theft declined
from 120.9 to 100.5 victimizations per 1,000 households, driving the decline in the overall rate. In 2013, 9 percent of all households (11.5 million households)
experienced one or more property victimizations. An estimated 46 percent of violent crime and 61 percent of serious violent crime was reported to police in 2013. A
greater percentage of robbery (68 percent) and aggravated assault (64 percent) was reported than simple assault (38 percent) and rape or sexual assault (35
percent) victimizations. From 2012 to 2013, the percentage of property crime reported to police increased from 34 to 36 percent. Reported thefts increased from 26
to 29 percent, accounting for the majority of the increase in the overall percentage of property crime reported to police. About 75 percent of motor vehicle thefts
and 57 percent of burglaries were reported to police in 2013. Other findings from the report include―In 2013, 10 percent of violent crime victims received
assistance from a victim service agency. Violent
victimization in urban areas declined from 32.4 per 1,000 in 2012 to 25.9 per
1,000 in 2013. The violent crime rate declined for males but did not change significantly for females from 2012 to 2013. From 2012 to 2013, the violent
crime rate declined for blacks while remaining flat for whites and Hispanics. The NCVS is the largest data collection on criminal victimization
independent of crimes reported by law enforcement agencies to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR)—the nation’s other key
measure of the extent and nature of crime in the United States. During 2013, about 90,630 households and 160,040 persons
age 12 or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Since the NCVS interviews victims of crime, homicide is not included in these nonfatal victimization estimates.
Crime DA Links
Statistics prove- prisons are key to keeping crime rates low
David Green, 06, director of think-tank Civitas, a community of researchers and supporters committed
to discovering how best to strengthen democracy, uphold limited government, maintain personal
freedom, achieve opportunity for all, and encourage free enterprise, 6/20/15, “Prison really does work”,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-391584/Prison-really-does-work.html
**edited for gendered language**
A sense of deepening crisis hangs over our prison system.¶ While public concern mounts over short
sentences for serious offenders, parts of our political elite and judiciary express anxiety about the size of
the inmate population and the supposedly excessive use of custody.¶ The Chief Inspector of Prisons,
Anne Owers, claims that our jails are now full to capacity, barely able to cope with current demands. The
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, warns that too many criminals are being sent to prison in the first
place.¶ And a large phalanx of lobby groups, such as the Prison Reform Trust, argues that the jail system
only encourages crime by dehumanising its inmates. It is, to use one of the campaigners' favourite
slogans, 'an expensive way of making bad people worse'.¶ But as the problem of overcrowding becomes
more intense, neither the Government nor the judicial establishment seems willing to contemplate the
obvious solution: build more prisons.¶ This is partly because of the perceived costs, partly because of
the Left-wing ideology which holds that prisons in themselves are a bad idea. According to such thinking,
a large prison population should be regarded as a badge of shame in a civilised society.¶ Wasted¶ But
such an outlook is utterly misguided . For the truth is that prisons are not only the most effective
method of protecting the public from criminal behaviour, they are also, in the long-term, cheaper than
the alternatives.¶ The entire cost of running our prisons is just £2.2billion, barely a fraction of the cost of
the welfare state. To put it in perspective, that is smaller than the sum wasted every year on benefit
fraud. And given that the cost of crime across the country is estimated at £60billion a year, a prison
system for £2.2billion is surely a bargain.¶ It is absurd to argue that 21st-century Britain, one of the
most affluent countries in the world, with public expenditure now over £520billion per year, cannot
afford to build any more prisons and therefore has to treat convicted criminals more leniently.¶ Antiprison campaigners are, of course, fond of claiming that jail does not work, pointing to the high levels of
re-offending among ex-convicts. But this is to ignore the crucial point that when a criminal is locked up,
it is physically impossible for him [them] to commit any offences.¶ He[They] may return to his [their] life
of crime once he is [they are] released, but at least when he is [they are] inside, the public is safe from
him [them].¶ There are sobering statistics to show just how many crimes he might have committed had
he not been locked up. According to a Home Office survey in 2000, the average inmate committed 140
crimes in the 12 months before his admission into custody.¶ On that basis, if we locked up 10,000 more
offenders a year, we could prevent 1.4 million offences, saving the public purse a fortune as well as
reducing aggravation for law-abiding citizens.¶ The indisputable fact is that, according to police records
and the authoritative British Crime Survey, crime levels have fallen when more offenders have been sent
to prison.¶ Yet the conjunction of a rising jail population and declining crime causes the anti-prison
brigade to descend into tortuously illogical thinking and intellectual absurdities as they refuse to face up
to the facts.¶ So John Denham, the normally well-balanced Labour MP who chairs the Home Affairs
Select Committee, absurdly stated at the weekend that he could not see why we were jailing so many
people at a time of falling crime.¶ Is he really so blinded by dogma that he cannot see that crime is on
the way down precisely because more criminals are being kept off the streets? The lesson of recent
history is that prison works.¶ We should be celebrating that reality by building more jails, not
wringing our hands about overcrowding .¶ It was the Tory politician Michael Howard who first
challenged the progressive consensus. Until he became Home Secretary in 1993, the conventional
wisdom was that rising crime was inevitable and that the duty of the Government was to keep as many
offenders as possible out of jail.¶ Mrs Thatcher was known as the Iron Lady, but there was nothing
tough about her administration's penal policy.¶ Successive Home Secretaries such as Douglas Hurd and
Kenneth Clarke swallowed the anti-prison line which predominated at the Home Office, allowing the
widespread use of parole, cautions, executive early release and community sentences and massively
extending criminals' rights through measures such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.¶ As a result,
the crime rate soared.
Arrestees do smuggle contraband into prisons; even minor offendors
SCOTUS October 2011, Supreme Court of the United States, Highest Court in America, “FLORENCE v.
BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL”,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf
Experience shows that people arrested for minor offenses have tried to smuggle prohibited items into
jail, sometimes by using their rectal cavities or genitals for the concealment. They may have some of the
same incentives as a serious criminal to hide contraband. A detainee might risk carrying cash, cigarettes,
or a penknife to survive in jail. Others may make a quick decision to hide unlawful substances to avoid
getting in more trouble at the time of their arrest. This record has concrete examples. Officers at the
Atlantic County Correctional Facility, for example, discovered that a man arrested for driving under the
influence had “2 dime bags of weed, 1 pack of rolling papers, 20 matches, and 5 sleeping pills” taped
under his scrotum. Brief for Atlantic County et al. as Amici Curiae 36 (internal quotation marks omitted).
A person booked on a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct in Washington State managed to hide
a lighter, tobacco, tattoo needles, and other prohibited items in his rectal cavity. See United States Brief
25, n. 15. San Francisco officials have discovered contraband hidden in body cavities of people arrested
for trespassing, public nuisance, and shoplifting. San Francisco Brief 3. There have been similar incidents
at jails throughout the country. See United States Brief 25, n. 15.
Banning all strip searches would be implausible and would increase crime
SCOTUS October 2011, Supreme Court of the United States, Highest Court in America, “FLORENCE v.
BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL”,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf
It also may be difficult, as a practical matter, to classify inmates by their current and prior offenses
before the intake search. Jails can be even more dangerous than prisons because officials there know so
little about the people they admit at the outset. See New Jersey Wardens Brief 11–14. An arrestee may
be carrying a false ID or lie about his identity. The officers who conduct an initial search often do not
have access to criminal history records. See, e.g., App. 235a; New Jersey Wardens Brief 13. And those
records can be inaccurate or incomplete. See Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of
Press, 489 U. S. 749, 752 (1989). Petitioner’s rap sheet is an example. It did not reflect his previous
arrest for possession of a deadly weapon. Tr. of Oral Arg. 18–19. In the absence of reliable information it
would be illogical to require officers to assume the arrestees in front of them do not pose a risk of
smuggling something into the facility. The laborious administration of prisons would become less
effective, and likely less fair and evenhanded, were the practical problems inevitable from the rules
suggested by petitioner to be imposed as a constitutional mandate. Even if they had accurate
information about a detainee’s current and prior arrests, officers, under petitioner’s proposed regime,
would encounter serious implementation difficulties. They would be required, in a few minutes, to
determine whether any of the underlying offenses were serious enough to authorize the more invasive
search protocol. Other possible classifications based on characteristics of individual detainees also might
prove to be unworkable or even give rise to charges of discriminatory application. Most officers would
not be well equipped to make any of these legal determinations during the pressures of the intake
process. Bull, 595 F. 3d, at 985–987 (Kozinski, C. J., concurring); see also Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U. S.
740, 761–762 (1984) (White, J., dissenting) (“[T]he Court’s approach will necessitate a case-by-case
evaluation of the seriousness of particular crimes, a difficult task for which officers and courts are poorly
equipped”). To avoid liability, officers might be inclined not to conduct a thorough search in any close
case, thus creating unnecessary risk for the entire jail population. Cf. Atwater, 532 U. S., at 351, and n.
22.
AT: Recidivism
Prisons reduce recidivism rates and teach prisoners important skills to be introduced
back into society
Zoe Williams, 10, a Guardian columnist, 12/15/10, “Yes, prisons work. No, I am not a Michael Howard
clone”, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/15/prison-michael-howard-rehabpunishment
Of course prison works . If you're going to have a judicial system, then it needs armoury more than
verbal censure. Imprisonment, like democracy, is the worst possible idea until you consider all the
others. The number of crimes goes down when the prison population is high because inmates have their
criminal activity curtailed through the pesky fact that they are in prison.¶ There are problems with the
way crime is measured: Clarke said, rather indolently, to the justice committee that "you can argue it
either way, and you can't prove it either way". I would argue that it doesn't matter whether a high
prison population reduces crime. It's like having a herd of rampaging elephants: you can tie them all to
trees, and they will cause less damage, but you cannot deduce from this that the answer to your
elephant problem is to plant more trees.¶ The only sensible measure of prison's efficacy is in recidivism.
Again, the figures are vexed. A study in 2003 showed offenders on community sentences were slightly
less likely to reoffend than those in custody (43% to 55%). When Clarke made his first speech as justice
secretary in May, he said that Labour's policies had increased reoffending. This was sleight-of-hand –
reoffending had gone up between 2008 and 2010, but the drop was so substantial in the eight years
beforehand that Jack Straw was right when he said last June that it had gone down overall – by 20%
among offenders and 24% among young offenders.¶ Rates of reoffending always make politicians gape
at the idea that anybody would devise a system in which more than half the offenders saw their
sentences merely as a hiatus in a life of crime. I wonder why nobody is more amazed at the number of
prisoners who come out and don't reoffend. These are people who had already reached an
accommodation with the moral implications of criminality; who were OK with the stigma of being on the
wrong side of the law; who certainly didn't come out of prison any richer than they went in, or with
more to lose. And yet 45% come out and eschew crime anyway. How is it possible that the prison
system, devised on the hoof, in a spirit of desperation and vengeance, could have such a socially
beneficial impact on nearly half the people who pass through it?¶ Where prison does work, it is for
these reasons: that it addresses and solves a prisoner's addiction problems, where they exist; that it
endows the prisoner with skills, both cognitive and practical; and that it is near enough to a prisoner's
family that there's a chance of returning to a stable life at the end of the sentence. So any justice
secretary with any enthusiasm for reform would be looking to replicate these benefits in a non-custodial
context. Schemes have been conceived to do this, and have been found not to work – the rightwing
think tank Civitas brandishes the figures somewhat triumphantly.¶ But all this shows is that noncustodial sentencing doesn't have the teeth to enforce its own requirements. The rates of recidivism
roughly correlate to the proportion of offenders who drop out before completing a course. As with so
much education, courses on anger management, enhanced thinking skills and rehab only work if you
show up.¶ The diametric opposition that Howard insists upon – where the tough-minded insist upon
prison, and the woolly-headed beg for community service in fluorescent tabards – is totally specious.
The prison service realised three decades ago that the punitive element could never be the main point
of incarceration, only a side issue. Ken Clarke's aim – to change offenders' lives through education and
rehab – marks no great departure in criminological philosophy, merely an attempt to graft the successes
of the prison service on to a cheaper, non-custodial process.¶ And Michael Howard's ideal of prisons as
dank hellholes that really teach bad people a lesson – these are a figment of his imagination.
Impacts
The fear caused by crime results in the further subjugation of ethnic minorities and
would worsen civil rights
Mark Moore and Robert Trojaniwikz 1988, A publication of the National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice, and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/111459.pdf
When crimes occur-when a ghetto teenager is shot to death in a gang war, when an elderly woman is
mugged for her social security check, when a nurse is raped in a hospital parking lot, when one driver is
punched by another in a dispute over a parking place, when a black family's new home is vandalizedsociety's attention is naturally focused on the victims and their material losses. Their wounds, bruises,
lost property, and inconvenience can be seen, touched, and counted. These are the concrete signs of
criminal victimization. Behind the immediate, concrete losses of crime victims, however, is a different,
more abstract crime problem-that of fear. For victims, fear is often the largest and most enduring legacy
of their victimization. The raped nurse will feel vulnerable long after her cuts and bruises heal. The
harassed black family suffers far more from the fear of neighborhood hostility than the inconvenience of
repairing their property. For the rest of us---the not-recently, or not-yet victimized fear becomes a
contagious agent spreading the injuriousness of criminal victimization. The gang member's death makes
parents despair of their children's future. The mugging of the elderly woman teaches elderly residents to
fear the streets and the teenagers who roam them. The fight over the parking place confirms the
general fear of strangers. The harassment of the black family makes other minorities reluctant to claim
their rights. In these ways, fear extends the damage of criminal victimization.
Fear of crime will actually increase crime control, this turns the case
Mark Moore and Robert Trojaniwikz 1988, A publication of the National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice, and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/111459.pdf
Of course, fear is not totally unproductive. It prompts caution among citizens and thereby reduces
criminal opportunities. Too, it motivates citizens to shoulder some of the burdens of crime control by
buying locks and dogs, thereby adding to general deterrence. And fear kindles enthusiasm for publicly
supported crime control measures. Thus, reasonable fears, channeled in constructive directions, prepare
society to deal with crime. It is only when fear is unreasonable, or generates counterproductive
responses, that it becomes a social problem. This paper explores fear as a problem to be addressed by
the police. It examines current levels and recent trends in the fear of crime; analyzes how fear is linked
to criminal victimization; considers the extent to which fear is a distinct problem that invites separate
control strategies; and assesses the positive and negative social consequences of fear. It then turns to
what is known about the efficacy of police strategies for managing fear, i.e., for reducing fear when it is
irrational and destructive, and for channeling fear along constructive paths when it is reasonable and
helpful in controlling crime.
Where crime increases, fear increases
Mark Moore and Robert Trojaniwikz 1988, A publication of the National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice, and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/111459.pdf
In the past, fear was viewed as primarily caused by criminal victimization. Hence, the principal strategy
for controlling crime was reducing criminal victimization. More recently, we have learned that while fear
of crime is associated with criminal victimization, the relationship is less close than originally
assumed.14 The association between victimization and fear is seen most closely in the aggregate
patterns across time and space. Those who live in areas with high crime rates are more afraid and take
more preventive action than people living in areas where the risk of victimization is lower.15 The trends
in levels of fear seem to mirror (perhaps with a lag) trends in levels of crime. Yet, the groups that are
most fearful are not necessarily those with the highest victimization rates; indeed, the order is exactly
reversed. Elderly women, who are most afraid, are the least frequently victimized. Young men, who are
least afraid, are most often victimized?~ Even more surprisingly, past victimization has only a small
impact on levels of fear; people who have heard about others' victimizations are almost as fearful as
those who have actually been victimized.'' And when citizens are asked about the things that frighten
them, there is little talk about "real crimes" such as robbery, rape, and murder. More often there is talk
about other signs of physical decay and social disorganization such as "junk and trash in vacant lots,
boarded-up buildings, stripped and abandoned cars, bands of teenagers congregating on street comers,
street prostitution, panhandling, public drinking, verbal harassment of women, open gambling and drug
use, and other incivilities."
This leads to the crumbling of communities across the nation, taking away from their
abilities to curb crime
Mark Moore and Robert Trojaniwikz 1988, A publication of the National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice, and the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy
School of Government, Harvard University, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/111459.pdf
Second, fear motivates people to invest time and money in defensive measures to reduce their
vulnerability. They stay indoors more than they would wish, avoid certain places, buy extra locks, and
ask for special protection to make bank deposits. Since this time, effort, and money could presumably
be spent on other things that make people happier, such expenditures must also be counted as personal
costs which, in turn, become social costs as they are aggregated. These are far from trivial issues. The
fact that two-fiths of the population is afraid and that the Nation continues to nominate crime as one of
its greatest concerns means that society is living less securely and happily than is desirable. And if 45
percent of the population restricts its daily behavior to minimize vulnerability, and the Nation spends
more than$20 billion on private security protection, then private expenditures on reducing fear
constitute a significant component of the national economy." All this is in addition to the $40 billion that
society spends publicly on crime control efforts. In short, fear of crime claims a noticeable share of the
Nation's welfare and resources. Fear has a further effect. Individual responses to fear aggregate in a way
that erodes the overall quality of community life and, paradoxically, the overall capacity of society to
deal with crime." This occurs when the defensive reactions of individuals essentially compromise
community life, or when they exacerbate the disparities between rich and poor by relying too much on
private rather than public security.
Reform CP
1NC
Text: The United States Federal Government should enact the Public Safety
Enhancement Act.
The PSEA will reduce prison sizes, and decrease recidivism; shields link to crime
disadvantage
Andrew Cohen July 18th, 2013, fellow at Brennan Center of Justice, legal analyst for 60 minutes, “For
Federal Prison Reform”, the Time Has Come, https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/federal-prisonreform-time-has-come,
Every once in a while in law and politics and government you see the coalescence of opinion around an
idea whose time has come. When that happens — and it is rare, especially when it comes to criminal
justice — it’s important to mark the occasion and act upon it because one never knows when the
moment is going to come again.
In just the past week in Washington we’ve seen from various forces and in various forms a confluence of
support for criminal justice reform that has been a long time in coming. The case has never been better
for legislative reform in federal mandatory minimum sentencing requirements — and for beginning to
empty our overflowing federal prisons of inmates who should no longer be incarcerated.
Last week, on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican lawmaker from Utah, introduced H.R. 2656,
the Public Safety Enhancement Act of 2013, which if enacted surely will help with the second problem.
The measure seeks to implement creative ways for federal law enforcement officials to determine which
inmates can be most safely and efficiently released from prison. The idea is to reduce the risk of
recidivism while at the same time providing incentive for prisoners to earn “time credits” leading to
early release.
The bill has support from both Republicans and Democrats; reducing prison sentences
important issue among law enforcement
Andrew Cohen July 18th, 2013, fellow at Brennan Center of Justice, legal analyst for 60 minutes, “For
Federal Prison Reform”, the Time Has Come, https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/federal-prisonreform-time-has-come,
The flip side of the coin when it comes to the nation’s teeming prisons are federal sentencing rules that
have taken discretion away from judges — resulting in longer sentences and onerous burdens upon
taxpayers. Here, too, there has been recent action. On Tuesday, a group of “current and former federal
judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers and others” sent an open letter to Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) making a compelling case against mandatory minimum sentencing laws — and
in favor of another piece of pending federal legislation, the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013. The authors
wrote: We believe that this outstanding achievement is the result of many factors and policies, including
smarter policing strategies and a greater reliance on severe punishment for violent offenders. At the
same time, we agree with Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent statement that, “Too many people go to
too many prisons for far too long for no good law enforcement reason.” Mandatory minimum
sentencing laws are chiefly responsible for this wasteful use of prison space because they fail to
distinguish between violent, serious criminals and low-level, nonviolent offenders.
CP popular
Reforms are popular – support from both sides of the aisle.
Sally Kohn 15, Journalist for CNN, 2-23-2015, “Will one man keep Americans locked up in prison?”,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/23/opinion/kohn-prison-reform-grassley/
Groups as disparate as the Center for American Progress and ACLU on the left and the Koch Brothers on
the right; Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Democratic Sen. Cory Booker; and over two-thirds of the
American people all support major overhauls to America's criminal justice system. As do, presumably, the
2.2 million Americans ensnared in our nation's costly and counterproductive current prison system. So
what's stopping reform? One man: Chuck Grassley.
The PSEA will downsize prison costs and also has widespread support from Republicans
Andrew Cohen July 18th, 2013, fellow at Brennan Center of Justice, legal analyst for 60 minutes, “For
Federal Prison Reform”, the Time Has Come, https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/federal-prisonreform-time-has-come,
“This bill is an important recognition by members of Congress that many states have successfully
improved public safety and reduced correctional populations through evidence-based programming,”
says Lauren-Brooke Eisen, counsel in the Brennan Center’s Justice Program. “Implementing a risk and
needs assessment tool to target appropriate programming for inmates should result in better outcomes
for justice involved individuals as well as the community at large. Additionally, incentivizing behavior
with positive outcomes is a key component of this bill and is backed up by research indicating that
positive reinforcements can change behavior.” Importantly, especially for conservatives seeking to
reduce the costs of the nation’s inmate industrial complex, the Public Safety Enhancement Act is
designed to help “address the underlying cost structure of the federal prison system.” You don’t need to
be an expert in criminal justice to understand the dynamics here. If we can better identify those federal
prisoners who can be safely released, and if we can help them better prepare for a successful return to
society, we can both cut taxpayer costs and increase the tax base in a particular community. This
legislation won’t solve all of the problems of mass incarceration. But it is not a bad start, especially if
lawmakers ensure that federal prison officials are willing and able to comply with the new rules.