Prison abolition doesn’t mean removing all forms of spatial containment of sentient beings from society, it means abolishing prisons.
The question is always what is the least amount of violence necessary to stop someone from harming others. Reconstructing a prison cell would require a very contrived threat profile.
First, why can’t they be in a house with a garden? What harm are you preventing by putting someone in a stone and metal box instead of somewhere comfortable? What harm are you preventing by prescribing what room they are located in, when they eat their meals, what meals they eat, or when they go outside?
Second, why can’t they have visitors? What harm are you preventing by preventing people who give informed consent from meeting them, or touching them, or doing whatever with them?
Third, why can’t they have stuff to do their hobbies? If they are a flight risk, what are they flying to? Can it be brought to them safely, can they find closure some other way, or can they be brought to it under guard?
Fourth, why are they physically contained at all? Could the harm they could cause be mitigated in a less invasive way? Could a sociopath be offered a strict social contract where they have no incentive to harm others? Could a “lunatic” be brought to an environment they don’t want to leave because it’s nice? Could a child rapist move into a child-free commune?
Fifth, why are we making this choice for them? At the very least they should be able to have a say in how things are structured, and they should be able to choose from all available options that are safe given their situation. Maybe they’re okay with trying out chemical sterilization, maybe they’re okay with a face tattoo warning others of how dangerous they are, maybe they would prefer to live in a mediterranean beach cove or on a tropical island or in a house near the people that would still enjoy hanging out with them.
It might be true that sometimes people prefer something that can reasonably be called prison over other options. It might be true that sometimes the only viable options are something that can reasonably be called prison, or death. But in every case, every liberty that is taken away, every option discarded as unsafe, and every restriction has to be justified.
There will be no crimes that carry prison as a sentence, no prison buildings that look like what we today call prison buildings, and no natural divide between safety restrictions that constitute a prison and ones that do not. I’m okay with summarizing that as “prison abolition”.
Prison abolition doesn’t mean removing all forms of spatial containment of sentient beings from society, it means abolishing prisons.
The question is always what is the least amount of violence necessary to stop someone from harming others. Reconstructing a prison cell would require a very contrived threat profile.
First, why can’t they be in a house with a garden? What harm are you preventing by putting someone in a stone and metal box instead of somewhere comfortable? What harm are you preventing by prescribing what room they are located in, when they eat their meals, what meals they eat, or when they go outside?
Second, why can’t they have visitors? What harm are you preventing by preventing people who give informed consent from meeting them, or touching them, or doing whatever with them?
Third, why can’t they have stuff to do their hobbies? If they are a flight risk, what are they flying to? Can it be brought to them safely, can they find closure some other way, or can they be brought to it under guard?
Fourth, why are they physically contained at all? Could the harm they could cause be mitigated in a less invasive way? Could a sociopath be offered a strict social contract where they have no incentive to harm others? Could a “lunatic” be brought to an environment they don’t want to leave because it’s nice? Could a child rapist move into a child-free commune?
Fifth, why are we making this choice for them? At the very least they should be able to have a say in how things are structured, and they should be able to choose from all available options that are safe given their situation. Maybe they’re okay with trying out chemical sterilization, maybe they’re okay with a face tattoo warning others of how dangerous they are, maybe they would prefer to live in a mediterranean beach cove or on a tropical island or in a house near the people that would still enjoy hanging out with them.
It might be true that sometimes people prefer something that can reasonably be called prison over other options. It might be true that sometimes the only viable options are something that can reasonably be called prison, or death. But in every case, every liberty that is taken away, every option discarded as unsafe, and every restriction has to be justified.
There will be no crimes that carry prison as a sentence, no prison buildings that look like what we today call prison buildings, and no natural divide between safety restrictions that constitute a prison and ones that do not. I’m okay with summarizing that as “prison abolition”.