Instead of prisons: a handbook for abolitionists
Moving away from incarceration
Yüklə 1,92 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Paradox of interim strategies
- Modes of excarceration
- Decriminalization
- Why decriminalize
- Under criminalization
- Decriminalizing prostitution
- Decriminalizing homosexuality
| Moving away from incarceration
Ideas for moving away from the notion of imprisonment are not new-they have been advocated for generations, but seldom acted upon. For decades we have been aware that decriminalizing harmless behavior could save untold numbers of individuals from the cage. Community dispute and mediation processes have long been proposed to keep the settlement of specific complaints and conflicts outside the criminal (in) justice systems. Also, abolishing the money bail system and thereby eliminating almost all pretrial detention, is another excarcerating idea that is hardly new. In order to implement such proposals, it is essential that abolitionists organize constituencies around these excarceration issues. Recently, two prestigious task forces, after intensive research into the failure of prisons and the validity of alternatives, proposed a series of excarcerating procedures. While not yet implemented, both reports are notable for their scope and conclusions and can be useful to abolitionists in excarceration campaigns. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, in their report Corrections, recommends that each "correctional" system begin immediately to develop a systematic plan with time-table and scheme for implementing a range of alternatives to institutionalization. [1] The Commission's guiding principles advocate the most limited possible use of institutionalization: (1) no individual who does not absolutely require institutionalization for the protection of others should be confined, and (2) no individual should be subjected to more supervision or control than s/he requires. After more than a year's intensive research and study, in 1972 The Final Report to the Governor of the Citizen's Study Committee on Offender Rehabilitation, "unequivocally established as its most fundamental priority the replacement of Wisconsin's existing institutionalized corrections system with a community based, non-institutional system." [2] The Study Committee, comprised of a broad range of individuals including ex-prisoners, placed particular emphasis on community services suited to the individual needs of the lawbreaker. But, the primary value of the report in addition to its scope and detailed proposals, is its advocacy of community control of programs rather than control by the Division of "Corrections." Paradox of interim strategies Abolitionists could spin off a long list of reasons why such reports could be regarded with suspicion: (1) Many of those who produce these reports are in the forefront of the reformist movement. They represent prevailing economic and political power arrangements. (2) Instituting reforms of decriminalization, modernization of the courts and community alternatives to incarceration still permits the legal and penal apparatus to focus on the same powerless class as before. (3) What passes for liberal and humane improvements of the system simultaneously contributes to the efficiency and acceptability of the control apparatus in a less crude form. While critical political analysis is crucial to all social change work, it should not limit the use of materials or programs that can correctly be perceived as vehicles to move us toward abolition. Regardless of the systems-connections of the authors, portions of the above reports serve as valuable interim proposals, useful in beginning the move from incarceration to excarceration. Belief in the long range goal of abolition, should not detract from shorter range strategies that provide the potential for gradually diminishing the role of prisons. Some reformist options can be utilized as interim abolition strategies as long as we consistently move toward our long range goals. If the proposed options prove inadequate to the need, we can recast them, discard them or create new alternatives. The recommendations are not envisioned as ends in themselves. They are part of a continuum strategy-a social change process which moves us both closer to abolition and at the same time brings desired relief to those who would otherwise be caged. Abolitionists must remember that many forms of excarceration are still considered punishment by the affected individuals-though a much lesser punishment than that of prison. We hope that gradual reductions in the degree and type of punishments can, in the long range, lead toward the total elimination of sanctions. Excarceration-keeping all people out of cages is our primary goal. As we examine caging alternatives, we can test our consistency with abolition principles and ideology by again asking ourselves:
Modes of excarceration We cite eight specific modes of excarceration, some for the long range and others which could immediately reduce dependency on prisons:
Decriminalization The notion that we live in an "overcriminalized" society has long been acknowledged.[3] Penal code legislation has penetrated further and further into the spheres of private morality and social welfare, proving ineffective and corruptive, making hypocrites of us all.[4] The process of decriminalization means simply to wipe certain laws off the books, eliminating criminal sanctions by the stroke of a legislative pen. v The crimes most frequently considered for decriminalization and upon which we will focus are those which are "victimless." They are defined as: ... offenses that do not result in anyone's feeling that s/he has been injured so as to impel him/her to bring the offense to the attention of the authorities .[5] ... behavior not injurious to others but made criminal by statutes based on moral standards which disapprove of certain forms of behavior while ignoring others that are comparable.[6] The essential factor is that there is no victim to bring complaint. Three categories emerge within this definition: moral statutes, illness statutes and nuisance statutes. Victimless crimes may be irritating, annoying, or troublesome in general, but they are not really injurious to anyone in particular.[7] They are "crimes" because the law says they are "crimes." Among those usually cited are noncommercial gambling, prostitution, "deviant" sexual acts in private between consenting adults, public intoxication, possession, sale and distribution of illegal drugs, "blue laws" against doing business on Sundays, loitering, disorderly conduct and vagrancy. Other behavior that could best be handled thru procedures outside the criminal (in)justice systems are juvenile statutes which include truancy or running away or "incorrigible," "stubborn" or "ungovernable" behavior. Most juvenile courts have become "in essence criminal courts with criminal type dispositions."[8] Though juvenile proceedings are intended to be civil in nature, commitment to an institution on a delinquency petition continues to carry much the same stigma as a criminal conviction.[9] Why decriminalize? Abolitionists advocate drastically limiting the role of criminal law. We do this not because we wish to encourage certain behavior, but because we realize that criminal sanctions are not an effective way of dealing with social problems. There are far too many laws on the books. [10] It would be prohibitively expensive to enforce them all. This results in unjust and arbitrary law enforcement. Powerless persons are imprisoned while more powerful persons go free. Blacks and poor people bear the brunt of unequal law enforcement. Enforcing morality has no rightful place in our penal codes. Morality cannot be coerced thru law. A democratic society should tolerate a wide range of individual differences. A person's right to do as s/he wishes should be respected as long as s/he does not infringe upon the rights of others. A system "bursting at its seams" is perhaps the most visible effect of over criminalization. Almost 95 percent of the short term prisoners in the nation's jails are there for acts we would decriminalize. Two million persons are arrested annually for drunkenness alone and more than three million when related vagrancy and loitering charges are included. And the costs are enormous: [11]
Over criminalization encourages the wide use of discretionary power in law enforcement. Because there is no complainant, police resort to questionable means of enforcement. Investigative techniques used to gather evidence are often immoral and sometimes illegal. These include entrapment, use of informers, wiretapping and infringement of constitutional rights such as illegal search and seizure, invasion of the right to privacy and self incrimination. [12] The enforcement of victimless crimes also encourages corruption. Graft and pay-offs are frequently made by neighborhood numbers rackets [13] and places of prostitution. Liaisons extend beyond the police to the larger profiteers of organized crime. Crime syndicates manage to soak up much of the money flowing thru illicit "industries" such as gambling and drugs. Victimless crimes are also linked to secondary crimes which do have victims. For example, heroin users frequently support their habits by such crimes as robbery and burglary. Police estimate that 75 percent of the burglaries in New York City are drug-related. This is an additional cost of criminalizing drug use. Though decriminalization has been increasingly advocated for the last decade, only minimal progress has been made on revising penal codes. In order to understand opposition to decriminalization, we must examine those who hold power to legislate. The mores of the powerful determine whether there is openness to decriminalization. A prime example is the legalization of alcohol in contrast to the criminalization of marijuana. Almost every legislator consumes alcoholic beverages and tolerates excessive drinking. It is fair to assume that only a small proportion presently smoke marijuana. Under criminalization While we advocate decriminalizing a range of individual behaviors, we also must point to the injustice of under criminalizing certain dangerous collective behaviors. Collective criminality reflects institutional assaults on whole social groups or on the public. Examples include the violence of racism, starvation, war and corporate pollution. These antisocial acts produce victimization in far greater amount than other classes of crimes. [14] Yet in many instances these acts do not violate any criminal code. The criminal (in)justice systems, with the aid of the media, focus mainly on individual crimes of the poor, virtually excluding collective criminality. Decriminalizing prostitution Since the laws against prostitution attempt to regulate private sexual activity of willingly participating adults, they clearly violate the "right to privacy." This "encompasses the constitutional right of the individual to control the use and function of his or her own body . . . ." [15] It is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted intrusion by the government. Related laws used to arrest prostitutes are constitutionally questionable. The due process clause of the 14th Amendment is often violated by use of vaguely written statutes against loitering, disorderly conduct, and obstructing the sidewalk. Reputation, past record or presence in an area where prostitution is known to be practiced are often grounds for arrest. As in all crimes, enforcement patterns are selective and discriminatory by race and class. It is seven times more likely that prostitution arrests will involve Black women. Most customers, however, are white, middle class men between the ages of 30 and 60. [16] Because of selective enforcement, only a handful of all prostitutes are arrested. The estimated costs of processing thru the criminal (in)justice systems for prostitution approach $10 million a year $100-$175 per arrest. [17] Enforcement is usually only against women involved in prostitution, although both parties to the agreement are equally consenting. [18] The discrimination based solely on sex blatantly denies the women the right to equal protection. Furthermore, in the rare instances when "johns" are arrested, they are held only briefly, possibly for testifying against the women, or receive considerably lower penalties than the women. [19] In D.C. and other places, where prostitution itself is not a crime, solicitation (an exchange of words) constitutes the offense. This, in effect, punishes someone "for soliciting another to commit an act which is itself not a crime." [20] Criminalizing this verbal offer violates freedom of speech rights. Universally, prostitution is not widely prohibited; the U.S. is one of the few nations in which prostitution is illegal. (Only Nevada and some places in Arizona provide for local option.) The prostitute is a frequent victim of related crimes, especially assault. Because her profession is outside the law, she is easily victimized. According to one study, 75 percent of prostitutes have experienced injuries; 64 percent by customers, 20 percent by police and 16 percent by pimps. [21] We favor decriminalization of prostitution because regulation would invite many of the abuses of the present system. Licensing prostitutes would extend governmental intrusion into consensual adult activity rather than curbing it. Empowerment. Some prostitutes are beginning to organize for their rights, most notably COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics) and SCAPEGOAT. COYOTE has focused primarily on the decriminalization effort in California and has developed strategies for economic independence. [22] SCAPEGOAT, a relatively new group in New York, has developed a multi-phased approach: They are developing a childcare center and health facility that will service all prostitutes, as well as opening a hospitality house that will serve several functions. It will be a resting/meeting place for women working the streets and offer consciousness-raising groups. Abolitionists uphold the right of an individual to choose a sexual relationship, regardless of the exchange of money or other consideration. It is inappropriate for the government to interfere with sexual activity. Sexism itself, however, which affects the values underlying sexual and other relationships, must be countered in all institutions of society. More economic options must be made available to women so that prostitution can clearly be a lifestyle they choose, rather than a survival mechanism. Decriminalizing homosexuality Laws against sodomy and other laws criminalizing homosexual behavior are seldom enforced. [23] This is partly because of the private and consensual nature of the behavior made illegal, but also because of a growing acceptance and practice of such activities among the general population. Even so, the existence of these archaic laws is a constant threat. Men and women face prison penalties ranging up to 20 years-or even life in some states. Though enforcement is generally difficult and therefore uncommon, the threat of enforcement is nevertheless real. The police, in their political need to keep up a facade of alertness, frequently resort to harassment of gay bars, entrapment, and other exploitative tactics, including "shakedowns" with token arrests. Vulnerability of gays does not end with law enforcement. Since their behavior is labeled "criminal," they have little recourse to the law's protection and therefore are exposed to victimization in many forms: blackmail, theft, violence and constant fear. Myths. Underpinning the repressive laws against homosexuals are numerous stereotypes and myths:
Empowerment. A gay liberation movement grew out of the "Stonewall rebellion" in 1969, when homosexuals stood up against police harassment. Though much remains to be accomplished, there have been many positive changes in the day to day lives of gay people. Many are able to be proud and open about their sexual identity and to work against age-old prejudice and discrimination.
Prejudice against homosexuality is deep-rooted. It is to be expected that it will take many generations to eliminate this prejudice entirely. Even so, impressive gains have been made by homosexuals during the last decade. Yüklə 1,92 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|