From Yale Law Journal:
ABSTRACT. There has long been a perceived tension between abolition and prison-conditions litigation. This piece offers a path forward for such litigation that is consistent with abolitionist goals. Drawing from experience with Texas state prisons, the piece proposes a framework for litigating prison understaffing that advances the project of abolition.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, abolition has gradually begun to gain recognition, if not acceptance, in mainstream discourse on the criminal legal system.1 “[Prison-industrial complex] abolition is a political vision with the goal of eliminating imprisonment, policing, and surveillance and creating lasting alternatives to punishment and imprisonment.”2 As abolition gains footing among legal practitioners, academics, and the broader public, prison-conditions litigation faces an ambiguous future. Since before the mid-twentieth century, people in prison have turned to the courts to vindicate their rights in numerous areas, from racial discrimination to overcrowding to medical care. Yet even seasoned practitioners have begun to question the efficacy of this model, as litigation and monitoring stretch on for years while people continue to languish in conditions that, while better than they have been, are still inhumane. Many abolitionists have foresworn this litigation as only strengthening the hold of the carceral state.
The detractors of conditions litigation are not entirely wrong. Abolitionists decry conditions litigation that channels streams of funding towards small improvements while further entrenching prisons in society. However, the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the nation’s prisons causes real harm to thousands upon thousands of people every day, and litigation is one way to alleviate that suffering. Even with strong philosophical arguments against pursuing incremental relief through litigation, it can be difficult—if not morally questionable—to dismiss the present suffering of individuals. But if we continue to prioritize immediate conditions over more fundamental changes, it is nearly impossible to envision a time when present suffering will be alleviated and the path cleared for more high-minded concerns. Continue reading >>>
|
|
|
|
