Introduction
Prison abolitionism is a movement seeking to dismantle the existing systems of incarceration and replace them with alternative methods to handle harm, conflict, and social disparities. This approach differs from typical responses to crime and punishment, replacing existing incarceration methods and transitioning into justice-oriented frameworks. Emerging from the Prison Abolition Movement, prison abolitionism challenges the effectiveness of the carceral system (Smith). Although the purpose of incarceration is to deter crime for public safety and justice, proponents for prison abolition argue that prisons do not fulfill these purposes. Specifically, they perpetuate injustice by the overrepresentation of Black and Latino populations, retribute rather than rehabilitate, and leave public safety at risk for over-relying on incremental reforms. Abolitionists call to defund the police and prisons, and invest in alternatives for community well-being. Meanwhile, opponents of prison abolition in the United States argue that prisons have a longstanding legacy of upholding public safety and accountability, questioning the practicalities of alternative solutions. This essay will evaluate opposing perspectives regarding prison abolition in the United States. To evaluate the most effective future approach, arguments for and against this concept must prove why abolishing, or not abolishing, will be the most pragmatic and effective approach in upholding the purpose of incarceration.

Background on Prison Abolition
The history of prisons and prison abolitionism are deeply connected to political and socioeconomic landscapes. For instance, during the early colonial period in the United States, penitentiaries were initially rehabilitative, allowing inmates to reflect on their moral wrongdoings in solitary confinement (Neal). However, with time, penitentiaries not only became overcrowded, but also shifted from extensive rehabilitative care to retributive measures. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the modern prison system was established with the support of rising industrialization and capitalism (Brinson). With industrial capitalism, efficiency in social control and punishment is needed, addressing the rising urban populations (Gilmore 2). Thus, prisons expanded, functioning as both punishments and repositories for labor. Mass incarceration in the 20th century marked a turning point in the prison system due to policies, like “war on drugs” and “tough on crime,” praising retribution (Taifa). Communities of color, like Black and Latino populations, were primary subjects facing high rates of conviction, imprisonment, and arrest (Ghandnoosh).

Arguments For Prison Abolition
The abolitionist perspective sees imprisonment as morally indefensible, advocating for rising alternatives. For instance, the initiative Reimagining Communities in Massacheutts is spearheaded by formerly incarcerated people to brainstorm solutions, including decriminalization of drug abuse, release of seniors with mobility challenges from prison, and clemency for women with lengthy sentences (McGregor). Residents also suggested reallocating prison and enforcement funds to alternative response teams for particular crises, whether it be mental health, income programs, and participatory defense. In Washington, D.C., local neighborhood groups formed Community Release Organizations, community groups taking the place of a parole officer. When a convicted person is released into the custody of one of these groups upon sentencing, the group works with the offender and respective relatives to navigate problems that led to the offender's crime. The purpose is to enable inmates to design a more bearable life for themselves.

Abolitionists argue that marginalized communities, particularly people of color or low income, are overrepresented in prisons, highlighting the prison's inability to ameliorate social disparities. For instance, California’s indeterminate sentencing schemes of 1917 relied on arbitrary, racially-motivated judgements by parole boards. As opposed to fixed sentence durations, inmates were instructed to persuade the parole board to rejoin society as responsible citizens. For Black and Latino inmates, sentence appeals were continuously rejected by parole boards, forcing them to remain imprisoned for decades. Furthermore, in California, prisons grew to conform to powerful economic forces, excusing exploitation of incarcerated communities as color as cheap labor for corporations who sought lower production costs, tracing back to the historical exploitation of slavery (Gilmore 21). This was particularly pertinent in California’s "Three Strikes Law," where criminal sentencing is harsher on repeated offenders. Based on the California Department of Corrections' data, African Americans and Latino populations are imprisoned at far higher rates than their white counterparts. African Americans make up 6.5% of the state population, but they make up nearly 30% of the state's prison population, particularly high at 45% for "third-strikers." Similarly, although 32.6% of the overall California population is Latino, a higher 36% of Latinos make up the prisons. Comparatively, while 47% of the Californian population is white, a smaller 29% of the prison held white inmates (Egkersm). This breakdown reveals a key inequality: while individuals may engage in similar crimes, they receive radically different incarceration rates depending on their race when subject to the law. Delving deeper, minority communities experience higher rates of intergenerational poverty, continuously troubled to invest in private attorneys on their behalf. While prisons are not the root cause of racism, they are a key executor of historically dehumanizing, shallow ideologies (Davis 81).

Retribution has always been a controversial philosophy embedded in prison systems, as the extent to which retribution reduces recidivism rates remains doubted by abolitionists (Britannica). In the 18th century, English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham developed the panopticon, a prime example of retribution. With a circular design, the heart of the building is occupied by the inspectors' apartment. Only a single corrections officer was delegated to observe the cell, but inmates were unaware if they are surveilled. This way, inmates are consistently compelled to self regulate obedience as though they are being watched all the time (Bentham 4). This theory was widely commended by British government officials for Bentham's ways to increase pleasure and decrease pain for inmates and because of its consideration for prison costs given that fewer correctional officers were appointed at a time. Despite initial acceptance, the panopticon ultimately failed. The asymmetrical power balance between the guards and inmates internalized the notion that artificially complying was key to dodge retribution. Rather than rehabilitating, this system deteriorated inmates' physical and psychological well being (West). Another example looks like the 1829 Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, incorporating seven corridors holding 500 isolated convicts. The social isolation practice did not encourage repentance, but rather psychological harm (Rubin). As Charleroy commented on a report by Prison Discipline Society, isolation overall produced higher rates of mortality and insanity among inmates (Charleroy). With prison abolition, the challenges/problematic nature of punishment can be reformed, investing in alternatives that cultivate rehabilitation.

Despite current efforts to reform, the system is and will continue to be ineffective, making alternatives more viable. While the argument advocating for the importance of prisons is concerned with how society will address immediate criminal cases, the rate at which prisons effectively address immediate cases like murder are low. Even with high budgeting at both the municipal and federal level for policing, most civilians continue to report unsafe feelings (Paiella). In the United States, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) showcased commendable efforts to prepare incarcerated individuals to re-enter society. These efforts include reducing prison overcrowding by lowering the inmate-to-officer ratio, investing in training for corrections officers, limiting private prisons, increasing federal oversight, and restricting solitary confinement. However, these broader reforms of the BOP still fail to adequately address the fundamental injustices and effectiveness. In the status quo, the issues most concerning prisons, particularly mass incarceration and social inequalities, continue to persist (Chung). Abolitionism is a radical change, meaning that beyond the BOP initiating minor reforms to the way people are imprisoned, central governments would release all retributive justice into the hands of community organizations.

Argument Against Prison Abolition
A surplus of resources allows for expansion of prisons. This not only ensures that the available resources are actually being implemented, but is also key to stay proportional to the rising crime rates needing to be addressed. Power blocs, using prison expansion, addressed the surplus crises of land, labor, finance capital, and state capacity. Specifically, California's legislative body leveraged the capacities to approve prison facilities. In 1981, legislation approved 25,000,000 dollars for expansion at the California Correctional Institution in Southern Kern County additional to thirteen new prisons along the Central Valley's "prison valley" spanning 375 miles from Tehachapi to Folsom (Gilmore 129). This expansion did not only utilize all available space, but is significant for immediately resolving increasing crimes. From the Public Policy Institute of California, for every 100,000 residents, California's criminal activity increased from 468 crimes to 495 between 2021 and 2022 (Lofstrom and Martin, 2024). To afford the most upfront solution, California's expansion took advantage of its available capacity and made proper use of the land that addresses the imminent crisis. Thus, abolishing prisons and its expansion would not address the surplus crises, risking economic stagnation and social unrest.

In an emergency, alternatives cannot provide the same immediate solution that prisons can. The major concerns around prison operations, such as social inequalities and retribution, will still exist in a world with abolition. These two concepts did not originate from prisons, but are rather broad societal concepts. For instance, when discussing marginalization, prisons are not the cause of societal bias against people of color, but rather took influence from the larger societal issue. Finding alternatives are not solving these major issues, but rather carrying them over to less reliable programs. While prisons have been operating and consistently adopting new approaches to fit society's needs since 1785, community-based alternatives only gained traction in the latter part of the 20th century (Miller, 2024). This not only undermines the legitimacy of these programs, but also makes them less stable due to its privatization, meaning the central government is less likely to delegate equal funding to all services. Moreover, the transition period from prisons to fully relying on external programs or services is at risk in the emergence of more cases.

Importantly, given the progress prisons are making, abolishing would render any chance at reforms impossible. Particularly since the start of the 20th century, central governments are making more attempts to reform the carceral system. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has established several specific programs dedicated to targeting causes of crime. They embraced a corrections philosophy for reentry preparation beginning on the first day of incarceration, obtaining information about an inmate’s risk of recidivism with criminogenic assessment tools. In November 2016, the Bureau also built a “school district” within the federal prison system, reporting a 43% reduced odds of returning to prison than those who do not participate. On top of this, several mental health treatments were in place, including cognitive behavioral therapy and The Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). While crime is a slow process, the current reforms on existing prison systems are progressively achieving the same goals as proponents of prison abolition: improving the criminal's quality of life (Department of Justice, 2023). However, abolishing prisons at this point prevents any further reform from occurring, stopping the progress of services solely because of imperfections. Rather, by keeping prisons alive, more reforms are likely to be implemented, being a comparatively more reliable source than rehabilitative alternatives.

My Suggestion for a Just Society
As equity and peace are increasingly prevalent in public dialogue, establishing alternatives is more favorable. In addition to the community programs outlined above, alternatives could also look like California's Oakland Power Project, reflecting not on retribution, but on rehabilitative approaches, specifically mentorship, job training, mental health counseling, and resolution services for youth members at risk (Lempinen, 2024). This plan, overlooking traditional policing patrols, mitigates the complaints around overt retribution and tests acknowledges the praise of rehabilitation. Next, regarding private prisons, I suggest maintaining existing cells, but limiting expansion. Rather, we should expand diversion programs, such as drug or mental health courts. This approach is particularly useful under the United States's government funding to preexisting prisons, meaning by reforming the prisons to be more like community alternatives, we can get just as sufficient funds to stabilize said community programs. However, most importantly, policymakers, activists, and communities must continue to engage in public dialogue to forge a path towards serving the needs of the common good.