Contemporary Crises 10:81-94 (1986)

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Netherlands

The politics of abolition

THOMAS MATHIESEN
University of Oslo, Norway

In 1971-72, the first part of my book with the English title 'The Politics of
Abolition' appeared in the three Scandinavian languages. The second part of
the book appeared in Norwegian in 1973. A complete English translation
appeared in 1974, and in German in 1979.1
Thus, 14 years have elapsed since the first publication of the basic theoretical
ideas contained in 'The Politics of Abolition'. More than fifteen years have
gone since their conception. What, in retrospect, were the basic ideas? As far
as criminal policy goes, they may be summarized under three points - at least
as I see it now.
Firstly, the abolition of prisons was presented as a goal of a radical criminal
policy. Indeed, I believed I would personally experience the day when prisons
were abolished, or at least drastically reduced in size and number. Towards the
end of the 1960s I did some work for the Council of Europe, and I remember
vividly a trip to Strasbourg. It was the time when some airplanes still had old
fashioned engines, and flew much lower, and I was sitting in the plane, looking
out over the warm European landscape, rejoicing at the fact, as I saw it then,
of a Europe in my life time with prisons more or less as a historical relic. The
times were with us. I had already decided to devote good part of my working
day to the issue of prison abolition. I believed such work had to be organized,
and had participated in the establishment of the Norwegian prison organization - I should rather say 'anti-prison organization' - KROM. I was exited by
the possibility of establishing international contacts - outside rather than
within the Council of Europe - with groups and people working for the same
end.
Secondly, the premise was stressed that in working for prison abolition,
so-called 'alternatives' to prison - which were frequently emphasized by our
opponents - contained very great dangers, in so far as they easily would imply
the creation of new prison-like structures with functions similar to those of the
prison proper. I therefore advocated an 'unfinished' policy or attitude towards
the question of alternatives, arguing that the only true alternative would in fact
be contained in a state of permanent, unfinished revolution, or at least in a
matrix of social relationships which were constantly evolving. Once structured
and systematized, and especially once planned and designed ahead of time as
alternatives to prison, the alternatives would in fact only become extensions of
the prison structure. In addition, I had seen, in my early work in the organiza-

82
tion K R O M , how the demand for alternatives from our opponents had been
used as a tactical argument to stop us from arguing convincingly for the goal of
abolition.
Thirdly, and as a corollary to the above, I believed that the attainment of
abolition required a carefully worked out strategy, and above all an analysis of
the relationship between short-term reforms and long-term abolition. Concretely, I believed that in order not to impede the long-term abolitionist goal,
short-term reforms should be of the 'negative' kind. That is, when working for
short-term improvements in the prison, one should in principle work for
reforms negating the basic prison structure, thus helping - at least a little bit in tearing that structure down rather than consolidating it. Concrete examples
were reforms such as extended leaves, visits, etc., which would open up the
prison. Such reforms might in the second round also consolidate the system,
but at least in conception they were 'anti-prison', and could be used as such
through the organizational work, media work etc. which prisoners could
engage in on their basis.
These, then, were the three most basic ideas. Much of the rest of the
combined English version contained a description and analysis of the Norwegian prison organization K R O M and its work towards prison abolition.
When the first part of the book appeared in the Norwegian in 1971, under the
title 'The Unfinished', it created a fairly heated Norwegian debate. The
directors of various Norwegian prisons reacted strongly, especially against the
notion and concept of 'the unfinished', which appeared extremely threatening. Where would it all end? What were actually the author's - and the
movement's - intentions? Where were they heading - did they want reform or
revolution? Our reply was that we wanted both - and that was precisely what
worried the prison directors. They could not 'place' us. The reactions contained an important lesson - which was taken into the second part of what
became the English version, and which, to repeat, appeared in the Norwegian
in 1973. Great political emphasis was placed, by various authorities and by the
prison system, on 'placing' us either as 'reformists' or 'revolutionaries'. The
question of our 'placement' became a part of the political struggle, a struggle in
which we insisted on n o t placing ourselves, and on being 'both', on being
'total'. We discovered that being 'both', and being unplaced, is highly threatening to the power and authority structure against which a social movement
works. The second part of what became the English version, discussed the
pressures towards placement, and our attempts to counteract them.

Where do the basic ideas sketched above stand to-day?

The abolition of prisons is not exactly imminent. The times are no longer with

83
us. A plane trip across Europe does not give the exciting feeling that things are
moving in the right direction. Indeed, there is a very noticeable movement to
the contrary. Though there are variations, there is a clear and strong tendency
towards expansions of the prison system throughout the Western world. Even
in Holland, traditionally the country with a low prison rate in Europe, the
flagship telling the world that it is possible to have a complex industrialized
society with very few prisoners, there is now a noticeable expansion in the
making (information provided at the thirteenth conference of the European
Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control, Hamburg 1985). Let me
mention, in somewhat greater detail, two more extreme examples:
In England the completion of 16 new prisons is now in the program, in
addition to renovation of existing establishments. The cost is estimated at
about 500 million. It has been characterized as the 'biggest-ever jail-building
programme' in England. 2
For the United States, the situation has been characterized as follows by the
reputable conservative magazine 'Time' (Dec. 5, 1983): 'The major reason for
bulging prison cells: a criminal justice system that has become very punitive
very fast. The rate of incarceration in this country was 93 per 100,000 population in 1972; it is now 177 per 100,000, the highest since the Government began
keeping records in 1925'. These are, actually, minimum figures. A more
correct estimate is probably 250 per 100,000 (see 'Just the Facts', American
Institute of Criminal Justice). The magazine continued: 'New prisons cannot
be built quickly enough to accomodate all of the new inmates . . . The construction bill alone is enormous: about $1.2 billion in prison and jail construction is planned across the country over the coming decade, including $1.2
billion for 16,500 new cells in California and $ 700 million for 8,000 in New
York'.
Thus, the expansion is very noticeable indeed. The expansion is clearly not a
simple reflection of the official crime rate - that relationship is much more
complex. Partly, it is a consequence of an increase in long sentences, which
decreases prison circulation and brings the number of prisoners at any one
time up. According to the above-mentioned information, this appears to be
the case for example in Holland, especially in connection with drug offences.
Long sentences in connection with drug related offences seem important in
several countries, for example in the Scandinavian countries. Partly, the
expansion also seems to be a consequence of a larger number of people being
brought to prison. This appears to be the case for example in England and
Spain (again according to information provided at the above-mentioned conference of the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control).
In general terms, the expansion seems to be rooted in deep-seated class
conflicts and political conflicts in Western societies. Prison is becoming an
important repressive weapon in the hands of a strong state.

84
However, to my mind the expansion of prisons, the wrong direction of the
development, does not mean that the basic principles of a politic of abolition
have become irrelevant or invalid, though they obviously need further specification and development. Though the abolition of prisons clearly is a long range
task, requiring basic changes of the whole social fabric, and though the
political situation today is defensive rather than offensive, I cannot see that the
principles as such should be abandoned.

In the first place, the importance of abolition of the prison as a way of solving
interhuman conflicts, however long-range the goal, has not become less
significant over time.
On the contrary, as prison systems have expanded the importance of the
goal has, to my mind, only increased. As people are being placed behind walls
for longer periods of time, and/or as more people are being placed there, the
long-range goal has become all the more significant. Among social scientists
there seems to be considerable disillusionment, and, indeed, a turning away
from the goal of abolition - more or less as if it were a youthful and confused
prank from the late sixties which the middle aged and wise can hardly uphold. I
have, however, never understood why a negative political trend - be it
increased pollution, escalation of nuclear armaments or expanded prison
systems - should lead one to conclude that the trend in question no longer
constitutes a point of fundamental attack and final abolition from a radical
position. To be sure, the issue of prison abolition is more complex than we
thought 15 years ago. Among other things, and as suggested above, we see
much more clearly today that prisons a r e a part of the State's apparatus for
political repression, thus being much more integrated into the political system
than some of us thought two decades ago. This, however, should lead us to
further and more refined analyses of strategy and tactics rather than disillusionment and despair. Much too often, sociological analyses stress the complexities of the issue without touching the issues of strategies and tactics.
As before, organization seems to be a key element in any strategy towards
prison abolition. The integration into social movements seems to be another.
The 'Green' movement in some European countries seems to be a possible
point of departure. Over and above organization and movement alliance,
strategy and tactics taust be developed as the organization and movement
evolves, and as a learning process tied to that evolution. I have recently dealt
with the key issues of strategy and tactics in detail elsewhere 3, space forbids
detailed discussion here. Let me only emphasize orte point:
Special significance should probably be attached to the development of
what the Germans call an alternative 'ffentlichkeit', an alternative 'public

85
sphere'. The significance of the formation of an alternative 'public sphere',
where w e define conditions and premises, and which competes effectively with
the established 'public sphere', becomes clear when we call to mind the
development of wht is referred to as the 'new media'. Space again forbids a
detailed discussion of the significance of the new media for prison abolition as
weil as for other radical political endeavours. 4 Suffice it hefe to say that the
'new media' - with viewing rather than reading and listening as basic activity,
with a restructuring of capital so that concentration takes place alongside
increased conglomeration, and with a whole new technology involving satellites, fiberoptic cables, etc. - lead partly to an increased concentration of
power in the media field, and partly to an increased emphasis on a paradigm
for thinking and action involving individualism, sensationalism and superficial
entertainment and escape. These paradigmatic elements are foreign to the
structural orientation which is embedded in radical political thinking. In the
light of the development of the present media paradigm, the development of
an alternative public sphere, utilizing the political and social networks which
people are engaged in, and emphasizing criteria of importance and participation within that sphere, cannot be emphasized too strongly. Let me give a brief
example to illustrate the point: A couple of years ago I participated in an antiatomic power conference in Sweden. The conference was very successful,
important contacts were developed, and significant information was produced
which could be utilized in wider circles. Towards the end of the conference,
however, someone discovered that the largest Swedish newspaper, ~Dagens
Nyheter', had not sent a correspondent to the conference. This was commented on by a string of speakers, who clearly viewed the conference more or
less as a failure because of the absence of 'Dagens Nyheter'. The example
shows how dangerously dependent we have become on the mass media for
definitions, significance and response. It is of the greatest importance to cancel
out this kind of dependence by the active development of an alternative public
sphere. And it taust be done now, because of the increased and dangerous
significance of the new media.

Secondly, experience over the past decade or so has indicated quite clearly
how dangerous planned and structured 'alternatives' to prison may be if the
goal is decreased reliance on prison.
Over the past ten or fifteen years, a number of such 'alternatives' have been
implemented, under general names such as 'diversion' and 'decarceration'.
Today we have, in many countries, community service orders, half way
houses, various institutions of alternative conflict resolution, and so on. Study
after study, in the US, Canada and England, very strongly suggest that such

86
'alternatives' do not become true alternatives to prisons. Rather, they become
'add-ons' to prison, either by simply increasing the number of people under
formal social control, or, at least, by adding more to the total formal control
system than what is subtracted from it. Planned 'alternatives' clearly tend to
'widen the net', as Stanley Cohen has put it.
As a corollary, politicians and authorities responsible for the formal control
system advocate 'alternatives' to prison whilst simultaneously arguing that
prisons, even expansions of prisons, are necessary and should not be counteracted. I witnessed an unusually clear instance of such double talk at the
United Nations' Seventh Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Milan recently (August/September 1985). I participated
as a delegate from Norway, and spoke for half an hour to the assembly of one
of the committees on the necessity of instituting a moratorium on prison
building. The speech appeared to interest a number of (younger?) delegates.
On this basis, I took the initiative of collaborating with some other delegates
on the drafting of a resolution recommending reduced use of imprisonment. In
order to get more countries to co-sponsor the resolution, a great deal about
'alternatives to imprisonment' had to be introduced. But the notion of reducing imprisonment was still central. During the first debate in the assembly of
the committee, delegates from a number of countries were pleased to see
'alternatives to imprisonment' introduced, while strongly opposing the notion
of reduced use of imprisonment. In particular, the Soviet Union and the US
were strong in their opposition. In the final round of discussions, before the
draft resolution finally was adopted by consensus, the title - advocating
'Reduction of the prison population, alternatives to imprisonment, and the
social integration of the offender' - was criticized by several delegates. The
Soviet Union and the US wanted the words 'Reduction of the prison population' out, on the grounds that the resolution now almost only advocated
'alternatives' - which was true. The words in question were kept in the title,
hut they almost had to go, and the rest of the resolution was a pale document
indeed, largely advocating new alternatives, not reduced imprisonment.
We need visions of how society should be alternatively structured. Such
visions a r e a part of what sociologists might contribute to political movements,
although few sociologists have recently been such contributors. We need ideas
of how human relationships might be alternatively organized so tht conflicts
are resolved in new and socially acceptable ways. In short, we need images of
society or of structures within society, formulated as ideologies in a positive
sense of that word, to workfor. To me, a most important part of such a vision
must necessarily be that of developing the conditions fostering and nurturing
the anti-authoritarian features of human relationships. It will therefore be
essential to provide maximum support for the anti-authoritarian components,
find where they are today, develop the conditions for strengthening them

87
further, and provide support for giving them hegemony. Sociologists have
been rar better at understanding and writing about the conditions fostering the
authoritarian features of human relationships. The reverse task should now be
placed squarely on the agenda. This is important also in order to give guidelines, and direction, to what comes after the prison, and which might, without
guidelines and direction, constitute a deterioration from a human and humane
point of view. Conflict resolution involving encounters between parties to my
mind constitute an important notion in this respect. Thinking and work of this
kind is, to my mind, in line with the basic idea of the ~unfinished', in which the
alternative evolves. What we apparently do not need, are structured and
planned state or private 'alternatives' to prison, introduced on the more or less
vague hope that the prison population might be made smaller by their introduction. If such planned 'alternatives' are to be accepted, they have at the very
least to be based on the explicit condition that the prison population is to be
reduced at least correspondingly - in advance. And they have to secure
completely standard legal rights and guarantees of the clients in the community context.

Thirdly, to my mind out work to rid ourselves of the prison solution taust still
be carried out with 'negative' reforms in mind. But the term needs to be
specified in a different way than I did fifteen years ago.
The importance of improving conditions of life for prisoners (as rar as it is
possible within the structure of the prison) should certainly not be underestimated. The dismal character of the prison makes any other policy cynical to
say the least.
There are also good abolitionist reasons for emphasizing reforms of this
kind: Firstly, even the worst of prison conditions apparently do not make
prison abolition come any closer; states are willing to condone even the most
terrifying of conditions without approaching abolition. Secondly, targets for
improvement of prison life - a ban on isolation, greater possibilities for
recreation, higher wages, etc. etc. simultaneously make it possible to highlight
the inhumanity, the cruelty, and the inefficiency of prison. Throughout the
1970s and 1980s, such targets of improvement have certainly functioned this
way for the Norwegian organization KROM, where I have been engaged.
The 'negative', however, enters as a corollary to the above-mentioned
scepticism towards planned 'alternatives'. Rather than helping in constructing
~alternatives' which actually become add-ons to the prison solution, we should
see it as our task to strive towards 'shrinking' the system. Recently (September
1985), the Norwegian Association for Critical Law issued a resolution requiring a b a n on imprisonment as a penal sanction in the Scandinavian countries. It

88
is important to make statements of this kind. And even very modest 'shrinkings' of the system are victories, and in the right direction. I believe that
intellectuals, including radical criminologists, may contribute in a number of
ways to this end, by writing, by talking, by contributing to organizing outside
and inside the walls, by participating politically on various levels of political
life - and by supporting concrete alternatives when corresponding reductions
of the prison population are fully secured in the way indicated above.
In our own political time, with right wing tendencies and rapid expansions of
various prison systems throughout the world, the task may be formulated in
even more modest terms, but still in the same direction and on the basis of the
same philosophy - that of saying a loud and clear 'no' to the prison system: In
the light of the on-going expansion, an extremely important goal is to curb that
expansion and if possible bring it to a fulI stop. A moratorium should be placed
on prison building, and the number of inmates should be reduced in order to
make such a moratorium possible. The attainment of such a reduction of the
number of inmates is feasible by very simple means - minor adjustments in
sentencing practices, similar minor adjustments in practices concerning release on parole, etc. I shall return to more detailed examples below. If radical
criminology and sociology of law could now gather around and focus upon the
concrete short-term goal of a halt in prison expansion, rather than focusing on
a great variety of goals and issues, as we usually do, head-way might be made
in this area. I have tried to make a modest contribution to such a focusing by
advocating a lasting moratorium on prison construction in various political
contexts: at the United Nations' conference mentioned earlier, at various
political conferences in Germany (i.a. at a hearing on prison construction
organized by the Parliament of the state of Hessen, September 1984)6, etc.
Such efforts should be greatly intensified.
A halt in prison expansion would imply and involve a systematic and
reflected political re-thinking of the level of punishment in society, which in
turn would constitute an important basis for further work in the area.
Because of the decisive importance of this particular and concrete goal in
today's short-term context, I will devote the rest of this article to it. What are
the main arguments against building more prisons? I see eight main arguments, which to my mind together constitute a forceful basis for advocating a
policy of a permanent international ban on prison building. Some of these
arguments are of course very well known to the readers of this journal; others
perhaps bring in something new. I list them all, because, as I say, they function
together. They are roughly identical to the arguments I emphasized at The
United Nations' conference. Perhaps they may be useful as a component in the
forging of a platform for a joint effort to halt prison expansion.

89

In the first place, there is the argument of individual prevention. Over the past
couple of decades, criminology and sociology have produced a large number of
solid empirical studies showing, quite clearly, that the use of imprisonment
does not improve the incarcerated law-breaker. For a long time, this fact has
been used, irrationally, as a reason for building more prisons, and for using
prisons more. The argument has been that since the amount of imprisonment
has not helped, we need more of the same. Within the context of the right
political climate, ineffective systems may thrive and expand for a long time on
such an irrational reasoning. But, as I say, the reasoning is irrational. The large
number of studies a r e a strong argument against prisons in general, and
certainly against building more of them. The fact that prisons are ineffective in
terms of individual prevention is beginning to be realized even by state
authorities. Thus, a Swedish government bill has the following to say about
individual prevention (Government Bill 1982/1983: 85, p. 29, translated from
the Swedish by the present author):
What criminological research has presently taught us is, however, that the
idea of improving the individual through deprivation of liberty in the form of
imprisonment, is an illusion. On the contrary, it is presently generally
accepted that such punishment leads to poor rehabilitation and high recidivism, in addition to the fact that it has a destructive effect on the personality.
The destructive effect pointed out here, should especially be kept in mind.
In the second place, there is the argument of general prevention or deterrence in the larger society. We are here talking of the deterrent effect of
prison. The question of the deterrent effect of prison is less easily amenable to
empirical research, but it may be stated with considerable certainty that the
effect is at least uncertain and definitely less significant in determining the
development of crime in society than are features of social and economic
policy. This is now also becoming recognized on the government level in
various countries. As the above-mentioned Swedish government bill formulates it (p. 30, translated from the Swedish by the present author):
The effects of imprisonment in this respect are, however, to a large extent
uncertain.
All available research as well as international comparisons thus show that
the development of crime is not related in any definite way to the number of
people imprisoned or the length of imprisonment which is maintained. In
line with what the National Prison and Probation Administration has expressed in its statement, it is actually no exaggeration to say that the
importance of criminal policy for the development of crime is in this respect
rather subordinate when seen in relation to family and school policy, labour

90
market and social policy, the organization and functioning in general of the
judicial system, and of course the economic structure and view of man in
society.
Above I have talked about the deterrent effect of prison in general terms. It
may be argued that large-scale and sudden alterations in the scale of punishment and official social control make a difference in terms of deterrence. Bnt
the finer nuances in punishment level hardly make any such a difference. 7The
issue here is not large-scale sudden change, only a ban on a further development of the system. Such a ban may be instituted through a policy of minor
changes in release practices and sentencing policy which make the question of
the deterrent effect of prison even less pressing. This leads straight on to the
third argument favouring a b a n on the building of new prisons.
In the thirdplace, there is the argument of the feasibility of a ban on prison
building. The queues which are presently increasing, and the overcrowding
which constitutes a problem in several prison systems in the Western world,
have been used as arguments for new prisons. The queues and the overcrowding may be solved by going in a different direction, for instance, by changing
release practices, thus lowering the limit for release on parole, and/or by
changing sentencing rules. Though Scandinavia has not escaped expansions,
examples of alternative directions may be found there. In 1983 Sweden instituted new rules concerning release on parole, requiring mandatory release,
for a large majority of inmates, after half time. Only a few special categories of
inmates are excluded from mandatory half-time release. The new release rules
reduced the prison population by 13% to 17% between 1983 and 1984. The
Swedish Council of Crime Prevention has undertaken a study of statistical
long-term effects of the over-all increased turnover in the prisons, s The results
suggest certain long-term increases in criminal activities, but the figures are
very small compared to the total number of crimes reported to the police per
year. In other words, the changed release rules will contribute only in a
marginal way to the crime rate in Swedish society. In 1982 Denmark instituted
reduced maximum punishments for a number of property crimes in addition to
reducing the minimum time for release on parole and liberalizing the rules
concerning drunken driving. The reduced maximum sentences for property
crimes was intended to reduce the general sentencing level one-third. Pardoning has also been used extensively. It should be noted that the results of the
Danish changes are less clear than those of the Swedish, because so much is left
to the discretion of the courts. In a time of general prison expansion, new rules
intending to reduce prison populations should be mandatory, not leaving
discretionary power to decision-making bodies which may be subject to political pressure.
In the fourth place, there is the argument of the irreversible character of

91
prison building. Once a prison is erected, it will not be torn down again quickly
- rather, it will stand - and be used - for a long period of time. Let me briefly
compare with a case concerning environmental protection in my own country,
Norway. Some years ago, Norwegian authorities decided to build a 110 metre
high dam in a large canyon in Northern Norway. The dam was intended for the
production of electricity. The changes it would create in the environment
would be devastating to the local fishing and reindeer economies (as weil as to
the beauty of the surroundings) in the sub-arctic climate of the far north of
Norway. Those of us who protested against the building of the dam argued that
it would be irreversible: once built, the dam could and would never be
'undone' again. I am sorry to say that they are now building the dam. Similarly
with prison building. Unless very special circumstances prevail, once built a
prison will not be 'undone' for a long period of time. The architects behind the
prisons built in Europe during the first part of the 1800s hardly imagined that
their prisons would be in use during the mid- and late 1900s. But many of them
are. The irreversible character of prison building, the fact that prison building
in this sense should be seen as a part of a long-range historical process rather
than as a short-term pragmatic measure, is in itself a major reason for not
embarking on any c,,nstruction programme today.
In the fifih place, and as follow-up of the fourth argument, there is the
argument of what I would call the expansionist character of the prison system.
The prison system as a social institution is never satisfied - it is like an animal
whose appetite increases with eating. More concretely: new prisons, even new
prisons expressly intended as substitutes for rather than as additions to old
prisons, in practice and fact tend to become additions. Though there are
exceptions, the additive or expansionist character of the system is highly
significant. It implies a momentum or political mechanism fostering enlargement rather than change once construction is started. Various social and
political features outside and inside the system create this momentum especially in periods of pressure on the prison system, like today. Thus, as
Time Magazine put it in the above quote: 'New prisons cannot be built quickly
enough to accomodate all of the new i n m a t e s . . . '
In the sixth place, there is the humanitarian argument. Today we know,
beyond doubt, that prisons function as inhumane institutions, as inhumane
social arrangements. A vast amount of information testifies to this. Reports
from inmates, journalists, reporters, and social scientists testify to the degrading, humiliating, alienation-producing character of prison. The pains of imprisonment include the deprivation of liberty, the deprivation of goods and
services of various kinds, the deprivation of heterosexual relations in most
cases, the deprivation of autonomy, the deprivation of security. While there
are variations in these respects between prisons, for example between open
and closed prisons, it should be clearly recognized that to a large extent the

92
pains of imprisonment are structurally produced, they are part and parcel of
the structure of prisons. Therefore, though concrete material circumstances
and prison organization may alleviate the pains, they cannot be abolished.
Among the deprivations most difficult to alleviate are the deprivation of
autonomy and the deprivation of security. Inmates are subject to a regime
implying a fundamental lack of clear-cut rights, and a vast amount of discretion
on the part of prison officials which is intensely productive of a subjective
feeling of lack of autonomy and security. Note in this context, again, that due
to the expansionist character of the prison system, old and deranged institutions are rarely abandoned in view of the coming of new prisons. Therefore,
the humanitarian argument is not only an argument in general terms against
building more prisons. Specifically, it is also an argument in the sense that
building will, especially in times of pressure on the system, not imply the
dismantling of the deranged and most obviously inhumane institutions.
In view of this, the rehabilitation of old institutions seems to be a more
sensible short-term policy from a humanitarian point of view than building. In
addition, we should not take for granted that new sterile institutions function
in a more humane way than old - rehabilitated - prisons.
In the seventh place, there is the argument of cultural values. The prison
system is a system with cultural effects. Not only does it constitute a set of
material institutions, and not only is it a complex social organization. It is also
a system which is symbolic of a way of thinking abont people. As a way of
thinking it emphasizes violence and degradation as a method of solving interhuman conflicts. And when the system is expanded through new prisons, that
symbolic effect is also enhanced. The building of new prisons implies, in the
wider society, that the prison solution is a good solution - for who would build
new prisons without b elieving in them? In actual fact, we know that politicians
today advocate prison building without really believing much in them. This is
another indication of the irrationality of today's penal policy. But to the
general public, building necessarily signalizes a positive value in building. This
way, prison building solidifies the prison solution in our society. In the context
of the first six reasons for not building new prisons, this is a major and - to my
mind - forceful argument against prison construction.
In the eighth andfinalplace, there is the obvious argument of economy. In
my view, economy is not a relevant consideration alone. I would be willing to
institute even very costly measures if they were humane and represented
acceptable values. But in the context of the other arguments, the enormous
costs of prison building become a very strong argument. There are, indeed,
better ways of spending the money.
In short, the arguments of individual prevention, general deterrence, the
feasibility of aban, the irreversibility of building, the expansionist character of
the prison system, humanitarianism, cultural values, and economy, all point

93
away from building more prisons. The arguments function in conjunction.
While one or some of them alone might not be sufficient as arguments, their
sum strongly supports a lasting moratorium.
Let me, by way of conclusion, again emphasize the political nature of the
issue of prison building.
Building is offen seen as a technical question of architecture, construction,
and short-term trends in inmate population. But the question is essentially
political.
Politics is a question of deciding priorities of values. Therefore, the issue of
prison building is a question of deciding priorities of values. Is this the way we
want to treat fellow human beings? Is this how we want to meet the crime
problem? These are some of the questions of value involved.
The arguments favour a policy of shrinking the prison system, by shortening
sentences and increasing turnover in the system. Such a policy should be
commenced immediately. The longer the expansive policy is pursued, the
more difficult it will be to turn the tide. Except for the period of World War II,
several large countries are presently seeing an expansion of their prison
systems exceeded only by the expansion in the beginning of the 1800s - which
saw the beginning of prisons. Their example is currently spreading to other
countries. Penologically, our times are therefore historical. It is high time to do
something with that history.

Notes
1. The complete titles in English and German: The Politics ofAbolition - Essays in Political
Action Theory. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget/London: Martin Robertson 1974; berwindet die
Mauern! - Die skandinavische Gefangenbewegung als Modell politischer Randgruppenarbeit.
Neuwied: Luchterhand 1979.
2. 'The Standard', Nov. 21 1983, p. 5.
3. In my Makt og motmakt (Power and Counter-Power), Norwegian edition Oslo: Pax 1982,
Swedish edition G0teborg: Korpen 1982. The book has not been translated into English, but a
German edition is forthcoming with A G Spak Publlshers in 1986.
4. I have dealt with their significance in some detail in my Seer-samfunnet (The Viewer Society),
Norwegian edition Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1984, Danish edition Copenhagen: SocPol Publishers 1985, Swedish edition Gcteborg: Korpen 1985. A summary of some main points in English
may be found in my article 'The Eagle and the Sun', which is to appear in Robert J. Menzies et al.
(eds.), The Decentralization ofSocial Control (provisional title), Gower Press probably 1986.
5. Among the great number of theoretical/empirical studies indicating the 'add-on' function of
so-called 'alternatives', I mention the following: Home Office Research Study No. 39, London
1977; Blomberg, Thomas G.: 'Diversion and Accelerated Social Control', Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology 1977; Blomberg, Thomas G.: 'Diversion from Juvenile Court; A Review of
the Evidence', Annual Meeting of The Society for the Study of Social Problems, San Francisco
1978; Blomberg, Thomas G.: 'Widening the Net: An Anomaly in the Evaluation of Diversion
Programs', in Malcolm W. Klein and Kathrine S. Teilman (eds.), Handbook of Criminal Justice

94
EvaIuation, Sage Publications 1980; Chan, Janet and Ericson, Richard V.: Decarceration and the
Economy of Penal Reform, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto 1981; Dittenhoffer,
Tony and Ericson, Richard V.: 'THe Victim/Offender Reconciliation Program: A Message to
Correctional Reformers', University of Toronto Law Journa11983; Chan, Janet and Zdenkowski,
George: 'Just Alternatives - Trends and Issues in the Deinstitutionalization of Punishment',
Australian Law Reform Commission 1985, unpublished draft working paper. For a summary, see
Cohen, Stanley: Visions ofSocial Control, Cambridge: Polity Press 1985.
6. See my 'Criminal Policy at the Cross Roads: Report at 'Anhrung zur Situation des Strafvoltzuges in Hessen', Working Papers in European Criminology No. 6, European Group for the
Study of Deviance and Social Control 1984.
7. For a discussion of the distinction, in terms of likely effect, between major changes in control
policy and minor nuances, see Nils Christie: 'Forskning om individual-prevensjon og almenprevensjon', Lov og Rett, Oslo 1971.
8. Ahlberg, Jan: Effekter av halvtidsfrigivningen (Effects of Half Time Release), Stockholm:
BRA-forskning 1985: 2.