Considering penal abolitionism

Gwenola Ricordeau. These articles, written between 1977 and 1998, focus on major themes of abolitionist thought, in particular the concept of “crime”, the effects of the criminal system being charged with handling crimes and the needs of victims. These texts and the thinking of their authors (Nils Christie, Louk Hulsman and Ruth Morris) helped develop penal abolitionism. But the richness of this thinking is not well-known, as most publications in French are intended for an academic readership. I wanted to provide French-speakers access to certain important texts on abolitionism.

The selected texts serve different purposes. “Conflicts as property” from the Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie details one of the author’s primary theoretical developments. It is one of the better-known texts in the English-speaking world. “Critical Criminology and the Concept of Crime”, by the Dutchman Louk Hulsman, and “Two Kinds of Victims: Meeting their Needs”, by the Canadian Ruth Morris, serve as overviews of their authors’ thinking.

Nils Christie, Louk Hulsman and Ruth Morris, gathered together in this book, belonged to a generation of pioneers. Starting in the mid-1970s, this generation introduced many new ways of thinking about the criminal system, making it possible to consider abolishing it. This book is also an homage to this generation for its contribution to abolitionism, especially as many of those who laid the foundations of abolitionist thought have since passed away. Ruth Morris died in September 2001, Louk Hulsman in January 2009 and Nils Christie in May 2015.

My selection of the three authors for this book prominently features criminologists who, like that first generation of abolitionists - and of a certain abolitionism -, were primarily white men. But choosing to include Nils Christie and Louk Hulsman also reflects the role of waves of critical criminology on the theoretical development of penal abolitionism and highlights the possibility of a radical position, for criminologists and for criminology as a discipline.

Collectively, the texts of Nils Christie, Louk Hulsman and Ruth Morris enable readers to go beyond the frequently-made remark of an “unjust justice”. Additionally, they illustrate that abolitionism targets the penal system, not just prisons.

These writers discuss the subject of victims at length – even though penal abolitionists are often accused of being indifferent to them by ill-informed critics and by those who, contrary to abolitionists, defend the legitimacy of the penal system’s existence.

GR. The texts of Nils Christie, Louk Hulsman and Ruth Morris should be studied as independent texts. Some ideas are echoed, but their authors were based in different countries (Norway, The Netherlands and Canada) and wrote from different backgrounds: Nils Christie and Louk Hulsman were grounded in academics while Ruth Morris grounded her writings politically and religiously, specifically from the Quaker religion. Additionally, Nils Christie more accurately represents the wave called “penal minimalism”, while Louk Hulsman and Ruth Morris advocated for the abolition of the penal system. Nevertheless, all three authors criticise the concept of “crime”. This is especially present in Louk Hulsman’s text, of which it is the subject: he encourages reflections in terms of “problematic situations” rather than “crime”, which comes from criminal law and poorly reflects the reality of harm. In this way, Louk Hulsman reminds readers that crimes are not an “ontological reality”, but rather the result of an historical and political construction, and that the actions called “crimes” are not inherently bad or harmful. Louk Hulsman also demonstrates that the concept of “crime” is tied to the idea of personal responsibility, which is the basis of the penal system’s punitive approach.

Ruth Morris’s criticism of the concept of “crime” rests on the distinction she makes between two types of victims: those of street crime and those of distributive injustice, such as racism or poverty. Here, Ruth Morris highlights a major problem of the penal system: it focuses on victims and diverts our attention from power relations and structural injustice.

As for Nils Christie, in his text “Conflicts as property”, he analyses how the penal system, by dealing with offenses, robs their perpetrators and their victims, but also society at large, of the “richness of conflicts”. He describes the “theft of conflicts” by “professional thieves” such as lawyers and judges. He thus questions what is often taken for granted now: the transfer of conflict management, at least in some cases, to professionals.

Nils Christie, Louk Hulsman and Ruth Morris all challenge the accepted meanings of both “crime” and punishment. The three authors condemn at length the retributive nature of criminal punishments and consequently, the recourse to punishment. As Louk Hulsman notes, many response models (punitive, compensatory, therapeutic, conciliatory, educational) exist for dealing with a problematic situation. In this sense, it is not so obvious to resort to punishment when harm has been done.

GR. They are current first from an analytical standpoint. Nils Christie observes that the penal system “expropriates” the victims, the perpetrators and society as a whole of conflicts, strongly echoing experiences people have now regarding the penal system, although some of his remarks are mitigated by increased acknowledgement of victims’ rights since the time of his writing. Another example: Ruth Morris focuses on the victims of systemic injustice, namely capitalism or racism, and criticises the fact that these victims often become criminalised.

From a political perspective, the texts in this publication might seem outdated because they display the optimism characteristic of their time, before penal abolitionists were swept away by the wave of strengthening penal policies, which emerged in western countries in the early 1980s.

Louk Hulsman was an early supporter of decriminalising narcotics. Although his views influenced political choices in the Netherlands, it is clear that, in France and throughout the world, we have not done away with repressive policies regarding narcotics. More broadly, the “crime control industry”, to borrow a phrase from Nils Christie, experienced incredible growth.

In many respects, these texts are still relevant from a political standpoint. I am thinking in particular of Ruth Morris’s denunciation of what she calls our “penaholic” society, which can be seen in what we call “carceral feminism”. In some waves of feminism, appeals are made for increased recourse to the penal system (and prisons) in the name of protecting women: for example, by calling for the creation of the crime of “femicide” or the imprescriptibility of sexual violence. Similarly, the creation of the crime of “ecocide” is also testament to the growing recourse to the penal system to resolve social problems. Another example is the indignant, and misinformed, reactions to the Sarah Halimi murder case, in which the perpetrator was judged criminally irresponsible. Some might say that the victims were “deprived of a trial”, as though a criminal trial was owed them. Reform proposals have been drafted to enable a trial to go forward even while recognising a lack of criminal responsibility.

Lastly, these texts remain topical due to the growing interest in abolitionist ideas such as the fight to abolish the police in the United States in the wake of Black Lives Matter and the protests following the murder of George Floyd. Beyond the complex history of these movements, they renewed interest for theoretical sources and strategic reflections on penal abolitionism.