PRISON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AS AN EXTENSION OF RACISM AND VIOLENCE

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, scholars have increasingly debated the effectiveness of the prison-industrial complex, particularly within racially stratified societies. Angela Davis, in her discourse, presents the prison-industrial complex as a result of the failure to enact what she calls “abolition democracy” (Davis 2005, 58). She draws this concept from W.E.B. Du Bois’s critique of Black reconstruction in post-civil war America, where he argued that the abolition of slavery required not just the formal, legal end of slavery but also rebuilding the democracy in a way that included formerly enslaved people. For her, abolition democracy entails the creation of social institutions that solve the underlying social problems that set people on the track to prison, thereby rendering the prisons obsolete (Davis 2005, 58). To quote Fred Moten and Stefano Harney – 

“Not so much the abolition of prisons but the abolition of a society that could have prisons, that could have slavery, that could have the wage, and therefore not abolition as the elimination of anything but abolition as the founding of a new society.”

Davis’s characterisation of the prison-industrial complex serves as a good starting point to reimagine the punitive and retributive theory of punishment that reduces justice to mere punishment through incarceration. 

Through this paper, the author argues that the emergence of the prison-industrial complex and the phenomenon of racialised mass incarceration are the result of the justice system’s incessant impetus on retributive forms of punishment at the massive expense of ignoring other constructive modes of punishment. This, in turn, deprives the offender of any opportunity to engage in societal reparation and meaningful accountability, thus effectively preventing him from fulfilling his obligation towards the community. First, the paper analyses the prison-industrial complex as an extension of racism and state-sanctioned violence and torture. Second, the relevance of obligation in the present context is evaluated. Third, the rehabilitative form of justice as a solution to racialised mass incarceration and societal stigma is analysed. 

PRISON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AS AN EXTENSION OF RACISM AND VIOLENCE

The prison-industrial complex has proliferated at an astonishing pace, but the two million imprisoned population of the US is disproportionately skewed, with Black people constituting 70% of that population (Davis 2005, 61). Shelby further examines this disturbing social phenomenon of what he terms ‘racialised mass incarceration’ (Shelby 2016, 209). Davis rationalises such disproportionality by arguing how the US society was embedded in slavery, and its abolition did not resolve the problem of racism and stigma prevalent in the society (Davis 2005, 60). 

The racist, economic, and political structures continue to keep the Black community in a subjugated and inferior state. This racialised mass incarceration, arising out of the social embeddedness of racism, further perpetuates the stereotypical racist mentality as criminality is now associated with colour, and a racially disparate prison population is cited as evidence of Blacks being inherently ‘criminal’ and a threat to the community. This mindset rests on the flawed assumption that inherent moral depravity accounts for higher criminal rates among the Black population, thus failing to consider the unjust structural arrangements in society that contribute to such indulgence in criminal behaviour. Davis mentions how US prisons are characterised by torture and sexual coercion, but this torture doesn’t end with the term of imprisonment. The institutional racism meted out to them in prisons makes them even more vulnerable to racism and stigma prevalent in society and material deprivation due to bleak job prospects, lower levels of literacy, and economic deprivation. This eventually results in a situation where the community of colour is eternally subjected to this vicious cycle of racism in and outside the prison. Mass incarceration thus reinforces racial subjugation and stigmatises Black communities (Shelby 2016, 210).

The reason for such racialised mass incarceration and the miserable plight of the Black community lies in a constricted approach to the otherwise broader objectives of justice and punishment. Therefore, the most plausible response to the problem is a two-part solution. First, a pre-crime approach that attacks the social and economic inequalities that constrain these communities to set off on the path of crime and prison, thereby rendering the prison-industrial complex effectively obsolete, as also argued by Davis. Second, a post-crime approach emphasises the significance of restorative and reformative forms of justice that truly accomplish the objective of punishment, that is, individual reformation and societal reintegration. Drawing from Shelby, civic and natural obligation form an integral and inevitable element of this two-part solution. 

CONTEXTUALISING THE RELEVANCE OF OBLIGATION

Every citizen, irrespective of whether they belong to the dominant or subjugated group, must establish just social arrangements (Shelby 2016, 222). The fact that the social and income inequalities, which compel a person to engage in criminal behaviour, arise from the community itself structures the biggest moral burden for the community to fulfil this obligation towards its fellow citizens.

Effectively resolving this problem necessitates the community’s proactive intervention in these unjust social structures. This does not entail the construction of a singular overarching framework but an array of social institutions that will cumulatively work to abolish these societal discrepancies (Davis 2005, 59). A substantial segment of these communities is alienated from institutions of social importance (Shelby 2016, 204). The establishment of just social arrangements involves the prevention of such exclusion, thus establishing critical obligations on the part of citizens. It might involve adopting a Rawlsian conception of addressing social inequality by benefiting the least advantaged section of the society through fair equality of opportunity. It includes addressing deep-rooted social disadvantages and guaranteeing that any socio-economic inequalities serve to benefit the least advantaged. Rather than merely offering formal equality, this approach demands transformative change that uplifts the marginalised and aligns with restorative justice principles. This entails a multi-pronged strategy – most urgently, improving access to education and employment for historically marginalised groups.

From our understanding of conventional incarceration coupled with Davis’s theorisation of the prison-industrial complex, it is discernible that retributive forms of punishment are antithetical to the idea of restoration, individual reformation, and broader structural transformation, as they tend to isolate the individual from society, thus perpetuating the already prevalent disparities. More significantly, this isolation impedes any opportunity for the offender to constructively engage with society and fulfil these civic and natural obligations. This calls for an alternative approach – one rooted not in punishment, but in community engagement and moral restoration. 

RESTORATIVE FORM OF JUSTICE

As Davis argues, the elimination of the prison-industrial complex is unattainable unless alternate institutions and resources are made available to those communities that disproportionately comprise the prison population (Davis 2005, 59). Herein lies the critical relevance of the restorative justice framework. Our system, rather than alleviating the issues of homelessness, lack of healthcare, and education, which grapple so many communities, ‘throws’ people who suffer from these problems into prison (Davis 2005, 72). These ‘criminals’ are themselves victims of entrenched structural injustice and unjust social arrangements, and the state’s approach to curbing crime by punitive imprisonment further exacerbates the status quo. 

A substantial proportion of the imprisoned Black population has been convicted of drug, property, or other minor public order infractions, and these less severe transgressions should not be met with disproportionately severe punitive incarceration; rather, community service, probation, and other non-custodial measures should be used to deal with them (Shelby 2016, 211). A post-crime approach, as already mentioned, acknowledges the community’s involvement in justice as indispensable. This, in practice, entails the direct involvement of affected parties in the justice process. Situating obligation in this context involves recognising the reciprocal obligation of offender and community towards one another. This claim arises from the view that morality is essentially a social product of a shared community and interdependence. This exact communitarian ethos is reflected in the restorative form of justice (Wenzel 2008, 380). 

Even in the presence of entrenched societal injustices, certain obligations remain inalienable, including not causing unnecessary suffering and showing mutual respect and moral personhood of others; therefore, reckless and gratuitous violence and selfish indifference to others’ suffering should not be tolerated (Shelby 2016, 219). This can be further extrapolated to encompass the citizen’s obligation to repair the harms caused by their transgression to the community. This restitutive approach is inherently incompatible with the retributive form of punishment, as the person is isolated from the community, thereby depriving them of any opportunity for moral rectification and societal reparation. Restorative punishment, on the other hand, portrays a constructive paradigm as it obliges the offender to actively engage in alleviating the grievances and redressing the harm inflicted not only upon the individual victim but also upon the whole community at large and it is characterised by a dialogical process that ensures offenders’ accountability for the harm they have caused and works towards its rectification (Wenzel 2008, 377). Simultaneously, it includes the community’s obligation to foster an environment that is conducive to the offender’s moral rectification and societal reintegration. 

A crucial example to be mentioned in this context is that of New Zealand’s Family Group Conference (FGC) system that was introduced in 1989. This involved the enablement of restorative justice principles through a statutory framework supervised by courts. In most cases, it involved young offenders, victims, families and a trained facilitator meeting to discuss the harm and agree on restitution or rehabilitation. It has been widely credited with reducing youth incarceration rates. Moreover, instances of recidivism can be decreased to a great extent in restorative forms of justice. For instance, Norway has an extremely low recidivism rate at around 20%, which is the result of its criminal justice system that prioritises rehabilitation over retribution. In conventional punitive systems, individuals face diminished employment prospects due to the stigma of a criminal record, which often incentivises re-indulgence in criminal behaviour (Shelby 2016, 206). Restorative justice, on the other hand, emphasises accountability and rehabilitation, thus contributing to the erosion of social stigma in society and the restoration of personal dignity and respect. 

A possible counterargument can be that restorative justice could undermine deterrence and fail to convey the seriousness of the crime by replacing punishment with dialogue and apologies. However, research suggests that offenders often find restorative processes more psychologically demanding than passive retributive punishment, as they require personal engagement, shame, accepting responsibility, and making meaningful amends. Furthermore, as illustrated by the example of Norway, restorative approaches have been shown to reduce recidivism more effectively than punitive systems, thereby consolidating long-term deterrence. 

One might further object that restorative justice might risk retraumatising the victims, especially in cases of violent or sexual crimes. A possible rebuttal in this context is that restorative justice is often characterised by greater victim satisfaction (Wenzel 2008, 376) because it involves direct involvement of victims in the justice-delivering process and focuses on making substantive amends to their life rather than merely emphasising punitive methods. When done with trained facilitators and conducted with informed, voluntary participation, restorative justice can empower victims and give them voice, unlike conventional justice, which, owing to its retributive tendencies, often sidelines and retraumatises them.

CONCLUSION

Through this paper, the author, drawing from Angela Davis, reviewed the prison-industrial complex as an institution harbouring and perpetuating racism and violence. It then introduced the two-part solution of combating the menace of the prison-industrial complex. Following this, the community’s and offender’s obligation towards one another is evaluated by proposing a more community-oriented alternative to traditional punitive incarceration. The author ultimately contends that in order to alleviate the systemic shortcomings arising out of the justice system’s blind pursuit of punitive imprisonment, it is crucial to come up with alternative frameworks that are more community-oriented.

---

By Aditya Kumar Yadav

Aditya Kumar Yadav is a second-year law student at National Law School of India University, Bangalore. He is passionate about law, geopolitics and political science. I have a keen interest in movies ranging from diverse genres. When not busy interpreting statutes or watching an old western drama, you might find him reading Dostoevsky, Doyle or Fitzgerald. 

---

References

1. Davis, Angela Yvonne. “Abolition Democracy: Beyond Prisons, Torture, Empire,” (2005) 47-81.

2. Shelby, Tommie. Dark Ghettos: Injustice, Dissent, and Reform. Harvard University Press, (2016) 203-227.

3. Wenzel, Michael, Tyler G. Okimoto, Norman T. Feather, and Michael J. Platow. “Retributive and Restorative Justice.” Law and Human Behavior 32, no. 5 (2008) 375-389.

---