| Abstrakt: |
Reform. Abolish. Minimize. Criminal law scholars broadly understand that we need to do *something* about our penal system and the problem of mass incarceration. We just can't agree on what that "something" is. The debate about the right path forward raises several existential questions. How can reform be bad if it helps even one person suffer just a little less? Why would abolition not resonate given the sheer volume of suffering our "justice" system exacts? Who wouldn't agree that we must shrink the size of the system to ensure fewer people suffer? We are debating in the shadows of suffering. And with suffering as its grounding, this Essay argues that the projects of reform, abolition, and minimalism all have value. Using prisons as an example, this Essay sits in the tension between the projects and suggests that the discordance may be healthy. It embraces the idea that we can work to relieve the suffering of those incarcerated now while also thinking about how to imprison fewer people and even how to turn away from incarceration altogether. When we center suffering, the projects of reform, minimalism and abolition can all do important, indeed, lifesaving, work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
