The draft of Professor Tommie Shelby’s paper – ‘Prison Abolition? The Uses and Abuses of Incarceration’ – was circulated in advance of the 2 hour meeting.* Professor Shelby gave a five-minute introduction to the paper – in which, in reference to the US prison system, he argues for prison reform rather than abolition (and therefore against the position that Angela Davis advocates). Jeffrey Howard, from the UCL Legal and Political Theory seminar group, chaired the session.
One theme that came up repeatedly was the level of idealisation in the paper. Davis’s position is very sensitive to the current social realities (Shelby's is as well, but in slightly different way) and Davis sees abolition as the only appropriate response to the myriad of injustices perpetrated within and by the US prison system. Shelby's project (here at least) seems to be more a matter of whether or not it's logically possible to have a just and moral prison system – which, he argues, it is – so abolition isn't justified (...though comments on this aspect of the discussion would be gratefully received – it may be an ungenerous rendering).
Another (related) issue, raised by James Wilson, focussed on Shelby’s stated interpretation of Davis’s abolition claim. Wilson suggested that Shelby’s engagement was, in a way too analytic, and perhaps too literal. Davis can be read, said Wilson, as making a rhetorical – strategic – move, with the aim of mobilising people – and prompting invigorated ethical reflection. Shelby’s response was that he believes Davis actually literally actively advocates abolition of prisons (which it seems that she does).
A third point which came up related to the tension – advertised but not fully analysed in the paper – between the prisoner's rights, and the policy of incarcerating individuals because they pose a threat to society. Committing a crime doesn't mean one gives up the rights to be treated justly – and the anticipatory, rather than retrospective incarceration of individuals (as in 'Minority Report'), is unjust treatment.
The event was well attended (90 or so people) – but given the structure of the session – and given that it wasn't (perhaps) sufficiently well sign-posted that Shelby would only be answering questions – a number of people left before the two hours were up. It's also worth noting that in previous colloquia, organised by the LPT group, priority seems to have been given first to BA, then MA, then PhD students (before being open to the floor) – but here, there was no such ordering, and some attendees may well have felt inhibited as a result.
Comments warmly welcomed!
*Let us know if you’d like a copy of the paper and we can send it over.
