Prison Abolition - A Misogynistic Ideology?

The ineffectiveness of the prison system is not a new conversation. For decades, progressives have critiqued the industrial prison complex for being institutionally racist, sexist, classist and intentionally poor at rehabilitation to further marginalise historically oppressed groups. Out of this discussion arose the argument for the abolition of prisons and the police system in favour of a new program of rehabilitation, mental health resources and social workers. However, from a feminist perspective, it can be argued that this philosophy has enabled greater harm towards women in broader society.

The problem with much of the abolitionist philosophy lies in the fact that its improper implementation can cause harm towards women. When abolitionist policies are implemented without sufficient investment in psychiatric care or social infrastructure, they risk creating a revolving door of incarceration and release (Gao, 2021). This not only disproportionately endangers women but also places an unfair emotional and economic burden on the female relatives who become de facto caretakers to men in crisis who need full-time supervision from trained professionals (Hall, 2023). After the murder of Iryna Zarutska, the perpetrator's mother expressed how helpless she felt after her paranoid schizophrenic son was free to roam the streets homeless and in severe psychological distress despite having nearly 40 prior arrests. The failures often linked to prison abolition are not inherent to the philosophy itself but expose deeper flaws in the social systems that sustain the status quo. In practice, governments have frequently weaponised abolitionist rhetoric to disguise austerity: by reducing prison populations without investing in social support, they appear progressive while merely pursuing austerity. The mass closure of psychiatric institutions has left many mentally vulnerable offenders with nowhere to go but prisons or the streets, turning structural neglect into policy.

When examining actual abolitionist arguments, many abolitionist thinkers grapple with the existence of a persistent minority of violent offenders who may never properly reintegrate into society. The crimes of chronic male abusers are not derived from a lack of education, mental illness or socio-economic injustice but entitlement and a need for control (Hamberger et al., 1997). They cannot be fixed with social workers and prison apprenticeship workshops; there must be a means of permanently keeping them away from the rest of society. An inappropriate suggestion (also brought up in debates about the death penalty) is using community justice to deal with such individuals. The issue here is that the abolitionists are far too optimistic about the fairness of the general public. In fact, individuals can be more enthusiastic about cruel and sadistic punishments than institutions of state power. 

On the other hand, there is a feminist perspective in favour of prison abolition. The idea of a single-sex approach to prison abolition has been promoted by feminists and progressive thinkers for decades. This is due to women committing fewer violent offences, having disproportionate care responsibilities, committing crimes driven mainly by deprivation and typically showing more remorse and lower rates of reoffending (Ministry of Justice, 2025). Furthermore, there is a persistent issue within the prison system where women who are victims of domestic violence, sex trafficking and coercion are wrongfully imprisoned instead of their exploiters. As a result, some have argued that non-penal punishments such as community service, suspended sentences, rehabilitation programs, and probation could be a more effective alternative to prison sentences.

Overall, an approach which acknowledges the disproportionate risk that women could face from prison abolition and accepts the thoroughness of social support needed to properly implement it is crucial to navigating this philosophy. Too often, feminist critics of abolition are caricatured as ‘carceral feminists’ - privileged, wealthy white women who use the state to punish marginalised men, but this stereotype ignores the heightened risks of marginalisation that working-class and/or BAME women face (Hulley et al., 2023). We have a right to scrutinise state violence while also being nuanced enough to understand

that it can be utilised to protect women. A system that judges every offender on a personal basis and fairly evaluates them based on their ability to reintegrate into society is far more compassionate than letting unsupported neurodivergent individuals and repeat violent offenders be released without help or accountability. A truly feminist justice system must be both compassionate and protective, not indifferent in the name of liberation for one class of people at the expense of another.

References

Gao, Y. N. (2021). Relationship Between Psychiatric Inpatient Beds and Jail

Populations in the United States. Journal of psychiatric practice, 27(1), 33-42. Available at: 

doi:10.1097/PRA.0000000000000524

Hall, C. (2023). The impact of unpaid caregiving on women’s mental health. [Online]. Hammersmith, Fulham, Ealing & Hounslow Mind. Last updated: 08 March 2023. Available at: https://www.hfehmind.org.uk/news/the-impact-of-unpaid-caregiving-on-womens-

mental-health/ [Accessed 18 November 2025].

Hamberger, L.K., Lohr, J.M., Bonge, D., and Tolin, D.F. (1997). An Empirical Classification of Motivations for Domestic Violence. Violence Against Women, 3(4), pp. 401-423. Available at: doi:10.1177/1077801297003004005.

Hulley, J., Bailey, L., Kirkman, G., Gibbs, G.R., Gomersall, T., Latif, A. and Jones, A.

(2023). Intimate partner violence and barriers to help-seeking among Black, Asian,

minority ethnic and immigrant women: A qualitative metasynthesis of global research.

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), pp.1001-1015. Available at: doi:10.1177/15248380211050590.

Ministry of Justice (2025). Proven reoffending statistics: January to March 2023. [Online]. GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2023/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2023 [Accessed 18 November 2025].