Scaling Up or Scaling Back? The Pitfalls and Possibilities of Leveraging Federal Interventions for Abolition

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Antiprison activists have often turned the federal court system to reduce the violence of the carceral state. However, such reform attempts have too often had the unintended consequence of fortifying the penal system. In this article, I interrogate one such intervention—a federal court order that encompassed the Louisiana Department of Corrections from 1975 to 1998. I argue that while the lawsuit was declared a success in reforming Angola, the federal court’s intervention buttressed and legitimated the growth of the Louisiana penal system. This paradox was produced through the limits of liberal reform ideology that failed to recognize the structural violence of incarceration. Rather, the federal courts located violence with prisoners instead of the punitive power of the state and racial capitalism. This framework not only led to an increase in punitive practices within Angola, it came to underpin penal expansion as the primary solution to cyclical overcrowding.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)423-441
Number of pages19
JournalCritical Criminology
Volume26
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2018

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, Springer Nature B.V.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Scaling Up or Scaling Back? The Pitfalls and Possibilities of Leveraging Federal Interventions for Abolition'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this