Book review: the end of prisons

Abstract

In an engaging critique of crime, law, and punishment, Penal Abolitionism goes to great lengths to blend philosophy, theology and literature with deep strands of social theory—a tall task for a book with a page count of around 200. So, does the author pull it off? I think so. Moreover, it is Ruggiero’s analytical style—enhanced by a strong command of language—that allows readers to appreciate the force of his intellectualism. The work is presented in ten nicely organized chapters, each contributing to the argument that the penal response to crime is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, incarceration is harmful not only to those who lose their liberty but also detrimental to societies that claim to cherish such freedom. In making that case, Ruggiero presents biographical sketches of three “giants” of European abolitionism: Louk Hulsman, Thomas Mathiesen, and Nils Christie. By doing so, the book adds another level of interest (reminiscent of Lewis Coser’s Masters of Sociological Thought [1]). Some of the discussion draws on familiar debates over the ongoing (mis)use of prisons. Nonetheless, Ruggiero does a service to his (English-language) audience by incorporating insights from writings published in Italian, thereby laying out a more nuanced framework for understanding the persistence of penality. In the larger scheme, Ruggiero offers what might be viewed as a history of systems of (penal) thought, similar to the method of Foucault. But while Ruggiero observes Foucauldian theories, the book does not touch on French prison activism. That omission seems to be a missed opportunity. Had Ruggiero covered Foucault and the Groupe d’Information sur les Prisons, his own case against penal power would be grounded even further (see Welch [4, 5]). As another quibble, lengthy discussions on Durkheim [2] would have benefitted from notions contained in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, a work that is conspicuously absent given the degree to which religion and culture shape Ruggiero’s critique. Similarly, commentary on Durkheim would have been sharpened by integrating the analysis of Philip Smith [3]. In his Crime Law Soc Change (2012) 57:121–122 DOI 10.1007/s10611-011-9355-9