In the United Kingdom, noted policy leaders such as Pat Carlen and the Howard League are amongst those calling for decarceration and social (re)investment. I commend Angela Davis’s book entitled, Are Prisons Obsolete? Indeed, others besides Angela have also characterized the push to criminalize the most dispossessed as the present manifestation of discrimination and bias on the basis of race, ability, class, gender and sexuality, and argue that this demands we examine our fundamental beliefs and notions of whose interests and biases are privileged.

Once we face those realities, it will not take much to tap into our righteous rage and move into action.

It seems quite ludicrous that we continue to pretend that telling women and girls not to take drugs to dull the pain of abuse, hunger or other devastation, or tell them that they must stop the behaviour that allowed them to survive poverty, abuse, disabilities, et cetera, in the face of no current or prospect of any income, housing, medical, educational or other supports. Surely releasing women and girls to the street with little more than psycho-social, cognitive skills or drug abstinence programming, along with the implicit judgment that they are in control of and therefore responsible for their situations, including their own criminalization. We absolutely reject and resist such notions.

In Canada, in 1996, we decided to follow the U.S. lead when the federal government eliminated the Canada Assistance Plan and therefore the essential nature of Canadian standards of social, medical and educational resourcing. We have now experienced the same sorts of cuts and knee-jerk band aid responses – all of which presume criminality and perpetuate the problems of the past, be they crime prevention, homelessness, restorative justice or other responses.

Imagine the results if we instead decided to ensure that every prisoner learned about the history of the use of criminal law to colonize Aboriginal peoples to separate them from their land and culture, the criminalization of the indigent and homeless through laws prohibiting vagrancy and night walking, while simultaneously failing to condemn the abuse of power and force by police and prison personnel, the neglect of institutionalized persons. Imagine if we chose to reject current theories of crime and criminality and instead chose to focus on trying to prevent – and when unsuccessful punish – those who perpetrate the most harmful behaviours … those who wage war – Why hasn’t Bush been indicted for war crimes or crimes against humanity? Also, what about those who hoard essential goods, make excess profits, irresponsibly and negligently handle toxic cargo, crimes against social harmony, economic and/or even governmental order. What would the system look like if we prosecuted and sentenced people for lying while running for office, wrongful use or access to government power and public resources?