Abstract

In The Idea of Prison Abolition, philosopher Tommie Shelby critically analyzes the case for prison abolition advanced by scholar-activists such as Angela Davis. Abolition is understood as the dismantling and permanent abandonment of incarceration as a method of responding to a social problem like crime. In Shelby's view, abolitionists do not successfully show that prisons must be abolished. Prisons for him retain a necessary and morally defensible function: preventing serious crime. In my commentary, I first suggest that Shelby implicitly evaluates some of Davis's arguments on the terms of success of a scholar, not those of a scholar-activist, and does not consider an objection to his conclusions that scholar-activists are likely to raise. Second, I problematize the basis for Shelby's claim that punishment remains necessary to prevent the most serious crimes.