Ending prisons doesn’t address the underlying conditions that enabled them to begin with – their lack of an alternative reproduces the same oppressions they attempt to break down

(Liat, “The Tension between Abolition and Reform,” The End of Prisons. Reflections from the Decarceration Movement, 2013)

Closure of repressive institutions, such as mental hospitals and prisons, can be conceptualized as a necessary but not sufficient action on the road to aboli-tion. The most important element in institutional closure is to ensure that peo- ple do not end up re-incarcerated in other formats such as group homes or other institutional placements (Blatt et al., 1977). In this sense the effective-ness of deinstitutionalization as a movement is in ensuring community living, with all needed supports, not merely in the closure of the institution, which is only a first step. This ideological stance may create a dilemma. Should propo-nents of deinstitutionalization wait until there are sufficient community place-ments before advocating for institutional closure? Or, should they go ahead regardless, on the principle that no one should live in an institution at any time? This is the very dilemma posed by Mathiesen in regards to abolition in general. Taylor (1995/6) suggests that in such cases one should ask which path would lead to the least harm done to the fewest people. Such questioning, he believes, would lead one to realize that institutional living is unjustifiable under any circumstances, even if community settings are imperfect at the present time. The mere closure of prisons and large state psychiatric institutions does not necessarily entail a radical change in policy, attitudes, or the lived experiences of those incarcerated. Penal abolitionist Ruth Morris reflects on her experiences within the prison abolition movement in Canada and the United States: My objection to prisons is to something much more oppressive than closed buildings, or even locks and keys. It’s important to think this out, because otherwise we delude ourselves about building alternatives when actually we are creating their very spirit in the community, destroying people just as effectively as any building with locks can possibly do.(1989, p. 141)In this light, closure in itself is still embedded within the same circuits of power that created such institutions, unless there is an epistemic shift in the way community, punishment, dis/ability and segregation are conceptualized. Therefore, closure of prisons and institutions is only one step on the way to achieve a shift in perspective. Closure of large institutions has not led to free-dom for all disabled people, nor has it resulted in the radical acceptance of the fact of difference amongst us.