Over the course of the semester, we have read, watched, and heard many different perspectives on diverse sites of care and confinement. Some, especially those coming from disability studies scholars, disability justice activists, and disabled people, have directly or indirectly advocated for abolition. However, others, especially those coming from medical practitioners and policymakers, have directly or indirectly advocated for reform.

Revisit your Week One Padlet. What were your views on the ethics of institutionalization then? What are they now? How have your views been affirmed or how have they changed as the course has progressed?

Critical Analysis Prompt:

Explain the pros and cons of abolition versus reform. Do you view abolition and reform differently for diverse sites of confinement and if so, in what ways?

Are you more aligned with those who want to abolish institutions or reform them? Explain.

If you are in favor of abolition, what alternatives do you support and what needs to happen for abolition to be successful? If you are in favor of reform, what reforms do you support and what needs to happen for reform to be successful?

In the world today, there are a plethora of issues that need to be addressed and changed for the greater good. These changes can generally be facilitated through either abolition or reformation, or in some cases a combination of both. In the world of institutionalization, many things are very wrong and need to desperately be changed in order to function properly. A positive to an abolitionists perspective on how to change this system could be that instead of reforming an issue and potentially just creating many new problems, instead abolishing the old system would allow for an entirely new system to be developed for the greater good. Someone who opposes this view may claim that the creation of an entirely new system is a very radical change and thus could end up harming more people than it helps, or potentially just end up marginalizing new groups and causing more issues. Someone in favor of reformation may say that by reforming issues in the system, no radical change is made that could cause uproar, and an issue could be addressed in a much more inexpensive and realistic matter. An abolitionist may point out that while change could be made and facilitated through reformation, it may not be enough to actually help people who need it. In regards to diverse sites of confinement, both reformation and abolition have a part to play. While it is likely much more realistic and achievable to reform problematic systems, abolition in a smaller scale can also be somewhat attainable and can possibly be more beneficial than any other changes that could be made. In these cases, reformation can be more achievable, built it can also just wind up creating new issues that would then need to be solved. From an abolitionist standpoint, aspects of a system that could possibly be abolished to benefit people may actually just be thing that could be reformed. In the article, Disability, Justice and Abolition, many aspects of the institutionalization system are discussed as things that can be abolished, but in reality it would most likely be more cost efficient and realistic to reform the problems instead. 

While there are certainly valid arguments to be made and merit to both perspectives, between abolitionists and those who seek reform in the system, I’d have to say I align more with those who seek reform. I don’t necessarily disagree with all of the perspectives discussed in the article, Disability, Justice and Abolition, but I feel as though many of the changes that were brought up in the article are rather unrealistic to achieve in the world today. I also believe some of the perspectives are a bit radical and aren’t maybe entirely accurate. As someone who has spent a lot of time with law enforcement and the police out on duty, I don’t see a lot of the extreme negatives discussed in the article and the entirely negative view on the police. I do however believe there needs to be a great deal of reformation to the system the police belong to as well as the police themselves as there are many aspects to that system that are flawed. I more so agree with the abolitionist perspectives regarding institutions as I believe they are majorly flawed in the world today. Once again though I believe reform is a much more attainable and realistic goal that can actually be achieved and can be very beneficial. 

In regards to favorable reform, I believe it is important for flawed systems like the United States prison system and many care facilities to be changed quite a bit. Changes to the policies should be a priority as they are arguably the biggest issues with various institutions. The sheer lack of any real care for the inmates or residents is in large part due to the terrible policies and procedures in these institutions. Issues regarding staffing should also be a priority for those who seek reform to these institutions. In order for the reforms that need to be implemented to be successful, it is important that the issue be made very well know to lawmakers and those with the ability to implement change, as well as the public. An underrated aspect of getting these changes enacted is the public’s support. With a strong public backing and possibly a few lawmakers or policy makers who can implement change, it is quite possible that the various reformations that should be made can and will be made. While they may not have the overall benefits that actual abolition can have in some cases, it is much more realistic to see reforms made to institutions that need to be changed. 

When it comes to abolition, some pros is to get rid of this harmful system that our society deems correct. As mentioned in the video ‘What is Abolition?’, many prisoners work for way below minimum wage as well as the government profits off of work done by these residents. But on top of that, the conditions that these residents endure are horrible and inhumane. To add on, abolition can redirect funding of these big institutions to better healthcare and therapies for people in need with mental disabilities. On the other hand, a big con of abolition is society believes that ‘if you do the crime, you do the time’ mentality which can bring up public disapproval.

Reform believes in implementing new laws or procedures to change the existing things that are implemented to make it better. A big problem when it comes to reform, is that many individuals think it does not address the root problem. I do view the two differently since I believe in some circumstances we need to get rid of the system that is corrupt. But with reform we can tweak the prison system in order to get better results as well as give inmates the therapies and treatment they deserve.

I am more in line with individuals who want to reform institutions versus abolish them for several reasons. I do believe that if someone commits a crime that there should be some sort of punishment or even a type of therapy to correct their behavior. But when it comes to prisons and the mentally ill, they should be sent to healthcare facilities that can help them instead of confining them to prisons where they can endure more harm than help. I support reform and tweaking laws to make things just. There has been past media videos where there is a separate part of the prison to house the mentally ill, but again this is more of a healthcare related issue versus law enforcement issue. This also means implementing funding and support in order to reform these regulations and make these facilities humane.

Jones and Fowles (2008) describe “total institutions,” where people eat, sleep, and live under one authority with strict rules. That part really stood out to me because it showed how people lose privacy and choice in those environments. Reading that made me realize how hard it is for someone to grow or heal when they don’t control any part of their day.

Chapman, Carey, and Ben-Moshe (2013) also helped me see how institutionalization isn’t just about buildings—it’s about systems that confine people based on disability, race, or class. It made me think about how society decides who “belongs” in these spaces. My view now is that most institutions do more harm than good because they take away freedom and identity instead of offering real support or care.

Critical analysis

Abolition and reform both aim to make change, but they go about it differently. After reading this week’s articles, I think reform focuses on making institutions safer or fairer, while abolition questions if they should exist at all. Jones and Fowles (2008) show how “total institutions” can’t really be reformed because their whole setup depends on control. Even if rules improve, the structure still limits freedom.

Carlson (2015) argues that institutions are built around power and order, not true care. That makes me think reform might only fix surface-level problems, like better treatment programs or nicer facilities, but not the deeper issue of control. On the other hand, Chapman, Carey, and Ben-Moshe (2013) connect institutionalization to systems like prisons, hospitals, and group homes. They suggest that real change means building community-based alternatives—places where people get support without being locked away or isolated.

I think abolition makes more sense long term, but reform can help in the short term. Some people still live in these systems right now, so making conditions better matters. But the goal should be to replace institutions with strong community care networks, accessible housing, and better mental health resources.

Overall, I lean toward abolition because it focuses on freedom and dignity. Reform might make institutions look better, but abolition asks us to imagine a world where people don’t have to be confined to receive care.

In my week one Padlet, my views on institutionalization were that people should be put into institutions within reason and it would depend on the length of the stay. I didn’t really have much of an opinion on ethics for institutions and it was because I didn’t really know anything about the treatment and what goes on in those facilities. My views have changed a little bit; institutionalizing is okay within reason because it can be hard to avoid. I am very against pro-fit institutions, but unfortunately almost all institutions are pro-fit. I just don’t think that medical related institutions or just any institutions should be making money off people who absolutely needs those services. This course has brought to light issues that I never thought of, but I feels are kinda obvious. I personally do thing that they need to be reformed because unfortunately I can’t see the system going away any time soon. Things like prisons and juvenile detention center I think can be okay with reforms being done. Things like better living conditions, medical aid and things along these lines could help improve those institutions. However, I can’t stand nursing home after learning about them. My grandparents all are aging in place and get medical care at home, which I am very fortunate they can do that. However, I think living community or just aging in best would be better rather than the standard institutions. Overall, I have changed my views a little bit after taking this course. I think that institutions can be good in moderation, but they truly need to be reformed.

Critical Analysis

There are some pros and cons of abolition. Some pros can include but are not limited to it being better ethically and morally and it could prevent abuse to a degree. Depending on the situation and for abolition of institutions, morally that can be good because people aren’t getting institutionalize involuntary. Which is also a good thing on the ethics side of things as well because a person autonomy is less likely to get violated. However, there would be a loss of security in some ways, which is a concern. That is more of an issue for prisons and juvenile detention center, places along that line. Just because where would they go as in like murders because there are not many alternatives, which is another concern. I think if we would figure out multiple different alternatives for all the different institutions than it wouldn’t be as much of a con. While for reforms it would be easier to make changes to fix institutions to make then better and it could be considered an alternative and there would be security in those institutions. However, morally and ethically reforms could be good, but they just don’t happen or it so small that you can’t notice.  I do view abolition and reforms differently depending on the institutions that is being discussed. For example, I don’t think you could abolish the prison system, but you can reform them. However, nursing home can be abolished because there are alternatives like community living and the option of aging in place, but there isn’t much you can reform for nursing home. You could change and improve the care provided, the housing, food, etc, but it truly will not be a place where the elderly or who needs the nursing home will be comfortable. I personally align with both abolish and reforms, it just depends on the institution, as stated above. I think alternative like community living and aging in place and having medical staff coming to the home would be amazing and successful. However, I think prison just need to be reformed because it would hard to come up with alternatives for extremely dangerous prisoner. I think low level threats could be abolished and have an alternative, but high level just needs to be reformed. I think that there need to be more money being allocated toward the improvement of prison setting and I think there needs to be government surveillance. The surveillance needs to be surveillance, rather than it being “checked” and it really wasn’t, which is where this can get difficult. Standards need to be held for reforms to be successful.

The pros and cons of abolition and reform include many things. First, abolition addresses the root causes while reform does not. However, abolition is way more complex in completing. It requires years and years of restructuring compared to reform. Many people see this unrealistic, limiting public and institutional support. Reform has more immediate effects if done correctly. James on Cronkite news says that “Even those stipulations changing, I think that this problem runs so deep and there’s so many ways around it. If they put pen to paper on one thing, they’re just going to find another workaround.” Reform often fails to create meaningful change for marginalized groups because institutions find another way. I do but also do not view abolition and reform differently for diverse sites of confinement. I think all sites of confinement should be abolished. However, I think each site needs to be handled in a different way. This makes me align more with people that want to abolish institutions.  I believe that in the long run, abolishment will have greater effects for the individuals and society. “Instead of pumping money into the criminalization of the most disenfranchised amoung us, we put that money into addressing the root causes of crime. Like poverty, unemployment, poor housing, starved school systems, mental health issues, and more.” (Olurinatti, 2023) Focusing on the root causes looks beyond punishment. It actually helps the individuals in their situation. Abolition directly confronts racism, class inequality, and violence that institutions are built on. It encourages investment in restorative justice and harm reduction. I support alternatives that focus on preventing harm and addressing root causes. This includes community based restorative justice, mental health services, substance use services, stable housing, and income support. Society must invent in this systems to be successful. There also needs to be a cultural shift in how we understand institutions and providing care.