People who are like, viciously against prison abolition confuse me. I'll admit that, in the end, I also struggle to imagine a world in which, even when nobody has any reason to, someone or another won't act in a way that could only be solved with restricting their autonomy. But people who would act in such a way, even when all their needs and wants are taken care of, in a society that has methods of healing and retribution that isn't punishment, are exceedingly rare. People will do unreasonable things, even in a perfect world, but the amount of people who will do unreasonable things repeatedly with no way of stopping them are astronomically rare.
Best case scenario, we find a way around this issue and the number of people in prison is 0 (a way around that doesn't involve killing people, I will clarify). Worst case scenario, we don't, but the vast majority of people who would be in prison now most likely did not act in the way that originally got them in trouble and, in the scenario they still did, had ways of making up for that and doing better that does not involve punishment (which exasperates the issue). Its a win-win either way, but since prison abolitionists don't have a magic solution for every problem people are willing to throw away the whole concept, even when working towards that goal will only lead to benefits even if it is never 100% achieved.
I feel like this sort of thing maps over (nearly) identically to psych abolition, mainly because psychiatry is a carceral in itself. It is an extension of the prison system.
"What about the ~violent evil schizophrenics/murderers/rapists/sociopaths/etc~" has never been a productive question, because it misunderstands the whole concept at its very basis. "Restricting autonomy is inhumane, we should work towards a world that does not restrict autonomy as much as possible" has always been the thesis.
You get it.
