Skip to main content

Should We Abolish Prisons?

The US incarcerates 2 million people at the world's highest rate — nearly 70% return within five years. Norway's rate is one-tenth, its recidivism under half. Can a system this broken be reformed — or must it be replaced? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.

Wednesday, November 18, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST

Upcoming

1 registered
Contribute now

What’s at stake

Abolition demands massive investment in mental health, housing, and economic opportunity as alternatives to incapacitation. Without that investment, it's a slogan, not a policy.

The opposing positions

Resolved: The United States should phase out incarceration in favor of alternative justice systems

PRO: Abolish the carceral state

Prisons do not reduce crime; they warehouse poverty and trauma and return people to society more damaged than when they entered. Abolition means investing in what actually works instead of what merely punishes.

  • States that have invested in education, mental health treatment, and drug rehabilitation consistently outperform high-incarceration states on crime rates. Texas and California both significantly reduced their prison populations in the 2010s through reform legislation and saw crime rates continue to fall rather than rise. Incarceration volume and public safety are not the same thing.
  • The racial composition of American prisons is not a statistical accident. Black men are incarcerated at five times the rate of white men for the same types of offenses. A justice system that produces this outcome consistently across 50 years of reform efforts is not neutral; it is structurally discriminatory. Reforming it at the margins has not changed the pattern, which means the structure itself requires replacement.
  • Abolition does not mean releasing everyone immediately; it means building the alternative systems first and transitioning out of mass incarceration as those systems mature. Finland and Norway transformed their prisons into humane rehabilitation environments by investing in education and psychology over decades. The abolitionists' claim is that taking this approach to its conclusion eliminates the need for warehousing people at all.

CON: Society requires incapacitation

Some people cause serious harm to others and must be removed from society. Prison abolition has no credible answer for the serial violent offender, and no community-based alternative has been tested at the scale required.

  • Prison serves an incapacitation function that no proposed alternative matches. A person who is incarcerated cannot commit new crimes against the public during that period. For serious violent offenders, that temporary removal prevents additional victims. No community-based restorative process can substitute for physical separation when someone is genuinely dangerous.
  • The abolition movement's own theorists acknowledge that a transition away from prisons requires decades of upstream investment in housing, education, and mental health services. In the absence of those systems, abolition is not a reform; it is a plan to release dangerous people into communities that currently lack the resources to manage them. The sequencing matters enormously.
  • Victims of serious crimes have a stake in justice that is not satisfied by restorative circles or community accountability processes alone. The criminal justice system gives victims a structured, state-mediated response to harm rather than the options of private revenge or complete helplessness. Abolition dissolves that framework without providing a clear, tested, and equally accessible replacement.

Contribute now

Add your perspective

Record a 60-second take or write an argument. Your contribution can stand on its own, and the discussion stays open.

Start here

Contribute now

A 60-second video or a written argument. You do not need an opponent to get started.

Write an argument

Share only material you have permission to make public.

Optional

Exchange responses

Choose whether to be paired. An exchange starts only after both people accept.

Pairing is not available on this page yet. You can still contribute or respond to a public take.

At a set time

Live attendance

Live attendance is separate from your contribution. Check the showcase details for any scheduled session.

Check showcase details

PRO: Abolish the carceral state

CON: Society requires incapacitation

Or make your case in writing

“States that have invested in education, mental health treatment, and drug rehabilitation consistently outperform high-incarceration states on crime rates. Texas and California both significantly reduced their prison populations in the 2010s through reform legislation and saw crime continue to fall. Incarceration volume and public safety are not the same thing.”

“The racial composition of American prisons is not a statistical accident. Black men are incarcerated at five times the rate of white men for the same types of offenses. A justice system that produces this outcome consistently across 50 years of reform is not neutral — it is structurally discriminatory. Reforming at the margins has not changed the pattern, which means the structure requires replacement.”

“Prison serves an incapacitation function that no proposed alternative matches. A person who is incarcerated cannot commit new crimes against the public during that period. For serious violent offenders, temporary removal prevents additional victims. No community-based restorative process can substitute for physical separation when someone is genuinely dangerous.”

“The abolition movement's own theorists acknowledge that a transition away from prisons requires decades of upstream investment in housing, education, and mental health services. In the absence of those systems, abolition is not a reform — it is a plan to release dangerous people into communities that currently lack the resources to manage them.”

The debate format

Follow each side’s case through questions, rebuttals and closing statements.

  1. 4 min

    Opening Argument

    PRO · opening case

  2. 4 min

    Cross-Examination

    CON questions PRO

  3. 4 min

    Opening Argument

    CON · opening case

  4. 4 min

    Cross-Examination

    PRO questions CON

  5. 3 min

    Rebuttal

    PRO

  6. 3 min

    Rebuttal

    CON

  7. 3 min

    Closing Statement

    PRO · final case

  8. 3 min

    Closing Statement

    CON · final case

  9. —

    Audience Vote

    You pick the winner

Get debate updates

Leave your email for announcements about this debate.

Debate schedule

Wednesday, November 18, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST

Get Involved

Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.

I want to…

No spam. We'll only reach out about what you picked.

More Debates

Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.

Featured

Should the Four-Day Work Week Become Standard?

October 26, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EDT
Online
View event
Featured

Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits?

November 2, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event
Featured

Should Race-Conscious College Admissions Be Restored?

November 4, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event
Featured

Should Organ Donation Be Automatic Unless You Opt Out?

November 9, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event