Abolitionism, Transgender Prison Placement Policy and Keeping Female Prisons Single Sex

Where do we place transgender prisoners in a prison system that is sex-segregated?

The discussion about trans rights and prison placement policy currently revolves around calculations of risk. We know that the majority of transgender prisoners are currently housed in the male prison estate. We also know that there is a disproportionate number of sex offenders in the (known) transgender prisoner population. Transfer of transgender prisoners from the male estate to the female estate (and vice versa) is determined by a multi-agency panel who assesses the risks posed to and by the prisoners who apply. We further know that there is a disproportionate number of women in the female estate who have experienced male violence. Recognition of the risks presented to the female prison population of male-bodied transgender prisoners with histories of sexual offending was the rationale for Amendment 214 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Those opposed to the amendment (and to the campaign to keep prisons single sex) have argued that prisons are uniquely unsafe places for transgender prisoners, referencing the suicide of transgender prisoners in the male estate and the ‘endemic levels of violence’ in such prisons. Those supporting have argued that placing vulnerable prisoners from the male estate in female prisons is no solution to the problem of male violence. In response to this impasse, some transgender rights activists have argued that the best solution is to ‘abolish’ imprisonment.

Prison abolitionism has a long history within criminology. Yet, much of that history and depth of thought is not reflected in today’s debates about transgender prison placement policy. The cry is made to, in effect, throw open the gates of prison and get those who have been incarcerated on non-violent offences out. This is not abolitionism however. It is an argument for prison size reduction. Abolitionism is a recognition that imprisonment is a failed criminal justice policy because it does not deal with the problem of crime. Abolitionism is not about keeping prisoners (of any sex or gender identity) safe from the damaging environment of the prison. It is about creating crime control policies that get to the heart of the problem.

From my point of view, I hear those who present themselves as the ‘real’ radicals of sexual politics (trans rights activists) invoke the language of risk to argue for a moral apartheid between worthy vulnerable prisoners (transgender prisoners and women) and the unworthy prisoners (violent men). I am left asking how on earth it came to this - a dead-end debate about who deserves to be kept safe. In a comment piece published on the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies webpage, I argue that we ought to push against the stealthy introduction of mixed sex prisoner populations AND abolish women’s imprisonment as a first step in addressing the crime problem. After all, the problem of prison placement policy is not *really* a problem of safety. It is a problem caused by sentencing and the failure of successive governments to deal with the blight to human lives caused by sexism, poverty, racism, male violence and the destruction of public services.

For those unfamiliar with the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, it is an educational charity that exists to promote a vision of “a society less dominated by criminalisation and punishment”. I am a fan of the organisation because bringing academics and practitioners working in and around criminal justice closer to the public and government can only be a good thing.