So basically: imprison more people -> cost goes up -> crime does not go down -> imprison more people -> cost goes up -> crime does not go down -> imprison more people ->....
I (and I suspect victims of crime) sympathise with this POV. However, I'd encourage you to also think about it from a larger perspective, like a government: what would be the most advantageous path for a society to take in dealing with crime? If you take such a larger perspective you'll see that individual justice is only one of several important factors.
I don't have time to explain further. But one analogy could that nobody likes to pay taxes themselves, but many accept that taxes in general (if well-spent) can be a net positive for a society/country.
Exactly. It’s hard to feel emotionally that prison abolition is right in the face of an individual case. You want justice! But if you look at the system as a whole you have to conclude that, on average, justice isn’t really being served. The tax burden is unjust to the tax payer. Poor conditions and long sentences are unjust to incarcerated people. Strange sentencing rules and prosecutory practices (people can get more time for petty theft than rape) are unjust to people who want justice.
Google “US prison conditions” and you will see article after article about violence, sexual abuse, and forced labour for private companies. Criminals getting away with it is better than people being kept in inhumane conditions, especially when, between non-violent offenders and pretrial detainees, most have not been convicted of a violent crime.
So if someone commits a violent crime, they lose their right to humane conditions? This isn’t an abstract question. Incarcerated people in America are actually forced to work for no pay. They are right now held in solitary confinement. They are every day subjected to beatings and rape from guards.
I think you should give the podcast "Ear Hustle" a listen. It's produced from inside San Quentin prison. I think once you hear these people, you'll see that it's a really nuanced issue. And, even if it doesn't change your opinion, it's full of fascinating stories. https://www.earhustlesq.com/
You know, it was only two years ago when I first sat down to have a conversation with a formerly incarcerated person. This was a guy who been imprisoned for over fifty years for triple murder, two of which were in self defense and one of which he didn't commit. He was only released because it came to light that the judge who ran his trial didn't inform the jury of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence. In fact, the judge did this whenever a Black defendant was being tried, which lead to dozens of Black people being wrongly convicted. When I heard first hand what he had been subjected to while in prison, I realized just how unfair this system is. After fifty years of torture for a crime he should never have been convicted of, he was thrown out on the street with neither an apology nor any resources. No system is infallible enough to judge who has committed a crime when the consequences for making a mistake are so severe.
Does not sound too clever in my book.
Maybe time to try something else?