“Inexcusable”: When Abolitionists Mirror the Carceral State
A specific rant about politics in a group and how it replicated carceral logic. As Mariame Kaba has said, “We live in the master’s house. There are no blank slates.”
For a person to call an argument between us “inexcusable behavior” when they are supposedly part of an abolitionist group about detention resistance, one who claims to reject punishment, and disposability raises some serious contradictions.
Here’s why:
Abolition is anti-punitive: Labeling something as “inexcusable” often serves to shut down conversation and frame a person as irredeemable. That’s the logic of prisons — exile instead of engagement. If the argument didn’t involve violence or abuse, calling it “inexcusable” reflects a punitive instinct rather than a transformative one.
Abolition is about context: A core principle is understanding harm within its social, emotional, and systemic context. Even disagreements or messy interpersonal dynamics should be approached with curiosity and a commitment to understanding — not moral condemnation.
Language like “inexcusable” can replicate carceral logic: It mirrors the state’s approach to harm; isolate, punish, and dispose — rather than listen, repair, and transform.
That said, abolitionists are human, too. Sometimes they act out of hurt or ego. The contradiction doesn’t necessarily make them a bad person, but it does reveal how deeply internalized punitive frameworks are — even among those trying to resist them.
Education
Mariame Kaba — writings and interviews
Often discusses how abolition means not reproducing punitive, controlling behaviors in organizing spaces.