The Advocacy Gap: Anti-Carceral, but not Abolitionist, Human Rights Advocacy in Northern Ireland

by | Jan 22, 2025

author profile picture

About Nate Johnson

Nate Johnson is a Fulbright/Ulster University and Fulbright/John Lewis-Civil Rights Scholar pursuing an LLM in Human Rights and Transitional Justice at Ulster University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Nate's master's thesis will explore non-criminal responses to human rights violations from the recent conflict in Northern Ireland. This work continues Nate's past research and writing on "Anti-Carceral Human Rights Advocacy." Prior to returning to school to pursue a master's, Nate was a practicing tenant's rights attorney in New York City.

In Northern Ireland, custody and remand populations in prison have climbed to their highest in almost 9 years; police use of force increased by 21% between 2023 and 2024; almost a third of those in prison suffer from mental health concerns; the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old, the lowest in Europe; and reports of police violence against women, migrants, and socioeconomically deprived communities remain high. That these numbers are rising in the face of a decades-long movement for carceral abolition in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and a robust human rights civil society in Northern Ireland might be attributable to anti-carceral human rights advocacy: that is, human rights advocacy that critiques carceral systems but falls short of calling for their abolition.

Abolition Abroad, Abolition At Home

Abolitionists argue that carceral systems, such as police and prisons, are rooted in forms of oppression like settler colonialism, white supremacy, and patriarchy. In the context of Northern Ireland, abolitionists argue that the UK instituted a police force in Ireland and other British colonies as experiments in social control to protect the economic interests of white elites. For instance, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) is a descendant of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a militarized force trained by British police who cut their teeth in India and Malaya (now Malaysia).

By design, then, these institutions uphold systems of oppression. As a result, they do not resolve social conflict but rather cause greater harm to already marginalized communities. Reliance on police and prisons, therefore, should not be strengthened through reformist reforms. Instead, UK and Irish abolitionist organizations, including Abolitionist Futures, the Irish Penal Abolition Network, and End Deportations Belfast, argue that their use should be reduced by decriminalizing sex work, drug use, and immigration; repealing prison-building projects; and increasing community investment through social housing, education, employment, and/or healthcare.

Mixed Messages from the International Human Rights Regime

In contrast, the international human rights regime has increasingly relied upon criminal prosecution as the go-to response for human rights abuses. The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has established that states may only meet their obligations under Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (freedom from torture) of the European Convention of Human Rights if they maintain investigatory mechanisms capable of leading to prosecution for violations of these rights.

This obligation situates criminal processes as the benchmark of success in fulfilling these rights, even (and perhaps especially) when violated by the police themselves. Not known for its irony, the ECtHR has stated that, where police violate the right to life, the state must establish ‘effective criminal-law provisions’ supported by the ‘law-enforcement machinery’ that caused the violation in the first place, i.e. the police.

The Advocacy Gap: ‘Anti-Carceral Human Rights Advocacy’

Not all international human rights law conflicts with abolitionist objectives, however. Some human rights bodies have found that certain populations are over-policed; police abuse vulnerable populations; and prisons cannot support human dignity. Yet, these bodies often call for reformist (as opposed to abolitionist) reforms that strengthen these institutions, such as expanded technology and training programs, recruitment of officers from over-policed communities, internal investigation units, and community policing programs.

Similarly, in Northern Ireland, there exist human rights advocacy organizations that do not have expressly abolitionist missions and even promote criminalizing certain harms but broadly align with abolition.

One such organization, NIACRO (formerly Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders), criticizes the minimum age of criminal responsibility, brings attention to the effect of imprisonment on families, and pursues restorative alternatives to prosecution. Sex Workers Alliance Ireland argues for the decriminalization of sex work based on the harm caused to sex workers by threats of prosecution. Participation and the Practice of Rights promotes community-based socioeconomic rights protection and critiques the white supremacist state’s responses to racially-motivated harms.

Without explicitly adopting abolitionism, these organizations recognize the institutional failings of carceral systems and advocate for alternatives. As a result, they can be described as “anti-carceral human rights advocacy” organizations.

Filling the Gap?

This assessment reveals a gap between abolitionist movements and international human rights advocacy in Northern Ireland. To combat the continued reliance on police and prisons in response to interpersonal harms despite their own histories of violence, anti-carceral human rights organizations might consider filling that gap by incorporating an explicitly abolitionist approach to their advocacy. Indeed, it may be time to question the position of carceral systems within Northern Ireland altogether.

Share this:

Related Content

0 Comments

Submit a Comment