Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

There was a time when “defund the police” was considered one of the most controversial ideas in American politics. Now, at least among some on the political left, the conversation appears to be moving even further.

Forget defunding police. Why not abolish prisons altogether?

That question found its way into the national spotlight a few weeks ago after New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani was asked about his endorsement of Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic nominee for New York’s 15th Congressional District. Chevalier has advocated abolishing prisons, and ABC’s Jonathan Karl wanted to know whether Mamdani was comfortable supporting someone with that position.

It’s a fair question.

After all, prisons exist for a reason. Society generally agrees that people who commit murder, rape, armed robbery, child abuse, and other violent crimes should be separated from the public. Whether prison sentences are too long, too short, or in need of reform is one debate.

Whether prisons should exist at all is another.

A Question Without an Answer

Karl gave Mamdani multiple opportunities to address the issue directly.

Instead, Mamdani praised Chevalier’s focus on what he described as a “politics of life,” saying she campaigned on investing in working families and poor communities.

When Karl followed up by asking how abolishing prisons fit into that message, Mamdani again pivoted to economic issues instead of addressing the policy itself.

Karl wasn’t satisfied.

“So, we can disagree on something as basic as whether or not there should be prisons?” he asked.

Mamdani’s response did little to clarify where he stands.

“There are prisons,” he replied. “And what we’re also showing in this city is that safety is not something that’s up for debate. It’s something that we’re actually delivering.”

The interview ended without Mamdani saying whether he personally supports abolishing prisons or whether he believes Chevalier is wrong.

So…What Happens Next?

That’s where the obvious questions begin. If prisons disappear, what replaces them?

• What happens to someone convicted of murder?
• Where does a serial rapist go?
• How does society deal with repeat violent offenders who continue hurting innocent people?
• What consequences exist for someone who commits an armed carjacking, a home invasion, or a terrorist attack?

Those aren’t rhetorical talking points. They’re practical questions any proposal to abolish prisons would eventually have to answer.

Supporters of prison abolition generally argue that incarceration should be replaced with investments in housing, education, mental health treatment, addiction services, and restorative justice programs. They contend many crimes stem from poverty, trauma, or untreated mental illness and that addressing those root causes would reduce incarceration over time.

But even many Americans who support criminal justice reform draw a line when it comes to violent offenders.

The overwhelming majority of people serving long prison sentences are not there for low-level drug possession or traffic violations. They’re there because they committed crimes that juries, judges, and victims’ families believed warranted removing them from society.

A Debate Moving Into the Mainstream?

For years, proposals like abolishing prisons were largely confined to academic circles and activist organizations. Now they’re appearing in Democratic primaries for Congress.

Whether those ideas remain on the political fringe or become more common is something voters (not politicians or pundits) will ultimately decide.

But Karl’s interview highlighted an uncomfortable reality.

When asked directly whether prisons should exist, one of the country’s highest-profile Democratic politicians chose not to answer.

That alone says something about where this conversation is headed.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***