Writing from the settler-colonial context of Aotearoa/New Zealand, this paper grapples with the theoretical tensions between formal and informal responses to harm in a society without prisons. Although often-praised as a Māori-led or inspired response to harm, restorative justice has fundamentally failed to provide a meaningful alternative to imprisonment. As Māori scholars have argued, restorative justice has not delivered Māori self-determination, as guaranteed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and international law. Despite these failures, this paper interrogates what insights can be gained from the limitations and promises of restorative justice for a justice system without prisons. It proposes a fundamental reconceptualisation of restorative justice under the title ‘abolitionist justice’. It advances a conception of the state, formal and informal justice that responds to profound critiques of each, without doing away with either component. In this reconceptualisation of restorative justice for abolitionist purposes, it envisions a role for the state, and formal systems of justice, in underpinning human rights and in redistribution of power and resources. This abolitionist justice approach proposes an integrated system of formal and informal alternatives to prison in which there is no place for incarceration.

Carceral safety logics, which place institutions within the criminal punishment system as a source of safety, continue to dominate globally. Despite their dominance, during the last 5 years in Aotearoa New Zealand, surveys have reported that more people feel less safe (Ministry of Justice, 2023). This article problematises the reliance on carceral safety logics in Aotearoa and explores alternative approaches that may generate more collective and sustainable safety. This article draws on 16 semi-structured interviews with people who advocate or work in the ‘justice’ system to inform this perspective. Narratives shared within these interviews present a desired relational element of safety that is at odds with carceral safety logics and punitive approaches to safety. The participants, from penal populists to penal abolitionists, ultimately saw safety through community-building, ensuring wellbeing needs are met, and collective care. This article unpacks what these shared ideas could mean for abolitionist conceptions of safety and justice in the community.

In this paper, I discuss the everyday incarcerations and injustices in and through bordered spaces by focussing on the Bibby Stockholm barge that accommodated people racialised as ‘asylum seekers’ on the Isle of Portland (Dorset, UK) from August 2023 until the end of November 2024. In showing how detention, containment, and incarceration, as well as projected deportation intersect in floating offshore spaces, this paper argues for the abolition of such spaces. I reflect on how visibility and invisibility, distance and closeness were used against people contained on the barge and how spatial and mobile distancing (through the barge’s mobile extensions) functioned to segregate and expose people in racialised and gendered ways. I refer to El Jone’s (2022) concept and method of ‘abolition intimacies’ to discuss the fleeting moments of justice as the result of turning to, feeling and engaging with one another beyond carceral views and 'bordered gazes' (Carastathis, 2022). I conclude the discussion with an image of a travelling ship that was visible in the horizon, as we talked together with Shiraz, a resident of the barge, about our ongoing journeys that brought us to the Isle of Portland, our dreams for future ones, and our commitment to (re)connect against a system of containment, forced removal and dispersal. The travelling ship that we never saw set anchor becomes a metaphor to reflect on abolitionist views and horizons. In this way, floating vessels transcend their immediate physical presence, becoming symbolic of people’s desires to connect beyond and against borders.

Civil rights organisations and critical social research demonstrate that, within advanced democratic states, economic marginalisation and political exclusion - institutionalised and manifested in structural relations of classism, racism and sexism - underpin systemic criminalisation and incarceration. They reveal that prisoners endure egregious rights violations, restricted regimes and minimal opportunities for rehabilitation. In ‘advanced’ democracies children’s incarceration amounts to what has been described as a ‘cradle-to-prison pipeline’. This article focuses specifically on the incarceration of under-18s, arguing that a current fault line is commitment to penal reformism, what Angela Davis terms ‘the amelioration of prison practice’, rather than abolition of custodial facilities. It interrogates tensions between the realities of incarceration and penal reformism concerning child custody. Focusing on the diversity of incarceration across UK jurisdictions, it considers the climate and consequences of punitive responses to children’s law-breaking and behaviour labelled ‘anti-social’ in the context of internationally agreed children’s rights standards. This is followed by a review of literature theorising the ‘dichotomous relationship’ of penal reform in a climate of punitivity. Advocating the abolition of incarceration, the article concludes with a discussion of decriminalisation and decarceration in the context of children’s rights; promoting community-based alternatives and use of welfare-oriented secure accommodation solely to protect a child or others from immediate harm.

The numbers of women in prison in England and Wales has risen once again (Prison Reform Trust, 2023), just as women’s imprisonment globally rises exponentially (Fair and Walmsley, 2022). Can existing ‘community-based alternatives’ shift the stubborn use of prison for girls and women? More importantly, how do such approaches engage with the concept of ‘justice’ for women? This article opens by reflecting on the recent past. What lessons must we learn from the failure of ‘gender-responsive’ policies of the last two decades? (Berman and Fox, 2010).

I was recently fortunate enough to have an intern placement at the Policy Evaluation and Research Unit (PERU) to assist with the Manchester International Crime and Justice Film Festival, hosted by the PERU team at Manchester Met and gain publication experience with the BJCJ. I had assisted with the promotion of the festival, but watching ‘The Old Oak’ (15)  and ‘Community Policing: All Things to All People?’ gave me a different perspective. Both films raised questions I’ve been exploring as a sociology student in Manchester over the past few years, especially through voluntary work with young people failed by the systems meant to protect them. They reminded me that justice often begins in the everyday spaces. Whether through relationships, conversations or in the environments where people feel most safe. These films offered a place to reflect on that, the role of justice and  what real support can look like when grounded in care.  

Despite known benefits, the uptake of restorative justice (RJ) in the United Kingdom has been patchy. A need for further research regarding the systemic influences on RJ was addressed using a phased mixed-methods design. First, a survey of RJ professionals investigated general attitudes to known barriers to uptake. Results called for a more proactive approach to raising awareness; whether with the general public or in the process of making offers. Next, a sub-sample of the same RJ professionals was interviewed, with analysis producing three main themes: lack of national support for RJ; barriers initiating restorative services; and poor public understanding and awareness of RJ. Deficient national support was interpreted as the central reason for limited take-up. Underwhelming take-up is associated not only with programme-specific, but also with broader socio-political factors. Improved national governance and support would address not only funding, staffing, and relationships between services, but also take a longitudinal view by providing RJ systematically within education settings.

In this think-piece and position paper we argue that the RECOOP peer-led Buddy support training and management service provides an example of best practice in working with older people in prison which also supports services working within the criminal justice system more generally. It does this by providing a template for ‘radical help’ across all criminal justice services, prefiguring a more democratic criminal justice system based on ‘mutual aid’ (Nicholson, 2019). ‘Radical help’ is about new ways of organising living and growing that have been developed by communities across the UK, with human connection at its heart. When people feel supported by strong human relationships change happens, and when we design new systems that make this sort of collaboration feel simple and easy, people want to join in (Cottam, 2018). In this article we argue that this is exactly what RECOOP Buddies do with older people in prison and that what they do in prison can provide a template for the ‘radical help’ of ‘mutual aid’ across the wider Criminal Justice System.