Feminism on Trial: Abolition vs. Carceral

This semester, I'm enrolled in a class called Sexuality, Gender, and the Law. I have absolutely loved this class. Our first month or so, we covered a unit on consent and how the law is intertwined with sex. At the end of each unit, we must choose a legal issue and expand upon it using an analytical framework. For my research, I chose to focus on mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies in domestic violence cases, specifically in my home state of Tennessee. I wanted to explore how these policies contribute to the high incarceration rates in the state and nationwide as well as analyze their impact through the lens of abolition feminism and carceral feminism. If you read my post on the book Abolition. Feminism. Now., you’ll be well versed in this approach!

What are Mandatory Arrest and No-Drop Polices?

Mandatory arrest and no-drop policies were introduced as legal mechanisms to combat domestic violence and ensure that offenders are held accountable. These policies are meant to protect the victim. In Tennessee, these policies require law enforcement to make arrests when probable cause exists and compel prosecutors to pursue charges regardless of the victim’s wishes. While these measures were implemented with the intent to protect victims and prevent recidivism, they have produced unintended consequences. Tennessee’s approach reflects broader national trends, as similar policies have been adopted across various states, though not universally. The ongoing debate over their effectiveness draws attention to a deeper tension between carceral feminist strategies, which advocate for increased legal intervention, and abolitionist feminist critiques, which argue that such policies ultimately harm survivors by reinforcing systemic racial disparities, limiting victim agency, and expanding the carceral state.

During the late 1980s and 1990s, the legal landscape surrounding domestic violence underwent a significant historic transformation. States began adopting mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies, largely influenced by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. While this act did not directly mandate these policies, it incentivized their adoption by providing federal funding to states that implemented them. Advocates argued that removing the decision to arrest from victims would protect them from coercion or retaliation by their abusers. The introduction of no-drop policies ensured that legally sufficient cases proceeded to prosecution and reduced the likelihood of case dismissals due to victim withdrawal.

No-drop policies were designed to protect survivors from coercion and prevent abusers from evading legal consequences. Some jurisdictions enforce "hard" no-drop policies that require prosecutors to pursue charges regardless of victim cooperation, while others implement "soft" no-drop policies that encourage, but do not require prosecution. Meanwhile, mandatory arrest policies remove police discretion. These laws vary by state. Some states require arrests if probable cause exists, while others allow officer discretion. Tennessee law classifies domestic assault under T.C.A. § 39-13-111 and strongly encourages prosecution, even without victim cooperation.

While these policies were intended to prevent further harm, they often result in unintended consequences. They reflect a carceral feminist framework that prioritizes punitive measures and fail to address the structural factors that perpetuate domestic violence. Carceral feminism operates on the belief that state intervention and legal punishment are necessary to protect survivors and deter harm and aligns with state power. However, this approach does not account for the ways in which the criminal legal system disproportionately impacts marginalized communities.

In contrast, abolitionist feminists critique these policies for reinforcing systemic inequalities. They emphasize the importance of addressing root causes of harm rather than focusing solely on punishment. Mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies often lead to the criminalization of survivors, particularly women of color, who are disproportionately arrested in domestic violence incidents due to racial bias in law enforcement. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of structural intersectionality explains how Black and brown survivors of domestic violence are disproportionately criminalized due to systemic racial disparities in the legal system. For example, the assumption that Black women are equally violent in domestic disputes leads to higher rates of dual arrests, even when they are defending themselves. Law enforcement officers frequently fail to recognize women of color as victims due to deeply ingrained racial and gendered stereotypes.

Abolitionist feminists argue that the carceral system operates as an extension of patriarchal and racialized state control rather than a mechanism for justice. Policies like no-drop prosecution remove survivors’ ability to determine whether engaging with the legal system is in their best interest! Many survivors do not want their abusers arrested. This is not because they condone the abuse, but because they may face complex barriers such as financial dependence, immigration concerns, and child custody fears. These factors make prosecution an unviable or even dangerous option. Survivors who rely on their abuser for housing, childcare, or financial support may experience further destabilization when forced into legal proceedings and potentially leaving them in a more vulnerable position than before.

Tennessee’s high incarceration rate can be directly related the broader consequences of carceral feminism’s reliance on punitive measures. Instead of addressing domestic violence through increased policing and prosecution, abolitionist frameworks advocate for community-based solutions that center survivor autonomy, economic justice, and restorative justice practices.

Tennessee’s reliance on incarceration as a solution to social issues is evident in its staggering incarceration rate of 838 per 100,000 people.

If Tennessee were its own country, it would rank 9th globally for the highest incarceration rate.

Women are disproportionately affected by these policies, with Tennessee incarcerating women at a rate of 209 per 100,000 residents.

I had no clue about these statistics of my home state before this research. Astonishing.

With gratitude,

Olivia