Few social dynamics have altered the landscape of communities in the United States as profoundly as the buildup of a Prison Nation and the expansion of the carceral state. In this article, we will use the terms “carceral expansion,” “carceral state,” and “buildup of a Prison Nation” interchangeably. As the discussion will show, these concepts refer to the ways that ideology, economic policy, and legal/legislative initiatives have supported the growth of legal apparatuses associated with punishment. We have witnessed dramatic shifts in how this country understands, uses, responds to, and, in some sense, creates “crime” in contemporary society, from massive financial investments in law enforcement and surveillance technology; the amplification of deep ideological commitments to retributive justice; aggressive punishment regimes (including preemptive arrests); the swell in the number of the facilities that imprison over 7 million people (for longer periods of time, in harsher conditions) to the co-optation of major reform efforts, these shifts are comprehensive and welldocumented. The impact of this shift affects the communities that have been the focus of social work attention for decades; those that have been the most disadvantaged by historical patterns of discrimination and social policies of exclusion. Scholars, legal theorists, and community activists have used various conceptual frames to characterize this expansion of the carceral state. Included among those widely used and which have made it into professional discourse are the “prison industrial complex,” “mass incarceration or imprisonment,” and “hyper-criminalization.” While there are slight distinctions between these concepts, there are three core elements of carceral expansion that are generally agreed upon. First is the critical understanding that the buildup of a Prison Nation does not correspond, necessarily, to changes in patterns of crime. That is, the investment in responses to crime does not correspond to actual shifts in what is considered “illegal behavior,” and in some eras, we have seen crime rates go down but the allocation of resources to punishment go up. This inconsistency is important because it helps to show how carcerality actually operates as a set of political commitments that are independent from data about actual occurrences of lawbreaking. Similarly, responses

中文翻译：

---

抵制监禁，拥抱废除：对女权主义社会工作实践的启示

很少有社会动态像监狱国家的建立和监狱国家的扩张那样深刻地改变了美国社区的景观。在本文中，我们将交替使用术语“监狱扩张”、“监狱状态”和“监狱国家的建立”。正如讨论将显示的那样，这些概念指的是意识形态、经济政策和法律/立法举措支持与惩罚相关的法律机构发展的方式。我们目睹了这个国家如何理解、使用、应对以及在某种意义上创造当代社会“犯罪”的方式发生了巨大变化，从对执法和监控技术的大规模金融投资开始；扩大对报复性正义的深层意识形态承诺；严厉的惩罚制度（包括先发制人的逮捕）；关押超过 700 万人的设施（在更长时间、更恶劣的条件下）的数量激增，以配合重大改革努力，这些转变是全面且有据可查的。这种转变的影响影响了几十年来一直是社会工作关注焦点的社区；那些因历史歧视模式和社会排斥政策而处于最不利地位的人。学者、法律理论家和社区活动家使用各种概念框架来描述这种监狱国家的扩张。广泛使用并已成为专业话语的包括“监狱工业综合体”、“大规模监禁或监禁”和“高度刑事化”。” 虽然这些概念之间存在细微差别，但普遍认同的癌症扩张的三个核心要素。首先是批判性的理解，即监狱国家的建立不一定对应于犯罪模式的变化。也就是说，对犯罪反应的投入并不对应于被视为“非法行为”的实际变化，在某些时代，我们看到犯罪率下降，但用于惩罚的资源分配增加。这种不一致很重要，因为它有助于表明监禁实际上是如何作为一组独立于实际违法事件数据的政治承诺运作的。同样，响应 普遍认同的癌症扩张的三个核心要素。首先是批判性的理解，即监狱国家的建立不一定对应于犯罪模式的变化。也就是说，对犯罪反应的投入并不对应于被视为“非法行为”的实际变化，在某些时代，我们看到犯罪率下降，但用于惩罚的资源分配增加。这种不一致很重要，因为它有助于表明监禁实际上是如何作为一组独立于实际违法事件数据的政治承诺运作的。同样，响应 普遍认同的癌症扩张的三个核心要素。首先是批判性的理解，即监狱国家的建立不一定对应于犯罪模式的变化。也就是说，对犯罪反应的投入并不对应于被视为“非法行为”的实际变化，在某些时代，我们看到犯罪率下降，但用于惩罚的资源分配增加。这种不一致很重要，因为它有助于表明监禁实际上是如何作为一组独立于实际违法事件数据的政治承诺运作的。同样，响应 对犯罪反应的投资与被视为“非法行为”的实际变化并不相符，在某些时代，我们看到犯罪率下降，但用于惩罚的资源分配增加。这种不一致很重要，因为它有助于表明监禁实际上是如何作为一组独立于实际违法事件数据的政治承诺运作的。同样，响应 对犯罪反应的投资与被视为“非法行为”的实际变化并不相符，在某些时代，我们看到犯罪率下降，但用于惩罚的资源分配增加。这种不一致很重要，因为它有助于表明监禁实际上是如何作为一组独立于实际违法事件数据的政治承诺运作的。同样，响应