Discussion question for the reading

Please write a question regarding the reading attached, and also please write down the answer to the question.

Critical Resistance-Incite! Statement on Gender Violence And the Prison-Industrial
Complex
Author(s):

Critical Resistance and Incite!

Source: Social Justice, Vol. 30, No. 3 (93), The Intersection of Ideologies of Violence (2003),
pp. 141-150
Published by: Social Justice/Global Options
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29768215
Accessed: 24-01-2020 00:35 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Social Justice/Global Options is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Social Justice

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Critical Resistance-Incite!
Statement on Gender Violence
And the Prison-Industrial Complex

Critical Resistance and Incite!

WE CALL ON SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES AND ANALY?

SIS that address both state and interpersonal violence, particularly
violence against women.1 Currently, activists/movements that address

state violence (such as anti-prison, anti-police brutality groups) often work in
isolation from activists/movements that address domestic and sexual violence.

The result is that women of color, who suffer disproportionately from both state
and interpersonal violence, have become marginalized within these

movements.

It is critical for us to develop responses to gender violence that do not depend on
a sexist, racist, classist, and homophobic criminal justice system. It is also
important that we develop strategies that challenge the criminal justice system,

while providing safety for survivors of sexual and domestic violence. To live
violence-free lives, we must develop holistic strategies for addressing violence
that speak to the intersection of all forms of oppression.

The anti-violence movement has been critically important in breaking the
silence around violence against women and providing much-needed services to
survivors. However, the mainstream anti-violence movement has increasingly
relied on the criminal justice system as the front-line approach toward ending
violence against women of color. It is important to assess the impact of this
strategy.

(1) Law enforcement approaches to violence against women may deter some
acts of violence in the short term. However, as an overall strategy for ending
violence, criminalization has not worked. In fact, mandatory arrest laws for
domestic violence have led to decreases in the number of battered women who kill

their partners in self-defense, but they have not led to a decrease in the number of

batterers who kill their partners.2 Thus, the law protects batterers more than it
protects survivors.

(2) The criminalization approach has also brought many women into conflict
with the law, particularly women of color, poor women, lesbians, sex workers,

Critical Resistance and Incite! Women of Color Against Violence are U.S .-based organizations.
To sign on to the Critical Resistance-Incite statement as an organization or individual, e-mail
incite_national@yahoo.com or phone (415) 553-3837.

Social Justice Vol. 30, No. 3 (2003) 141

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

142 Critical Resistance and Incite!

immigrant women, women with disabilities, and other marginalized women. For
instance, under mandatory arrest laws, there have been numerous occasions in
which police officers called to domestic incidents have arrested the woman being
battered.3 Many undocumented women have reported cases of sexual and domes?
tic violence, only to find themselves deported.4 A tough law-and-order agenda also
leads to long punitive sentences for women convicted of killing their batterers.5
Finally, when public funding is channeled into policing and prisons, budget cuts
for social programs, including women’s shelters, welfare, and public housing, are
the inevitable side effect.6 These cutbacks leave women less able to escape violent
relationships.

(3) Prisons don’t work. Despite an exponential increase in the number of men
in prisons, women are not any safer and the rates of sexual assault and domestic
violence have not decreased.7 In calling for greater police responses to, and
harsher sentences for, perpetrators of gender violence, the anti-violence move?
ment has fueled the proliferation of prisons. The U.S. now locks up more people
per capita than does any other country.8 During the past 15 years, the number of
women in prison, especially women of color, has skyrocketed.9 Prisons also inflict
violence on the growing numbers of women behind bars. Slashing, suicide, the
proliferation of HIV, strip searches, medical neglect, and rape of prisoners has
largely been ignored by anti-violence activists.10 The criminal justice system, an
institution of violence, domination, and control, has increased the level of violence

in society.
(4) Reliance on state funding to support anti-violence programs has increased

the professionalization of the anti-violence movement and alienated it from its
community-organizing, social justice roots.11 Such reliance has isolated the anti
violence movement from other social justice movements that seek to eradicate
state violence, such that it acts in conflict rather than in collaboration with these

movements.

(5) Reliance on the criminal justice system has taken power away from
women’s ability to organize collectively to stop violence and has invested this
power within the state. The result is that women who seek redress in the criminal
justice system feel disempowered and alienated.12 It has also promoted an
individualistic approach toward ending violence, such that the only way people
think they can intervene to stop violence is to call the police. This reliance has
shifted our focus away from developing ways communities can collectively
respond to violence.

In recent years, the mainstream anti-prison movement has called attention to
the negative impact of criminalization and to the build-up of the prison-industrial
complex. Because activists seeking to reverse the tide of mass incarceration and
criminalization of poor communities and communities of color have not consis?
tently made gender and sexuality central to their analysis or organizing, they have
not always responded adequately to the needs of survivors of domestic and sexual

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Gender Violence and the Prison-Industrial Complex 143

violence. We need to analyze the limitations of anti-prison and police accountabil?
ity activism.

(1) Prison and police accountability activists have generally organized around
and conceptualized men of color as the primary victims of state violence. Female
prisoners and victims of police brutality have been made invisible by a focus on
the war on our brothers and sons. This emphasis fails to consider that state violence
affects women as severely as it does men.13 The plight of women who are raped
by INS officers or prison guards, for instance, has not received sufficient attention.

In addition, women carry the burden of caring for extended family when family
and community members are criminalized and warehoused.14 Several organiza?
tions have been established to advocate for women prisoners;15 however, these
groups have frequently been marginalized within the mainstream anti-prison
movement.

(2) The anti-prison movement has not addressed strategies for addressing the
rampant forms of violence women face in their everyday lives, including street
harassment, sexual harassment at work, rape, and intimate partner abuse. Until
these strategies are developed, many women will feel shortchanged by the

movement. In addition, the anti-prison movement’s failure to seek alliances with
the anti-violence movement has sent the message that it is possible to liberate
communities without guaranteeing the well-being and safety of women.

(3) The anti-prison movement has failed to sufficiently organize around the
forms of state violence faced by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Two-spirited, and
Intersex (LGBTTI) communities. LGBTTI street youth and trans people in general
are particularly vulnerable to police brutality and criminalization.16 LGBTTI prison?
ers are denied basic human rights such as family visits from same-sex partners, and
same-sex consensual relationships in prison are policed and punished.17

(4) Although prison abolitionists have correctly noted that rapists and serial
murderers comprise a small percentage of the prison population, we have not
answered the question of how these cases should be addressed.18 Many anti
violence activists interpret this inability to answer the question as a lack of concern
for the safety of women.

(5) The various alternatives to incarceration developed by anti-prison activists
have generally failed to provide a sufficient mechanism for safety and accountabil?
ity for survivors of sexual and domestic violence. These alternatives often rely on
a romanticized notion of communities, which have yet to demonstrate their
commitment and ability to keep women and children safe or to seriously address
the sexism and homophobia that is deeply embedded within them.19

We call on social justice movements concerned with ending violence in all its
forms to:

(1) Develop community-based responses to violence that do not rely on the
criminal justice system and that have mechanisms to ensure safety and account

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

144 Critical Resistance and Incite!

ability for survivors of sexual and domestic violence. Transformative practices
emerging from local communities should be documented and disseminated to
promote collective responses to violence.

(2) Critically assess the impact of state funding on social justice organizations
and develop alternative fundraising strategies to support these organizations.
Develop collective fundraising and organizing strategies for anti-prison and anti
violence organizations. Develop strategies and analysis that specifically target
state forms of sexual violence.

(3) Make connections between interpersonal violence, the violence inflicted
by domestic state institutions (such as prisons, detention centers, mental hospitals,
and child protective services), and international violence (such as war, military
base prostitution, and nuclear testing).

(4) Develop analyses and strategies to end violence that do not isolate acts of
state or individual violence from their larger contexts. These strategies must
address how entire communities of all genders are affected in multiple ways by
state violence and interpersonal gender violence. Battered women prisoners
represent an intersection of state and interpersonal violence and as such provide
and opportunity for both movements to build coalitions and joint struggles.

(5) Place poor and working-class women of color at the center of their analysis,
organizing practices, and leadership development. Recognize the role of eco?
nomic oppression, welfare “reform,” and attacks on women workers’ rights in
increasing women’s vulnerability to all forms of violence; locate anti-violence and
anti-prison activism alongside efforts to transform the capitalist economic system.

(6) Center stories of state violence committed against women of color in our
organizing efforts.

(7) Oppose legislative change that promotes prison expansion or criminalization
of poor communities and communities of color, and thus state violence against
women of color, even if these changes also incorporate measures to support
victims of interpersonal gender violence.

(8) Promote holistic political education at the everyday level within our
communities. Specifically, show how sexual violence helps to reproduce the
colonial, racist, capitalist, heterosexist, and patriarchal society in which we live,
as well as how state violence produces interpersonal violence within communities.

(9) Develop strategies for mobilizing against sexism and homophobia within
our communities to keep women safe.

(10) Challenge men of color and all men in social justice movements to take
particular responsibility to address and organize around gender violence in their
communities as a primary strategy for addressing violence and colonialism. We
challenge men to address how their own histories of victimization have hindered
their ability to establish gender justice in their communities.

(11) Link struggles for personal transformation and healing with struggles for
social justice.

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Gender Violence and the Prison-Industrial Complex 145

We seek to build movements that not only end violence, but also create a
society based on radical freedom, mutual accountability, and passionate reciproc?
ity. In this society, safety and security will not be premised on violence or the threat
of violence; it will be based on a collective commitment to guaranteeing the
survival and care of all peoples.

Signatures:

Organizations

American Friends Service Committee, Arab Women’s Solidarity Association,
North America Arab Women’s Solidarity Association, San Francisco Chapter,
Arizona Prison Moratorium Coalition, Asian Women’s Shelter, Audre Lorde
Project, Black Radical Congress, California Coalition for Women Prisoners,
Center for Human Rights Education, Center for Immigrant Families, Center for
Law and Justice, Coalition of Women from Asia and the Middle East, Colorado

Progressive Alliance, Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence (New York),
Communities Against Rape and Abuse (Seattle), Direct Action Against Refugee
Exploitation (Vancouver), East Asia-US-Puerto Rico Women’s Network Against
Militarism, Institute of Lesbian Studies, Justice Now, Korean American Coalition
to End Domestic Abuse, Lavender Youth Recreation & Information Center (San

Francisco), Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Minnesota Black Political
Action Committee, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National
Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects, National Network for Immigrant and Refu?
gee Rights, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (Seattle), Pennsylvania Lesbian
and Gay Task Force, Prison Activist Resource Center, Project South San Fran?
cisco, Women Against Rape, Shimtuh Korean Domestic Violence Program, Sista
II Sista, Southwest Youth Collaborative (Chicago), Spear and Shield Publications,
Chicago, Women of All Red Nations, Women of Color Resource Center, and
Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice (Bronx)

Individuals

Debra M. Akuna, Gigi Alexander, Jiro Arase, Helen Arnold, Office of Sexual
Misconduct, Prevention & Education, Columbia University, Molefe Asante,
Temple University, Rjoya K. Atu, Karen Baker, National Sexual Violence
Resource Center, Rachel Baum, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects,
Elham Bayour, Women’s Empowerment Project (Gaza, Palestine), Zoe Abigail
Bermet, Eulynda Toledo-Benalli, Dine’ Nation, First Nations North & South,
Diana Block, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Marilyn Buck, Political
Prisoner, Lee Carroll, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Emma
Catague, API Women & Safety Center, Ann Caton, Young Women United,
Mariama Changamire, Department of Communication, Univ. of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Eunice Cho, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights,

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

146 Critical Resistance and Incite!

Sunjung Cho, KACEDA and Asian Community Mental Health Services, Chris?
tina Chu, Dorie D. Ciskowsky, Cori Couture, BAMM, Kimberle Crenshaw,
UCLA Law School, Gwen D’Arcangelis, Shamita Das Dasgupta, Manavi, Inc.,
Angela Y. Davis, University of California ? Santa Cruz, Jason Durr, University
of Hawaii School of Social Work, Michael Eric Dyson, University of Pennsylva?
nia, Siobhan Edmondson, Michelle Erai, Santa Cruz Commission for the Preven?
tion of Violence Against Women, Samantha Francois, Edna Frantela, National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Loretta Frederick, Battered Women’s
Justice Project, Arnoldo Garcia, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee
Rights, Dionne Grigsby, University of Hawaii Outreach College, Lara K. Grimm,
Sarah Hoagland, Institute of Lesbian Studies, Elizabeth Harmuth, Prison Activist
Resource Center, Katayoun Issari, Family Peace Center (Hawaii), Desa Jacobsson,
Anti-Violence Activist (Alaska), Joy James, Brown University, Leialoha Jenkins,
Jamie Jimenez, Northwestern Sexual Assault Education Prevention Program,
Dorothea Kaapana, Isabel Kang, Dorean American Coalition for Ending Domes?
tic Abuse, Valli Kanuha, Asian Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence,

Mimi Kim, Asian Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence, Erl Kimmich,
Paul Kivel, Violence Prevention Educator, M. Carmen Lane, Anti-violence
activist, In Hui Lee, KACEDA, Meejeon Lee, Shimtuh & KACEDA, Beckie

Masaki, Asian Women’s Shelter, Ann Rhee Menzie, Shimtuh & KACEDA, Sarah
Kim-Merchant, KACEDA, Patricia Manning, Alternatives to Violence Project
(AVP) volunteer, Kristin Millikan, Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women’s

Network, Steven Morozumi, Programs Adviser, Univ. of Oregon Multicultural
Center, Soniya Munshi, Manavi, Sylvia Nam, KACEDA & KCCEB (Korean
Community Center of the East Bay), Stormy Ogden, American Indian Movement,
Margo Okazawa-Rey, Mills College, Angela Naomi Paik, Ellen Pence, Praxis,
Karen Porter, Trity Pourbahrami, University of Hawaii, Laura Pulido, University
of Southern California, Bernadette Ramog, Matt Remle, Center for Community
Justice, Monique Rhodes, Louisiana Foundation Against Sexual Assault, Lisa
Richardson, Beth Richie, African American Institute on Domestic Violence,
David Rider, Men Can Stop Rape, Loretta Rivera, Alissa Rojers, Clarissa Rojas,
Latino Alianza Against Domestic Violence, Paula Rojas, Refugio/Refuge (New
York), Tricia Rose, University of California ? Santa Cruz, Katheryn Russell
Brown, University of Maryland, Ann Russo, Women’s Studies Program, DePaul
University, Anuradha Sharma, Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic
Violence, David Thibault Rodriguez, South West Youth Collaborative, Roxanna
San Miguel, Karen Shain, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Proshat
Shekarloo, Oakland, Anita Sinha, attorney ? Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project, Wendy Simonetti, Barbara Smith, founder, Kitchen Table Press, Matthea
Little Smith, Natalie Sokoloff, John Jay College of Criminal Justice ? CUNY,
Nan Stoops, Theresa Tevaga, Kabzuag Vaj, Hmong American Women Associa?
tion, Cornel West, Janelle White, Leanne Knot, Violence Against Women

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Gender Violence and the Prison-Industrial Complex 147

Consortium, Laura Whitehorn, former political prisoner, Sherry Wilson, Women
of All Red Nations, Glenn Wong, Yon Soon Yoon, KACEDA, Mieko Yoshihama,
University of Michigan School of Social Work, Tukufu Zuberi, Center for
Africana Studies, University of Pennsylvania.

NOTES

1. Critical Resistance and Incite! Women of Color Against Violence are U.S.-based organiza?
tions that participate in transnational networks and alliances. Although many of the critiques of the anti

violence and anti-prison movements in the statement may be relevant to non-U.S. contexts, the authors
do not make any claims of universality and recognize that movements in other countries have
developed from distinct histories and political contexts.

2. In a 20-year study of 48 cities, Dugan et al. (2003) found that greater access to criminal legal
remedies for women led to fewer men being killed by their wives, since women who might otherwise
have killed to escape violence were offered alternatives. However, women receiving legal support were

no less likely to be killed by their intimate partners, and were exposed to additional retaliatory violence.
3. See McMahon (2003), Osthoff (2002), and Miller (2001). Noting that in some cities, over

20% of those arrested for domestic violence are women, Miller concludes: “An arrest policy intended
to protect battered women as victims is being misapplied and used against them. Battered women have
become female offenders.”

4. Women’s dependent or undocumented status is often manipulated by batterers, who use the
threat of deportation as part of a matrix of domination and control. Although the Violence Against

Women Act (VAWA, 1994; 2000) introduced visas for battered immigrant women, many women do
not know about the act’s provisions or are unable to meet evidentiary requirements. Since the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act made domestic violence grounds for depor?
tation, women may also be reluctant to subject a legal permanent resident spouse to potential
deportation proceedings by reporting him to the police. In addition, women arrested under mandatory
arrest laws could themselves face deportation. See Raj and Silverman (2002) and Jang et al. (1997).

5. For example, former California Governor Grey Davis, whose tough law-and-order platform
included a promise that no one convicted of murder would go free, rejected numerous parole board
recommendations on behalf of battered women incarcerated for killing in self-defense (Vesely, 2002).
For further information and testimonies of incarcerated survivors of domestic violence, see

www.freebatteredwomen.org.
6. Christian Parenti (1999) documents the shift in government spending from welfare, educa?

tion, and social provision to prisons and policing.
7. The U.S. prison and jail population grew from 270,000 in 1975 to two million in 2001 as

legislators pushed “tough on crime” policies such as mandatory minimums, three strikes and you’re
out, and truth in sentencing (Tonry, 2001:17). Over 90% of these prisoners are men, and approximately

50% are black men. Despite claims that locking more people away would lead to a dramatic decrease
in crime, reported violent crimes against women have remained relatively constant since annual
victimization surveys were initiated in 1973 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994).

8. In 2001, the U.S., with 686 prisoners per 100,000 residents, surpassed the incarceration rate
of gulag-ridden Russia. The U.S. dwarfs the incarceration rate of Western European nations like
Finland and Denmark, which incarcerate only 59 people out of every 100,000 (Home Office
Development and Statistics Directorate, 2003).

9. The rate of increase of women’s imprisonment in the U.S. has exceeded that of men. In 1970,
there were 5,600 women in federal and state prisons; by 1996, there were 75,000 (Currie, 1998).

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

148 Critical Resistance and Incite!

10. Amnesty International’s investigation of women’s prisons in the U.S. revealed countless
cases of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse. In one case, the Federal Bureau of Prisons paid
$500,000 to settle a lawsuit by three black women who were sexually assaulted when guards took
money from male prisoners in exchange for taking them to the women’s cells; prisoners in Arizona
were subjected to rape, sexual fondling, and genital touching during searches, as well as to constant
prurient viewing when using the shower and toilet; women at Valley State Prison, California, were
treated as a “private harem to sexually abuse and harass”; in numerous cases, women were kept in
restraints while seriously ill, dying, or in labor and women under maximum-security conditions were
kept in isolation and sensory deprivation for long periods (Amnesty International, 1999).

11. See Smith (2000-2001).
12. May Koss (2000) argues that the adversarial justice system traumatizes survivors of domestic

violence. For a first-person account of a rape survivor’s fight to hold the police accountable, see Doe
(2003). Jane Doe was raped by the Toronto “Balcony rapist” after police used women in her
neighborhood as “bait.”

13. For a comprehensive account of state violence against women in the U.S., see Bhattacharjee
(2001).

14. Added burdens on women when a loved one is incarcerated include dealing with the arrest
and trials of family members, expensive visits and phone calls from correctional facilities, and meeting
disruptive parole requirements (Richie, 2002).

15. In the U.S., see Justice Now; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, at http://
prisonerswithchildren.org; Free Battered Women, at www.freebatteredwomen.org; California Coali?
tion for Women Prisoners, at http://womenprisoners.org; and Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcer?
ated Mothers, at www.c-l-a-i-m-.org. In the U.K., see Women in Prison, at www.womeninprison.org;
and Justice for Women, at www.jfw.org.uk. In Canada, see the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry
Associations, at www.elizabethfry.ca/caefs_e.htm.

16. According to transgender activists in the Bay Area, the police are responsible for approxi?
mately 50% of all trans abuse cases. The Transaction hotline regularly receives reports from TG/TS
survivors of police violence who have been forced to strip to “verify gender,” or subjected to demands
for sex from undercover police officers (San Francisco Examiner, 2002; Bay Area Reporter, 1999).

17. See Faith (1993: 211-223).
18. The response of abolitionists Thomas and Boehlfeld (1993) to the question of what to do about

Henry, a violent rapist, is an example of this problem. The authors conclude that this is the wrong
question since it focuses attention on a small and anomalous subsection of the prison population and
detracts from a broader abolitionist vision.

19. Alternatives to the traditional justice system such as Sentencing Circles are particularly
developed in Canada and Australia, where they have been developed in partnership with indigenous
communities. However, native women have been critical of these approaches, arguing that they fail to

address the deep-rooted sexism and misogyny engendered by experiences of colonization and may
revictimize women (Monture-Angus, 2000). See also Hudson (2002).

REFERENCES

Amnesty International
1999 Not Part of My Sentence: Violations of the Human Rights of Women in

Custody. New York.
Bay Area Reporter

1999 “Another Transgender Murder.” April 8: 29,14.

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Gender Violence and the Prison-Industrial Complex 149

Bhattacharjee, Annanya
2001 Women of Color and the Violence of Law Enforcement. Philadelphia:

American Friends Service Committee and Committee on Women, Population,
and the Environment.

Bramman, Donald
2002 “Families and Incarceration.” Marc Mauer and Meda Chesney-Lind (eds.),

Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment.
New York: The New Press.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

1994 National Crime Victimization Survey Report: “Violence Against Women.”
NCJ 145325.

Chesney-Lind, Meda
2002 Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment,

New York: The New Press.
Critical Resistance

2002 What Is Abolition ? At www.criticalresistance.org.
Currie, Elliott

1998 Crime and Punishment in America. New York: Henry Holt.
Doe, Jane

2003 The Story of Jane Doe: A Book About Rape. New York: Random House.
Dugan, Laura, Daniel S. Nagin, and Richard Rosenfeld

2003 “Exposure Reduction or Retaliation? The Effects of Domestic Violence
Resources on Intimate-Partner Homicide.” Law & Society Review 37:1.

Faith, Karlene
1993 Unruly Women: The Politics of Confinement and Resistance. Vancouver: Press

Gang Publishers.
Home Office Development and Statistics Directorate

2003 World Prison Population List. Online at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/
rl88 .

Hudson, Barbara
2002 “Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence.” British Journal of Criminology

42,3.
James, Joy

1996 Resisting State Violence: Radicalism, Gender, and Race in U.S. Culture.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Jang, Deena, Len Marin, and Gail Pendleton
1997 Domestic Violence in Immigrant and Refugee Communities: Assessing the

Rights of Battered Women. Second Edition. San Francisco: Family Violence
Prevention Fund.

Koss, May
2000 “Blame, Shame, and Community: Justice Responses to Violence Against

Women.” American Psychologist 55,11 (November): 1332.
McMahon, Martha

2003 “Making Social Change.” Violence Against Women (January) 9,1: 47-74.
Miller, Susan

2001 “The Paradox of Women Arrested for Domestic Violence.” Violence Against
Women 7,12 (December).

Monture-Angus, Patricia
2000 “The Roles and Responsibilities of Aboriginal Women: Reclaiming Justice.”

Robynne Neugebauer (ed.), Criminal Injustice: Racism in the Criminal Justice
System. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

New York Times
2003 “The Growing Inmate Population.” Editorial (August 1).

Osthoff, Sue
2002 “But Gertrude, I Beg to Differ, a Hit Is Not a Hit Is Not a Hit.” Violence

Against Women 8,12 (December): 1521-1544.

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

150 Critical Resistance and Incite !

Parenti, Christian
1999 Lockdown America: Policing and Prisons in the Age of Crisis. New York:

Verso Books.
Raj, Anita and Jay Silverman

2002 “Violence Against Immigrant Women: The Role of Culture, Context, and
Legal Immigrant Status on Intimate Partner Violence.” Violence Against
Women 8,3: 367-398.

Richie, Beth
2002 “The Social Impact of Mass Incarceration on Women.” Marc Mauer and Meda

Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of
Mass Imprisonment. New York: The New Press.

San Francisco Examiner
2002 “Transgender Sues Police.” August 9.

Smith, Andrea
2000-2001 “Colors of Violence.” Colorlines 3,4.

Thomas, Jim and Sharon Boehlefeld
1993 “Rethinking Abolitionism: ‘What Do We Do with Henry?'” Brian MacLean

and Harold Pepinsky (eds.), We Who Would Take No Prisoners: Selections
from the Fifth International Conference on Penal Abolition. Vancouver:
Collective Press.

Tonry, Michael (ed.)
2001 Penal Reform in Overcrowded Times. Oxford and New York: Oxford

University Press.
Vesely, Rebecca

2002 “Davis’ Right to Deny Parole to Abused Women Upheld.” Women’s Enews
(December 19).

This content downloaded from 169.231.135.107 on Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:35:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

• Contents

p. 141
p. 142
p. 143
p. 144
p. 145
p. 146
p. 147
p. 148
p. 149
p. 150

• Issue Table of Contents

Social Justice, Vol. 30, No. 3 (93) (2003) pp. 1-153
Front Matter
Overview: The Intersection Of Ideologies of Violence [pp. 1-3]
Mapping Political Violence in a Globalized World: The Case of Hindu Nationalism [pp. 4-16]
The Imagination to Listen: Reflections on a Decade of Zapatista Struggle [pp. 17-31]
Defending the Pueblo: Indigenous Identity and Struggles for Social Justice in Guatemala, 1970 to 1980 [pp. 32-47]
The Racial Economies of Criminalization, Immigration, And Policing in Italy [pp. 48-62]
Learning to Kill by Proxy: Colombian Paramilitaries and the Legacy of Central American Death Squads, Contras, and Civil Patrols [pp. 63-81]
The False Allure of Security Technologies [pp. 82-93]
In Defense of Good Work: Jobs, Violence, and the Ethical Dimension [pp. 94-107]
Legitimacy and Political Violence: A Habermasian Perspective [pp. 108-126]
“Bowling for Columbine”: Critically Interrogating the Industry of Fear [pp. 127-133]
Toward a Holistic Anti-Violence Agenda: Women of Color as Radical Bridge-Builders [pp. 134-140]
Critical Resistance-Incite! Statement on Gender Violence And the Prison-Industrial Complex [pp. 141-150]
Back Matter