The Isolation of Prisoners in the United States - Research Paper Example

? Segregation in Prisons Before the year 1950, the prison systems in the United s followed the policy of racial isolation of prisoners. The white prisoners enjoyed greater rights as compared to their counterparts. These things started to change after several court judgments. The most significant amongst these were the court ruling of 1966 in Alabama and 2005 in California. Prisoners are kept in segregation on racial basis or if they are found to be positive for diseases like HIV. This separation of prisoners is a highly controversial issue. Racial segregation promotes a further buildup of negative sentiments and hence leads to riots. The isolation of HIV positive patients does not provide for any added benefit as well but rather results in demotivating HIV positive prisoners to seek treatment. With greater insight, it is seen that this isolation of prisoners is against the constitution and is not ethically or morally acceptable. Segregation in Prisons With the development of the human mind, new debates and arguments have arisen on issues that were not considered to be significant before. Human beings have understood and analyzed the fact that they possess their civil liberties and privileges and they have the right to fight for attaining them. The right of prisoners is one such matter that has come to be understood and segregation of prisoners has been a subject of debate and argument. The first and foremost reason that was identified for the segregation of prisoners was on the basis of race and many court rulings were passed in this regard. Another reason for prisoner segregation that has been identified is the isolation of prisoners on the basis of diseases like HIV. Racial segregation and segregation of prisoners on the basis of disease has been a subject of controversy and this isolation of prisoners has been termed unjust by many rulings and human rights organizations. Racial isolation of prisoners has been a part of the prison system in the United States prior to the second half of the twentieth century. This racism was so deep rooted that it was supported on the state level and it was a compulsion to observe this separation in the prisons. This separation in prisons also clearly upheld the white supremacy and it was seen that the white prisoners were considered superior to the others and were kept in better conditions and were provided for better chores in comparison to the other races. The situation started to change following the year 1954 when a first judgment was passed by the Supreme Court of the United States to put a halt to this separation. This change was not revolutionary and many prisons continued to follow the same policy of separating prisoners according to their race. This was owing to the fact that the prison administration was mainly at the disposal of the caretakers of the prisons and outside intervention in their management policies was neither welcome nor checked. The years following 1960 did bring about a slight change owing to the active movements for the rights of people but this change was not large enough. Until the end of 1970, a small change with regard to this segregation was seen but still the racial mixing in prisons was very low and different prisons followed different rules. In the years following 1980, changes were observed and the presence of prisoners of different races in a cell together could be seen. These changes could be attributed to the intervention of the public in matters of the state and a stand being taken by the common man and also owing to checks being kept on the prisons. Two important rulings that have been considered to be vital in overcoming this issue of separation of prisoners on the basis of race were the judgment of 1966 in Alabama and the judgment in the year 2005 in California which clearly stated that this racism should not be practiced. The 2005 judgment went further ahead and placed a clear condition that prior to placing prisoners in isolation, approval from the lower courts was essential (Siegel & Bartollas 2011; Trulson & Marquart 2009). In the year 2005, the case that was placed against the California state was by a prisoner of African-American origin who had been placed in isolation since the year 1987. The prisoner finally filed his case and argued that he deserved “Equal Protection.” The Court ruled against the state and put forward the fact that such isolation was not legal. This case clearly explained the fact that racial isolation in prisons was being practiced up till the year 2005 and stronger measures were essential to overcome this issue (Palmer 2010). Isolation of prisoners who report to be HIV positive and their compulsory testing for this disease has also been a controversial problem. According to the guidelines of the World Health Organization, this separation of HIV and AIDS positive prisoners is against the ethical and moral laws. There are many underlying reasons presented for this stand of the WHO. It is clearly explained that HIV is not a disease which can spread by “casual contact” and hence if the reason provided for this isolation is prevention of spread, it is not justified. There are many disadvantages of separation of these prisoners. This is because other prisoners would not wish to be tested for HIV as they would not wish to be isolated from jail mates. Furthermore, the patients who would be HIV positive would also not come forward for treatment owing to the fear of being kept alone. This forced isolation would also create an image of the HIV positive prisoners as being dangerous and thus they would be subjected to bias from their officials as well as other fellow prisoners. The separation of HIV positive prisoners can also create a false image in the mind of other prisoners that they would not be infected from HIV anymore as they are being kept separate from the infected group. This would result in practices that could be causes of HIV and hence the cases of HIV would increase even more. The HIV positive prisoners should only be kept in separate cells and places if they demand so or if their health is at risk owing to their inability to fight infective agents. Also this can be considered if the patient develops aggressive attitude towards other inmates. HIV itself should not be considered as a basis for keeping prisoners in isolation and nor should the activities of the prisoners be restricted owing to this (Moller & WHO 2007). Proponents of segregation on the basis of race in prisons present with their reasons for this isolation and consider it important. In the year 2009, unrest and violence took place in a prison in Chino, California and many people were hurt and damage to infrastructure near the prison. It was put forward that this unrest was brought about owing to fights between two races which included the Latinos and the black prisoners. This uprising was quoted by proponents of prison segregation who explained that it could have been avoided if racial segregation had been practiced in the prison (Siegel & Bartollas 2011). This unrest was considered to have occurred owing to racial issues but it can be understood that the Californian prisons followed the ideals of separating races until the year 2005 when the Supreme Court deemed it to be unconstitutional. This isolation was stopped after the year 2005 and this racial mixing was given as a reason by the authorities for this incident. The issues of racism in the prison have been present since decades and it would require time for them to subside. Cooperation from the authorities and resolving of issues would be needed to overcome these differences between the races which have been created by the prison authorities themselves (Moore 2009). The isolation of the prisoners is presented to bring about more negative effects than expected. Examples of prisoners like John Kamara who were kept in solitude for as long as 11 years and this did not bring any benefit explains the fact that isolation can bring about no positive result. Kamara only started to give up his negative acts after he was given proper counseling sessions. Kamara explained that the confinement alone did not provide for any effect on him. It has been explained that keeping the prisoners in solitude effects their mental status and health and pushes them more towards negativity. Thus confinement of the prisoners alone should not be a very commonly used option (Rohrer 2006). There are also proponents of the isolation of prisoners if they are found to be HIV positive. Reasons put forward by proponents include better availability of health services for the sufferers and their protection from the bias of other prisoners. They also explain that since the immune status of these prisoners is compromised, they would be in a better state if they are kept separate from the other people as they would be safe from infections (Clear et al 2012). These reasons provided by proponents have been clearly dismissed by the World Health Organization. According to the WHO, HIV positive prisoners need to be dealt with and treated in the normal prisons and do not need segregated units. Infection susceptibility can be controlled by preventive measures and the prisoners should only be isolated on this basis, if all other methods and techniques to protect the prisoners fail. The WHO also indicates that this isolation strategy itself is a basis for the bias against the HIV positive prisoners by their inmates as this isolation signifies that the prisoners are dangerous. If this stigma is removed and clarified, the HIV positive prisoners would be in a better state and would not be discriminated against. Thus, it may be deemed unacceptable to separate HIV positive prisoners on ethical and moral grounds (Moller & WHO 2007). The isolation of prisoners in the United States was a common practice before 1950 but understanding of human rights has provided for knowledge that this policy of segregation is unjust and should not be practiced. Prisoners should not be isolated and kept alone on the basis of their race or if they are positive for HIV. This isolation would indicate clear discrimination and thus it is unethical. It also needs to be understood that segregation of prisoners proves to have greater disadvantages as compared to advantages if any and thus this practice should be halted. References Clear, T. R, Cole G. F., Reisig, M.D. & Petrosino, C. (2012). American corrections in brief. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Moller, L., Netherlands., & World Health Organization. (2007). Health in prisons: A WHO guide to the essentials in prison health. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Moore, S. (2009, August 9). Hundreds Hurt in California Prison Riot. The New York Times. Retrieved 2012, March 7 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/us/10prison.html Palmer, J. W. (2010). Constitutional rights of prisoners. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis. Rohrer, F.(2006, April 8). A prison within a prison. BBC News. Retrieved 2012, March 7 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4879606.stm Siegel, L. J., & Bartollas, C. (2011). Corrections today. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Trulson, C. R., & Marquart, J. W. (2009). First available cell: Desegregation of the Texas prison system. Austin: University of Texas Press. Read More