Is the Segregation of HIV-Positive Inmates Ethical - Essay Example

IS THE SEGREGATION OF HIV-POSITIVE INMATES ETHICAL? People who are HIV positive have a difficult time in the regular population because HIV/AIDS carries a stigma. The challenge is that it can be difficult to know exactly who is HIV positive and who is not. I feel it is unethical to segregate inmates who have HIV. It is my opinion that by segregating them the prisons are continuing prejudice against certain "types" of inmates. According to Long, "HIV disease in seroconversion is very rare" (p. 219). HIV does not mean that the individual will get full blown AIDS. There is risk if the inmate has unprotected sex in prison and if they do this with a person with HIV they are more prone to contract AIDS. However, segregating them causes other inmates to ostracize them. When segregated, they will have a very small group of inmates to interact with and this changes their socializing; this may be more devastating to some inmates than the disease. Other people may feel that because they are inmates they have no right but in reality, they do. One of the rights they have is to be treated fairly. A special ward for HIV inmates would make them susceptible to mistreatment from guards. In most cases, isolation is reserved for those people who are a threat to themselves or others. It could be argued that they are a threat to the rest of prison society because they are HIV positive but this would have to be done in a way that showed they were treated as fairly as other inmates. ARE CONJUGAL AND FAMILIAL VISITATIONS EFFECTIVE REHABILITATIVE CONCEPTS? Conjugal visits are one way to give inmates an opportunity to stay in touch with their spouses or significant others but I disagree that it would aid in effective rehabilitation. Many researchers think that providing conjugal visits is like giving inmates a hotel room and it dos not give them a sense of being in jail. I think that it is a good thing for them to do because sexual frustration can build and can cause inmates to take out this tension on other inmates. The readings suggest that conjugal visits provide a way to stay in touch with their families. I suggest that there are many variables I prison that are stronger than conjugal visits and that some families are not very strong. This means that some inmates would get conjugal visits while others would be denied either because family members are not visiting them or because of their behavior. Conjugal visits are sometimes once a month and some inmates have better behavior if they have been able to have sex with their partners but this is not always the case. If families were already close this could help them stay close, but if they were not close a conjugal visit is not going to help them come closer. Another consideration is that a visit could result in pregnancy which can cause the parent who is not incarcerated more stress because they have another mouth to feed. They may not have the assistance of someone else to bring in money for the family which can add an undue hardship. McConnell questions whether tax payers should take care of this child and it is a very good question )p. 237). There currently are no studies that show that conjugal visits help rehabilitation although they can be used as incentives to get inmates to act appropriately. Some studies have shown that inmates who participate in conjugal visits are less likely to be re-incarcerated (p. 237) but there is not a reason given as to why. This alone points to the fact that it does not necessarily add to rehabilitation. SHOULD SERIAL KILLERS AND VIOLENT SEXUAL OFFENDERS BE QUARANTINED? Our society has rules and regulations to keep the society well. We incarcerate those who do crimes against humanity and other smaller crimes. Without laws we would have more havoc running rampantly in the streets than we do now. Sexual predators and seriour killers take a long time to bring to justice and usually stay incarcerated for life. Society expects that each member understands right from wrong and that they have a conscious that tells them which road to go when something happens in their life. When a n individual has no conscience and they have committed heinous and vicious crimes against society they should be quarantined. The question is whether they should be quarantined beyond their sentence and I would answer this questions "yes." The most important aspect of this particular question is that most serial killers will kill again if they are let out of prison. It has become a proven fact that sexual predators often create the crime again within a few years after they are let out of prison. In my opinion these individuals are detrimental to society and to themselves; therefore they should be quarantined from regular society. There is a body of research that shows that pedophiles often still engage in child pornography and have networks across the world of people who are doing copy cat crimes. This tells me that these pedophiles should be quarantined and not allowed the use of a computer. The more we can isolate them from harming others the better off the society on the whole will be. Although I believe that every prisoner should be treated will, society must take into consideration the best interest of the larger society. As an example, Charles Manson, considered a mass murderer once said that he did not want to leave prison because he would just do what he did again. He stays in prison at the age of 74 and it is a good idea because he committed such violent crimes. Some experts suggest that these more difficult and violent cases may have mental disorders that drive them to do these crimes (Zonana, p. 247). If this is the case, this is another reason that they should not be let back into society. Many of these criminals would be recidivists because they are driven by the urges to continue their crime. When they are in prison they are kept away from the general public and it is the criminal justice systems responsibility to keep them away from the general population. Read More