The Role of Self Attitudes and Behaviour in Meeting the Challenges of a Human Rights Approach - Essay Example

The Author’s Name] [The Professor’s Name] [The Course Title] [Date] Challenges of a Human Rights Approach to Prison Management Introduction Prisoners are denied a voice in the outside world, and as a result they have to resort to drastic measures such as hunger strikes to be heard. Prisoners are denied the right to vote in many states in the United States, and even in the states where they are still allowed to vote the system has been designed so that it does not count their vote, does not register them as a voter, or does not provide them with a ballot to cast their vote. Prisoners still have to pay taxes and obey laws, like every other citizen, but are not allowed to vote and improve their situation. There are forty-seven states which restrict the voting of convicted felons in some way. While all prisoners face an abuse of their rights, as in most situations those that cannot or are in a position that does not allow them to protect themselves are the one who get picked on the most. Both the prison guards and prisoners persecute the younger, smaller, or weaker inmates. More often than not it is the weak that suffer from most of the abuse in prisons. Inmates who are looked on as weak by their fellow prisoners are the ones singled out for sexual and physical assault and bullying. The older, tougher prisoners who are serving long sentences prey on the younger first-timers who have no idea what is in store for them and are in most cases too trusting. The mentally ill and those who develop an illness inside prison are often abused as well, because they do not have the strength or ability to protect themselves. In some cases illnesses go long undiagnosed and the sick and progressively weaker prisoner is singled out to be raped or bashed. There are some cases in the United States of prisoners dying because the doctors in the facility have prescribed the wrong medication, or misdiagnosed the illness. In many cases, if prisoners have a medical condition such as asthma, diabetes, or epilepsy before they are admitted to prison they are not able to bring their medication into the prison with them as it is against the prison rules. The issue of crime within society has been a problem for many centuries past. There has always been cause for punishment of offenders, but only recently has prison become the main institution for doing so. Until the 18th century there were numerous methods for punishing crime, many too gruesome to be considered using today. Prison is now seen as being the greatest form of punishment an offender can be given; the greater the crime, the longer the sentence. But if this was the case, surely crime rates would be decreasing. The number of prisoners being incarcerated is steadily increasing, but similarly, so is the crime rate. If prison is really as fantastic as its proponents claimed it to be, then the crime rate should be decreasing. Instead we are currently living in a high crime society. (Carrabine, 119-23) These increased crime rates can be partly attributed to an increased level of reporting crimes, but that cannot be the sole explanation. The fact that prisons are not as effective as they should be can better account for rising crime rates. Prisoners are generally released before they have served the full time of their sentence. They are only kept in prison if they are seen as an immediate threat to the public. Offenders who are released early are released under the terms of parole. This means that they have the supervision of a parole officer to try and make sure that they do not return to a life of crime. (Von, 341-349) If prison were as successful at rehabilitating offenders as it is supposed to be, then there would not be such a high rate of crime. People who pass through this institution should in fact be 'cured' and never commit crime again, otherwise what is the point in sending them there. If it is to punish them for their crime then surely this can be done in a more efficient and less costly way. Studies have shown that it is how a person is treated once they leave prison that affects their future participation in crime. (Morgan, 1137-94) Having the skills and advantages needed to participate in the work force and get accommodation are shown to reduce crime rates. Similarly being supervised and assisted in rehabilitation by their parole officer also helps prevent them from re-offending. In other words, it is not their actual incarceration that helps to bring crime levels down, it is the way in which offenders are treated once they are released. Having said this, the offenders' time spent in prison would not be wasted if they were to experience adequate rehabilitation. This cannot be done until other problems such as overcrowding are addressed. (Cullen, 350-56) If too many people are in prison at one time, not enough attention can be placed on each prisoner in order to sufficiently prepare them for the outside world. Unless efforts are made to enable them to escape the social and economical constraints that led them to a life of crime in the first place, little relief in crime rates can be anticipated. The Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo, a world-renowned psychologist at Sanford University, conducted the landmark psychological study known as The Stanford Prison Experiment. Performed in the summer of 1973, the experiment set out to study the human response to captivity, in particular, to the real world circumstances of prison life. Volunteers played the roles of guards and prisoners, and lived in a mock prison. However, the quickly took a turn in the wrong direction, and concluded early. Subjects were recruited through an ad placed in the local newspaper and offered $15 a day to participate in a 1-2 week study. Of the 75 participants that were selected, Zimbardo selected 21 to take part in the prison experiment. The subjects were predominantly white, with the exception of 1 subject of oriental background, and middle-glass young males. Of these 21 males, half were divided, at random into two groups of prisoners and guards. The prison was run out of the basement of the Stanford Psychology building, which had been converted into the mock jail. A large hallway was converted into the housing for the prison, along with rooms for the guards, warden, and superintendent. Notably, Zimbardo played the position of the superintendent, and a research assistant by the name of Jaffe played the role of the warden. The environment in which the prison had been arranged allowed the prisoners to always be watched by the staff, with the exception of solitary confinement, lovingly called the hole. The experiment got out of hand very quickly. Prisoners suffered aggressive and humiliating maltreatment at the hands of the guards, and many of them showed severe emotional stress after the experiment had concluded. Mr. Zimbardo himself at one point stated is own increasing interest in the experiment, in which he now actively guided. One incidence that gives this example is the rumour of a potential prison break. Mr. Zimbardo becomes so worked up as does the other guards that they attempt to have the experiment moved to a real, unused prison, deeming that it would be a more secure environment. As the experiment proceeded, the guards become increasingly more aggressive, even sadistic. (O’Dwyer, 44-48) On the second day of the experiment, a prison riot broke out. Guards volunteered to stay over to break the revolt; this was done out of their own choice and without direction from the research staff. After this point, the guards attempted to pit the prisoners against one another with the invention of the good and bad cell block. This was in attempt to convince prisoners that they had informers and snitches among them. Prisoners were also counted and were questioned on their numbers and the 16 rules of the prison. Prisoners after the second day had become withdrawn, leading one prisoner to develop a psychosomatic rash all over his body, upon finding his parole had been denied. Gradually over the next 4 days, the guards continued to increase the levels of harassment, resulting in hunger strikes, and minor revolts. After 6 out of the original 14 days the experiment had been planned for, Zimbardo concluded the study. This was done for fear the prisoners would be physically or mentally hurt. With the conclusion of the study, many of the guards found themselves sad, almost angry that it had ended. They enjoyed the feel of power and did not want to give it up. As for the prisoners, many of them had to go through debriefings following the experiment. This allowed them to vent frustrations and anger towards the guards. Subsequently, even in reunions after the experiment had concluded, men who were included in this study still feel some after affects of this ordeal. This point of this experiment was to measure the human psyche in a situation of captivity, namely a prison. Not only did it exceed its original intended purpose, but also showed a more wide arrangement of how humans deal with a position of power and a position of being powerless. Conclusion At first sight it might seem that the human rights in Ireland prisons is the ideal place to fulfil certain criteria, with the potential to provide health care, health education and appropriate treatment to a discrete group, whilst ensuring adequate diet and exercise as well as protection from the use of alcohol and illicit drugs. In reality the environment is often overcrowded and may be unhygienic. Low levels of activity are not uncommon; there is frequent overeating and the use of tobacco is endemic in prison culture (Cotgreave, 4-5). There are also stresses in detention which emanate from the separation from family and friends, the uncertainty of outstanding criminal proceedings or parole applications, as well as the general problems of adapting to prison life itself. (Borland, 371-94) Each of these facets may play a significant part in affecting an individual’s state of health. Even with improved conditions and enlightened regimes and programmes, the facts of imprisonment ensure that prison is not a healthy place. In this setting the need for clear standards and principles of health care is essential. The United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners contain a section on medical services (Fitzgerald and Sim 73-84). They provide for a basic standard of health care: that this service should work in close relationship with the nation’s health service; that suitable facilities should be available for medical and dental care as well as the care of those who are pregnant; and that prisoners may not be subjected to medical or scientific experiments that could result in physical or moral injury. Additionally the medical staff should have an inspectorial role throughout the establishment. Responsibility for the provision of health care to prisoners falls to all areas and groups within the prison system: from senior management, through the prison governor, to local management teams; the doctor; the health-care team; and, not forgetting, the individual him- or herself. At the heart of this bureaucracy, however, is the prison doctor. The prison doctors’ responsibilities and their professional relationships with their prisoner-patients are exactly the same as in any doctor-patient relationship. But the doctor also has responsibilities to the wider prison community and the community outside prison. Works Cited Carrabine, E., P. Iganski, M. Lee, K. Plummer and N. South (2004) Criminology: A Social Introduction. Routledge: London. Morgan, R (1997) 'Imprisonment', pp. 1137-1194 in M. Maguire, R Morgan and R. Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford University Press: New York. Von Hirsch, A (2003) 'Giving Criminals their Just Deserts', pp. 341-349 in E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie and G. Hughes (eds.), Criminological Perspectives: Essential Reading. Sage Publications: London. Cullen, F & Gilbert, K (2003) 'The Value of Rehabilitation', pp. 350-356 in E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie and G. Hughes (eds.), Criminological Perspectives: Essential Reading. Sage Publications: London. O’Dwyer, K. (2002) ‘Juvenile crime and justice in Ireland’, in: N. Bala, J. Hornick, H. Snyder and J. Paetsch (Eds.), Juvenile Justice Systems: An International Comparison of Problems and Solutions, Toronto: Thompson. Cotgreave, C. J. (1989) ‘Specialist social work: what do prisoners need? Prison Service Journal 74, pp. 4-5, 43. Fitzgerald, M. and Sim, J. (1980) ‘Legitimating the prison crisis: a critical review of the May Report’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 19, pp. 73-84. Borland J., King Roy D., and Mcdermott K. ' The Irish in Prison: A Tighter Nick for the Micks', British Journal of Sociology, 46/ 3, 371-94. Read More