Argument Against Harsh Prison Conditions - Essay Example

? PRISON CONDITIONS SHOULD NOT BE HARSH here] of [Due paper] It is suggested that increased measures of prison severity do not discourage criminal tendencies in criminals, rather harsh prison conditions make them more fearful and violent (Konrad, Vollm, & Weisstub, 2012, p. 87). Harsh prison conditions take many forms, from serving foul food to the prisoners, to not letting convict mothers stay with their infants, to forcing the prison inmates to engage in savage activities. While it is undeniable that these criminals have violated the law, they are still persons even after they are sentenced, which should not be forgotten. Abusing and ridiculing people, even convicted criminals, cannot be justified. Prisons should not be made places of harsh punishment, rather they should help prisoners to realize their potentials and become good citizens. Defenders of a brutal prison system wrongly assume that less severe conditions cannot correct criminal behavior. They argue that the more severe punishment there is in the prisons, the better. Otherwise, punishment will not have a satisfactory effect on the criminals. They view criminals as adamant offenders who should be treated harshly to be corrected. Less harsh punishment or prison conditions cannot reinforce good behavior in the prison inmates. However, the truth is just the opposite. This is because defending a severe prison atmosphere is just plain adamancy, which has little to do with reality. Defenders of harsh prison conditions should realize that many issues are created due to this ideology, like overcrowding, which is a product of severe prison rules and lengthy sentences. Prison conditions should not be harsh because it neither reduces the rate of crime nor the rate of recidivism. Rather, it spurs an increase in both the crime and recidivism rate. To defend this position on prison conditions, logical arguments and a review of the research literature will be used to assess the subject. Overcrowding in jails and prisons is a growing concern due to increased awareness and human rights movements. This issue has become a focus due to severely harsh and life-threatening prison conditions (Newman, 2010, p. 241). This grave challenge results in serious violations of basic human rights. Beyond the general assumption that there is an increased number of people convicted for crime, not much is known by common people as to why jails or prisons are overcrowded. One theory on overcrowding is that jails and prisons actually motivate crime instead of having a deterrent effect (Siegel, 2009, p. 112). The atmosphere thriving within many prisons is such that the psyches of many criminals get adversely affected during their time in the prisons. The constant jeering of the guards and third-class living conditions make the prisoners more determined to spread violence in the society, which is why “the normalization of prison life” (Tonry, 2004, p. 19) is required. Our prisons do not ensure a good and wholesome living environment to prisoners who are still humans and not animals. Punishment should not be equated to unbelievably severe treatment, rather it should be equated to good mental and emotional counseling of the inmates. The tendency to engage in crime or any law violating activity cannot be killed by subjecting the convicts to atrocities. Responding to evil with even more brutal evil is not the right strategy. This is the primary reason prison conditions should not be harsh. Actually, the issue of overcrowding in prisons due to harsh conditions has great depth and many factors are responsible for promoting it. Discussing this issue in reference to harsh prison conditions is specifically important because research suggests that “violence and brutality inherent in current prison systems” (Goulding, 2007, p. 128) produces a very negative impact. Some of the factors responsible for overcrowding are socioeconomic status of the country, poverty, societal norms, the judicial system, and the political system. But, the real factor responsible in the US is the disturbingly high recidivism rate. Over the years, marked increase is noticed in this rate in the US, which is made worse by the fact that many prisoners are addicted to illegal drugs. Once out of the jails or prisons, they fall back into old habits and consequently are returned to imprisonment. This is because, unfortunately, the US judicial system, despite myriad human rights movements active within the country, treats prison as punishment when it should be translated into proper treatment of the offender. Defenders of harsh prison conditions should take a moment and seriously think about why our prisons are not having the kind of deterrent effect on crime that they are expected to have. They should also think about why small-time offenders sentenced for a short time in prison come out as experienced criminals. They are forced to live by extremely unpleasant and horrid prison conditions, which forces them to be very aggressive to survive. Once out of the jail, they project that aggressiveness as a way of getting even with the society and laws that sent them into the prison. Due to a lack of treatment facilities in jails and prisons, which should target modifying the psychological makeup of a criminal, punishment does not turn out to be a deterrent to many prisoners. This explains why imprisonment fosters criminal behavior because it has “a criminogenic effect on offenders” (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010, p. 466). Imprisonment or sentencing is just thought of as a punishment, while it should be thought of as sending a convict to a place where he/she will be treated in the best way possible to help him/her develop a new approach to life. Overcrowding is just one example of harsh prison conditions, which has huge repercussions. It also increases the incidence of crimes in jails. Solitary confinement cannot be a solution to overcrowding also because first, it is rarely available and second, it can be acutely frustrating. Other examples of harsh prison conditions highlight how severity can play a really bad and disastrous role within prisons for the prisoners. This is because in too many prisons the inmates are forced to engage in unbelievably heinous activities by the guards for their viewing pleasure. They are forced to engage in sodomy, compelled to beat each other like animals, and served disgusting food to survive. They are given the same repellant food day after day, which is a horrific ordeal and can be felt by only those who have experienced it. Having to eat really bad meal day after day is a violation of basic human rights. Many prisoners complain that the food they are served is even worse than solitary confinement. Are these kinds of attitudes considered a right way to bring correction in the prisoners? Treating prisoners as less than humans by enforcing severe prison conditions on them is not the right solution. This ideology is constructed by mutilated minds. This idea of severe prison conditions is encouraged by those with souls that cannot be penetrated by even the worst of human miseries. Many prisoners stand nothing to lose and cannot fight back, especially those on death row, for this reasons they are easily subjected to insane experiments without any fear of consequence because they are imprisoned already (Smallwood, 2013). Such hopelessly harsh prison conditions lead to the issue of prisoners’ rights. These are basic human rights that should be ensured to all prisoners, but they are not present in reality. Some of these rights include clean and wholesome food, no torture from guards, protected environment, and medical care, religious liberties, and freedom of speech. The issue of letting children stay with their jailed mothers has divided lawyers and critics into two groups. Defenders of this idea believe that this could be a good strategy to reverse the bad situation created by harsh prison conditions. They suggest that such constructive programs should be started by the government that allows children to stay in the care of their incarcerated mothers if they are fit to provide motherly care. The other group in favor of harsh prison conditions absolutely discourages this idea, claiming such an official allowance is open to multiple grave social repercussions. People from this group talk disparagingly about the dark influence a convicted mother can exert on her child, even if she is certified to be fit and healthy as a mother. Creating distance between convict mothers and their babies is a serious example of harsh prison conditions that do not let development of maternal bonding take place. This attitude makes the people supporting convicted mothers’ right to live with their children in prison raise questions about equality rights, and if the government and law really cares about the natural rights of guilty women at all. The desire to keep a child close to look after him/her is a natural right of a parent regardless of his/her criminal background. By creating distance between babies and mothers, the judicial system deprives the infants of those valuable opportunities to associate with their mothers. Depriving infants of breastfeeding is another example of harsh prison conditions and a reason why these conditions should be relaxed. It is stressed by lawyers defending imprisoned mothers’ rights that not every convicted mother has an absolute and unobjectionable right to stay with their baby, but if there is sufficient evidence in that area, then it must be respected and not crushed by the prison system. It is claimed that harsh prison conditions not only negatively interfere with the infant’s right to a mother’s care, but also raises valid questions about inequality of rights. It was due to this abuse of human rights by harsh prison conditions that Peter Hough justifiably stated, “The lives of far more people in today’s world are imperiled by human rights abuses than by terrorist or conventional military attacks” (cited in Darian-Smith, 2013, p. 257). The opponents of “children inside prison” ideology are actually defenders of severe prison conditions. They should think hard about questions like: does the state’s decision to take children away from their guilty mother to help them grow up in a nontoxic atmosphere, also snatch the will of the mother to see her children on a routine basis? Implementing law decisions based on analysis of only one side of the picture is not a smart strategy, nor is politicians basing decisions on a desire to be seen as “tough on crime” rather than social science and evidence. When there is not enough evidence suggesting a mother is physically, mentally, or behaviorally capable of looking after her child, creating barriers between mother and child is empty mockery of natural human rights and an example of merciless prison conditions. To change such conditions, the importance of creating more mother and baby units in jails should be realized. It should be safely assumed by governments everywhere that harsh prison conditions are not the right solution to reduce crime because the best place of all for a child to stay is with his/her parent, provided the parent is not disadvantaged mentally. Also, a child raised without a mother is more likely to commit crime later in life because Freud suggested that “the first five years of a child’s life were crucial in forming their personality” (Ainsworth, 2013, p. 31). In conclusion, the subject of prison conditions has been frenetically discussed in reference to human rights abuse. The truth is that no good can come out of treating prisoners harshly. Forcing them to engage in horrific activities or ridiculing them consistently is bound to crush their self-esteem. Such treatment plays a destructive role once they get free from prison. Instead of telling them how worthless or bad they are by subjecting them to animalistic treatment, they should be counseled in a non-judgmental manner to help them realize their deeds and abstain from them in the future. Changing harsh prison conditions can reduce overcrowding in prisons. Also, instead of defending the idea of keeping babies away from their imprisoned mothers, time should be invested in acknowledging how important the first few years of life are for both mother and infant. Instead of going for harsh conditions, which do not let infants be treated lovingly by their mothers regardless of their criminal backgrounds, prison facilities should allow babies to live with their mothers. Otherwise, on grounds of staggering social effects, it is a clear abuse of human rights. Harsh prison conditions should not become an obstacle in the way of development of maternal bonds. References: Ainsworth, P. (2013). Offender Profiling Crime Analysis. USA: Routledge. Cullen, F.T., & Wilcox, P. (2010). Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, Volume 1. USA: SAGE. Darian-Smith, E. (2013). Laws and Societies in Global Contexts: Contemporary Approaches. USA: Cambridge University Press. Goulding, D. (2007). Recapturing Freedom: Issues Relating to the Release of Long-term Prisoners Into the Community. Sydney: Hawkins Press. Konrad, N., Vollm, B., & Weisstub, D.N. (2012). Ethical Issues in Prison Psychiatry. New York: Springer. Newman, G.R. (2010). Crime and Punishment around the World: [Four Volumes]. ABC-CLIO. Siegel, L.J. (2009). Criminology. USA: Cengage Learning. Smallwood, C. (2013, Mar 15). 10 Horrifying Things Done to Prisoners Behind Bars. LISTVERSE. Retrieved from http://listverse.com/2013/03/15/10-horrifying-things-done-to-prisoners-behind-bars/ Tonry, M. (2004). The Future of Imprisonment. USA: Oxford University Press. Read More