Segregation of HIV-Positive Prisoners

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction: Is segregation Ethical?
Pro: preventing further spread of HIV
Pro: protecting the general population
Con: Segregation leads to stigmatization
Con: segregation disrespects the privacy of individuals
Reference List

Introduction: Is segregation Ethical?

Undoubtedly, segregation of any form is unethical and leads to racially or socially motivated conflicts. Whenever they arise, the consequences of segregation have always been hard to bear. Many people have lost their lives due to segregation. Ironically, segregation has never provided the solution to the prevailing circumstances. Instead, it causes more harm. Nevertheless, this essay is not about the segregation of white and black prisoners, or the separation of paltry criminals from the dangerous ones.

Here, we are discussing a paramount issue segregation of HIV-positive prisoners. Indeed, we are examining the segregation of sick prisoners from well prisoners. Majorly, this issue has everything to do with proper living conditions. Everybody accepts that HIV is a lethal disease, and that inmates risk infection. The biggest debate on segregation of HIV-positive prisoners surrounds the ethical impact it renders to the inmates. As a result, we have two factions: the proponents and the opponents. The paper will examine two cons and two pros concerning the segregation of HIV-positive prisoners (Bass, 2000, p.1).

Pro: preventing further spread of HIV

The proponents of segregation of HIV-positive prisoners believe that segregation protects prisoners and the correctional staff from catching the disease. This is quite in order as aims to protect HIV-negative persons from becoming positive. The correctional staff must first identity prisoners already carrying the virus through mandatory testing and then place separately from the rest. Once identified, the correctional staff will know where to place the infected person thus, separating them from the rest. Separation will not mean stigmatization or treating them differently. Otherwise, these people pose great dangers to others.

After all, they are prisoners who committed mistakes and should not enjoy freedom like free persons. Recently, a prisoner in Utah State Prison threw a sharp object to a fellow prisoner that barely scraped his hand leading to breeding. A few months later, the inmate tested HIV-positive and as it came out, the object had HIV-positive infected blood. This inmate was innocent but due to some queer motives, he is now HIV-positive.

Thus, it is imperative to segregate HIV-positive inmates from HIV-negative ones in order to lessen the probability of an HIV-positive infected prisoner from using his or her infected blood to attack fellow prisoners. Prisoners who have the tendency to hurt fellow prisoners or even the correctional staff must not be spared and this explains why segregation is paramount (Is Segregation of HIV Positive Inmates Ethical, 2011, p.1).

Pro: protecting the general population

The second reason why segregation of HIV-positive prisoners is important is the general population. Everybody needs security of any kind. We need to protect our lives at any cost. Primarily, HIV spreads through contact with an infected person, that is, when the blood of a non-infected person meets HIV-positive blood, infection occurs. In prison cells, acts such as homosexuality and lesbianism are rampant. These activities lead to HIV infection and it is important that we segregate those who carry the virus from the rest.

It is better for HIV-positive individuals to participate in these dubious activities without involving those who are not yet carriers of the virus. The state should also control drugs from entering the precincts of prisons. Clearly, this is a genuine reason why segregation of HIV-positive persons should stay away from those not yet infected (Donald, 2001, pp. 164-170).

Evidently, some reports indicate that inmates practice activities such as homosexual and lesbianism to satisfy their long sexual desire. Thus, through segregation, the risk of HIV infection through these two treacherous activities can slow down. Worse still, there could be HIV infected persons serving sentences but hiding their status. This poses danger to those who may be participating in homosexuality and venous drug abuse, as the unidentified prisoners (carrying a virus) can infect others.

We all know that HIV can grow into AIDS. However, AIDS does not cause death but only weakens the bodys immune system thus, making it susceptible to other disease, which later cause death. Diseases such as Tuberculosis affect HIV-positive persons and can cause death easily. Thus, segregation of HIV-positive persons into well-ventilated and spacious regions will lessen the chances of contacting such diseases (Penny & Billy, 1999, pp. 101-108).

Con: Segregation leads to stigmatization

The opponents of the segregation of HIV-positive prisoners on the other hand, believe that segregation of HIV-positive prisoners is unethical and should be discouraged at all costs. They cite many reasons in support of their for example, they associate segregation with mental and psychological problems. Some prisoners might feel neglected, unwanted and rejected due to segregation. This can impair them mentally and psychologically. Some of them have even gone ahead to commit suicide or even committing murder. Segregated prisoners suffer from stigma and many of them even decide to starve to death. It is a form of harassment, systematic discrimination and contravention of international law, which no human being irrespective of his or her status would want to avoid. In fact, even medical practitioners advice against segregation.

By doing so, even rehabilitation will be a hard thing to perform. Those segregated would not want to see the HIV free persons thus, widening the gap further. If segregation of HIV-positive prisoners means that prisoners cannot secure a job even when under incarceration, then this is discrimination. For example, why should HIV-positive spend more time in prison than other fellow prisoners just because they cannot perform programs, which will enable them, be set free? Clearly, this discrimination leads to stigmatization hence, not fit for HIV-positive prisoners (Human Rights Watch, 2010, p.1).

In most cases, even after the state has released them, many of them cannot find a job due to social stigma among the public. However, it is important to note that these people need care and love for them to feel as part of the greater society. In many prisons, housing units for HIV-positive prisoners normally have tight security. All this is to segregate them from those not yet infected. At all times, HIV-positive prisoners serve their jail term under tight security zones that cause more burdens to already burdened taxpayers (Dean, 2010, p.1).

Con: segregation disrespects the privacy of individuals

Imagine of a situation where family members and friends know your HIV status. Some of them even avoid talking to such persons leave alone greeting them with a hand. The compulsory testing means that some prisoners and even the correctional staff can pass clandestine information of somebody to third parties. In some cases, prisons in South Carolina and Alabama forces HIV-positive prisoners to identify themselves from the rest by wearing unique things such as armbands and brooch.

Clearly, this portrays an act of systemic discrimination, which is a violation of human rights. Ordinarily, this scenario forces HIV-positive prisoners to suffer mentally and some can even commit suicide. The report released by the Human Rights Watch acknowledged the sufferings that HIV-positive prisoners undergo under segregation. Family members and friends can discover the status of the member in prison by examining the housing assignment or from other inmates. Consequently, this can irritate some members, for instance, many HIV-positive prisoners have received tormenting letters from family members and friends initially knowing nothing regarding their status (Prisoners, 2010, p.1).

It is quite amazing that the severity of the crime committed is not the one that determines the sentence but the prisoners status. Any attempts to involve prisoners in mandatory testing are discrimination, and that the specific housing the HIV-positive prisoners is unfair. Additionally, HIV-positive prisoners have no accessibility to incarcerated jobs, hence; they cannot earn wages that will sustain them. Undeniably, in a just and free world, this is quite unfair and if this is the way, then segregation of HIV-positive prisoners is bad (Ricky, 1997, p.1).

Reference List

Bass, E. (2000). Separate but equal? Web.

Dean, E. (2010). Segregating HIV Positive Inmates Is Medically Unjustified and Hinders Rehabilitation. Web.

Donald, T. (2001). HIV, AIDS, and the law: legal issues for social work practice and policy. New York: Walter de Gruyter Inc.

Human Rights Watch. (2010). Sentenced to Stigma: Segregation of HIV-Positive Prisoners in Alabama and South Carolina. Web.

Is Segregation of HIV Positive Inmates Ethical? 2011. Web.

Penny, A. & Billy, L. (1999). Is the Segregation of HIV-Positive Inmates Ethical? Prison Journal, 79 (1), 101-118.

Prisoners. (2010). Web.

Rick, L. (1997). HIV/AIDS and Prisoners: The Case against Segregation. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!