Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Haven't we done enough?

Monday's Supreme Court decision allowing states to segregate their HIV infected inmates has raised many questions among prison reformers, prison defenders, civil rights advocates and HIV advocacy groups. The issue is a complicated one, especially when one looks at the instances of rape within the prison system. It has been estimated that as much as 20 percent of the prison population is raped at one time or another while serving a sentence. Clearly, there are some issues of health involved, but is the prison system refusing to reform its HIV infected inmates? Is it fair that they are denied the same privileges as other inmates? The answer is no, they are discriminating against a group of people, and because they are in prison, the public is turning a blind eye to this blatantly unfair practice.

Today, only two states in the union regularly practice segregation in their prison systems: Alabama and Mississippi. The inmates that they identify as being HIV positive, either through admission or by testing, are then segregated. They are not allowed to participate in activities such as taking educational courses and religious ceremonies. They are kept in their cells for longer durations of time than most prisoners and have very little to do with their time.

Many people would argue that this segregation is necessary, and a good precautionary measure against the further spread of HIV in prison. Many states are afraid that lawsuits will be brought if former inmates contracted HIV while in prison.

Under the Eighth Amendment, the prison system is called upon to provide inmates with a "safe and humane environment." Prison guards are paid with our tax money; if rapes are occurring, they are not doing their jobs. That, however, is never addressed. Instead, the public would rather penalize and punish beyond what the law requires. If guards were better at doing their jobs, the spread of HIV through rapes would not be such a danger to the inmates. But do these safety precautions outweigh the duties of the prison system to reform its charges?

In years past, many inmates who had HIV could be expected to die within their terms of imprisonment, but with the advancement of new drug therapies, a person with HIV can sometimes live for fifteen or twenty years after being diagnosed. Often, the people who come into prison with HIV are coming out of prison with the very same disease, and yet have not been given the tools they need to reform themselves. It is also important to note that the majority of prisoners segregated in these states are the poor, the uneducated and the minorities. Essentially, they are the people in communities that are already underserved and their treatment in prison only furthers their disadvantages. Women in prisons also make up a greater percentage of inmates with HIV, and the safety precautions set up to other inmates against acts of homosexual rape are not really applicable.

Why, then, the policy? What purpose does it serve? It really serves no purpose, other than to further punish a group of people with no rights. Think about it. Would this type of discrimination be acceptable outside of the prison system? Absolutely not. So, why in prison? Our society views its prison system less like a place where reform should take place and more and more like a dumping ground for the less desirable elements of society. It is already known that a disproportionate amount of the poor, the uneducated and minority groups end up being convicted on larger scale than others. This policy of segregation further reveals our societies view points. We would rather stick a person in prison at the age of 18 than give him the educational tools he needs to stay out at the age of 6.

In the same way, our society believes that this group of people, prisoners with HIV, deserves nothing better than what they have. Very few people have stood up on behalf of this group's right to reform themselves like other prisoners. Like it or not, the prisoners that we put into the system often get out of it. They need to be given skills to insure that they do not fall into a life of crime again. The system should want to make citizens, not discriminate against a group without a voice.

Lora Mackel is a history junior. She can be reached at editor@wildcat.arizona.edu.