Reflective Paper
Ethical Treatment of Prisoners
Johni K. Anglin
SOC 120
Cornell Horn
January 28, 2013

Ethical Treatment of Prisoners
Societies Forgotten One may ask."What represents ethical treatment of prisoners?" What's more, does it make a difference as to what the prisoners crime is as to what kind of treatment would be considered ethical? For example, should a terrorist be treated differently than a thief? Additionally, who is to decide what kind of treatment of prisoners, regardless of crime, is ethical and what is not? What standard determines ethical versus unethical? Who really concerns themselves which such questions? Is ethical treatment of prisoners related to profitability in our country?"It is argued that Plato was right in claiming that justice is more profitable, more rational, and more intrinsically valuable than injustice (Velasquez 1996). Certainly mistreatment of the least among us is injustice. If so then the question may then become, "What is justice?" To be sure, it seems that there may well be more questions regarding the ethics surrounding treatment of prisoners than solid answers. For these reasons, it is necessary that the ethical treatment of prisoners be examined. I submit that we, as a society, are only as good as the treatment that we mete out to the lowest of our population. Do certain sectors of society like having a "prison-class" of criminals so that perhaps their transgressions against society may go unnoticed In order to successfully analyze the treatment of our prisoners, we must first establish a criteria or yardstick against which to measure. This is not an easy task. There are various schools of thought in our society. Basically, there are two majorly different schools of thought. One prominent school of thought on the subject is that we must attempt to rehabilitate or retrain prisoners as to how to function in society. Then there is the idea that prison is for the purpose of paying one's debt to society. This is the dominant theory in operation in our prison system today. This school of thought is sometimes referred to as penal harm. It is possible to comingle these two diametrically opposed ways of thinking into one unified set of principles for the ethical treatment of prisoners? "For many years, the workplace culture of corrections was said to be divided into two irreconcilable camps." On one side were custodial personnel who identified with the penal harm movement and wished to inflict pain on prisoners (Fogel 1979). On the other side were the health-oriented medical staff members who focused on the prisoners' welfare and treated them with compassion, dignity, and humanity (Kratcoski 1989). Once correctional systems are committed to implementing the mandates of penal harm, the line between acceptable punishment and ill-treatment becomes blurred. When applied to correctional health care, the implementation of mandates for penal harm challenges the existence of the dichotomy between custody and treatment (Munthe 2010)." In spite of the potential propensity for mistreatment, penal harm is pretty much what we see in our prisons today. While there are many scholars who would prefer to see more of an emphasis on rehabilitation, the main goal of our prison system remains punishment. For more than three decades, the penal harm movement, which involves "get tough" ideology and policies, has held sway over U.S. corrections. Scholars have justifiably detailed and decried this movement, but in so doing, they have also inadvertently contributed to the view that a punitive worldview is dominant in the prison systems.
In contrast, we detail four major "cracks" in the penal harm movement's dominance: Persistence of rehabilitative public attitudes, Emergence of second thoughts about the wisdom of harsh sanctions, Implementation of progressive programs,and the increasing legitimacy of the principles of effective intervention for guiding correctional practices (Shelley 2008) Because the vast majority of people whom we send to correctional facilities ultimately return to their communities, it should be everyone's concern (Wagner 2012). Since they do return to the communities from whence they came, it is good for everyone if we attempt to better prepare them for life on the 'outside'.
To the end result of rehabilitation and proper prison management the American Bar Association, has established the following guidelines: (a) Provide prisoners with: (i) Humane and healthful living conditions; (ii) Safety from harm, including protection from punitive or excessive force and protection from abuse by other prisoners and staff; (iii) Necessary health care; (iv) Freedom from staff harassment and invidious discrimination; (v) Freedom of religion and substantial freedom of expression; (vi) Conditions conducive to maintaining healthy relationships with their families; (vii) Opportunities to participate in constructive activity and rehabilitative programs; and

(b) Implement effective policies and procedures for: (i) Investigation and resolution of complaints and problems; (ii) Fair and rational decision-making; and (iii) Internal and external oversight of correctional operations.( americanbar 2012) In spite of scholarly ideas to the contrary, modern day prisons are largely utilitarian in function. As Americans, we are most accustomed to concerning ourselves with the end result rather than the means. We are results oriented. If the public can be convinced that our current prison system is operating effectively, then we will be unlikely to concern ourselves with what the means were to achieve the current result. In general, we are not as concerned with the means as we are with the result. This tendency leans toward our current utilitarian approach in our prison system. This is not to say that we have no conscience with regards to the treatment of others, but there are those in authority who must to be reminded of the plight of the less fortunate. There is certainly no perfect answer to the question of how best to treat prisoners ethically. In spite of the ideas outlined above for rehabilitation rather than punishment, it does seem that utilitarianism is the rule in our prisons in general today. Prison, by nature, is punishment. Punishment is pain or unpleasant experience inflicted upon an individual in response to a violation of a rule or law by a person or persons who have lawful right to do so. In prison individuals are confined to a specific area, told when to rise when to sleep and when to eat. One might consider them incapacitated which is another element of prison. While in the case of some prisoners, this may be the best, or perhaps the only viable, way to deal with some, but certainly not all. However, it does seem that some sort of intervention might be quite helpful in many cases. Our utilitarian prison system does have its shortcomings, but it is what we have functioning for the present. Measuring the effectiveness of our current utilitarian prison system is complicated by the fact that what represents success to one group, may be perceived as failure to another. If our current system's effectiveness were measured by rehabilitation, it would most certainly be deemed a failure. With a recidivism rate that easily tops 50%, it is easy to ignore everything else and declare the prison system a failure. However such a snap judgment does not take all factors into consideration. One must wonder if there could be a better way. It is possible that a deontological approach could be effective in our prison system? Perhaps it is time that we begin to give more consideration to the possibility of individual rehabilitation than we have in the past? Perhaps a more deontological approach would affect needed change. To be sure, prisoners represent a subclass in our society. In many ways they are defenseless, and the vast majority comes from underprivileged backgrounds. As such perhaps we need to make concerted effort to redirect before a prison worthy offense occurs. A deontological approach would give impetus to truly apply rehabilitative policies that have up until now been only untried theories as to how to make a positive impact in the lives of those least likely to be considered by others as worthy of consideration. In other words we would apply rehabilitative practices with the goal of helping the individual rather than spending all of our effort in being concerned with the needs of the majority Relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. In other words an action is right or wrong based on the current culture's norms. Relativism does not go well with deontology because it focuses in the majority rule for what is "normal". The focus of deontology is on the individual as opposed to the greater good of utilitarianism. Relativism probably does apply in prison life though. Prison life is a subculture unto itself. Since everyone in prison has been convicted of a crime, being a convict does not bring the stigma in prison life that it does on the "outside". For these reasons, it is necessary that the ethical treatment of prisoners be examined. I submit that we, as a society, are only as good as the treatment that we mete out to the lowest of our population. Whether we, as a society, choose to continue to pursue a utilitarian approach in our prison system, or perhaps adjust to a more individual or deontological approach, change needs to be made. We are not accomplishing what we need to accomplish until we can take another look at making a stronger attempt at rehabilitating those whom we can rehabilitate.
I would like to close with this poem by Robert Johson (2005):
Poetic Justice
Build prisons
Not day-care
Lock ’em up
What do we care?
Hire cops, not counselors
Staff courts, not clinics
Wage warfare
Not welfare
Invest in felons
Ripen ’em like melons
Eat ’em raw, then
Ask for more
More poverty
More crime
More men in prison
More fear in the street
More ex-cons among us
Poetic justice
If we do not do whatever it takes to affect positive change, society as a whole stands to lose more than we can afford of our most precious asset; our people.

References: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_treatmentprisoners.html MUNTHE, C., RADOVIC, S., & HENRIK, A. (2010). Ethical issues in forensic psychiatric research on mentally disordered offenders. Bioethics, 24(1), 35-44. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01773.x
Murphy, J. 1995. Punishment and Rehabilitation, 3d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Shelley, J. L., Cheryl, L. J., Francis, T. C., & Edward, J. L. (2008). Cracks in the penal harm movement: Evidence from the field. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(3), 423. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200152498?accountid=32521
Velasquez, M. (1996). Why ethics matters: A defense of ethics in business organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 21-2l01. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216325740?accountid =32521 falseWagner, Wesley.American Jails (Sep/Oct 2012) Correctional Treatment: Developing a Successful Program , 25-28,30. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1114309606?accountid=32521