I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t pretend any expertise on the legal issues, but this brewing controversy about prison policy in South Carolina strikes me as a case of political correctness run amok. The state separates prisoners with AIDS and sends them to a separate facility that has specialized medical treatment. This policy also protects uninfected prisoners from exposure due to rape. I suppose one could argue that this is a form of quarantine, but all prisoners – by definition – are being quarantined, so that hardly seems to be a compelling argument. A former staffer with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights division has a column in the Washington Examiner, which is excerpted below.
Two unpleasant topics of conversation most of us avoid are the epidemic of HIV/AIDS among prison inmates and a variety of sometimes violent events resulting in transmission of the disease. Some states long ago implemented policies to protect the uninfected part of the prison population while providing exceptional medical treatment and counseling to the infected population. In South Carolina, it has worked so well since 1998 that there has only been a single transmission of HIV/AIDS to a noninfected prisoner. All that may change, however, thanks to a threat from Eric Holder’s Justice Department. South Carolina received a letter from the now-infamous Civil Rights Division that the policy of keeping infected inmates at a designated facility, instead of scattered across the state in the general prison population, may unfairly stigmatize infected prisoners. To the Obama political appointees in the Civil Rights Division, this constitutes discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act. …Justice raises three primary objections to this effective and humane approach. First, it prevents infected prisoners “from participating in activities and jobs of their choosing.” Leave it to bureaucrats in Washington to concoct the grievance that prisoners have choices when it comes to activities in the first place. Second, DOJ claims the South Carolina program is unconstitutional, something the courts have repeatedly rejected. Once again we see the rule of law falling by the wayside when it comes to decisions of this Civil Rights Division. This is the same Civil Rights Division that was sanctioned more than $4 million during the Clinton administration for bringing cases as frivolous as the one against South Carolina prisons. Third, with all the pragmatism of a sociology lecture at Harvard, DOJ argues that the separation of the HIV/AIDS prisoners “stigmatizes” the prisoners. Ozmint responds, “Prison is a voluntary activity; breaking the law, earning a criminal record, and wearing ‘state issue,’ all stigmatize. Since one purpose of prison is punishment, this stigmatization is somewhat intentional.” How refreshing.
[…] Should prisoners with AIDS be segregated from other convicts? […]
[…] Should prisoners with AIDS be segregated from other convicts? […]
[…] Should prisoners with AIDS be segregated from other convicts? […]
[…] Should prisoners with AIDS be segregated from other convicts? […]
[…] prisoners with AIDS be segregated from other […]
[…] 7, 2010 by Dan Mitchell As indicated by my post on how to handle prisoners with AIDS, I periodically run into issues where I’m not sure about the right answer. Here’s […]
[…] 7, 2010 by Dan Mitchell As indicated by my post on how to handle prisoners with AIDS, I periodically run into issues where I’m not sure about the right answer. Here’s […]
[…] Are Separate Prisons for AIDS-Infected Prisoners an … […]
I thought they also segregated men from women in jails…
Yet another example of the lawless Obama administration (and the legally illiterate Eric Holder) being out of control.
I can’t believe millions of people voted for these clowns.
OK; but it sounds like the segregated HIV/AIDS population was *benefitting* from being in single facility: due to economies of scale, they were able to provide a better quality of medical and mental-health care in a single facility than they would in 28 separate facilities spread around the state.
If that’s true, then the segregation policy is only “discriminatory” in the sense that “discriminate” means “make a distinction between”.
I work in Corrections in a small state where we do not segregate the HIV-pos population from the non-infected population. Because our state is small and our Corrections system is (comparatively) well-funded, we have sufficient staff to minimize, if not outright eliminate, sexual activity.
All sexual activity in a prison context is considered nonconsensual per the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). That said, we do make condoms readily available as a nod to the reality that we cannot have eyes in all corners of the building at all times and sexual activity is bound to occur even under close supervision.
My thought is, if a state is adequately funded and staffed such that PREA regulations can be successfully enforced and condoms can be made available (it sounds counterintuitive but it works), there should be no need to segregate the HIV from the non-HIV population.
On the practical side, if a state is unable to adequately staff facilities such that PREA regulations can be enforced, and/or if a state is not willing or able to make condoms available, then it is probably advisable that they separate the populations for the protection of the HIV-neg population. So long as the facilties, food, staffing, etc. are comparable, this is not discriminatory.
It may, however, be a violation of HIPAA law. But that is an entirely different episode of Court TV…
The DoJ is supporting the rights of prisoners with HIV to rape uninfected prisoners with the sole purpose of infecting them, thereby ensuring that prison is synonymous with HIV infection. Nevermind that HIV is one of the most expensive lifelong medical conditions in existence, all paid for by the taxpayers.