I don't get it. There are so many arguments here that go back and forth between what a prisoner is and isn't entitled to, what prisons stand for, and how unfair the prison system is. Why is that the issue? The point of this bill isn't to promote prison sex, its to prevent STDs! (I certainly hope its not to prevent pregnancy.)
The bottom line is that people will have sex and that there is a high incidence of STD's amongst the prison population that must be controlled from a health care perspective. Someday, these people will be returned into society after they have served their time and I'd rather they not come out with uncurable diseases if they can be prevented.
The cessation of the proliferation of STD's should be the highest priority here, not what prisoners are and are not entitled to. It might be because I work in health care and I've been taught that prevention is far more effective than treatment, but that seems counter to what Americans think about health anyway.
From an economic standpoint, unless you have the means to seperate prisoners on a regular basis into individual cells, protect the prisoners who probably fear for the lives if they report anal rape, or the staffing and equipment to monitor the lives of these people twenty four hours a day...you cannot prevent all cases of inmate sex.
Condoms are cheap. Some people may use them. Clinics often give basic ones away for free in high risk areas for STD's like amongst the homeless in the hopes that it prevents some cases of transmission. Some cases, not all. For the price of a box of condoms, that might prevent the infection of one prisoner...weigh that versus the cost of treating that prisoner for HIV or hepatitis.
If you think this measure is the wrong way to handle that, say so. Don't preach on about how these people deserve less for what they've done or how it discriminates against heterosexuals. It is a public health issue, which means it will eventually effect you and me. If not by infected prisoners being released into the population, in the cost of health care treatment to these people in the future. Unless, of course, people are advocating that these people shouldn't be treated for disease because they're criminals?
This thread should be less about morality and more about practically. People say this will do nothing to fix the problem, but does it make it worse?
The bottom line is that people will have sex and that there is a high incidence of STD's amongst the prison population that must be controlled from a health care perspective. Someday, these people will be returned into society after they have served their time and I'd rather they not come out with uncurable diseases if they can be prevented.
The cessation of the proliferation of STD's should be the highest priority here, not what prisoners are and are not entitled to. It might be because I work in health care and I've been taught that prevention is far more effective than treatment, but that seems counter to what Americans think about health anyway.
From an economic standpoint, unless you have the means to seperate prisoners on a regular basis into individual cells, protect the prisoners who probably fear for the lives if they report anal rape, or the staffing and equipment to monitor the lives of these people twenty four hours a day...you cannot prevent all cases of inmate sex.
Condoms are cheap. Some people may use them. Clinics often give basic ones away for free in high risk areas for STD's like amongst the homeless in the hopes that it prevents some cases of transmission. Some cases, not all. For the price of a box of condoms, that might prevent the infection of one prisoner...weigh that versus the cost of treating that prisoner for HIV or hepatitis.
If you think this measure is the wrong way to handle that, say so. Don't preach on about how these people deserve less for what they've done or how it discriminates against heterosexuals. It is a public health issue, which means it will eventually effect you and me. If not by infected prisoners being released into the population, in the cost of health care treatment to these people in the future. Unless, of course, people are advocating that these people shouldn't be treated for disease because they're criminals?
This thread should be less about morality and more about practically. People say this will do nothing to fix the problem, but does it make it worse?
Kwansu, dudes! - A whole bunch of Patu San citizens.