Although individuals detained in prisons have limited civil rights in comparison to free citizens, they retain certain rights which are protected under various national state and federal laws. However, in most countries, violation of prisoners’ rights continues to be prevalent in institutions of rehabilitation and often go undetected and unpunished due to the prisoners’ ignorance of their right as inmates as provided by the law governing the prison systems (Anonymous, 2003).
Imprisonment of offenders is supposed to serve as a rehabilitative and reforming process for inmates and therefore should not be used to pose physical and psychological harm to the prisoners (Anonymous, 2003). Unfortunately, numerous incidences of deaths among prisoners behind bars continue to increase in many regions of the world. This often results from prisoner abuse by violent prison guards and prison authorities or fellow prisoners. This portrays the irony prevalent in prison institutions; whereas they are legally charged with the responsibility of protecting, rehabilitating and reforming prisoners, prisons operate in very poor conditions consequently impacting negatively on this process.
The world’s major legal systems protect the rights of their prisoners. The US constitution creates a provision for prisoners’ rights in the 8th amendment. According to this amendment, prisoners are protected against being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment (Anonymous, 2003). These rights however do not cover the constitutional privileges that a prisoner loses on incarceration such as protection against unwarranted searches and seizures (Anonymous, 2003).
However, the problem of violation of prisoner rights continues to rage across nations and significant reforms in the prison systems is still lacking. This is primarily due to the general lack of information regarding prisoner rights among prisoners as well criminal justice and prison personnel. Prisoners may lack the opportunity to exercise their rights due to their current situation, but this does not imply that their rights are inexistent or that they lack the capacity to defend them.
What are the constitutional provisions for prisoner rights?
Increased human awareness and the need to protect human rights has prompted most democratic countries which are also members of united nation organization to adopt a criminal justice system that conforms to the international charters on human right (Kumar, 1986). In December 1975, The United Nations general assembly unanimously adopted the ‘declaration on protection from torture, 1975’ which was formulated by Amnesty International (Kumar 1986).
The declaration generated diverse provisions that guaranteed safeguard of persons from torture, vindictive punishment among other individual right’s form of violations (Kumar, 1986). Article two of the affirmation condemns such human rights violating acts. The article further prohibited states from allowing and tolerating acts of torture and inhumane treatment of persons (Kumar, 1986).
Member of United Nations has adopted the standard rule of treatment for prisoners which form the basic principles of criminal law in most countries. The standard rules ensure that the principle of equality among prisoners is upheld (Kumar 1986). This principle dictates that there should be no incidences discrimination of prisoners on the bases of sex, race, religious orientations, political affiliations etc. Prison authorities are in fact expected to respect prisoners’ religious orientation and moral precepts and should not exhibit elements of contempt towards the prisoners’ social orientations.
Different categories of prisoners should be held separately. Both male and female inmates should be detained in separated institutions and in case they are detained in the same institution the authorities should ensure that the structures are separated. Besides, the untried hostages should be separated from the already condemned captives while the youthful and grown-up inmates should also be separately detained (Kumar, 1986). This provision by Amnesty international provides the basic rule in the major criminal justice systems around the world.
General rules that govern nature and extent of punishment in prisons have been put in place. These rules provide guidelines especially in the current society where most criminal justice systems are focusing more on protection of human rights as well as protection against torture and cruel punishment on people. Presently, whipping, chaining and detention in unventilated cells are among the cruelest punishment secretly persistent in some prison institutions.
The rules formulated by amnesty international however, completely prohibit such forms of punishment. These rules ensure that no sentence can be given without awarding the due trial process to offenders and punishments like close confinement and reduction in diet shall only be employed upon medical examination of the prisoner and presence of a written certified evidence by the professional that the prisoner can sustain the punishment (Kumar 1986). Furthermore, instruments used to restraint offenders such as handcuffs, chains and have been prohibited as means of punishment (Kumar, 1986).
Prison institutions should ensure that they provide prisoners with minimum living facilities. Prisoners should be availed with hygienic living conditions such as separate bedding and clothing as well as provision of an adequately nutritionally endowed diet to provide them with good health conditions and strength (Kumar, 1986). In addition, prisons should provide adequate medical facilities as well as psychiatric services to the rehabilitating prisoners; their valuables should be kept in safe custody and return upon discharge from the institution (Kumar, 1986). Prisoners should also be provided with facilities such as television and newspaper and they should be allowed periodical communication and visitation by family and friends as well as conjugal visits (Kumar, 1986).
Major constitutions have created provisions to ensure protection for untried persons. Untried prisoners may be allowed to arrange for their own food at their own expense as long as it is does not conflict with good order and the values of the prison institution. In addition, they should be allowed to wear their own clothes or clothing that differentiates them from convicted felons (Kumar, 1986). Civil prisoners are also treated like under trials. Civil prisoners should be subjected to restrictions just enough to ensure safe custody and good order of the prisoner.
Amnesty international created a provision under the declaration that promotes reformative elements of punishment. Social relations and after care programs ensure that on completion of the sentencing period, the prisoner will have the capacity to completely reform into a law abiding citizen and lead a self supporting life (Kumar, 1986). This enhances treatment of prisoners’ not as social outcasts but as reforming members who have the capability of adjusting back into the society.
However, prison rights vary according to the type of facility and type of Incarceration (Anonymous, 2003) in this case some of the inmates may have differing or limited rights than others. Courts employ three fundamental theories in settling on the strength of a given convict right. They first take into consideration that the prisoner has foregone copious privileges and rights available to any society member who enjoys freedom, Secondly the detainee does not drain all his rights (constitutional) upon confinement and finally the preserved rights should strike a balance between jails security concerns and convicts rights (Anonymous, 2003).
In case a prisoner is found to have been detained in violation of the universal declaration through exhaustive research and probing, amnesty international designates him as a ‘prisoner of conscience’ and the organization seeks for immediate release of the prisoner (Anonymous, 1981). Since Amnesty international remains completely neutral and impartial to countries governments, the case is assumed by other civil groups who publicize the case prompting government officials to react accordingly (Anonymous, 1981)
It is clearly evident that the international law recognizes prisoners’ rights and it is the responsibility of every democratic country to ensure that it implements these requirements in their legal systems. It is unfortunate that despite the outlined laws, abuse of prisoners’ rights is still rampant in most parts of the world and not much is being done to remedy the situation. Consequently, abuse of the constitutional rights continues prevails in most parts of the world.
Can the prison system serve the correction role without violating prisoners’ rights?
One of the most controversial issue remains whether the prison system can achieve effective correction outcomes without any substantial violation of prisoners’ rights. ‘Normalization’, which refers to the attempt by prison authorities to transform prison conditions to significantly resemble those in the outside world (Dunkiel & Smit, 2001) is a necessary condition in every prison. Most countries lack in their prison system, the ability to apply the general standards that govern the life of offender in the external world in regard to issues of accommodation, food and clothing, education among other welfare promoting programs in prisons.
In most prisons, the rising problem of prison congestion hinders the ability to provide these basic human needs to prisoners (University of Pittsburgh, 1985) hence the rampant cases of malnutrition and infectious diseases in most prisons. Inability to ‘normalize’ prisons makes the prisoners to lose their social identity as a human being which negatively impact on their reform and adjustment process.
The prison system further complicates the complaint procedures as well as judicial and administrative controls for prisoners (Dunkiel & Smit, 2001). Prisoners may air their grievances to prison authorities but the process of dealing with such grievances is blurred with irregularities and is not systematically regulated. In Belgium for example, the courts were not compelled to conduct hearings for prisoners and the criminal justice system had not set a time limit for such decision making (Dunkiel & Smit, 2001). In addition, collective complaints were prohibited and a prisoner could face punitive measures for raising unfounded complaints.
In addition, prison systems are characterized by vague procedures concerning execution of the rights of prisoners such as writing letters to persons outside prison, application for conjugal rights, and safe custody of personal belongings among other rights which makes it very difficult for prisoners to exercise these rights. In most cases, prisoners’ mails are confiscated and the authorities fail to return or submit personal belongings to the prisoners which have constantly formed bases for civil law suits. These are clear indications that the prison system violates the rights of prisoners and this negatively impact on the rehabilitation process.
Why violation of prisoner rights still persists in society
The public’s attitude towards prisoner’s rights significantly promotes abuse of human rights. A considerable number of people still view the concept of prisoner rights with bewilderment and disbelief (Marzilli, 2007). These people feel that prisoners should not be awarded any rights. In addition, many crime victims and law enforcement officials still embrace the notion that prisoners enjoy too many rights (Marzilli, 2007). In the past, prisoners challenged prison conditions in courts but the increasing number of lawsuits in America in the late 20th century prompted the congress to pass law that diminished the ability of prisoners to sue in federal courts (Marzilli, 2007). These persisting attitudes adversely affect the way prisoners are treated behind bars and in society after they are released.
What are the possible solutions in Addressing Prisoner Rights?
In order to understand the ways through which we can minimize violations of prisoner rights, we will look at the measures that one of the major legal systems, United States has put in place to achieve this end. The country has established several law enforcement bodies that are charged with the responsibility of ensuring protection of prisoners. The US department of justice (special litigation division) is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that federal statutory and constitutional rights of persons incarcerated in various institutions that are run by the government including prisons are observed (Anonymous, n. d) this section further investigates on enforcement agencies facing allegations of violations of human rights and files law suits accordingly.
The nation has also instituted (federal) bureau of prisons that advocates for humane and progressive care as well as ensuring that the prison service up holds professionalism thus centralized and unswerving control of the prisons (Anonymous, n. d). In addition, it has established the office of independent monitor whose mission is transparency and accountability in order to regain confidence in the police department. CURE, a Colorado based advocacy group for inmates’ rights aims at reducing crime through criminal justice reform. United States is one of the few countries that have achieved remarkable reforms in the prison system in the last few years.
Borrowing from the United States, governments should establish independent supervisory bodies which should pay random visits to prisons across their country to assess levels of prisoner rights adherence. These organizations should ensure that prisoners are allowed to exercise their rights in prison and should take measures against prisons violating these rights. Most countries lack political control of the prison system (Dunkiel & Smit 2001). The ministry of justice should be held responsible in ensuring that the rights of prisoners are upheld and should be answerable to any irregularities occurring in the prison system.
Conclusion
Prisoner rights continue to be abused in most regions in the world despite the provisions created by law. It is therefore important for citizens to learn about the rights that the law awards them to avoid violation of these rights. The legal systems should also embrace reforms that are geared towards improvement of conditions prevalent in prisons. This will ensure a successful correction process hence effective transformation of criminals into law abiding citizens.
Reference List
Anonymous (2003). Prisoner rights, criminal law lawyers. Web.
Anonymous (not dated): Law enforcement/ prisoner rights. Web.
Anonymous (1981). Bulletin of atomic scientists’ magazine vol 37, pg 55, and education foundation for nuclear Science Inc.
Kumar, N. (1986). Constitutional rights of prisoners: a study of judicial trends. New Delhi; Mittal publications.
Marzilli, A. & Hudson, D. (2007). Prisoners’ rights, New York: InfoBase publishing.
Smit, Z. V. D & Dunkiel, F. (2001). Imprisonment today and tomorrow: International perspectives on prisoners’ rights and prison conditions. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff publishers.
University of Pittsburgh, University center for international studies & American political science association (1985): United States political science documents, vol 11, part2, University of Pittsburgh publishing.