Female Prisoners in America (human rights)
Here is the article.
It's pretty bad. International standards for female prisoners seemingly do not apply in the US.
For example:
Internationally, "female prisoners should be supervised only by female gaurds."
In the US, "a male guard may watch over a woman, even when she is dressing or showering or using the toilet. He may touch every part of her body when he searches for contraband."
Internationally: "it is inhumane to punish a prisoner by placing them in isolation for a prolonged period in conditions of limited censory stimulation."
In the US: "Several states have prison units where women are held in such conditions."
Internationally: "International standards restrict the use of restraints to situations where they are necessary to prevent escape or to prevent prisoners from injuring themselves or others or from damaging property."
In the US: "restraints are used as a matter of course. A woman who is in labour or seriously ill, even dying, may be taken to a hospital in handcuffs and chained by her leg to the bed."
"During the last 50 years, the international community has adopted a number of standards and mechanisms to protect the human rights of individuals in relation to the governments within whose jurisdictions they reside. The standards are based on the precept that human rights are universal and an international responsibility, not simply an internal one. International human rights standards articulate the criteria against which the conduct of the authorities of any nation, including the USA, should be measured."
I'm reminded of a quote.. something about "to know a man's character, look at how he treats his prisoners." Which I can't seem to find on Google..
Of course, there is no question how America treats her prisoners. At least her military prisoners, and I know there has always been speculation and scandal in how she treats her civilian prisoners.
I recently discovered that the laws protecting human rights in the State of Idaho are pretty bad. I knew they would be, I actually dreaded clicking on the link, but I had to know.
Idaho is one of the States that has allows male gaurds to supervise a female prisoner at all times, even if she is in the hospital delivering a baby. Idaho is one of the States that may shackle a prisoner during medical care. A woman is, generally, handcuffed and shackled at her belly whilst in the hospital delivering a baby, and only under absolute medical necessity are these restraints removed.
In other countries (I'm only sure of the UK and am not sure about Germany), restraints are not used under these circumstances. Also, an incarcerated mother may not necessarily lose her child (to foster care, for example). Some prisons are set up so that the child may stay with the mother. I couldn't guess at the conditions these children live in (there are articles aluding that it's not so great in the UK and there are groups who are trying to improve on it - I will mention one such group who did make an achievement in regards to females, in a moment).
I can only say that I think it's better for a mother and child to remain together as much as possible. That first year is vital for a child's psychological well-being (bonding to one person, developing their sense of security and such occures during that first year); and in cases where the child is taken from the mother they often pass through multiple foster homes during the first year. (That site agrees, and lists the reasons why it is better for mother and child/ren.)
As for that group I mentioned.. They were able to make birth assistants readily available for females incarcerated in Holloway (a prison in the UK). The birth assistants visit her throughout her pregnancy, are their during her delivery if she wishes, and see her afterwards for a while. The Doulas of Holloway, is what they call themselves, I believe (er, scratch that, it's "The Holloway Doula Group", actually). Here is an article with information (after reading the first part of the article, where the situation of women and child in prison is discussed, keep scrolling down until you come across the article 'Doulas' to learn about the 'Holloway Doula Group').
Now that we're through with the pregnancy and labour and child-rearing mumbo jumbo... oh come on, I know it's not that popular of a topic on the internet and live journal... or is it? o.o Here is the link to the site where you can check the laws protecting female prisoners in America by State.
I read the Idaho State laws last night right before bed.. as a result, I had some weird dreams, but I won't bother getting into that now. Just mention it as a warning that you may not want to read it right before going to bed.. heh.
Oh, and here is one more quote from the first website ("USA: Rights for All") that you might like:
"The USA made a significant contribution to the development of the international standards and mechanisms of human rights protection. However, it has declined to ratify key human rights treaties, has reserved the right not to implement important provisions of treaties that it has ratified and has refused to permit people within the USA to bring complaints about alleged violations of their human rights to international monitoring bodies [See Amnesty International, United States of America: Rights for All, AI Index: AMR 51/35/98, chapter 7.]."
But, seriously, read the article.
It's pretty bad. International standards for female prisoners seemingly do not apply in the US.
For example:
Internationally, "female prisoners should be supervised only by female gaurds."
In the US, "a male guard may watch over a woman, even when she is dressing or showering or using the toilet. He may touch every part of her body when he searches for contraband."
Internationally: "it is inhumane to punish a prisoner by placing them in isolation for a prolonged period in conditions of limited censory stimulation."
In the US: "Several states have prison units where women are held in such conditions."
Internationally: "International standards restrict the use of restraints to situations where they are necessary to prevent escape or to prevent prisoners from injuring themselves or others or from damaging property."
In the US: "restraints are used as a matter of course. A woman who is in labour or seriously ill, even dying, may be taken to a hospital in handcuffs and chained by her leg to the bed."
"During the last 50 years, the international community has adopted a number of standards and mechanisms to protect the human rights of individuals in relation to the governments within whose jurisdictions they reside. The standards are based on the precept that human rights are universal and an international responsibility, not simply an internal one. International human rights standards articulate the criteria against which the conduct of the authorities of any nation, including the USA, should be measured."
I'm reminded of a quote.. something about "to know a man's character, look at how he treats his prisoners." Which I can't seem to find on Google..
Of course, there is no question how America treats her prisoners. At least her military prisoners, and I know there has always been speculation and scandal in how she treats her civilian prisoners.
I recently discovered that the laws protecting human rights in the State of Idaho are pretty bad. I knew they would be, I actually dreaded clicking on the link, but I had to know.
Idaho is one of the States that has allows male gaurds to supervise a female prisoner at all times, even if she is in the hospital delivering a baby. Idaho is one of the States that may shackle a prisoner during medical care. A woman is, generally, handcuffed and shackled at her belly whilst in the hospital delivering a baby, and only under absolute medical necessity are these restraints removed.
In other countries (I'm only sure of the UK and am not sure about Germany), restraints are not used under these circumstances. Also, an incarcerated mother may not necessarily lose her child (to foster care, for example). Some prisons are set up so that the child may stay with the mother. I couldn't guess at the conditions these children live in (there are articles aluding that it's not so great in the UK and there are groups who are trying to improve on it - I will mention one such group who did make an achievement in regards to females, in a moment).
I can only say that I think it's better for a mother and child to remain together as much as possible. That first year is vital for a child's psychological well-being (bonding to one person, developing their sense of security and such occures during that first year); and in cases where the child is taken from the mother they often pass through multiple foster homes during the first year. (That site agrees, and lists the reasons why it is better for mother and child/ren.)
As for that group I mentioned.. They were able to make birth assistants readily available for females incarcerated in Holloway (a prison in the UK). The birth assistants visit her throughout her pregnancy, are their during her delivery if she wishes, and see her afterwards for a while. The Doulas of Holloway, is what they call themselves, I believe (er, scratch that, it's "The Holloway Doula Group", actually). Here is an article with information (after reading the first part of the article, where the situation of women and child in prison is discussed, keep scrolling down until you come across the article 'Doulas' to learn about the 'Holloway Doula Group').
Now that we're through with the pregnancy and labour and child-rearing mumbo jumbo... oh come on, I know it's not that popular of a topic on the internet and live journal... or is it? o.o Here is the link to the site where you can check the laws protecting female prisoners in America by State.
I read the Idaho State laws last night right before bed.. as a result, I had some weird dreams, but I won't bother getting into that now. Just mention it as a warning that you may not want to read it right before going to bed.. heh.
Oh, and here is one more quote from the first website ("USA: Rights for All") that you might like:
"The USA made a significant contribution to the development of the international standards and mechanisms of human rights protection. However, it has declined to ratify key human rights treaties, has reserved the right not to implement important provisions of treaties that it has ratified and has refused to permit people within the USA to bring complaints about alleged violations of their human rights to international monitoring bodies [See Amnesty International, United States of America: Rights for All, AI Index: AMR 51/35/98, chapter 7.]."
But, seriously, read the article.