Ethical Considerations and Implications Essay Example for Free

Ethical Considerations and Implications EssayTo digress into the philosophical and ethical discussions of state penalisation is not to alienate the concept of punishment from justification for horrors d mavin but to offer an insight into the precept of equaliser. Ideally, it is not possible to stifle concerns of the legalized infliction of harm and the trampling of inalienable human rights even in the face of incriminating evidence on the part of the offender. Punishment serves to advance the states responsibility of maintaining harmony done legal infliction of considerable harm for the purposes of retribution for wrongs done and the maintenance of law and golf-club in the society. Reflections of punishment argon as old as the very onset of philosophical thinking (Ryberg 2004). The proportionality principle lies at the very core of legislative reforms that determine the structure of the state punishment body (Ryberg 2004). It is the meeting point between philosophical think ing that purport to eliminate the structures of punishment on one side and penologists on the other hand. Because the existence of punishment of distressing acts is not a matter of enquiry in recent days, proportionalism only seeks to determine the extent to which certain crimes may be punishable.It is about numeric distribution of punishments and that is why it elicits ethical tones. Surveys of public opinion have always been harsh on the criminal. When this is match to political pressure on the judicial system to institute harsher penalties, remarkable ethical implications may cram with respect to the application of the law proportionately to the seriousness of crime as well as polity objectives of the legal statute. A crisis of confidence has always marked the ability of the criminal law and criminal arbiter system to built a just and crime free society (Fagan 2008).Several statutes have been enacted to test and achieve this end objective but there still remains a gap in community justice. Supermaximum Prisons Supermaximum prisons or supermax prisons as they are commonly called are ideally jails within prisons. The prison is a classic scenario of an enclosure where individuals are kept as they undergo correction. However this controlled environment does not nix some individuals from engaging in assault or violent acts, incite disturbances, prey on weaker and penetrable inmates, attempt to escape or exhibit any other form of disruptive behavior (Riveland 1999).Since order and safety remain the basic priorities of the correctional facility, such(prenominal) people must be isolated from the oecumenic prison population as they exhibit behavioural characteristics that threaten the order and safety of the prison populace. contrasting correctional facilities have their own form of such closing off. Some call it disciplinary sequestration, punitive segregation or just segregation to differentiate it from the general prison housing. Such a confinement exists in complete isolation.Structurally, it is a single, windowless cell where inmates are made to spend 23 or more hours a day. In such isolation, inmates are solely dependent on staff that patrols the tiers, push mail, toilet account or meals through small spaces in the heavy doors. For the few minutes that prisoners gain the opportunity to be led out, they are often shackled and cuffed under full prison guard. This only happens during showers or a little solitary wander in the yards. The extremity of the confinement defines the prison systems success in isolation (Rhodes 2005).According to the prison officers or the media these are the manifestations of the worst cases of criminal behavior. go it can be sustain that there are cases where such confinement is meant only for prisoners who have been convicted of serious crimes, the reality is that most of these cases train prison misbehavior by individuals under protective custody or those convicted on minor offenses. Statistic ally, linked States prisons may be holding up to 20,000 people in such conditions (Rhodes 2005). at that placefore for minor behavioral discrepancies an individual may receive a gift of a punitive and individualistic form of punishment. There are a number of select factors that are independent of prisoner behavior but which dole out the shift towards segregation units. From political pressure on the judicial system for harsher sentences, economic deprivation of the pocket-size income rural localities, inherent population pressure in prison establishments and staffing issues, the supermax prison phenomenon is rife in the States today and policy backups to address this clearly defined ethical issue is non existent.Rhodes notes that such facilities are rarely put under the limelight in public prison debates and budgetary allocations. When this is coupled to the fact that the facilities are completely out of bounds to the ordinary public arena, salient ethical issues arise that need to be addressed. The pragmatical and philosophical aspect of the supermax phenomenon presents grave complications to the forgotten prisoner languishing in solitary confinement (Rhodes 2005). wellness studies have found out a direct nexus between solitary segregation and the diseased development and progression of psychical illness.Initially, decompensation sets in as a result of psychological damage caused by isolating an individual from fellow inmates (Lovell 2004). The cost-benefit, operating costs, legal and ethical issues of supermaximum facilities raise an uproar in debates. While the continued construction of supermaximum facilities can be attributed to political pressure, the overall constitutionality behind the printing press on such programs still remains unclear (Riveland 1999). Priority on human control has given rise to a host of debilitating mental conditions.Research publications are more focused on the eventuality on recidivist criminal behavior while the damage to the psychological integrity of inmates takes a backbench. When large number of characteristically dissimilar inmates are incarcerated, such diversity has the potential to potentially damage any notable correctional improvements creating a situation where the prisons act only as a maturing ground for worse cases of criminal legal action. Unfortunately, policy makers have not been as astute in presenting solutions to such ethical dilemmas like they perish for the building of segregation units (Riveland 1999).Several research studies on the supermaximum prison facilities have concluded that despite the insistence that such facilities are necessary for meting out harsher sentences, they only serve to increase the prevalence and incidence of mental illnesses and sink budgetary financial allocations with no apparent social or economic benefits (Pizarro et al 2004). sound ambiguities have been the cause of dire ethical implications and complications as regards punishment policy making initiatives. Zero allowance as a concept is not fully defined even though it is representative of an woo to policing.Legal debates have raged as to the true nature of the term. Invariably, it has been linked to a variety of definitions. Being punk on crime is an example of the definition of the term. While being tough implies that something is about crime in general it usually lacks requisite explanation as regards punishment. Curiously though, being tough on crime has been the most commonly accepted denotion of zero tolerance policing and as such legal enforcement has been in the stage setting of being tougher ion crime through harsher penalties.On the other hand, zero tolerance policing implies a strict non-discretionary scene of law enforcement. Such a definition explains a key aspect of law enforcement where police activity is at its highest and the community at large takes a precautionary measure to desist from falling into the hand of the law enforcement offices. Moreove r under such a policy, officers arrest or report offenses with no expulsion to the type of illegal act committed (Marshall 1999).