US Prisoners Should Have Access To Prostitutes

Thank you for accepting. I will now demonstrate why one should support this proposition.RAPE PREVENTION1 in 20 inmates are raped[1]. Note that these are not singular occurrences, but most often repeated rapings[2]. Not only repeated rapings, but actual sexual slavery:"Forced to satisfy another man's sexual appetites whenever he demands, they may also be responsible for washing his clothes, cooking his food, massaging his back, cleaning his cell, and myriad other chores. They are frequently "rented out" for sex, sold, or even auctioned off to other inmates, replicating the financial aspects of traditional slavery. Their most basic choices, like how to dress and whom to talk to, may be controlled by the person who "owns" them. They may even be renamed as women.(259) Like all forms of slavery, these situations are among the most degrading and dehumanizing experiences a person can undergo."[2]Offering prostitutes to inmates would nearly wipe out prison rape. The reason most inmates turn to rape is because of years without sex. In their desperation, inmates turn to people of the same gender, something they wouldn't ordinarily do. Understanding of this desperation and loneliness by other inmates makes gay rape much more acceptable, often being dressed up as a status type of thing. Providing these men with prostitutes of their preferred gender would alleviate their horniness without turning to homosexual rape. The analogy I like to use is this: A man has been stranded on an island without food for so long that he begins eating his shoes. He doesn't want to, but he desperately must eat something. If someone offered him cake however, he would drop the shoe in a split second and go to work on the cake. It's just an instance of people settling for the best they can do. Give them the option they wanted in the first place, and the problem here goes away. Perhaps you're thinking, 'why should I care'? You probably have an image of a child molester getting a taste of his own medicine, or some sick murderer suffering. For the people whose thoughts those are, I can't really tell you you should feel bad for those people, however there are plenty of angles you're not examining. First, consider the fact that not all of the 1 in 20 are going to be sickos who you think have it coming. It could be someone who is in jail for possessing drugs. They could've been addicted, not fully in control of themselves, and rape is their punishment? What if it was someone who stole a TV? Do you honestly see repeated rapings and possible sexual slavery as just repayment for a stolen item? There are many non-violent criminals in prison, and few people would think violent sexual assaults are proper repayment for non-violent crimes.Further, consider the threat of AIDS. Most inmates are out in a year, 90% in fact[3]. The rapists in prison are hardly concerned for the sexual health of their victims, and so many rape victims end up with AIDS. Within a year most of these men are back in their communities. We can see that a stage is quite obviously set for disaster here. Therefore, it is not only in the interests of the inmates, but also of society at large, to lessen the occurrence of prison rape, and therein reduce the spread of AIDS.Lastly, consider the fact that AIDS is a death sentence for most who get it. When we condone or turn our backs on the issue of prison rape, we condone or turn our backs on the fact that men who have been given minimal sentences, many non-violent criminals, have effectively been issued the death penalty. This is not what our justice system intended when it sentenced these people to whatever amount of time they were sentenced to, because it is an injustice. If we wanted petty thieves, drug addicts, victims of circumstance: non-violent criminals, to face death, we'd issue them the death penalty, not a year in prison.RECIDIVISMTo continue answering the question, 'why should I care?', I'd like to present the fact that this proposal would reduce recidivism. For those of you who are unaware, recidivism is simply a term for how many prisoners return to jail. Studies have shown that harsher prison conditions lead to higher recidivism rates, whereas nicer conditions lead to less post-release crime[4]. Clearly, providing the luxury of prostitutes is the opposite of harsh. As mentioned above, 90% of prisoners are out within a year, and I think we can all agree that it'd be a good thing if less of them committed more crimes.INCREASED PROSTITUTE SAFETYProstitutes have a pretty rough go of it, and I'd posit that by allowing them to legally practice it in prisons, under the protection of the Federal Government, we'd be able to help some prostitutes live more healthily and safely.As far as how rough they have things, consider: [5]We could reduce the beatings per year, unprotected sexual acts per year, contractions of AIDS per year, arrests for prostitution per year, and STD's related to prostitution significantly. Especially for those employed in this proposition, but also overall, as this program would have to be big enough to service most jails, at the very least the highest-incidence of rape jails. We could reduce beatings very easily. The pimp-prostitute relationship is an abusive one."Victims undergo a process of being recruited, groomed, abused, controlled, and being turned out by violent pimps. The result of this step is a ""trauma bond" between victim and pimp or trafficker that can be equated to Stockholm Syndrome. "Pimps crush runaways [girls] with a mix of violence and affection, degradation" and then require absolute obedience to a rigid code: the prostitute cannot look the pimp in the eye, call him by name or keep any cash." In this way a pimp dehumanizes his prostitute[s] by turning him or her into a commodity."[6] If we took the abusive pimp out of the equation, beatings per year would doubtless drop.We can assume that the rest of the beatings would come from clients. I think we can all logically infer why that would not be the case with prostitutes working under my proposal. Prisoners would be very careful not to lose their privilege, and given that this prostitution would be legal, she'd be free to report any abuses to her Federal Government 'handler'. We could reduce unprotected sexual acts per year by regulating that condoms be required for these sexual acts. This would also obviously reduce the likelihood of a prostitute getting AIDS, and reduce the amount of AIDS prostitution spreads. Not only would regulated use of condoms reduce this spread, but so would frequent testing for AIDS. Frequent testing would alert Federal 'handlers' whenever a prostitute had been 'contaminated', and they could act according to the third preventative measure. The third preventative measure being a system that would prevent individuals with AIDS from engaging in sex with an individual who did not have AIDS. With condoms, frequent testing, and as I like to call it, 'AIDS-based sexual segregation', we could easily freeze the 50% stat in its place, and eventually push it back. THE GREATER GOODThere may be some who have finished all the above and think that promoting prostitution anywhere is immoral. I have a very short, simple reply for these people. Which would you rather happen, unconsensual sex, or consensual, paid sex? Thank you for reading.Sources:[1] http://www.hrw.org...[2] http://www.hrw.org...[3] http://abcnews.go.com...[4] http://www.anderson.ucla.edu...[5] http://sex-crimes.laws.com...[6] http://annaengel.wordpress.com...