Incarcerationof People with Disabilities

INCARCERATIONOF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Inthe 21st Century, the current and ongoing struggle concerns therights and procedures accustomed to the mass incarceration of theAmerican people (Alexander 2012). Many citizens feel the judicialsystem of the nation works in a quiver way to put the offenders ofthe justice to prisons. Among those locked away are the people withthe varied types of disabilities, locked in the same prisons that thenormal people exist. The greatest outcry from the humanitarianagencies and people with experiences with the jailing incarcerationof the physically challenged is that the people living withdisabilities in the jails go through more torment that exceeds thenormal jail experience they were sent to serve. It is evident thatthe people living with disabilities in the American jails form aminority group and one that has very few people concerned with theirwell-being (Cunneen 2016). More so, the problem does not existentirely within the American jails, but it extends to form rootsacross other superpowers in Europe (Cunneen 2016). The detrimentaleffects get so serious that people have to campaign and fight for thevoiceless people in the prisons who live with disabilities so thatthe judicial systems may improve the interactions of the physicallychallenged people in the American incarceration process. Thefollowing write-up aims to focus on various empirical evidencepinpointing the various processes of the mass incarceration of thepeople with disabilities within the American judicial system.

Davis,L. J. (Ed.). (2013). The Disability Studies Reader. Routledge.

ResearchQuestion

Davisquestions the origin of the influence of modernity on the jailprocesses that end up placing the lives of the prisoners withdisabilities in danger. More so, the author launches to discover thepast developments that led to the allowance of having people withdisabilities serve their time in normal jails, with the provision ofvery little resources to look after their needs. The research by theauthor aims to reveal the developments that allowed the mixture ofthe prisoners with disabilities with their normal counterparts. Theresearch has the motive to investigate the challenges that theprisoners with disabilities face to help come up with solutions andremedy procedures to rectify the current dehumanization of theprisoners with disabilities.

Approachand Data Collection Method

Theauthor uses deductive methods used to obtain the date used in theinvestigation. More so, the author manipulates data from the oldrecords of the jails systems to come up with the conclusive findings.The author observed the various developments through theincarceration processes of the people with disabilities that have ledto the creation of the poor servicing in the jails and holdings thatdeal with prisoners with disabilities. Additionally, the collectionof the data focused on revealing more of the association between thecourt, the prison systems, and their synchronized functions toprovide for the needs of the prisoners with disabilities. The methodof data collection from the author additionally focuses on givingprevious research discoveries that focus to explain the state ofliving of the people with disabilities in the incarceration areasand a huge percentage of the results indicate their living conditionsare deplorable.

Theresearch from the author of the book reveals that in the 1980s therewas the increased association between the court systems and theincarceration processes of the people living with disabilities. Thedata and evidence from the research show that the interaction betweenthe two systems created a hybrid discourse (Davis 2013). Theexistence of the hybrid discourse originated from the influence ofmodernity on the incarceration process, and more specifically to thatof the people with disabilities. The author’s theoretical approachto the study reveals a huge reliance on the experiences of the peopleliving with the disabilities at the various incarceration centers.Their exposed experiences tell the tale of the deplorable livingstandard within the correctional facilities, a truth that gives theauthor an arguing basis throughout the discovery.

Interpretationsand Findings

Theassociation of the judicial system and the incarceration processesbringing up the hybrid discourse acts as the major leadinginformation collection for the living conditions of the people withdisabilities in the prisons. The hybrid discourse created anallowance for the collection of new knowledge and information. Thenew information gave powers to the judges to access the medicalinformation for the people facing sentencing and allocated powers todoctors to assess the conditions of the people facing sentences andthose already in the various prisons in America. The author explainsthe discovery of the huge risks facing the people living withdisabilities in the prisons. Additionally, the discoveries explain tothe unsuspecting masses of the tough processes that the people withdisabilities have to go through to access the fundamental rightswhile in prison.

CriticalEvaluation

Fromthe work performed by the author, it is apparent that the people withdisabilities in the various prisons form a small minority group whosefundamental rights are not met by those tasked with theresponsibility. In a specific explanation from the author, there wereinstances where the policy makers and major politicians believed thatthe prisoners with disabilities were a burden to the nation. Hence,the probability of provision of resources to cater for needs of theprisoners with disabilities seems to be quite challenging. In suchcases, the needs and rights of the prisoners with the variousdisabilities end up in a shackle, living in worst conditions comparedto their normal counterparts who committed the similar crime. Itwould be a huge step forward for the policy makers and the watchersof the prisoners with disabilities to provide proper medicalattention, legal aid, and reform of the psychiatric overhaulprocesses within the incarceration procedures needs tuning to offermore benefits to the physically challenged persons in the prisons.

Barton,L. (2013). Disability, politics and the struggle for change.Routledge.

ResearchQuestion

Inthe report, the author poses the notion as to whether reformationwithin the incarceration process would bring change to the type oflife the prisoners with disabilities live.

Approachand Data Collection

Theauthor of the research focuses on the experiences of the variousprisoners with disabilities and compares their experience with theexperience stated in the judicial processes. More so, the approach ofthe research introduces us to the various deplorable settings of thejails, with specific encounters of the prisoners with disabilities.In the process, the author leads us to voiceless stands of theprisoners with disabilities, who cannot fight back to their offendersor even guard themselves towards the cruel treatment within thecorrectional centers. The information collected originates from thevarious interviews with the prisoners with disabilities to compilethe various difficult circumstances of their living.

Interpretationand Findings

Theinformation passed along by the author confirms that indeed thepeople with disabilities in the prisons face a difficult time as theyserve their time. The author informs that some punishments to theprisoners with disabilities get intense to the point where thewardens snatch the wheelchairs from the prisoners, leaving themvulnerable (Barton 2013). Additionally, the authorities running thevarious prisons have a record of brutality towards the prisoners.More so, the painful retribution for the people with disabilities inthe jails gets worse whenever they offer resistance to thepunishments and discrimination they undergo. The effects of offeringsuch resistances land the physically challenged prisoners to solitaryconfinement for months, where they lack any contact with the outsideworld. In such scenarios, most of the prisoners with mental illnessesget worse from the isolation with direct contact with other humanbeings and the damage levels get to unrecoverable heights.

CriticalEvaluation

Fromthe explanations provided by the author, I would support the decisionthat a reform process would be imperative to change the unfair lifeof the prisoners. The low capacity for the people with disabilitiesto voice their concerns should face change. The reformation processwould in turn, provide a clear communication channel upon which thegrievances of the people living with disabilities would be heard.Through the reforms, the prisoners with disabilities would receivethe appropriate services the constitution reserves for them while inprison. Through the fair reformation process, there would be aspecial allocation of resources to the people with disabilities. Theprocess extends to cover an inclusion of special amenities such asaccessible toilets to the physically challenged prisoners (HumanRights Watch 2013). Separating the amenities the others use andcreating special access that the physically challenged prisoners canuse is lacking in most of the jails with physically challengedprisoners (Human Rights Watch 2013). The ultimate goal of provisionof the better health services to the inmate is to promote theultimate rehabilitation of the inmates in the prisons with an overallaim to reduce recidivism.

DarrellSteinberg, David Mills, and Michael Romano, When Did Prisons BecomeAcceptable Mental Healthcare Facilities? Stanford Law School ThreeStrikes Project, February 19, 2015.

ResearchQuestion

Theauthor questions, “When did prisons become acceptable mental healthcare facilities?” (Darrell 2015) The author investigates theprocesses that led to turning many prisons as acceptable destinationsfor the mentally ill persons following the national closure of themental health institutions looking after the needs of the mentallyill prisoners.

Approachand Data Collection

Theauthor focuses on statistics on the gradual decrease in theinstitutions looking after the needs of the mentally ill convicts.The statistics also prove an increase in the number of the criminalpopulace in jails, with a huge increase in numbers of the mentallyill prisoners. The increase in the number of mentally ill criminalsand convicts is however not directly proportional to the number ofestablishments that aim to rehabilitate the criminals.

Interpretationand Findings

Theauthors acknowledge that the nation can “no longer ignore themassive oppression we are inflicting upon the mentally ill throughoutthe United States” (Darrel 2015). Unconcerned political instrumentsand top directives in the jail systems previously were on a rampageto shut down the institutions that supported the mentally illprisoners without sighting any meaningful evidence of the reason forclosure. Previously, the processes of deinstitutionalization acted asa human process upon which the mentally ill people would spend theirtime and rehabilitate in a calm way to live with the society. Theconditions worsen since the government allocates resources thatfacilitate the lock up of the mentally ill in appropriate conditionsinstead of shifting the priority of the funds to provide support andtreatment for the mentally ill prisoners (In Ben-Moshe 2014). In thejails where the physically challenged are locked up, there are allsorts of people, minimizing the levels of personal security for theprisoners. The jails combine the violent and the calm mentally illprisoners and extend to mix them with those born ill and those whoseillness results from the conditions in their previous environments.The author illustrates that the problem with such callousness in theprisons damages the mentally ill more than it does help themintegrate into preparation to rejoin their particular communities.Since the mentally ill prisoners face abandonment with no resourcesor any helpful support to cope with the mental conditions, they arenow most likely to engage in criminal acts, with a specificallyincreased frequency in crimes related to addiction and homelessness.More so, the mentally ill convicts face harsher judgments that theother normal offenders of the same crime since a huge proportion ofthe judges believe jail term is the only best ruling for the mentallyill (Neubauer 2012). The mentally ill prisoners serve longer jailterms than their normal counterparts convicted of the same crime(Darrel 2015). Consequently, the mentally ill serve longer, and oncetheir relief time passes, the current system lacks a way to help themintegrate with the free community. “We provide virtually noeffective mental health facilities and programs to help releasedprisoners who are in desperate need of mental health treatment”(Darrel 2015).

CriticalEvaluation

Theauthor provides information that will help our judicial system in agreat way to help reduce the various mistreatments of theincarcerated people, more so the mentally ill. The judges have a taskto change the way of sentencing the mentally ill, to sentence thenonviolent criminals to a non-prison sentence. Additionally, thegovernment has a responsibility to provide appropriate treatment forthe physically challenged in the various prisons. The appropriatetreatment of the mentally ill prisoners should extend even aftertheir jail terms pass (Stevenson 2014). Stevenson adds their reliefshould cover a post-release assessment of the mental capacity and todiscover any needs that the prisoner may need once released (2014).In the post-release assessments, the prisons need to investigate ifthere is an urgency to place the released mentally ill prisoners inmental facilities that would cater for their recovery.

Theoutcry to provide better services for the physically challengedprisoners aims to end the era that focused on sentencing as a methodof seeking revenge and launch a global initiative where thesentencing aims to teach people of the various consequences of crime.Such goals push the policymakers and activists to advocate for jailsthat hold people depending on the true cause of the crime leading totheir incarceration. The separation process aims to accomplish a jailsystem that looks after the interests of the physically challengedprisoners, separating the true criminals from those whose actions arenot motivated by aggression, ill intent, or violence (Larson 2013).

References

Alexander,M., &amp West, C. (2012). Thenew Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.

Barton,L. (2013). Disability,politics and the struggle for change.Routledge.

Cunneen,C., Baldry, E., Brown, D., Brown, M., Schwartz, M., &amp Steel, A.(2016). Penalculture and hyperincarceration: The revival of the prison.Routledge.

DarrellSteinberg, David Mills, and Michael Romano, When Did Prisons BecomeAcceptable Mental Healthcare Facilities? Stanford Law School ThreeStrikes Project, February 19, 2015.

Davis,L. J. (Ed.). (2013). The Disability Studies Reader. Routledge.

HumanRights Watch (Organization), Abramsky, S., Fellner, J., Saunders, J.,&amp Ross, J. (2013). Ill-equipped:U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness.New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.

InBen-Moshe, L., In Chapman, C., In Carey, A. C., &amp PalgraveConnect (Online service). (2014). Disabilityincarcerated: Imprisonment and disability in the United States andCanada.

Larson,D. (2013). Fourthcity: Essays from the prison in America.

Neubauer,D. W. (2012). America`scourts and the criminal justice system.Belmont, CA [u.a.: Wadsworth [u.a..

Stevenson,B. (2014). Justmercy: A story of justice and redemption.