Editorial»
Love behind bars
JUL 01 -
A fter being convicted of a crime, prisoners are still entitled to basic human rights: the right to food, shelter, safety, access to the courts and reproductive health are all among them. A writ filed to the Supreme Court on behalf of prisoners Suraja Marik Dom and Chhotani Devi puts into question the length to which these rights should be stretched. Six years into a life sentence for killing their neighbour, the couple is now demanding that they be entitled to their reproductive right to start a family as well as the right to have the means to do so by being given the opportunity to meet in jail. Though this writ cites the reproductive rights of the couple, it fails to consider the rights of their future offspring.
One key component of the first international document to define the norms of reproductive rights, the Cairo Programme of Action 1994, is the responsibility of parents to take into account the needs of living and future children. In an undersupplied and overcrowded jail system where some prisoners are not even provided with the most basic of necessities like hygiene products, clothing and bedding, not only is the state incapable of providing for the children of inmates, it also has no legal responsibility for prisoner’s dependent children. When both sides of the couple are incarcerated for life with no option of income generation or alternative home, the verdict should be clear: the desire to have a child does not trump the child’s rights to grow up in a healthy and free environment with access to education. Being raised in jail clearly violates at least one of those rights.
But this case does provide the Supreme Court with the opportunity to set a precedent for well being of inmates with partners outside the prison walls. In many other countries, inmates, depending on the severity of the criminal offence, are allowed conjugal visits by legal spouses. The terms of conjugal visits vary from country to country, ranging from single rooms to 72-hour trips home, but these visits all serve the same purpose. Allowing visiting legal spouses time alone with their incarcerated counterparts gives those in prison the chance to nurture family ties often strained during their time in prison. The awarding of these rights is not in respect of the sexual or reproductive rights of the convicted but rather to aid in their rehabilitation so that once the prison sentence is served. With new-found freedom, it will be easier to make the transition back into society with family ties still intact, reducing the odds that they will recommit.
The actions we take now have sometimes unforeseeable impacts on our future. In the case of Suraja Manik and Chhotani Devi, they may not have considered their desire to have children six years ago while committing the crime, but that dream is now in peril. For the Court, the ruling and wording of the decision has the potential to enhance the rehabilitation of prisoners and better prepare them for reintegration into society.
Posted on: 2010-07-02 08:16
Headlines
Advertisements
