Ethical treatment of prisoners: classical and relativist perspectives

Ethical Treatment of Prisoners

The treatment of a society's prisoners has been an issue of debate for centuries. The emotions surrounding such treatment are considerable and reaching a consensus on the best and fairest method is often difficult. Torture is considered illegal in most civilized societies and, therefore, in order to maintain an acceptable level of treatment an alternative and more humane approach must be established (Filter, 2000).

There presently exist two leading schools of moral thought: utilitarianism and deontology (Gibbs, 1977). Despite what has been characterized as great differences between the two schools they seem to agree on most substantive issues.

Utilitarianism argues that the right action is the one, out those available, that maximizes one's total happiness. In the prisoner treatment situation this results in considering the emotional pain, physical discomfort, expense, and time involved in housing the prisoner against the advantages garnered by society such as retribution, justice, removing bad individuals from society, and revenge (Bentham, 1988). Followers of the utilitarian school belief that actions should be taken that result in the least possible human suffering for the greatest number. This concept is described by Jeremy Bentham, founder of the utilitarian approach, as "the greatest good for the greatest number." Bentham analysis of any moral situation is to take into account the intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent of actions and measure them against the greatest good/greatest number principle (the Principle of Utility).

Based on this basic approach to morality, the utilitarian approach to imprisonment and the ethical treatment of prisoners is one of moderation. Utilitarianism is concerned with consequences. A utilitarian approach seeks to maximize total utility and is often referred to as involving a cost-benefit analysis wherein moral decisions are based on a balancing between these two factors. These costs and benefits can be economic, social, or human. This type of results-oriented ethical reasoning tries to determine whether the overall outcome produced more good than harm- more utility or usefulness than negative results.

A major problem develops when using the utilitarian approach to prisoner's rights and treatment. The main drawback to the utilitarian approach is the difficulty in accurately measuring both costs and benefits. Some aspects of prisoner treatment can be quantified such as feeding, housing, and clothing them but other aspects such as the value of justice, fairness, and humaneness do not lend themselves to monetary measurement. Another limitation to this approach is that it tends to favor the considerations of the majority (society in general) over the rights of the minority (prisoners).

Deontology tends to focus more closely on the rights of individuals. This approach, whose most fervent advocate is Immanuel Kant, and its attention to individual rights guarantee that equal respect is given to all persons (Kant, 2010). Applying a deontology approach to the treatment of prisoners, actions that violate the rights of even one individual, one prisoner, will be rejected as morally wrong regardless of what benefit may be enjoyed by the majority. In contrast, utilitarianism would allow such action in the spirit of maximizing overall benefits. Utilitarianism is concerned with ends. Deontology is concerned on means.

Proponents of deontology believe that all human beings have certain moral entitlements that must be always respected. These entitlements guarantee to all individuals life's basic personal rights (life, freedom, health, privacy, property). Under deontology, a right means that a person is entitled to something or is entitled to be treated in a certain way. Denying anyone these basic human rights for a deontologist is considered to be unethical. Respecting others, even those whom we consider undesirable or evil, is the essence of human rights and everyone deserves to be treated as valuable simply because they are human. Using or abusing someone else for one's own purpose is unethical and this applies to both individuals and organizations. Therefore, inhumane treatment of prisoners is wrong regardless of the degree of harm caused by such individuals.

The main criticism of the deontology approach is that it fails to provide a convenient method for balancing conflicting rights. In the case of prisoner treatment this creates a serious problem. How does society punish its criminals while still recognizing and providing these individuals their fundamental rights?

A third approach that can be applied to the ethical treatment of prisoners is identified as virtue ethics. Under this perspective morality is determined by deciding what a mature person with "good" moral character would deem right. Society's rules provide a moral minimum but this theoretical mature person transcends these basic rules by applying personal virtues such as faith, honesty, and integrity.

Like Utilitarianism, virtue ethics suffers from the difficulty in balancing interests. Which criteria are considered the most significant, the most important, in making moral decisions? The treatment of prisoners is not an easy decision and the virtue ethics approach does not provide clear guidelines in determining what must be deemed as being ethical.

The bottom line is that ethical issues can and are evaluated from many different perspectives. Each perspective has a different basis for determining what is right and wrong and people disagree about what is and what is not ethical because everyone makes this decision by applying different ethical standards. The treatment of prisoners amplifies this problem because their behavior is of a nature that is usually considered unacceptable and, as a result, it generates strong emotions.

Designing a penal system that adequately protects the interests of society and the interests of the incarcerated individual is difficult. One extreme there are those who would argue that prisoners should have no rights and on the other extreme are those who view prisoners as being victims of the society in which they live and, therefore, entitled to every advantage toward rehabilitation. The pragmatic approach takes a position somewhere between both extremes. The fact is that society must protect itself from those who decide to violate the rights of others. In a perfect world there would be no crime and the rights of prisoners would not need to be addressed. The reality is that crime is, and always has been, a serious problem. Over time the best method for addressing how to treat those accused of crimes has changed and there has never been a consensus.