You are on page 1of 178

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC.......................................................................................3
1AC.......................................................................................4
1AC.......................................................................................5
1AC.......................................................................................6
1AC.......................................................................................7
1AC.......................................................................................9
1AC.....................................................................................10
1AC.....................................................................................11
1AC.....................................................................................12
1AC.....................................................................................13
1AC.....................................................................................14
1AC.....................................................................................15
1AC.....................................................................................16
1AC.....................................................................................17
1AC.....................................................................................18
1AC.....................................................................................19
Inherency - No Condoms....................................................20
Inherency - No Condoms....................................................21
Inherency - No Condoms....................................................22
Inherency - No Condoms....................................................23
Inherency - No Condoms....................................................24
Inherency - No Condoms....................................................25
Inherency - Condoms Illegal..............................................26
HIV Rates High..................................................................27
HIV Rates High..................................................................28
HIV Rates High..................................................................29
HIV Rates High..................................................................30
AIDS Transfer Rates High..................................................31
AIDS Transfer Rates High..................................................32
AIDS Transfer Rates High..................................................33
AIDS Transfer Rates High..................................................34
AIDS Transfer Rates High..................................................35
Prison Sex Biggest Factor..................................................36
Prison Sex Biggest Factor..................................................37
HIV Spreads to Communities.............................................38
HIV Spreads to Communities.............................................39
HIV Spreads to Communities.............................................40
HIV Spreads to Communities.............................................41
HIV Spreads to Communities.............................................42
HIV Spreads to Communities.............................................43
HIV Spreads to Communities.............................................44
Condoms Spill Over...........................................................45
Condoms Spill Over...........................................................46
AIDS Impacts - Extinction.................................................47
AIDS Impacts - Laundry List.............................................48
AIDS Impacts Structural Violence...................................49
AIDS Impacts - Systemic...................................................50
AIDS Impacts - Deadly......................................................51
AIDS Impacts - Famine..................................................52
AIDS Impacts - O/W..........................................................53
Condoms Solve...................................................................54
Condoms Solve...................................................................55
Condoms Solve...................................................................56
Condoms Solve...................................................................57
Condoms Solve...................................................................58

1
Prisons Aff

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds
Condoms Solve...................................................................59
Try or Die for Condoms.....................................................60
HR Abuse Percieved Internationally..................................61
HR Abuse Percieved Internationally..................................62
HR Abuse Percieved Internationally..................................63
Gay Rights Perceived Internationally.................................64
No Condoms = No HR.......................................................65
HR Abuse in Prisons...........................................................66
HR Abuse in Prisons...........................................................67
HR Abuse in Prisons...........................................................68
HR Abuse in Prisons...........................................................69
HR Abuse in Prisons...........................................................70
HR Abuse in Prisons...........................................................71
HR Abuse in Prisons - AIDS..............................................72
HR Abuse in Prisons - AIDS..............................................73
HR Abuse in Prisons - AIDS..............................................74
US Key to HR.....................................................................75
HR=Moral Imperative........................................................76
HR Abuse Hierarchal..........................................................77
Decreased HRViolence...................................................78
HR Key to Peace................................................................79
HR Key to Survival............................................................80
HR Abuse=Genocide..........................................................81
HR O/W..............................................................................82
HR O/W..............................................................................83
HR O/W..............................................................................84
HR key to SP......................................................................85
HR Key to SP.....................................................................86
SP Key to Heg....................................................................87
SP Key to Heg....................................................................88
No Condoms=Racism.........................................................89
No Condoms=Racism.........................................................90
No Condoms=Racism.........................................................91
No Condoms=Racism.........................................................92
No Condoms=Racism.........................................................93
No Condoms=Racism.........................................................94
Racism - Moral Imperative.................................................95
Racism - Moral Imperative.................................................96
Racism O/W.......................................................................97
Condoms Fight Racism......................................................98
Lack of CondomsDehum................................................99
Lack of CondomsDehum..............................................100
Homophobia Unaddressed................................................101
Homophobia Prevents Condoms......................................102
Homophobia Prevents Condoms......................................103
Homophobia Prevents Condoms......................................104
Homophobia Prevents Condoms......................................105
Condoms Fight Homophobia...........................................106
Condoms Fight Homophobia...........................................107
Condoms Fight Homophobia...........................................108
HomophobiaStructural Violence..................................109
HomophobiaStructural Violence..................................110
HomophobiaOtherization..............................................111
HomophobiaOtherization.............................................112
HomophobiaNazism.....................................................113
HomophobiaDehumanization.......................................114
Homophobia - Dehum O/W.............................................115

2
Prisons Aff

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds
HomophobiaViolence...................................................116
Homophobia prevents Healthcare.....................................117
HomophobiaBad Prison Conditions.............................118
Moral Obligation - General..............................................119
StigmaDisease..............................................................120
Negs Args=Homophobic..................................................121
Sex Rights Solve Dehum..................................................122
A2: Plan Increases Rape...................................................123
A2: Plan Increases Rape...................................................124
A2: Plan Increases Rape...................................................125
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................126
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................127
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................128
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................129
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................130
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................132
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................133
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................134
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................135
Prison Sex Inev.................................................................136
A2: Violence Turn............................................................137
A2: Drugs DA - Drugs Inev..............................................138
Condoms Safe...................................................................139
Condoms Safe...................................................................140
A2: Drug Smuggling........................................................141
A2: Alt Cause - Tattooing.................................................142
A2: Spending DA - Link Turn..........................................143
A2: States - Federal Prisons.............................................144
A2: States - Solvency: States Bad....................................145
A2: States - Solvency: States Bad....................................146
A2: States - Solvency: States Bad....................................147
A2: States - Solvency: States Bad....................................148
A2: States - Solvency: States Bad....................................149
A2: States - Solvency: No Funding..................................150
A2: States - Solvency: No Funding..................................151
A2: States - Solvency: No Funding..................................152
A2: Courts CP - Previous Rulings....................................153
A2: Courts CP - Previous Rulings....................................154
A2: Isolation/monitoring CP - Fails.................................155
A2: Sex Ed CP - No Solvency..........................................156
A2: Sex Ed - Homophobia...............................................157
A2: Private Actor CP - Legal Barriers..............................158
A2: Private Actor CP - Private Actors Fail.......................159
A2: Biopower K - Link Turn............................................160
A2: Biopower K - Link Turn............................................161
A2: Biopower K - Resistance Bad: Good Biopower........162
A2: Biopower K - Resistance Bad: Ethical Obligations. .163
A2: Biopower K - Resistance Bad: Ethics/Perm Solves. .164
A2: Biopower - Perm Solves............................................165
A2: Ks...............................................................................166
A2: AIDS Reps - Biopower over reps Inevitable.............167
A2: Topicality - Poverty...................................................168
A2: Topicality - Poverty...................................................169
A2: Topicality - Condoms=Social Services......................170
A2: Topicality - AIDS Prevention=Social Service...........171
A2: Topicality - Preventative Care=Social Services........172
A2: Topicality - Preventative Care=Social Services........173

3
Prisons Aff

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds
A2: Topicality - Family Planning=Social Services..........174
A2: Politics - N/U.............................................................175
A2: Politics - N/U.............................................................176

4
Prisons Aff

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

5
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
Contention 1: Inherency
Few jails offer condoms to prisoners
Bloomekatz L.A. Times Reporter 2009
Ari B. June 29 Los Angeles Times L.A. County sheriff considers expanding condom distribution in jail
Activist Ron Osorio has been giving condoms to inmates almost weekly since 2001 to help deter the spread of
HIV/AIDS.
Currently, only a few jails in the United States -- including some in San Francisco, New York City,
Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. -- offer condoms to inmates. Condoms are also available in prisons in
Vermont. Providing condoms to inmates seems like a "no-brainer," said Mary Sylla, who founded the Center
for Health Justice, a nonprofit organization based in West Hollywood that focuses on reducing HIV cases in
prisons. She said that when condoms are offered, inmates do take them and reports of unsafe sexual
activity decline. Despite calls by health groups, most efforts to expand distribution have stalled, and
state bills -- including one in California -- that could have led to widespread distribution of the
prophylactics have been continuously voted down, died in committee or were vetoed.

While condom use could prevent HIV/AIDS, 1% of US prisons distribute them, and no
prison distributing condoms have reversed this right
McLemore, Health and Human Rights Researcher at the Human Rights Watch, 2008
(Megan, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 6-27-8 Access to condoms in U.S. prisons HIV/AIDS Policy &
Law Review 13(1) http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=1349, Accessed July 5,
2009, JTN)
Despite overwhelming evidence that condom use prevents the transmission of HIV, U.S. prison officials
continue to limit the availability of condoms to incarcerated persons. Fewer than one percent of
correctional facilities provide condoms to inmates, though those that do include some of the nations
largest urban prisons. These policies stand in stark contrast to the public health approach taken by
prison officials in Canada, Western Europe, Australia, Ukraine, Romania and Brazil, where condoms
have been available to inmates for years. Moreover, several large, urban prisons in federal jurisdiction, as
well as one state, have provided condoms to inmates, either through medical staff or more general
distribution. Where institutional policy provides for condom distribution, no correctional system has yet
to find any grounds to reverse or repeal that policy. Leading correctional health experts endorse
condom distribution in prisons. The National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), the
nations primary standard- setting and accreditation body in the field of corrections, has endorsed the
implementation of harm reduction strategies, including condom distribution. The Commission states, While
NCCHC clearly does not condone illegal activity by inmates, the public health strategy to reduce the risk of
contagion is our primary concern. 9 Further, the American Public Health Association Standards for Health
Services in Correctional Institutions (3rd Edition, 2003) recommends that condoms be available for inmates.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

6
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
Plan: The United States Federal government should offer free condoms to all incarcerated
persons in all prisons in the United States.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

7
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
Advantage 1: AIDS
First, With an increased number of infected individuals in prison, the Governments failure
to provide access to condoms increases the risk of HIV/AIDS
McLemore, Health and Human Rights Researcher at the Human Rights Watch, 2008
(Megan, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 6-27-8 Access to condoms in U.S. prisons HIV/AIDS Policy &
Law Review 13(1) http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=1349, Accessed July 5,
2009, JTN)
More than 2.2 million persons are currently incarcerated in U.S. prisons. Incarcerated individuals bear
a disproportionate burden of infectious diseases, including the hepatitis B virus (HBV), the hepatitis C
virus (HCV), and HIV/AIDS. Although inmates comprise only 0.8 percent of the U.S. population, it is
estimated that 1215 percent of Americans with chronic HBV infection, 39 percent of those with chronic
HCV infection, and 2026 percent of those with HIV infection pass through a correctional facility each
year.2 The HIV prevalence in state and federal prisons is two and a half times higher than in the
general population.3 The prevalence of HCV among prisoners approaches 40 percent. 4 Co-infection is
also a concern: A significant number of HIV-positive inmates are also infected with HCV. Although the
majority of inmates infected with HBV, HCV and HIV acquired the infection outside of prison, the
transmission of infectious disease in prison is increasingly well documented.5 Targeted interventions to
reduce the risk of HIV transmission in prison, such as the provision of condoms, methadone
maintenance treatment, and supplying bleach to clean needles and syringes, have proven highly effective in
preventing HIV transmission in prisons, just as they have been when implemented outside. These harm
reduction approaches have been endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS and the UN
Office of Drugs and Crime as an integral part of HIV prevention strategies, including in prison.6
Government failure to ensure access to harm reduction services puts inmates at unnecessarily
increased risk of infection.

And studies conclude that HIV transmission is high and that risk factors and lack of
prevention multiply and lead to a huge transmission risk
Jurgens World Health Organization 2007
Ralf EVIDENCE FOR ACTION TECHNICAL PAPERS EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS
HIV IN PRISONS Pg. 49 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596190_eng.pdf
The infrequency of reports of HIV and HCV transmission has led some to a belief that transmission
occurs rarely among prisoners (Braithwaite et al, 1996; Horsburgh, 1990) . A more likely explanation is that
confirmation of transmission is more difficult in prisons than community settings (Dolan, Wodak, 1999;
Maguire et al., 1995). Ascertaining whether transmission occurred in prison or in the community prior to entry is complicated when
infections such as HIV and HCV have long incubation periods. Determination of HCV transmission is further complicated by the fact
that infection does not usually result in acute illness. While it is difficult to gather conclusive evidence, transmission

does occur in prison and there is increasing evidence that HIV and HCV transmission in prison is a
major public health concern, particularly where there is a substantial pool of infection in the
community from which prisoners come, risk behaviors are prevalent in prison, and prevention
measures are not available to prisoners. The small number of retrospective and prospective studies undertaken in the United
States found relatively low levels of HIV transmission in prisons, but many of them were conducted before 1986, early in the HIV
epidemic, when rates of HIV were relatively low, and/or in States in which HIV infection rates are generally relatively low; it is
therefore not surprising that they found lower rates of transmission. In contrast, studies that used mathematical models

and
particularly outbreak investigations found higher levels of HIV transmission and demonstrated how
rapidly HIV can spread in prison. A number of studies have also provided conclusive evidence of HCV
transmission in prison. Transmission was attributed to sharing of injecting equipment (OSullivan et al., 2003; Haber et al.,
1999), lacerations from barbers shears and lacerations arising from physical assault (Haber et al., 1999), tattooing (although injecting
drug use could not be completely discounted as the route of transmission: Post et al., 2001), and a blood splash to the eye (Rosen, 1997).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

8
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
And prison sex is the biggest transmission risk for HIV
Jurgens World Health Organization 2007
Ralf EVIDENCE FOR ACTION TECHNICAL PAPERS EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS
HIV IN PRISONS Pg. 50 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596190_eng.pdf
In one US study of HIV transmission in prison, sex between men accounted for the largest proportion
of prisoners who contracted HIV inside prison. It estimated that 49% of 33 prisoners for whom it
could be proven that they contracted HIV in prison contracted it by having sex with another man. Only
18% were estimated to have contracted HIV via injecting drug use (15% had both risk factors, and 18% had
other risk factors: Krebs and Simmons, 2002). In another study, of HIV transmission among male
prisoners in the state prison system of Georgia, male to- male sex in prison was significantly associated
with HIV seroconversion during incarceration (CDC, 2006; Wohl, 2006). Macher, Kibble, and Wheeler
(2006) documented acute retroviral syndrome in a prisoner after he had intercourse with two HIV-positive
prisoners.

Yet despite federal law prohibiting sex, prison inmates continue to have unprotected sex,
spreading HIV and other dangerous viruses
The New York Times, editorial, 2007
(Fighting AIDS behind bars, July 18, p. 18, NAP)
Prison inmates have unprotected sex, despite laws forbidding it and denial by prison officials, which
makes prisons prime settings for the spread of deadly blood-borne viruses like hepatitis C and H.I.V. The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention underscored this point last year when it urged states without condomdistribution programs to think about starting them as a way of preventing the spread of H.I.V. behind
bars. By protecting the inmates, the states would also protect the all-too-vulnerable wives and lovers to
whom they inevitably return when their sentences are completed. The California State Legislature tried to take the
C.D.C.'s advice last year, passing a landmark bill that would have allowed public health agencies to enter prisons and distribute condoms
to inmates who wanted them. The bill had the overwhelming support of the voting public. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it,
using the familiar know-nothing excuse that handing out condoms would justify illegal sexual activity. The experience of jurisdictions
that allow condoms does not support this view. At the same time, public health officials now recognize that condomdistribution programs are integral to any meaningful AIDS prevention program. These programs are already
running in prisons in Canada and in much of the European Union and in jails in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City,
Philadelphia and Washington.

Condom distribution is vital to any attempt to curb the spread of HIV and AIDS-97% of
prisoners will eventually rejoin the community.
Boykin and Harris in 2k5 (Keith, former Clinton White House Aid, and Lynn, Journalist and Author, Beyond
the Down Low, 277-278)
Fourth, we need free condom distribution in prisons. Whether or not we like to admit it, men have sex
with other men in prison. The confirmed AIDS rate in state and federal prisons was more than three
times higher than in the total U.S. population, according to a study of HIV in prisons in 2001. Given the
disproportionate incarceration of black men in the U.S. penal system, black men bear an even greater
risk than white men of being exposed to HIV while incarcerated and then bringing the virus back to
their community upon release. In the federal prison system, 97 percent of inmates will eventually be
released back into society. But condoms are banned or unavailable in more than 95 percent of U.S.
prisons, according to the New York Times. We cannot think of the prison crisis as unrelated to the larger
AIDS epidemic. If we want to protect the non-incarcerated population, we must also protect the
incarcerated.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

9
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
Failure to distribute condoms poses a health risk to the population for contracting HIV
Appel, writer for the Inter Press Service, 2007.
Adrianne, Inter Press Service HIV/AIDS: Racism, Gov't Apathy Fuel US Epidemic, 11/30/2007,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/30/5532, accessed 7/7/09, TAZ)
The widespread ban against condom distribution in prisons, which house massive numbers of black
men and poor whites, feeds into the epidemic, Britton said. Only the state of Vermont and prisons in five
U.S. cities make condoms available to inmates, according to an AP/International Herald Tribune survey.
'There are 11 million people in the U.S. who have been in prison at some point. That's an enormous
risk if you have people in that pool who are HIV infected,' Britton said. 'If you go out 10-20 years you'd
have 20 million people who have graduated from prison,' she said. There is no public health program
to test and treat them for HIV after they leave prison, she said. A report released this month by the
criminal justice research group JFA Associates. estimated that one in three African American men will
spend time in prison during their lives.

AIDS causes mass suffering and risks extinction


Mashiri, Department of African Languages and Literature at the University of Zimbabwe
Mawomo University of Zimbabwe and Iom University of Zimbabwe, 2002.
(Pedzisai, Kenneth Patrick. Zmnbezin (2002), XXIX (ii), Naming the Pandemic: Semantic and Ethical Foundations
of HIV/AIDS Shona Vocabulary 2002, http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/Journal %20of
%20the%20University%20of%20Zimbabwe/vol29n2/juz029002010.pdf, accessed 7/9/09 TAZ)
The names Shuramatongo, Mukondombera, Mubatanidziva, Mupurirapasi, Chakapedzambudzi, Jemedza,
Kurudzikutiemakuva, Mutsvairo, Paradzai, Mupedzanyika, Gukurahundi and Chazezesa are all image-based
and symbolic expressions that point out the impact of HIV/A IDS on the family, community, nation and
the world at large. All these names typify the threat that HIV/AIDS poses on humanity as it sweeps
across the world in a massive tidal wave of misery and death. Shuramatongo and Mukondombera seem to
be the names used in official discourse since they have been used since time immemorial among the Shona to
refer to any pandemic affecting people, crops and livestock. Shuramatongo implies HIV / AIDSs potential
to wipe out entire families and communities, turning homesteads into 'ruins'. The noun shura 'bad omen'
and matongo 'deserted homesteads or ruins' paint a picture of a bleak future. Mubatanidziva, on the one hand,
connotes the patients' lack of immunity and their vulnerability to opportunistic infections, and on the
other hand, the potential of HIV/AIDS to infect large numbers of people. In a family it could infect
wife, husband and the unborn child. These names therefore, symbolise the demise of the family
institution, the basic unit upon which communities are built. Mupurirapasi, Chakapedzambudzi,
Kurudzikunemakuva, Mutsvairo, Paradzai, Mupedzanyika and Gukurahundi epitomise the devastation
caused by HIV/AIDS. Mupurirapasi and Kurudzikunemakuva present vivid images of communities
littered with graves. Mutsvairo, Paradzai, Mupedzanyika, Jemedza and Gukurahundi show how HIV/AIDS
literally wipes out families and communities and threaten the extinction of the human race.

We have a moral obligation to provide condoms in prison-it is the only way to protect both
prisoners and their home communities
Staples a member of the New York Times editorial board 2007
Brent The New York Times October 21 Fighting AIDS in America's prisons ; MEANWHILE Lexis
The prison data cries out for an AIDS-prevention strategy that would encompass all of the nation's
jails and prisons. At a minimum, the program would give inmates free and open access to condoms. The
prison system is now dominated by the dangerous notion that distributing condoms would encourage
prisoners to break the rules by having sex. As a result, condoms are unavailable in most jails and prisons.
Prison authorities have resisted condom distribution despite intense criticism from health officials, who have
pointed out time and again that condoms are freely distributed in prisons in many countries, including
Canada. The Canadian model is commendable in that it applies clear, specific rules throughout the prison
system and leaves little to the judgment of local prison officials. The directive requires that condoms be
made "easily and discreetly available" in areas where inmates can get them without having to interact
with guards. The point is to ensure that inmates do not bypass condoms out of fear or embarrassment.
The connection between the prison experience and the spread of AIDS outside prison is especially clear

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

10
Prisons Aff

in poor communities, where a great many men spend time behind bars at some point in their lives. But
with millions of people regularly exposed to HIV in the prison system, the entire country has both a
moral and a medical obligation to confront the sexual realities of prison life. Until then, lives will be
lost and prison-borne diseases will continue to spread from the corrections system into the community
at large.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

11
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
And condoms successfully combat HIVmultiple studies prove
Tucker, Chang and Tulsky, Division of Infectious Diseases Massachusetts General Hospital, University of
California San Francisco, Department of Medicine and the Positive Health Program, University of California San
Francisco, 2007
(Joseph, Suzanne and Jacqueline, The catch 22 of condoms in US correctional facilities, BMC Public Health, 7:296,
2007, JWS)
The importance of condoms for sexual HIV prevention among inmates and within correctional settings
has been known for some time [4,5]. Condoms are a core component of basic HIV prevention services
recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization [6,7]. The
WHO recommendations on HIV in prisons specifically calls for widespread condom availability for all
inmates [8]. The Institute of Medicine has argued for expanded STI services among disadvantaged
populations [9]. The Institute recommended that detention facilities provide comprehensive STI-related
services, including counseling and education, screening, diagnosis and treatment, partner notification and
treatment, as well as methods for reducing unprotected sex. Several studies highlight that unprotected sex
facilitates HIV and STI transmission in correctional settings [10-16]. Seroprevalence data indicate that
HIV seroprevalence among incarcerated individuals is fivefold greater than the seroprevalence among
the general population [17]. Most HIV positive inmates enter the correctional system with infection, and do
not acquire it during incarceration. Lack of testing upon entry or release in prisons obscures the extent to
which HIV negative inmates acquire HIV during prison stays. There are currently 19 states with mandatory
HIV testing on entry, and Centers for Disease Control data from one state (Georgia) recently investigated
HIV seroconversion in correctional settings. In a study of 17 years of HIV testing data, 88 HIV positive
individuals who seroconverted during incarceration were identified [2]. Although this corresponds to a low
incidence of HIV infection in prisons, the number of individuals diagnosed with new HIV infections in
prison settings is heavily influenced by testing policies. The majority of new HIV infections in the Georgia
corrections system were discovered during a period when voluntary annual HIV testing was available to
inmates. In other studies, even after controlling for the six-month window period between infection and
serologic detection, annual HIV transmission rates in prison ranged from 0.3 to 0.63 percent [10-13]. The
lower end estimate for HIV incidence among incarcerated (0.3%) among 2,000,000 new inmates annually
[17] results in 6,000 new HIV infections acquired each year in corrections that could be prevented with
condoms in corrections facilities. Outbreaks of syphilis [14,18], gonorrhea [19], and Hepatitis B[15,16]
in prisons provide further support that unprotected sex occurs in jails and prisons. Studies of sexual
behaviors in prisons are limited by recall bias and confidentiality, but similarly show high risk
behaviors occurring in prisons and jails [4].

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

12
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
Advantage 2: Stigmatization
First, male/male rape is a taboo subject because of societal homophobia-this limits
opportunities for those labeled as gay to gain standing in the political community
Sivakumaran, 05
(Sandesh, Male/Male Rape and the "Taint" of Homosexuality, Human Rights Quarterly,
http://muse.jhu.edu.floyd.lib.umn.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v027/27.4sivakumaran.html, 7/7/09, DKL)
The same is true of the queer movement. It could reasonably have been thought that the queer movement
has a lot to gain from the international community's attention being drawn to the subject of male/male rape.
It would help directly the portion of those rapes that are an extension of "queer-bashing," i.e. the rape
of a male for reason of his actual or perceived sexual orientation. A number of authors have noted the link between
male rape and sex discrimination,38 while others have explicated the connection between sex discrimination and homophobia.39 In
light of these linkages, drawing attention to male/male rape would indirectly challenge homophobic
attitudes in all cases of male/male rape regardless of the sexuality, actual or perceived, of the victim or
of the aggressor. Yet neither of these potential gains has proved sufficient for the queer movement to
actively address the subject of male/male rape. Three reasons may explain this. First, the queer
movement may be wary that drawing attention to the issue of male/male rape perpetuates the notion
that it is only homosexuals who are parties to such rapes. This would have the opposite effect to that which is
intended, namely reinforcement of such myths already prevalent in society. This is not to suggest that male/male rape does not take place
within the homosexual community, simply that the queer movement may not wish to draw attention to those instances in the fear that
this will reinforce inaccurate public perceptions of homosexuals. Second, the queer movement is rarely given a voice at

the international level.40 Even at the domestic level, such voice is limited. Given the limited
opportunity to [End Page 1283] be heard, let alone listened to, a tactical decision may have been made
to concentrate on one area, that of equality and nondiscrimination. These issues are of obvious
importance and would also clearly lead to a reduction in homophobia. Third, the queer movement may
argue that it does indeed address male/male rape, or rather that part of it, which can be considered
"queer-bashing," in the form of hate crimes and the right to bodily integrity.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

13
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
And restricting access to condoms in prisons is one of the most serious forms of
homophobia prisoners face-it stigmatizes gay sex and uniquely puts those involved in
homosexual sex at risk for HIV
Calahane in 2k5 (Claudia, Staff Writer, The Guardian, Unlocking Equal Rights,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/31/crime.penal)
The murder of a young gay man on Clapham Common shocked many people. In light of the Civil Partnership Act, which will allow gay
people to marry from December, many felt that society was moving on from homophobia. But the truth is gay

people are still regularly dealing with prejudice and bullying in the classroom, in the workplace, and some
of the most extreme examples are in male prisons, where they can face abuse or rape and are having
their health put at risk because of their sexuality. Steve Taylor, director of campaign group Forum on Prisoner Education, says that
while life has improved for gay male prisoners in the past couple of years, he still regularly speaks to men who are being treated appallingly by staff and
fellow inmates. For the past two years, Mr Taylor, who is gay himself, has been involved in trying to set up the Campaign for Gay Prisoners to promote
equal treatment and help gay men in prison gain better access to condoms and gay magazines. The campaign is yet to fully get off the ground, but he says
this kind of organisation is very much needed. "Only a year ago I met a prisoner who was lying in his cell reading a copy of Gay Times when three inmates
burst in and set fire to the magazine and injured him," says Mr Taylor. "He had to spend three days in hospital." Working in prisons every day, he is certainly
not short of these stories. He talks of another situation where a gay prisoner who, upon telling a guard that he had just been beaten up by six prisoners, was
met with the response that he should have "kept his head down" to avoid trouble .

Rape is also a serious concern in prison. Many of


these attacks involve gay men being raped by prisoners who identify as heterosexual, says Mr Taylor. One gay
prisoner told him that he reported being raped to a guard who replied: "Well you are gay aren't you, so what's the problem?" As well as the physical
violence, there are a number of other examples of poor treatment of gay prisoners, such as the fact that sexually explicit gay magazine Boyz has often been
barred, whereas straight men are allowed equally explicit material. Love letters which contain graphic, but legal, content have also been censored from gay
prisoners, according to campaigners. But perhaps

the most serious issue is the lack of condoms available to those who
are sexually active. The gay media has reported incidents where prisoners have used makeshift
condoms from clingfilm, cellotape or empty crisp packets, along with shampoo or Vaseline for lubricant.
Safer sex charity the Terrence Higgins Trust, which provides sexual health services in some prisons, says
access to condoms varies from one prison to the next. Prison doctors were advised by the service in 1995 that they
should supply condoms to individual inmates, "on application if in their clinical judgment there is a risk of transmission of HIV infection
during sexual activity". But campaigners say that many prisoners do not have the confidence to request condoms, and are therefore
putting themselves and others at risk. "Condoms need to be freely available to all prisoners from a place where

they can pick up a packet easily and discreetly," says Mr Taylor.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

14
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
The exclusion of prisoners rights is only the beginning-homophobia structures the law
around the creation of excluded queer identities
Butler in 98 (Judith, PhD, Yale, Maxine Elliot Professor in the Departments of Rhetoric and Comparative
Literature, Women, Autobiography, Theory: a reader, Introduction to Bodies that Matter, pg 368)
At stake in such a reformulation of the materiality of bodies will be the following: (1) the recasting of the
matter of bodies as the effect of a dynamic of power, such that the matter of bodies will be indissociable
from the regulatory norms that govern their materialization and the signification of those material
effects; (2) the understanding of performativity not as the act by which a subject brings into being what
she/he names, but, rather, as that reiterative power of discourse to produce the phenomena that it regulates
and constrains; (3) the construal of sex no longer as a bodily given on which the construct of gender is
artificially imposed, but as a cultural norm which governs the materialization of bodies; (4) a rethinking
of the process by which a bodily norm is assumed, appropriated, taken on as not, strictly speaking, undergone
by a subject but rather that the subject, the speaking I, is formed by virtue of having gone through such a
process of assuming a sex; and (5) a linking of this process of assuming a sex with the question of
identification, and with the discursive means by which the heterosexual imperative enables certain
sexed identifications and forecloses and for disavows other identifications. This exclusionary matrix by
which subjects are formed thus requires the simultaneous production of a domain of abject beings,
those who are not yet subjects, but who form the constitutive outside to the domain of the subject.
The abject designates here precisely those unlivable and uninhabitable zones of social life which are
nevertheless densely populated by those who do not enjoy the status of the subject, but whose living
under the sign of the unlivable is required to circumscribe the domain of the subject. This zone of
uninhabitability will constitute the defining limit of the subjects domain; it will constitute that site of
dreaded identification against whichand by virtue of whichthe domain of the subject will circumscribe
its own claim to autonomy and to uk. In this sense, then, the subject is constituted through the force of
exclusion and abjection, one which produces a constitutive outside to the subject, an abjected outside,
which is, after all, inside the subject as its own founding repudiation.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

15
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
The condemnation of homosexual intercourse results in physical violence against queer
Others-it reinforces masculinity as the norm, and violently excludes opposing identities.
Pugliese in 2k7 (Joseph, Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, Abu Ghraiband its Shadow Archives, 19
Cardozo Stud. L. & Lit. 247, lexis nexis)
Repeated throughout both the Abu Ghraib torture photographs and the documented testimonies of the victims
is what Lee Edelman calls the "spectacle of sodomy" 81 The rape and sexual assault of the male Iraqi
prisoners by the U.S. guards must be seen as homophobically transcoding homosexuality: in other
words, sexual practices (sodomy) and sexualities (homosexuality) that challenge regimes of
heteronormativity are violently transcoded as [*269] "aberrant" and "perverse" and are thus absorbed
into a hetero-fascist eroticisation and aestheticisation of torture that targets the homosexual, the crossdresser, the feminized Oriental male, and so on. "[T]he aesthetic linkage of nazism and fascism to sadomasochism, impurity, degeneration, decadence, femininity, and homosexuality," Ravetto argues,
"overwrites the image of the Nazi or fascist with the image of woman and the sexual deviant" 82 and, I
would add, the racialised other. In this economy of homophobic and phallocentric violence, anal penetration is
performed in order to debase and humiliate the prisoners: "To be penetrated," writes Leo Bersani, "is to abdicate power"; its intended
effects are a "radical disintegration and humiliation of the self." 83 Operative in this homophobic and phallocentric scripting of anal
penetration are both gendered and racialised inflections: the subject of anal penetration is marked as
"feminine" in being positioned as "passive" and "receptive" and this marking is, in turn, overcoded by Orientalist
fantasies designed to render the Arab male a "woman." This charged intersection of Orientalism, homophobia, and misogyny was
evidenced by the way the prison guards forced the male prisoners to wear women's underwear over their heads. The transcoding

of homosexual sexual desire into acts of homophobic violence, that are still compelled to reproduce
homoerotically-coded practices (for example, anal penetration), enables the violent disavowal of this selfsame desire: "mutilation and sadism," Steve Neale argues, "are marks both of the repression involved and of a means by which the
male body may be disqualified, so to speak, as an object of erotic contemplation and desire." 84 In the context of the U.S. military's
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on homosexuality, and its institutional history of homophobia, the Orientalist encoding of Abu

Ghraib--as space of "perverted" behaviour and "limitless orgy"--effectively enabled the unhindered
exercise of violent forms of homophobia.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

16
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
This norm of masculinity is not harmless-it has direct consequences, including war,
environmental destruction, and mass death
Warren and Cady in 96 (Karen, PhD and professor of philosophy @ Macalester university , and Duane, Professor
of Philosophy and Department Chair at Hamline University, Bringing Peace Home, pg 12)
Patriarchal conceptual frameworks sanction, maintain, and perpetuate impaired thinking, (h): For
example, that men can control womens inner lives, that it is mens role to determine womens choices,
that human superiority over nature justifies human exploitation of nature, that women are closer to
nature than men because they are less rational, more emotional, and respond in more instinctual ways
than (dominant) men. The discussions above at (4) and (5) are examples of the linguistic and
psychological forms such impaired thinking can take. Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a
dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise, (c), and the unmanageability, (d).
which results. For example, in the United Stares, current estimates are that one out of every three or four
women will be raped by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual harassment, spouse-beating, and sadomasochistic pornography are examples of behaviors practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy.
In the realm of environmentally destructive behaviors, strip-mining, factory farming, and pollution of
the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and sanctioned within patriarchy. They, too,
rest on the faulty belief that it is okay to rape the earth, that it is mans God-given right to have
dominion (that is, domination) over the earth, that nature has only instrumental value, that
environmental destruction is the acceptable price we pay for progress. And the presumption of warism,
that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to impose dominion on a people or nation, goes hand in
hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of nations and ultimately to international onmanageability. Much of the current unmanageability of contemporary life in patriarchal societies, (d), is
then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events, and experiences that
reflect historically male-gender-identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions. Included among
these real-life consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation, war, environmental
destruction, and violence toward women, which many feminists see as the logical outgrowth of patriarchal
thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviorsthe symptoms of
dysfunctionality that one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and perpetuate
them. When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this unmanageability can be seen for what
it isas a predictable and thus logical consequence of patriarchy).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

17
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
And, heterosexism is a pervasive form of structural violenceit must be rejected
Ofreneo in 2k6 (Mira Alexis, teaches psychology at the Ateneo de Manila University and writes a weekly lesbian
advice column in the Womens Journal magazine circulated in the Philippines, Talking Points, When Thinking
Straight is Detrimental to Health, Isis International, http://www.isiswomen.org/downloads/wia/wia-20061/09ofreneo_WIA1_06.pdf)
We live in a world that thinks straight, most of the time. Human beings are assumed to be just male and
female, and the point of existence is for males and females to find each other and experience romantic
and erotic bliss. Thus, everything in the worldclothes, public toilets, movies, identities, human rights,
health services, love songs, shoes, family, socialisation processes, magazines, lawsis designed with the
heterosexual male and the heterosexual female in mind. Some people have already realised the
enormous mistake of the sex/gender/orientation binaries. But because of the pervasiveness and almost
invisible quality of structural forms of violence, which is what heteronormativity is, it is sometimes too
easy to forget that there are other people in this world who are neither straight male nor straight
female.

Structural violence outweighs subjective violence-disad impacts are only valued because
they are compared to a normally functioning system. Structural violence proves that
normalcy doesnt exist.
iek 2008 senior researcher at the Institute of Sociology @ Univ. of Ljubljana,
[Slavoj, senior researcher at the Institute of Sociology @ Univ. of Ljubljana, Violence, p. 1-2]
If there is a unifying thesis that runs through the bric-a-brac of reflections on violence that follow, it is that a
similar paradox holds true for violence. At the forefront of our minds, the obvious signals of violence are
acts of crime and terror, civil unrest, international conflict. But we should learn to step back, to
disentangle ourselves from the fascinating lure of this directly visible "subjective" violence, violence
performed by a clearly identifiable agent. We need to perceive the contours of the background which
generates such outbursts. A step back enables us to identify a violence that sustains our very efforts to
fight violence and to promote tolerance. This is the starting point, perhaps even the axiom, of the present
book: subjective violence is just the most visible portion of a triumvirate that also includes two
objective kinds of violence. First, there is a "symbolic" violence embodied in language and its forms, what
Heidegger would call "our house of being." As we shall see later, this violence is not only at work in the
obvious-and extensively studied-cases of incitement and of the relations of social domination reproduced in
our habitual speech forms: there is a more fundamental form of violence still that pertains to language as
such, to its imposition of a certain universe of meaning. Second, there is what I call "systemic" violence, or
the often catastrophic consequences of the smooth functioning of our economic and political systems.
The catch is that subjective and objective violence cannot be perceived from the same standpoint:
subjective violence is experienced as such against the background of a non-violent zero level. It is seen
as a perturbation of the "normal," peaceful state of things. However, objective violence is precisely the
violence inherent to this "normal" state of things. Objective violence is invisible since it sustains the
very zero-level standard against which we perceive something as subjectively violent. Systemic violence
is thus something like the notorious "dark matter" of physics, the counterpart to an all-too visible
subjective violence. It may be invisible, but it has to be taken into account if one is to make sense of
what otherwise seem to be "irrational" explosions of subjective violence.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

18
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
Advantage 3: Human Rights
Human rights violations are perceived internationally- hypocrisy undermines our ability
to promote our soft power
Clapham Professor of International Law 2007
Andrew Human Rights pg. 68 Google Books Accessed 7/9/09 TC http://books.google.com/books?
id=7s93B2iwX_8C&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq="human+rights"+"soft+power"+prison+guantanamo&source=bl
&ots=yVdbhbLaen&sig=H7Jf9lXIdz0dGOIspXr2FQwsKho&hl=en&ei=eaVWSrLbI46IsgO3t53KDg&sa=X&o
i=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
Qiao Zonghuai, the Chinese Ambassador, robustly exercised his 'right of reply': The United States is used
to pointing fingers at other countries human rights situation, but back in its own country, there exist
gross violations of human rights: notorious racial discrimination, police brutality, torture in prison,
infringement on women's rights and campus gun killings. A country like the US with such poor human
rights record has no right to judge other countries' human rights situation at UN forum. We advise that,
instead of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries under the pretext of human rights, the US
should spend more time to examine its own human rights situation. Otherwise it will end up with lifting a
rock only to drop it on his own feet. This is not an exchange about Asian values. This is about seeing that
human rights foreign policy is only convincing when rooted in respect for the same values at home.
Joseph Nye`s recent appeal for the use of soft power` recognizing this challenge: The United States,
like other countries, expresses its values in what it does and what it says. Political values like democracy
and human rights earn be powerful sources of` attraction, but it is not just enough to proclaim them.
Others watch how Americans implement our values at home as well as abroad. A Swedish diplomat
recently told me, All countries want to promote the values we believe in. l think the most criticized part
of the US's (and possibly most rich countries) soft power 'packaging' is the perceived double standard
and inconsistencies} Perceived hypocrisy is particularly corrosive of power that is based on proclaimed
values. Those who scorn or despise us for hypocrisy are less likely to want to help us achieve our policy
objectives.

Healthcare is internationally recognized as an inalienable right of prisoners


McLemore Human Rights and HIV/AIDS Program at Human Rights Watch 2008
Megan VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, JULY 2008 HIV/AIDS POLICY & LAW REVIEW Access to Condoms in U.S.
Prisons
In its treatment of prisoners, the U.S. must comply with its international human rights obligations. The
U.S. is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees to
all persons persons the right to life, and to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and, if
deprived of their liberty, to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the
human person. The U.S. is also a party to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which protects all
persons from torture and ill treatment; and is a signatory of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which guarantees the right to the highest attainable standard of
health.12 The obligations to protect the rights to life and health, and to protect against torture and
other ill treatment create positive duties on the government to ensure access to adequate medical
services and to take appropriate measures necessary to prevent and control disease.13 International
human rights law clearly affirms that prisoners retain fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed
under human rights law, subject to the restrictions that are unavoidable in a closed environment. The
conditions of confinement should not aggravate the suffering inherent in imprisonment, because loss of
liberty alone is the punishment. States have positive obligations to take measures to ensure that
conditions of confinement comply with international human rights norms and standards. The Human
Rights Committee, an expert UN body that monitors state compliance with the ICCPR and provides
authoritative interpretations of its provisions, has explained that states have a positive obligation towards
persons who are particularly vulnerable because of their status as persons deprived of liberty.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

19
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
And specifically, prisoners have the right to condoms
McLemore Human Rights and HIV/AIDS Program at Human Rights Watch 2008
Megan VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, JULY 2008 HIV/AIDS POLICY & LAW REVIEW Access to Condoms in U.S.
Prisons
The WHO guidance also state that prisoners are entitled to prevention programs equivalent to those
available in their community, and specifically addresses the issue of condom distribution in a prison
environment: Preventative measures for HIV/AIDS in prison should be complementary to and
compatible with those in the community. Preventative measures should also be based on risk
behaviours actually occurring in prisons, notably needle sharing among injection drug users and
unprotected sexual intercourse. Since penetrative sexual intercourse occurs in prison, even when
prohibited, condoms should be made available to prisoners throughout their period of detention.17

Gay rights are uniquely key to bolstering international human rights-each victory is
important
Narayan in 2k6 (Pratima, Boston University International Law Journal, SOMEWHERE OVER THE
RAINBOW... INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FOR SEXUAL MINORITIES IN THE NEW
MILLENNIUM, 24 B.U. Int'l L.J. 313, lexis-nexis)
Sexual relationships represent a fundamental element of individual identity and an intimate aspect of
an individual's private life. Although there have always been - and will always be - people who engage in
homosexual relationships and activities, being "gay" is a modern political concept that has emerged in
response to the deprivation of rights on the basis of sexual orientation. 1 Sexual minorities 2 have made
substantial [*314] progress in obtaining protections of their basic human rights in Australia, parts of Latin
America, North America, South Africa and Western Europe, 3 but discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation still persists throughout most of the developing world. 4 Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (GLBT)
relations are criminalized in over eighty-two nations, 5 and the penalty for being gay often includes public humiliation, hard labor,
confinement, torture, harassment, blackmail, spurious trials with no right to appeal or death. 6 Very few of these laws, however, actually
specify the type of conduct that is forbidden, and this lack of specificity allows states greater flexibility in implementing these laws. 7
Further, many states disproportionately enforce sodomy laws, taking a stronger stance taken against

homosexuals. 8 Less visible forms of discrimination thrive in countries that have passed antidiscrimination legislation on behalf of sexual minorities. Indeed, many governments fail to enforce their antidiscrimination statutes, 9 leaving GLBT individuals unable to exercise the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. 10 For
instance, in November 2005, Brazil, a country leading the battle for GLBT rights, 11 censored the first televised gay kiss. 12 As a result,
gay activists protested, including staging a rally advocating for legislation that would allow same-sex marriage. 13 In February [*315]
2005, in South Africa, another nation on the forefront of gay rights, 14 the National Blood Services Organization issued a statement
declaring that it would not accept blood donations from openly gay men. 15 Additionally , the majority of states within the

United States have not granted gay couples the same marriage, child custody or immigration rights as
heterosexual couples. 16 International human rights instruments mandate that human rights
standards be applied without discrimination. 17 Nevertheless, none of these documents explicitly outlaws
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 18 Sexual minorities continue to fear the overwhelming
threats of state-sanctioned persecution, and stronger international protections for gays and lesbians are
necessary to achieve even the most fundamental human rights.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

20
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
We have a moral obligation to uphold human rights in all possible instances
Knox, Professor of Law Wake Forest University School of Law. 08
(John H., The American Journal Of International Law, HORIZONTAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, 3-4, accessed July 9, 2009)
At the beginning of the modern human rights movement, proposals for human rights instruments often included suggestions for duties.
Although advocates sometimes presented the duties as correlating to human rights - that is, as duties to respect or fulfill particular
rights - most of the proposals were actually duties owed by the individual to the community or state, stemming from the view that

human beings have moral and legal duties as well as rights, and that international law should not
recognize one without the other. The first of these instruments, the American Declaration of the
Rights and Duties of Man, adopted by Latin American countries and the United States in 1 948,
emphasizes human rights and duties equally, as its title suggests.4 The negotiators of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights considered taking the same approach.5 They decided, however,
that while human beings undoubtedly owe duties to their societies, any effort to write such duties into international law on a basis of equality with
human rights would provide governments with excuses to limit those rights. As a result, they decided not to list private duties at all. At the same
time, they recognized that converse duties owed by individuals to the state would still exist in domestic law, and that such duties would sometimes
have to outweigh or limit the exercise of human rights .

They therefore turned their attention to setting out


restrictions on governments' ability to limit human rights. The Universal Declaration has been the
seminal document for human rights law, and its progeny, especially the two International
Covenants on Human Rights and the American and European Conventions on Human Rights,
have followed its approach, relegating private duties to their margins and constraining the ways
that governments can employ private duties to limit the exercise of human rights. Although the
period of negotiation of the American Declaration partly overlapped with that of the Universal
Declaration, the American Declaration was completed and adopted first, in May 1948, at the same
conference that created the Organization of American States. The American Declaration devotes
one chapter each to rights and duties. Many of the rights were later included in the Universal
Declaration: civil and political rights such as the rights to life, to freedom of opinion and
expression, and to basic protections in criminal proceedings; and economic, social, and cultural
rights such as the rights to health, education, work, and social security. Some of its duties correspond to
particular rights, but only one or two are correlative.6 Instead, most of the duties that correspond to rights state that everyone has a duty to exercise
what had previously been described as a right. For example, the declaration lists rights to an education, to participate in government, and to work, and
also lists duties to acquire an education, to vote and to serve in office if elected, and to work.7 In addition to duties that correspond to specific rights,
the American Declaration names some duties that have no explicit relationship to any particular rights. They include duties of each person - "to
obey the law and other legitimate commands of the authorities of his country and those of the country in which he may be"; - "to render whatever civil
and military service his country may require for its defense and preservation"; - "to cooperate with the state and the community with respect to
social security and welfare, in accordance with his ability and with existing circumstances"; and - "to pay the taxes established by law for the support
of public services."8 Except for the few correlative duties, all of the duties in the declaration are explicitly or implicitly owed to the state, the
community, or the country as a whole. In that sense, they express societal interests that could limit or outweigh the rights set out in the declaration.
The "duty to work," for example, might remove the option to choose not to exercise the right to work, and could even be read as requiring the right

the "right" could be largely or entirely


subordinated to a communal decision. More general duties, such as the duty to obey the law, could
subordinate all rights in this way. The obvious question is: Which should prevail in a conflict
between such duties and
holder to work wherever the society might require. In the latter case ,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

21
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

1AC
New Human Rights policies empirically help overcome international unpopularity
Nye Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University 2008
July 3, Joseph Nye on Smart Power http://www.hks.harvard.edu/newsevents/publications/insight/international/joseph-nye-smart-power Accessed 7/9/09 TC
The United States is showing very low ratings in international public opinion polls, particularly in
Europe and Latin America, but most of all in the Muslim World. What we can do is re-learn the lesson that
we learned in Vietnam. In the 1970s the United States was also extremely unpopular and unattractive
but yet we were able to recover our soft power within a decade. We did that in part by changing our
policies. We changed our policies in the Vietnam War. We also developed new foreign policies under
President Carter with human rights, and President Regan stressed the freedom of other countries. These
helped to restore a good deal of American soft power.

SOFT POWER IMPORTANT TO EFFECTIVE HARD POWER


Nye, Harvard, 2004
(Joseph, Soft Power: the means to success in world politics, p. 29-30, accessed July 9, 2009)
Skeptics argue that because countries cooperate out of self-interest, the loss of soft power does not
matter much. But the skeptics miss the point that cooperation is matter of degree, and that degree is
affected by attraction or repulsion. They also miss the point that the effects of nonstate actors and
recruitment to terrorist organization do not depend on government attitudes. Already in 2002, well
before the Iraq War, reactions against heavy-handed American policies on the Korean peninsula had led to a
dramatic drop over the past three years in the percentage of the Korean population favoring an American
alliance, from 89 to 56 percent. That will complicate dealing with the dangerous case of North Korea.
Whether in the Middle East or in East Asia, hard and soft power are inextricably intertwined in
todays world.

Loss of U.S. leadership leads to global nuclear war.


Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay Dep. Secretary of Defense The Washington Quarterly)
Global Leadership Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to
preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the
best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a
world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the
global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,
and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the
world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and
low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival,
enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant
dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to
global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

22
Prisons Aff

Inherency - No Condoms
While sex risks HIV in jails, there is nothing being done about distributing condoms for
safe sex practices
Childs, ABC News Medical Unit, 2006
(Dan, ABC News, December 14, Free Condoms for Prisoners? Barrier Contraception Could Stem High Levels of
HIV Infection in Correctional Facilities, Experts Say http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AIDS/story?
id=2724605&page=1, Accessed July 6, 2009, JTN)
Behind high prison walls, the concept of safe sex may be as foreign as that of freedom. But some say
this situation must change, especially because studies suggest that the prevalence of HIV infection in U.S.
prisons and jails is six to 10 times higher than that seen in the general free population. Recently, the
National Minority AIDS Council, an AIDS advocacy group, recommended that prisons curb the spread
of the virus by distributing condoms to prisoners. The idea is not a new one. According to the not-forprofit organization Human Rights Watch, prisons in Mississippi and Vermont, and jails in New York,
Philadelphia, Washington D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles already distribute condoms to inmates.
Several countries, including Canada, Australia, and most countries in the EU, also distribute condoms to
prisoners. "Whether legal or not, sex between inmates is occurring, and we must do what we can to
provide vehicles for responsible sexual behavior, including the use of condoms," said Eli Coleman,
professor and director of the Program in Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota Medical School.
"These measures should be adopted worldwide as a means of promoting safety in our prisons. This is
sound public health policy," Coleman said. Some prisons, however, are reluctant to provide condoms to
prisoners. "In our system, engaging in sex in prison or sodomy is a Class 1 misconduct," said Sheila Moore,
deputy press secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in Harrisburg, Pa. "It's against the
rules. Passing out condoms in prisons is also a security issue. Things such as drugs can be smuggled in."

A lack of condom distribution in prisons causes unsafe sex


The Herald Bulletin, Editorial, 2007
(EDITORIAL: Distribute condoms in prison, November 26, JTN)
Handing out condoms could greatly reduce the problem of venereal diseases and HIV/AIDS in prisons.
A measure in Congress made little progress this year to allow condom access in federal prisons.
According to the Associated Press, a bill in Illinois failed to clear a legislative committee in March. And a bill
in California was vetoed last month by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said the proposal conflicted with
prison regulations banning sexual activity. This is ignorance. Just because something is against the rules,
doesnt mean its not going to happen. Some prison officials say that condoms can be used to conceal
drugs. Some politicians say that condoms can encourage sex. No matter what anyone says, sex happens in
prisons. Sometimes its consensual. Sometimes its not. Ignoring the issue will not make it go away.
Providing condoms is not condoning sex, but it is recognizing that it does happen and trying to deal
with the situation in the best way possible. Prisoners have lost many of their rights, but the right to
remain healthy should not be one of them.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

23
Prisons Aff

Inherency - No Condoms
Even though HIV levels are high among prisons, the Government doesnt provide access to
condoms
McLemore, Health and Human Rights Researcher at the Human Rights Watch, 2008
(Megan, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 6-27-8 Access to condoms in U.S. prisons HIV/AIDS Policy &
Law Review 13(1) http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=1349, Accessed July 5,
2009, JTN)
The management of infectious disease in prisons is a human rights imperative as well as a matter of
public health. Given the high level of HIV infections among those who enter prison, making condoms
readily accessible to inmates is an effective and inexpensive measure that corrections officials should
take to limit the spread of infection. Recent studies indicate no adverse security consequences in
correctional systems where condoms are available. These findings, and a growing imperative to reduce
transmission in the community when offenders are released, have prompted efforts in several states and the
U.S. Congress to permit condom use in prison. These efforts should be endorsed by corrections professionals
and policymakers. Since 2006, legislators from states with the largest prison populations, such as Texas,
California, Illinois, New York and Florida, have introduced bills permitting non-profit or medical
personnel to provide condoms to inmates. At the federal level, Representative Barbara Lee has introduced
the Justice Act of 2006 (HR 6083), a comprehensive attempt to address HIV/AIDS in prison which includes a
provision permitting condom distribution to reduce transmission. None of these bills has become law, but
their introduction reflects the willingness of lawmakers to revisit a controversial issue in the interest of
public health. In Texas, for example, Representative Garnet Coleman explained to the Corrections
Committee considering his bill that it was intended to protect not only the health of inmates but the health of
members of the African-American community, where HIV transmission rates are alarmingly on the rise. In
California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill permitting widespread condom distribution but
authorized a pilot program in one prison to evaluate the feasibility of such a program.

Condoms arent distributed in prisons now


McLemore, Health and Human Rights Researcher at the Human Rights Watch, 2008
(Megan, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 6-27-8 Access to condoms in U.S. prisons HIV/AIDS Policy &
Law Review 13(1) http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=1349, Accessed July 5,
2009, JTN)
Despite increasing documentation of high rates of infectious disease, the occurrence of high-risk
behaviours, and transmission of disease among inmates, the distribution of condoms in U.S. prisons
continues to be limited. Opposition to these programs on the basis of security concerns is not supported
by the evidence provided in reports from prisons in jurisdictions that have established, evaluated and chosen
to retain their condom distribution policies. U.S. policymakers should endorse current efforts to adopt a
public health approach to this issue, thereby ensuring compliance with the recommendations of national
correctional health experts as well as with international legal standards and guidelines.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

24
Prisons Aff

Inherency - No Condoms
Current safe sex programs in prisons are failing due to a lack of condom distribution
Swarr, M.D. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 2002
(Daniel, Lafayette University, 7-16-2, AIDS, Prison, and Preventative Medicine: Society's Debt to its Debtors,
http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~vast/swarr.html, July 5, 2009, JTN)
Simply stated, American prisons currently house a large number of young, high-risk minorities that
continue to engage in such risky behaviors while in prison, and will invariably continue to do so once
they are releasedthanks to the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of current preventative programs. One
might be surprised to learn that most states do in fact provide AIDS education in some form to their inmates and have been doing so for many years (Martin
1993). In addition, it has been pointed out by a number of social scientists that inmates generally have a high knowledge of general HIV/AIDS subject
mattera knowledge-base among prisoners that dates back to early nineties (Zimmerman 1991, Hogan 1994). So, what is the problem? If inmates are so
informed, why is there such a high rate of HIV among this population? The

massive failure of current HIV/AIDS education


and prevention programs are due to a variety of causes, which can be grouped into three major categories:
failure to provide prisoners with the necessary resources to protect and/or help themselves ; failure to provide
appropriate and/or racially, culturally, and gender-specific education to prisoners; and finally, failure to provide prisoners with opportunities to learn and
practice implementing skills that they may actively use to protect themselves from HIV, both inside and outside the prison .

If rates of HIV
infection among prisoners are an indication of program success, then clearly most programs today are
failures. Many individuals, however, particularly politicians and the general public as a whole, are at the very least indifferent to the problem. Most,
either implicitly or even explicitly, have dismissed the issue under a guise of hopelessness. However, the disregard for the well-being of prisoners pushes
much deeper into the sociological framework of our nation. Below the veils of hopelessness and cries of the inevitability of HIV/AIDS rates among prison
population stems a more sinister psychology. In its shadow dismissals of the problem as "too difficult" become mere euphemisms; there is an underlying and
often unspoken belief, at least on some level, that prisoners deserve it. Similar claims were initially voiced towards homosexuals, often quite vocally, at the
beginning of the U.S. AIDS epidemic. Unlike homosexuals, however, prisoners have been legitimately accused of a crime or crimes. For this reason,
prisoners are all the more easily ignoredmost easily dismiss the cries of pain and suffering of a convicted murderer and rapist.

Condoms are unavailable in most US prisons


Reuters, 2006
(MSNBC, November 16, Condoms urged in prisons to curb AIDS Black leaders call for steps to slow HIV's spread
in minority populations http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15753803/ , accessed July 6, 2009, JTN)
It said condoms are banned or unavailable in 95 percent of U.S. prisons. It said state prisons in
Mississippi and Vermont make condoms available, as do county jails in New York City, Philadelphia,
Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles. HIV transmission does indeed occur in prison, said
the reports author, Robert Fullilove, professor of clinical sociomedical sciences at Columbia University
in New York. We certainly need to have each of the prison systems think more thoroughly about the
impact that failure to provide condoms can have if theres significant (HIV) transmission within the
walls of their facilities, Fullilove added. The report stated, Nonprofit organizations, government and
public health agencies must be allowed to discuss the relationship between substance abuse and HIV risk and
to distribute condoms in prison facilities. The report also urged prisons to provide voluntary, routine HIV
testing of inmates upon entry and release.

Condoms are banned in over 95% of prisons


STAPLES Editorial Writer 2004
BRENT Published: September 7, 2004Editorial Observer; Fighting the AIDS Epidemic by Issuing Condoms in
the Prisons New York Times http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9F01E4DD1F31F934A3575AC0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
In any given year, 35 percent of the people with tuberculosis, nearly a third of those with hepatitis C
and 17 percent of the people with AIDS pass through jails and prisons. Faced with budget crises, many
correctional facilities back away from testing inmates, fearing they will be required to pay for
expensive treatments. Condoms are banned or simply unavailable in more than 95 percent of the
nation's prisons. The corrections system processes nearly 12 million people a year. It is especially
vulnerable to AIDS and other blood-borne diseases that spread easily through risky, unprotected sex acts.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

25
Prisons Aff

Inherency - No Condoms
Only 1% of prisons distribute condoms and none provide needles. Studies prove its
popular with staff and has no major problems.
May and Williams, Medical Director, Health Educator 02
John P., Earnest L., Acceptability of Condom Availability in a U.S. Jail AIDS Education and Prevention Volume: 14 |
Issue: 5 Supplement HIV/AIDS in Correctional Settings October 2002 Page(s): 85-91 Medical director, South
Florida Reception Center, Miami, FL. Health educator, Central Detention Facility, Washington, DC
Studies have documented the transmission of HIV in incarcerated populations resulting from injection
drug use or sexual activity. Less than 1% of the jails and prisons in the United States allow inmates
access to condoms, and none allows access to needles. Results of a survey to measure the acceptability of a
condom distribution program at the Washington, DC. Central Detention Facility, where condoms are
available to inmates, are presented here. Three hundred seven inmates and 100 correctional officers were
surveyed from October 2000 through October 2001. The surveys demonstrate that the program is
generally supported and thought to be important by inmates and correctional staff. The program has
not resulted in any major security infractions and could be replicated in other correctional settings.

Even though numerous health committees have advocated for it, there is still no system in
prisons to prevent the spread of HIV/ AIDS
Larsen, Assistant Professor at St. Peter's College, teaching the law and ethics classes for the Criminal Justice
Department, 2008
(Kari, DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO HIV IN U.S. PRISONS, The Catholic
University of America Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 24:251, spring 2008, JWS)
In March 1991, the National Commission on AIDS "proposed that the U.S. Public Health Service
develop guidelines for the prevention and treatment of HIV in all U.S. correctional facilities." n71 Five
years later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that education and
prevention programs be implemented for inmates in prisons and jails to assist in reducing the transmission of
HIV in the United States. n72 In spite of the Commission's proposal and the CDC's logical deduction
that the transmission of HIV in prisons will lead to the transmission of HIV in society, formal
guidelines regarding the prevention of HIV in correctional facilities have never been issued by the
federal government through the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS), the CDC, or any other agency.
n73 This omission was reflected in a 1992 study done for the World Health Organization, which revealed that among nineteen countries
surveyed, "the United States was one of only four that did not have a national policy for HIV management in prison." n74 That the

U.S. remains without such a policy is appalling, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. has the
world's largest prison population, n75 at 2,258,983. n76 Furthermore, at least one U.S. [*262] federal
court has acknowledged that "[h]igh-risk behavior, particularly IV drug use and homosexual activity . . . is a
given in the prison setting, and no correctional approach can eliminate it." n77

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

26
Prisons Aff

Inherency - No Condoms

The CDC and the NCCHC both have recommended condom distribution, but have been
ignored
Larsen, Assistant Professor at St. Peter's College, teaching the law and ethics classes for the Criminal Justice
Department, 2008
(Kari, DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO HIV IN U.S. PRISONS, The Catholic
University of America Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 24:251, spring 2008, JWS)
Ten years after the CDC suggested the use of harm reduction techniques, U.S. correctional systems
continue to turn a blind eye to inmates' risky behavior and a deaf ear to the recommendations of our
principal federal healthcare agency. The suggestions of the NCCHC, although written more forcefully and
given a more prominent position than those of the CDC, are also universally ignored.
Federal health agencies suggest that prison administrations ought to distribute latex condoms to the
sexually active populations committed to their care and custody. Although the United States had 1668
correctional facilities in 2000, only seven systems have heeded this suggestion. n90 Condoms were distributed to
inmates in the homosexual dormitory on New York's Riker's Island (before it closed in 2006), n91 are distributed to inmates in the San
Francisco County jails, where the condoms are accompanied by counseling, n92 to inmates in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and
Washington jail [*265] systems, n93 and in the state prison in Vermont. n94 In Mississippi, inmates can purchase condoms from
vending machines. n95

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

27
Prisons Aff

Inherency - No Condoms
Current US Prison services do not provide healthcare services unless there are extreme
conditions, meaning preventative measures against STDs are not available.
US Marshal Services, US Prison service, 09
(Prisoner Health Care Standards, USMS, no date given, JoY)
It is the policy of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to ensure that all U.S. Marshals Service prisoners
receive medically necessary health care while at the same time ensuring that federal funds are not
expended for unnecessary or unauthorized health care services. Medical necessity, or a serious medical
need is defined as a valid health condition that, without timely medical intervention, will cause (1)
excessive pain not controlled by medication, (2) measurable deterioration in function (including organ
function), (3) death, or (4) substantial risk to the public health. The U.S. Marshals Service subscribes to
the following five rubrics for medical necessity decision-making:
1. The intervention must be intended to be used for a medical condition.
2. The peer-reviewed published evidence should demonstrate that the intervention can be expected to
produce its intended effects on health outcomes.
3. There is no other intervention that produces comparable or superior results in a more cost-effective
manner.
4. The interventions expected beneficial effects on health outcomes should outweigh its expected harmful
effects.
5. While nurses working in a utilization management program can approve care, only a physician should recommend alternative
treatments or deny care.
The USMS has authority (upon the recommendation of a competent medical authority or physician) to acquire and pay for reasonable
and medically necessary care (to include emergency medical care) to ensure the well-being of all USMS prisoners. It is, however,
NOT the policy of the USMS to provide either elective or preventative medical care. Necessary emergency medical
care should be provided to all USMS prisoners immediately. Prisoners in the custody of the USMS are usually in USMS custody for a
short period of time (less than 1 year) during their pretrial and trial phase. Many medically appropriate, non-emergency
procedures can and should be delayed until after the prisoners judicial status is resolved , as long as there is no
significant health risk to the prisoner, Treatment of pre-existing conditions which are not life-threatening or

medically necessary should be delayed until after the prisoners judicial status is resolved. The
purposes of these standards are to 1) define reasonable and medically necessary care for prisoner in
custody of the USMS, 2) to define those prisoner medical conditions that require treatment, 3) to
enumerate the specific elective or preventative medical interventions and procedures that are not routinely
authorized for payment by the USMS unless otherwise ordered by the court. Justification for exceptions to these standards
should be reviewed and approved by OIMS. These standards will be reviewed annually and updated as needed. These standards
refer to health care services and products which are to be charged to the USMS, and/or which require
a prisoner in USMS custody to make visits anywhere outside of the facility to which he/she is confined. Services
and products provided to USMS prisoners within correctional facilities and at no cost to the USMS are not prohibited. Section I of these
standards defines reasonable and medically necessary care. Section II defines conditions requiring treatment. Section III lists the medical
interventions, procedures, medications, and medical devices that are not routinely authorized for payment by the USMS. The medical
interventions, procedures, medications and medical devices that are listed in Section III of this brochure are NOT routinely authorized
for payment by the USMS unless ordered by the Court.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

28
Prisons Aff

Inherency - Condoms Illegal


Curent Statistics On AIDS in Prisons Are Falsely low and Condoms Are Illegal at the
Federal Level
Winkelman, Staff Writer, 2006
(Cheryl, Oakland Tribune/findarticle,com, Condoms For Inmates: Outlawed HIV Prevention, December 18, 2006,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061218/ai_n16895619/, July 5, 2009, E.B.S.).
Of course, inmates who have sex are violating state law. "Well, you're breaking the law, so why are we giving
you the tool to break the law?" asked Margot Bach, a spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections.
Condoms are also not permitted in the state's 18 federal prisons. "It's obviously not condoned and
authorized," said Sandra Hijar, spokeswoman for the Western Regional Office of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons. Many county jails, including those in Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Alameda counties, also ban
condoms. "We don't want to encourage sex between inmates," said Capt. Casey Nice of the Alameda County
Sheriff's Office. HIV/AIDS rates are based on testing done when inmates request it or when there is a
potential health risk. Only two states in the country test inmates for HIV at entry and release. In
Alameda and Contra Costa counties, the HIV rates in the jails are low: about 0.2 percent at the Santa Rita
Jail, Alameda County's largest jail, and a little less than 1 percent in Contra Costa County's three facilities,
according to public health officials. Seventy-six inmates were HIV-positive last year in San Joaquin County's
facilities, but that number includes the jail, the Juvenile Detention Center and the Deuel Vocational
Institution, said Mike Hill, the county's director of disease control and prevention. At Deuel, an all-male,
3,700-inmate, medium-security facility in Tracy, about 0.3 percent of inmates were known to be HIVpositive, said Lt. Ray Munoz, a public information officer.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

29
Prisons Aff

HIV Rates High


Prison populations have high concentrations of HIV/AIDS, and rape is less common than
consentual sex
Swarr, M.D. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 2002
(Daniel, Lafayette University, 7-16-2, AIDS, Prison, and Preventative Medicine: Society's Debt to its Debtors,
http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~vast/swarr.html, July 5, 2009, JTN)
For example, one of the most vivid, if not widespread misconceptions surrounding prisons are the stories of
forced sexual activity and gang rapesa view likely to lead an outsider to suspect that little can be done to
prevent transmission of HIV among prisoners. In reality, this aspect of prison has been overdramatized and
overemphasized, perhaps as a deliberate effort to amplify the purported deterring effect that the threat of a
prison sentence has on crime. In fact, Ted Conover reports in his first-hand account of the infamous SingSing, one of New York's most troubled maximum security prisons, that while "prison rape still occurs
in New York and elsewhere," by far the most common type of prison sex, "after the autoerotic, is
certainly consensual." He goes on to say, "I would even guess that, at least at Sing, sex between officers
and inmates is presently more common than forcible sex between inmates" (Conover 2000). Such an
example is a prime reason why prison officials, politicians and the general public alike need to focus not on
the stereotypes of prison behavior, official codes of conduct, and expected or even legal behaviors, but rather
what is actually occurring behind prison wallsillegal or legal, for better or for worse. If rape isn't as
widespread in prisons as the average moviegoer might be willing to believeat the very least, it
certainly isn't an everyday occurrenceand prisoners are not allowed to have sex or use drugs, then
can one expect to see lower incidences of AIDS in prisons? NO! As Conover's statement indicates,
much of what goes on in prison isn't "supposed" to take place. Prisoners have sex with each other
most often consensually, but in some instances forciblyand even with guards; they take drugs, both
injecting and non-injecting; they get tattoos; they participate in fights that often involve the shedding
of blood. None of these activities are permitted, but every one of them occurs in most, if not all, of America's
prisonsprobably on a daily basis. More important, it has been pointed out by numerous researchers that
"prisons house disproportionate numbers of individuals with histories of high-risk behavior, most
notably drug abuse" (Martin 1995). In other words, many of the prisoners infected with HIV did not catch it
in prison, but instead caught it "at home." In fact, AIDS is the second leading cause of death in prisons
nationwide, second only to the more broad and nonspecific category of "natural causes" (Gilliard 1996). To
compare prison AIDS rates to those found beyond the bars, consider that the per capita rate of AIDS in the
United States is 27 per 100,000 persons, compared to a rate of 485 per 100,000 in prisonsthis is nearly
eighteen times as high (Cotton-Oldenburg 1997)! At a time in which violent crime is on the decrease, while
the prison system rapidly expands due to the "war on drugs" (Conover 2000), it is inevitable that prison
populations will "increasingly comprise members of groups at risk for HIV infection, such as
minorities, the young, and drug users" (Robbles 1993).

Prisoners have much higher rates of HIV infection due to risk factors
Jurgens World Health Organization 2007
EVIDENCE FOR ACTION TECHNICAL PAPERS EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS HIV
IN PRISONS Pg. 20 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596190_eng.pdf
Nevetheless, the review demonstrates that HIV infection is a serious problem in prison systems, and one
that requires immediate action. In many systems, rates of infection are many times higher than in the
community outside prisons, primarily attributed to IDU prior to incarceration (Macalino et al. 2004, with
many references). In other systems, rates are high because of high rates of HIV in the general population.
Everywhere, the prison population consists of individuals with greater risk factors for contracting HIV
(and HCV) compared to the general population. Such characteristics include injecting drug use,
poverty, alcohol abuse, and living in medically underserved and minority communities (Reindollar,
1999).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

30
Prisons Aff

HIV Rates High


HIV rates in prisons are five times higher than the general population
NMAC, a coalition of 3,000 F/CBOs and AIDS service organizations (ASOs) delivering HIV/AIDS services in
communities of color nationwide, 2009
(National Minority Aids Council, CRITICAL CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS
IN THE UNITED STATES A TO DO LIST FOR THE NEW U.S. ADMINISTRATIONS FIRST 100 DAYS,
http://nmac.org/index, 2009, JWS)
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HIV
prevalence is nearly five times higher among incarcerated populations than the general
population. At the end of 2006, 1.6% of male inmates and 2.4% of female inmates in state and
federal prisons were HIV-positive. Many of the activities that lead to incarceration for both men
and women are the same activities that put them at risk for HIV (e.g., injection drug use, sex
work). Further, once incarcerated, inmates are more likely to engage in activities that create the
potential for exposure to HIV, including unprotected sex, tattooing, body piercing, and injection
drug use. In light of these facts, and that approximately 95% of inmates will ultimately return to
the community, it is imperative that correctional facilities develop, adopt, and implement
comprehensive HIV prevention programs to educate HIV-negative inmates about how not to be
infected and to show HIV-positive inmates how to avoid transmitting the virus to others. A
comprehensive program of this nature must necessarily involve voluntary HIV testing of all
inmates with their informed consent, education about HIV and how it is transmitted, and
distribution of sexual barrier devices.
In 2007, Rep. Barbara Lee of California introduced the JUSTICE Act of 2007,16 which
would require federal prisons to, among other things, allow community organizations to
distribute condoms to inmates, and encourages state prisons to do the same. Distribution of
condoms would include information about their appropriate use, as well as information about
sexually transmitted infections and how to avoid them. There is ample evidence that condom
use greatly decreases the risk of transmitting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, and
that distribution of condoms in correctional settings has not resulted in security problems.
Evidence also shows that the more people are educated about the associated risks, the more
likely they are to take precautions intended to reduce those risks. As a matter of sound public
health policy, it is imperative that legislation of this nature be supported and moved through
Congress as quickly as possible.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

31
Prisons Aff

HIV Rates High


The lack of condom distribution is a main factor of the rising HIV rate in prisons globally
Africa News, 2008
(Prisons Gravely Hit by HIV Epidemic, Editorial, July 2, NAP)
The HIV epidemic has struck prisons, jails and other places of detention around the world with
particular severity. As a result, prisons have grossly disproportionate rates of HIV infection and
confirmed AIDS cases. HIV prevalence among prisoners is between six to fifty times higher than that
of the general adult population. According to available data from the UNAIDS 2006 directory of Prisons in Africa (2005),
HIV prevalence amongst prisoners in Africa is highest in South Africa (45 percent) in 2006, Zambia (27 percent) and Rwanda (14 per
cent) in 1999, and Uganda (8 per cent) in 2002. "On a global scale, the prison population is growing rapidly.

Overcrowding and poor physical conditions of prisons pose significant health concerns especially for
HIV prevention and care. Rape and various forms of sexual abuse are also frequent," said Brian Tkachuk, the
regional advisor. HIV/AIDS in prisons (UNODC Africa) during a presentation on HIV and prisons in Sub Saharan Africa at the fourth
annual HIV /AIDS Research and Exchange Conference (July 2-3) taking place at the Serena Hotel Kigali. The report says that cases of

sexual abuse are likely to be much higher than what is reported, while victims of rape and other forms
of sexual violence are at a higher risk of contracting HIV. High-risk sexual and other behaviour such as drug
injections and blood mixing, lack of prevention commodities including condom availability, safe tattooing and
injecting equipment, absence of intimate/private visits, social stigma institutional and societal neglect , are among the
key factors identified contributing to high HIV infection rates in prisons. "The vast majority of people
committed to prison eventually return to the wider society. Therefore reducing the transmission of HIV
in prisons is an important element in reducing the spread of infection in society outside of prisons ," Brian
noted. Meanwhile, the HIV situation in prison in Africa remains a highly neglected area. Available information suggests that the
situation is extremely dire in some places and needs urgent attention.

AIDS Has Rose 3 Times in the Past Decade


Kantor, MD, University of California San Francisco, 07
(Elizabeth, Prisons: HIV Transmission and Prevention in Prisons, http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-07-04-13,
7/6/09, DKL)
The AIDS prevalence in 2003 was more than 3 times higher in state and federal prisons (0.51%) than
in the general U.S. population (0.15%).(3) Between 20% and 26% of people living with HIV/AIDS in
the United States have spent time in the correctional system.(5) No precise count of HIV cases in
prisoners is available, as brief incarceration, particularly in jails, limited access to health care, and
lack of universal screening hinder the identification and diagnosis of inmates with HIV infection. Also,
arrestees may choose not to declare their HIV status.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

32
Prisons Aff

HIV Rates High


Much More AIDS in Prisons Than in General Population
Altman, staff writer, 1999
(Lawrence, New York Times/New York Times, Much More AIDS in Prisons Than in General Population,
Wednesday, Spetember 1, 1999, http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/01/us/much-more-aids-in-prisons-than-ingeneral-population.html?scp=2&sq=condoms%20in%20federal%20prisons&st=cse, July 6, 2009, E.B.S.).
The prevalence of AIDS among prisoners in the United States is five times that of the general
population, and the rates for some other sexually transmitted diseases are even higher, scientists said
yesterday. Reporting on the first comprehensive study of these diseases in prisons and jails, the study's lead
author, Dr. Theodore Hammett, said the high prevalence of AIDS among prisoners reflected their widespread
use of drugs before they were imprisoned. He presented the findings yesterday at the National H.I.V.
Prevention Conference in Atlanta. Prisons are a critical setting for detecting and treating sexually transmitted
diseases, Dr. Hammett said, but the quality of health care varies widely. About 90 percent of the prisons and
jails say they make the newer combinations of anti-H.I.V. drugs available, but not necessarily to all inmates,
Dr. Hammett said. The high rates of sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea and
chlamydia are particularly alarming, participants at the Atlanta conference said, because they are
adding fuel to the continuing epidemic of H.I.V., the AIDS virus. On Monday, health officials released
new studies finding that AIDS deaths in the general population were no longer declining as sharply as
they had been in recent years and that the rate of H.I.V. infection did not appear to be declining at all.
Syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia cause inflammation and sores that allow more H.I.V. to concentrate
in genital secretions and thus greatly increase the risk of acquiring and transmitting H.I.V. Moreover,
recent increases in sexually transmitted diseases signal an increase in H.I.V. because such infections are
an indicator of unsafe sexual practices, officials said. The new findings highlight not only inadequacies
in prison health care but also in preventing transmission of infections after the prisoners are released.
Only 10 percent of state and Federal prisons and 5 percent of city and county jails offer comprehensive
H.I.V. prevention programs for inmates, Dr. Hammett said. In 1997, an estimated 8,900 inmates had AIDS, and 35,000 to
47,000 more were infected with H.I.V., said Dr. Hammett, who works for Abt Associates, a private research and consulting firm in
Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Hammett conducted the study for the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, a private organization in
Chicago that aims to improve health care in jails and prisons. Those released from jails and prisons in 1996 included 17 percent of the
total number of Americans with AIDS that year. Health officials are not certain how much H.I.V. is transmitted in

prisons. Although published studies suggest that the rate is less than 1 percent each year, that can still
mean large numbers of cases, Dr. Hammett said, because of the size of the prison population. Though
the total prison population is less than 2 million on any given day, 7.75 million people are released from
jails and prisons in a single year, he said.

AIDS Is A Major Problem Within Prisons


Aburabi, ICRC's coordinator for health in detention, 08
(Raed, HIV/AIDS in prisons: facing the challenges, http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/aids-day-feature081128, 7/6/09, DKL)
Is HIV/AIDS a major problem in prisons? In many prisons around the world, especially in conflict areas,
there is a high rate of infection by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) the virus that attacks the
body's immune system, rendering the patient vulnerable to a whole range of diseases and ultimately
causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). At the same time, prisons also have high rates of
tuberculosis (TB), syphilis, various strains of viral hepatitis and other contagious diseases. In fact, HIV
and TB are known as the "twin diseases," since the two fuel each other. In most countries the level of
HIV infection tends to be significantly higher in prisons than among the general population, though the
prevalence varies considerably around the world. Several countries have reported a rate in the range of 10
to 20 per cent among the prison population. However, the full extent of the epidemic in prisons in lowincome countries is not known. Several factors, including overcrowding, tattooing and drug use, make
prisons ideal breeding grounds for onward transmission of TB/HIV infection. Drug injection with shared,
non-sterile needles probably accounts for most new HIV cases in prisons around the world.
Unprotected sex between men (sometimes rape) is another important factor in HIV transmission
among prison inmates. So HIV/AIDS is definitely a major problem in prisons.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

33
Prisons Aff

AIDS Transfer Rates High


Aids transfer rates are high in prisons, and yet the government does little about it
Bloomekatz, LA Times Writer, 2009
(Ari B., Deleware Online, 7-5-9 Sexual health advocates work to fight AIDS behind bars Once-taboo condom
programs taking hold, http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090705/NEWS01/907050328, Accessed July 6,
2009, JTN)
Inmates call Ron Osorio "West Hollywood" because the words are printed on the cream-colored cloth bag he
carries inside Men's Central Jail each Friday. Advertisement The bag is filled with 300 Lifestyle condoms.
Osorio, who works for the nonprofit Center for Health Justice, has been visiting the jail almost weekly
since 2001, when Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca approved a small but groundbreaking program
that allowed the health group to pass out prophylactics to inmates in a segregated unit for gay men.
"We go to the dorms and a guy hands out the bagged lunches. There's another guy that hands out the juice ...
and I stand between those two as they go through the line. They get their lunch, they get a condom and they
get their juice," Osorio said. Not all inmates take condoms, but Osorio talks to those who do about the
risks of HIV/AIDS and syphilis. He tells them that, despite what he's handing them, it's forbidden to
have sex in jail. Osorio has distributed more than 43,655 condoms to inmates since the project began
but said that is not nearly enough. The transfer rate of HIV/AIDS in prison continues to be high, he
said, and the public is at risk because once released, inmates carry the diseases to their communities.
Eight years after Baca first approved the program, he is pondering whether to expand it by doubling the
number of condoms distributed to the 300 inmates within the segregated unit. His decision comes as a
yearlong pilot condom-distribution program at the California State Prison at Solano enters its eighth month.
Health advocates say a successful review of that program could lead to widespread distribution of
condoms in prisons throughout the state. It would be one of the most aggressive measures in the
nation's jails and prisons to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS, experts say. Sheriff's officials acknowledge
that the virus is a prominent problem in the jails. They spend about $2 million each year in federally
refundable money on HIV/AIDS medication and identify about 65 new cases each month. On average, there
are about 1,400 people in Los Angeles County jails with HIV each year, said Steve Whitmore, a
spokesman for the Sheriff's Department.

Current government policies help spread HIV


NMAC, a coalition of 3,000 F/CBOs and AIDS service organizations (ASOs) delivering HIV/AIDS services in
communities of color nationwide, 2009
(National Minority Aids Council, CRITICAL CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS
IN THE UNITED STATES A TO DO LIST FOR THE NEW U.S. ADMINISTRATIONS FIRST 100 DAYS,
http://nmac.org/index, 2009, JWS)
Civil and human rights have taken a hit in the United States over the last eight years, but some of the
discrimination against people with HIV has been grinding on for much longer. Stigma and
discrimination fuel the HIV/AIDS pandemic; protecting human rights protects the publics health. The
worst kind of discrimination against people with HIV is government-sponsored discrimination. At the
very least, we should expect our government officials federal, state and local to reject policies that
explicitly exclude people living with HIV or AIDS or that are interpreted in a way that marginalizes them.
Government discrimination such as the United States militarys exclusion of enlistees with HIV, or many
states exclusion of HIV-positive applicants for trade schools and licensing reinforces stigma by putting
the official seal of approval on unsound treatment of those with HIV/AIDS. Since the beginning of the
epidemic, people with HIV and their advocates have been calling on the President of the United States to take
visible leadership in condemning discrimination and supporting adequate services for people with HIV.
Protecting the rights and dignity of people with HIV/AIDS must be a central part of a national AIDS
strategy. In this document, we identify 15 steps some requiring little more than a few strokes of the
Executive Pen that the next U.S. administration should take in its first 100 days to end government support
and accommodation of HIV-related stigma and discrimination. Now more than ever, it is time for human
and civil rights to be a central part of the U.S. national strategy to end AIDS.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

34
Prisons Aff

AIDS Transfer Rates High


With Out Prevention, HIV/AIDS Transition In Federal Prisons Will Rise
McCroy, Freelance writer who works for numerous New York publications, including the
New York Blade and GO NYC Magazine, 2009,
(The foundation for aids research Putting HIV on Lockdown, April 20,
http://www.amfar.org/community/article.aspx?id=7176, Accessed 7/6/09 By SA )
For those inmates who have tested positive, advocates demand that they be linked with appropriate and
confidential treatment services, both during incarceration and upon release. This is a population of people
who are not necessarily medically savvy. It tends to be a low-educated population that may not have ever
accessed care prior to prison, said Dr. Strick.Without prevention and treatment, the high rates of HIV
transmission in prisons will continue. Additional work needs to be done to address the multiple
barriers to care facing inmates, from instituting harm reduction measures in correctional facilities to
providing inmate services upon release. It is imperative that these strategies take a realistic look at life
behind bars.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

35
Prisons Aff

AIDS Transfer Rates High


Risk Of HIV/AIDS Spread in Prison is Disporpotionatly High, Dealing With Inmates Helps
Those Out Side the Prison
Winkelman, Staff Writer, 2006
(Cheryl, Oakland Tribune/findarticle,com, Condoms For Inmates: Outlawed HIV Prevention, December 18, 2006,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061218/ai_n16895619/, July 5, 2009, E.B.S.).
However, a long-term study by the Georgia Department of Corrections and the CDC attempted to get a
clearer picture of HIV behind bars. The study found that arriving inmates were four times more likely to
be infected with HIV than the general population.
Like the jails in San Francisco County, the study determined that HIV transmission in prison was not
widespread, but infection and risky behavior, such as homosexual sex, did occur.
The CDC and the American Foundation for AIDS Research support handing out condoms as part of a
comprehensive plan for HIV prevention, education and care, said Monica Ruiz, the foundation's acting
director for public policy.
"If (condom distribution) can make a dent on the inside," she said, "it can make a bigger dent once
they get on the outside."
When released, inmates can then make a habit of practicing safe sex.

Prisons lead to risky behavior, increasing AIDS transfer rates


Vlahov, David Vlahov, PhD, RN, is Senior Vice President for Research and Director of the
Center for Urban Epidemiologic Studies at The New York Academy of Medicine. He is also
Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia
University, and Adjunct Professor in Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health., 2006
(David, From Corrections to Communities as an HIV Priority, J Urban Health. 2006 May; 83(3): 339348, JWS)
Surveys of prison inmates, performed mostly prior to the AIDS epidemic, revealed that inmates engage in
risky behaviors while incarcerated. In one survey, 12% of inmates in Tennessee reported injection drug use
while incarcerated.7 In other surveys, up to 33% of inmates admitted to homosexual activities while
incarcerated.31 These rates, based upon self-reports, certainly underestimate the levels of such
activities. Since these early studies were published, additional reports have been published showing sex
within prison is more widespread than previously appreciated, 32 and rates of injection drug use inside
prison can be as high as 30%.33,34 More to the point, given that HIV infection is observed among entering
inmates, that behaviors occur within prison that facilitate transmission of infection, and that the
average length of sentence is three years,35 do prisons serve as amplifying reservoirs of infection back
into the surrounding community? The theoretical concern that prisons might serve as amplifying reservoirs
of HIV infection back into the community has excited considerable discussion. Some surveys studied risky
behaviors (but not seroincidence data) and concluded that risk of intraprison transmission could be
substantial.33

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

36
Prisons Aff

AIDS Transfer Rates High


The increasing sexual behavior of predominantly male populations without preventative
health care has increased the risk and spread of HIV.
Stewart, Consultant at Matrix Research Center, 07
(Elaine C., The Sexual Health and Behaviour of Male Prisoners: The Need for Research, The Howard Journal Vol
46 No 1. Pg 44-45, February 2007, JoY)
The sexual health and behaviour of male prisoners is of particular concern because the escalating
prison population is predominantly male 94% in England andWales, where only 14 of 138 prisons are female (Prison
Reform Trust 2003). This article aims to highlight the characteristics of male prisoners, their offences, behaviour
and the prison environment, which are known or can be assumed to constitute risk from a sexual health
perspective, especially the acquisition of STIs, in order to emphasise the need for research. It begins by
briefly describing the general health of the prison population and summarising what little is known about the sexual health of
male prisoners. The Health of the Prison Population Socio-economic factors play a huge part in health and there is a
link, albeit complex, between poor health and crime (British Medical Association 2004). In the chaotic lifestyles of many
prisoners, health has been a low priority they often smoke and drink heavily, and it is estimated that 50% have no GP before
entering custody. The most common conditions in prisoners are diabetes, asthma, communicable diseases (which includes
STIs), drug addiction (which can increase the risk of STIs), and mental illness (HM Prison Service 2002; Dale and Woods
2002). Many have suffered a lifetime of social disadvantage and exclusion,1 which are particular risk
factors for poor sexual health (Social Exclusion Unit 2003), as well as homelessness and tuberculosis (TB) Also, people with
HIV are much more vulnerable to TB (contracting and progression), which is of increasing concern in UK prisons in the United
States (US), outbreaks of TB have occurred among prisoners and staff where there are large numbers
of HIV1 inmates (HM Prison Service 1999). The Prison Health Handbook (Narey, Crisp and Lloyd 2003) states that prisoners
should receive care equivalent to National Health Service (NHS) standards; however, the changing availability
and variation in quality of health care provided by the Prison Medical Services has been acknowledged in official reports (HM Prison
Service 2001/2; Narey, McKay andGregory 2000; Narey, Crisp and Lloyd 2003). According to the British Medical Association (2004),
some prison administrators have not cooperated with health care staff and some governors have actively opposed the clinical judgment
of doctors. Health services for prisoners are gradually being transferred to the NHS all Primary Care Trusts
(PCTs) in England should have frontline responsibility for the health of those detained in prisons in their area by April 2006. The
focus of current sexual health initiatives is HIV, hepatitis B and C (Department of Health 2004), reflecting an
acknowledgement of the serious drug problem among prisoners, especially those who come from and will return to
deprived communities (British Medical Association 2004).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

37
Prisons Aff

AIDS Transfer Rates High


There is a high risk for HIV spread
Stewart, Consultant at Matrix Research Center, 07
(Elaine C., The Sexual Health and Behaviour of Male Prisoners: The Need for Research, The Howard Journal Vol
46 No 1. Pg 46-47, February 2007, JoY)
It is increasingly being recognised that there are high prevalence rates of STIs (especially blood-borne viruses) in the
male prison population a study in eight prisons in England and Wales found the following rates in the total prison population
sampled: 0.4% HIV; 8% hepatitis B; and 7% hepatitis C (HM Prison Service 2001). In the general population the rates are much
lower: 0.007%, 0.3% and 0.4%, respectively (Public Health Laboratory Service 2001a). Past and current injecting drug users are at
increased risk the afore-mentioned study found a prevalence rate of 20% for hepatitis B and 30% for hepatitis C among the prison
population who had ever injected (HM Prison Service 2001). During the outbreak of HIVat Glenochil Prison in Scotland, 10% of the 169
prisoners tested were HIV positive and transmission between prisoners was detected clinical history and sequencing similarities in 13
of 14 HIV1 men demonstrated a common index case (Yirrell et al. 1997). In 1999, the Health Education Authority
acknowledged that prison is potentially a high-risk environment for the spread of HIV (Health Education
Authority 1999). This was confirmed in February 2001, by a high-profile case in Glasgow under Scottish law, Stephen Kelly was
convicted of recklessly injuring his former girlfriend by infecting her with HIV which, it transpired, he had acquired as a result of
intravenous drug use while serving a prison sentence (Chalmers 2002). According to the Social Exclusion Unit (2003), prisoners are

15 times as likely as the general population to be HIV positive. The vulnerability of prisoners to HIV
and other STIs was shown by a recent study of 291 male prisoners (80% aged less than 35years) attending an
STI clinic in a large English prison over 18 months 54% required treatment for STIs (some for more than one), 39% had an
HIV test and 14% were vaccinated for hepatitis B. Interviews with 20 prisoners revealed that, prior to coming to prison, 60% had
attended an STI clinic, 40% had had an STI, and 70% had previously taken an HIV test. Also, some health care professionals
had proof that STIs (HIV and hepatitis C) were being transmitted in prison ; and the fact that 19 prisoners had
been in other prisons and that nine had been in five or more prisons highlighted the possibility of the transfer of infection between
prisons (Roberts 2003), as well as into the community on release. Prison population statistics show that a large
proportion of male prisoners aged 21 to 39 years are pleasure seekers and, since they are more likely than
the outside population to have injected drugs, had multiple female sexual partners, and sex with men, it is understandable that they
might want to celebrate release from the confines and frustration of a prison sentence with a potentially risky combination of sex, drugs
and alcohol (Ward 1996; Burrows 1995; Gore and Bird 1993). Sexual health screening and treatment services are not
consistently provided in prisons and, where they exist, are stretched to the limit . All prisoners must see a
medical officer within 24 hours of being admitted; however, their sexual health is not routinely assessed at this time
unless the prisoner identifies a problem. Also, many prisoners may be transferred or released before they are able to
complete the six-month course required for hepatitis B vaccination (HM Prison Service 1999), attend the set days of a clinic for
screening, test results or follow-up treatment, because they can only be moved if the custodial timetable allows (Roberts 2003).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

38
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Biggest Factor


Sex in prisons spreads sexually transmitted disease
Jurgens World Health Organization 2007
Ralf EVIDENCE FOR ACTION TECHNICAL PAPERS EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS
HIV IN PRISONS Pg. 50 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596190_eng.pdf
Well-documented evidence exists for STI intraprison transmission resulting from sexual contacts
among prisoners in the United States (Alcabes & Braslow, 1988; Puisis, Levine & Mertz, 1998; Smith,
1965; Van Hoeven, Rooney & Joseph, 1990; Wolfe et al., 2001), the Russian Federation (Bobrik, 2005), and
Malawi (Zachariah et al., 2002). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reported an
outbreak of HBV in a US state prison, where self reported data showed that 20% of the cases were the
result of sexual contact among prisoners (CDC, 2001).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

39
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Biggest Factor


HIV is transmitted in prisons. Evidence to the contrary is because of difficulties in
determining the time of transmission. Sex in prison is the biggest transmission cause and
condoms solve.
Dr Macher et. al., a 30-year veteran of the US Public Health Service, 2006
April Dispatch HIV Transmission in Correctional Facility Abe Macher,* Deborah Kibble, and David
Wheeler *US Public Health Service (retired), Bethesda, Maryland, USA; Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Washington, DC, USA; and Infectious Diseases Physicians, Annandale, Virginia, USA
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no04/05-0484.htm
In April 2005, Lambert et al. (4) reported concerns that a resurgence of HIV/AIDS may be imminent, fueled in part
by increasing indicators of high-risk behavior in the gay and bisexual population . The March 2005 report by
Markowitz et al. (5) regarding men who have sex with men, use of methamphetamine, and transmission of HIV underscores these
concerns. The high prevalence of HIV infection in overcrowded and understaffed correctional facilities
further accentuates these concerns and poses a public health challenge . On December 31, 2002, 2.0% of state
prison inmates were positive for HIV (1); among interviewed jail inmates, 1.3% disclosed they were HIV positive. Estimates of the

proportion of inmates who indulge in homosexual intercourse while in prison range from 2% to 65%,
and most of this sexual contact is likely unsafe because few correctional facilities address the issue of
intraprison sex or distribute condoms (2). Nevertheless, inmate-to-inmate transmission of HIV has rarely been documented.
Taylor et al. (6) proposed that the paucity of evidence for transmission of HIV infection within correctional
facilities is probably accounted for by the difficulties in determining the time of HIV seroconversion in
relation to the period of incarceration, rather than by the rarity of the event. Krebs and Simmons (2) used
surveillance data from a 22-year period (January 1, 1978January 1, 2000) to identify inmates who contracted HIV while incarcerated in
the Florida state prison system. They reported that a minimum of 33 inmates contracted HIV while in prison, compared to 238 who
contracted HIV after leaving prison; inmates were more likely to have contracted HIV in prison by having sex
with other men than through injection drug use. Additional reports of HIV transmission in correctional facilities have
been published from Illinois (8 HIV seroconversions) (7), Nevada (2 seroconversions) (8), Maryland (2 seroconversions) (9), Australia
(1 seroconversion) (10), and Scotland (11). Yirrell et al. (11) determined that 13 inmates had acquired HIV infection by sharing needles
during their incarceration. Acute retroviral syndrome and primary HIV infection may be frequently unsuspected by the evaluating
clinician because the signs and symptoms are relatively nonspecific. However, within correctional facilities, the diagnosis of primary
HIV infection should be considered in the differential diagnosis of any inmate with an acute febrile illness associated with pharyngitis
and mucocutaneous lesions. Our report is limited in that virus was not sequenced to document transmission between inmates. Early
diagnosis of primary HIV infection can lead to successful antiretroviral intervention (12) and prevention of secondary transmission.
Whether antiretroviral treatment of acute HIV infection results in long-term virologic, immunologic, or clinical benefit is unknown. In
October 2005, the US Department of Health and Human Services Clinical Practices Panel noted that antiretroviral treatment of acute
HIV infection is optional. If the clinician and patient elect to treat acute HIV infection with antiretroviral therapy, treatment should be
implemented with the goal of suppressing plasma HIV RNA to below detectable levels; resistance testing at baseline will likely optimize
virologic response (13). We urge correctional facilities to address the issue of unprotected sex among
inmates and the associated transmission of sexually transmitted diseases within institutions (14). In 2001,
Wolfe et al. (14) reported that from 1991 to 1999, >5 outbreaks of syphilis occurred in Alabama prisons; multiple concurrent sex
networks involving 4, 7, and 10 inmates were identified in the 1999 outbreak. Wolfe et al. recommended that condom distribution
should be used to control sexually transmitted disease in correctional facilities. Nevertheless, in 2006, <1% of
US correctional facilities provide inmates with condoms. Reasons for not providing condoms include the conflict with policies
forbidding sexual intercourse (or sodomy) and the potential for condoms to be used as weapons or to smuggle contraband (15). In
contrast, condoms are available to inmates in all Canadian federal prisons and some provincial prisons;
few problems related to condom distribution have been reported from those systems (15). Wolfe et al.
proposed that providing condoms to prisoners may yield additional public health advantages beyond the

prison walls if exposure to and experience with condoms in this setting translate into increased use
after release.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

40
Prisons Aff

HIV Spreads to Communities


And released prisoners spread HIV throughout their communities
Ruiz et. al, Acting Director, Public Policy Office, amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, 2008
(Monica, HIV/AIDS in Correctional Settings: A Congressional Briefing, emerging issues AIDS 20/20 amfAR
briefings, March 2008, JWS)
Inmates risky behaviors before and during incarceration also have a significant effect on their
partners health. Incarcerated men report engaging in behaviors that elevate their risk for HIV and
other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) both before incarceration and after release.16 These behaviors
include injection drug use, needle sharing, and unprotected sex with multiple high-risk partners.17 Since
approximately 50 percent of men who have been incarcerated or have passed through the correctional system consider themselves to be in committed
heterosexual relationships and intend to return to their partners upon release from custody ,16

as many as 6.5 million women each year


will experience the risk of having a partner who has been incarcerated. 16 Given the disproportionate
number of low-income men of color in correctional settings, low-income African-American and Latina
women are more likely to have intimate sexual or needle-sharing relationships with recently
imprisoned men.16 Sexual risk behavior is not limited to those who are HIV negative; one study found
that men with HIV who were released from prison had unprotected sexual intercourse within an
average of six days of their release, and 31 percent of these men believed it was likely they would infect
their primary sexual partner.18 It should be noted that inmates are not the only ones who engage in risk
behaviors. The destructive impact of incarceration on existing partnerships, families, and communities
may also facilitate new and varied sexual and social connections that further increase risk of HIV
transmission for inmates returning to their communities. For example, individuals whose primary
partners are incarcerated for long periods of time may develop other sexual relationships, which may
continue even after the primary partner is released. Similarly, individuals who are released from
correctional facilities may want to maintain friendships that were made while incarcerated and,
therefore, introduce new members into an existing social or sexual network. The presence of
concurrent sexual networks has been found to contribute to elevated rates of HIV infection in
communities already affected by high STI rates and other social and health issues.19 Alcohol and drugs
are often a part of the context in which risky sexual practices occur and, in one study of men just released
from prison, were associated with risky sexual behavior at one week and at six months after release.20 In
addition to sharing drug injection paraphernalia, other risks include engaging in sexual acts to obtain
drugs or providing a partner with drugs as a way to obtain sex.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

41
Prisons Aff

HIV Spreads to Communities


HIV in prisons spreads to communities after release
Wohl Medical Assistant 2003
D. A., Abst. 36. Retrovirus Conference, Feb 10-14, Boston, MA. Univ of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Unsafe
Sex is Common Among HIV-Infected Prisoners Shortly After Release "HIV Transmission Risk Behaviors
Among HIV-infected Individuals Released from Prison"
As many as 20% of HIV-infected persons in the U.S. enter and leave a correctional facility each year.
To what extent HIV-infected prison releasees contribute to the spread of HIV in the communities to
which they return is not well described. The author of the study, David Wohl, MD, noticed that there are many communities
within the US in which the HIV infection rates and the incarceration rates are high The study was done in North Carolina, one of the
states that does not perform mandatory testing for HIV infection upon entry or exit from prison, he added . Over half (51%) of

HIV-infected releasees stated they had sex soon after being released from prison. 64% of releasees said
their main sex partner from before inprisonment did not have HIV, but 24% of releasees reported
having sex with their main partners soon after release from prison. Half of the releasees were women. At
follow-up interviews after release from prison, 26% had already had unprotected sex with their main
sex partner, Dr. Wohl reported. The average time to sex after release was 6 days. All of the subjects said they had told their main
sex partners that they were HIV-infected, but only two thirds had told their other sex partners. Thirty percent of the subjects reported
they believed it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that they would infect their main sex partner This was a prospective
observational study. From May 01-Oct 02, 80 HIV-infected state prison inmates within 3 months of release were enrolled. Subjects were
interviewed prior to release about pre-incarceration and expected post-release sexual and drug-related HIV transmission risk behaviors.
Follow-up phone interviews were conducted 30-60 days following release. The average prison stays were about 1 or 2 years Of the 80
subjects enrolled (58% women, 87% non-white, 81% heterosexual, mean age = 36 yrs), 83% have been released. Pre-incarceration crack
cocaine use was reported by 84% of subjects and 29% had injected drugs. Post-release interviews have been conducted in 85% of those
eligible a mean of 36 days following release. Within 6 months of release, 2 subjects died and 4 were re-incarcerated. Prior to
incarceration, 74% of inmates had a main sex partner (MP) with whom 79% report unprotected sex during the year before incarceration
(54% of MP were HIV-uninfected). Seventy-five percent (75%) of inmates had other sex partners (OP) in the year prior to incarceration
(mean OP number = 12, range 1-1,460) and 74% had unprotected sex with their OP in the year before they came to prison (64% of OP
were HIV-uninfected; 19% were of unknown HIV status). Over half (51%) of releasees stated they had sex since release (mean time to
sex post-release = 6 days, range 1-744 hours). A MP without HIV or of unknown HIV status was reported by 64% of releasees with a
MP; however, 24% had unprotected sex with their MP since release. Given their current sex behavior, 31% of releasees felt that it was
very or somewhat likely that they would infect their HIV-negative MP. Since release, 16% reported using street drugs at least once a
week, 18% have used crack cocaine, and 8% have injected drugs. The authors concluded that immediately following

prison release a significant proportion of HIV-infected former inmates engage in behaviors with high
risk of transmitting HIV and may play a significant role in the transmission of the virus within the
communities to which they return. There is an urgent need for the development of interventions to
reduce HIV transmission risk behaviors of HIV-infected releasees.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

42
Prisons Aff

HIV Spreads to Communities


HIV/AIDS has the potential to destroy poor communities of color
Steinberg Wasserton Public Interest Fellow at Harvard Law School 2005
Robin G. Unprotected: HIV Prison Policy and the Deadly Politics of Denial June 22, 2005 Harvard Journal of
African American Public Policy
And HIV/AIDS in prisons is not only a problem for prisoners. The epidemic behind prison walls has
real and measurable effects on those of us who live on the outside especially those who live in poor
communities of color. In 1991, state prisons admitted and released nearly 600,000 people (Petersilia 2000, 1). This revolving
door to and from a place in which the incidence of HIV/AIDS and other diseases such as hepatitis and tuberculosis (TB) is so high puts
entire communities at risk. IN New York City, 80 percent of the TB outbreak cases in 1989 traced back to

jails and prisons. By 1991, New Yorks Rikers Island jail has one of the highest TB rates in the country
(Petersilia 2000, 4). The introduction and reintroduction of HIV/AIDS into our communities and into
prisons presents no less a threat and no less a public health challenge. Prisons are filled with people
from poor and disenfranchised communities, many of whom are already poorly educated and already
suffer from limited access to health care and social services. Continuing that trend in prisons
exacerbates the HIV epidemic in prisons and spreads it to poor communities. This problem can be
solved. By establishing aggressive intervention and protreacted after-care, as several jurisdictions in the
United States have (Massachusetts and Rhode Island), high-risk behavior can be reduced and the
degenerative effects of the virus can be controlled (Watson & Riceberg 2002; Wright 2004).

Ignoring prisoners HIV/AIDS issues actively destroys communities


Steinberg Wasserton Public Interest Fellow at Harvard Law School 2005
Robin G. Unprotected: HIV Prison Policy and the Deadly Politics of Denial June 22, 2005 Harvard Journal of
African American Public Policy
Policy makers are reluctant or unwilling to acknowledge and address the HIV problem in prisons
because they are stalled by questions of merit, denial, and equity. Prisoners do not deserve better health care. Sex
and drug use does not happen or is not supposed to happen in prison. Prisoners should not be getting good health care if every person
outside of prison is not getting good health care first. The invisibility of prisoners in this country stems directly

from these issues and these judgments. Unfortunately our policy makers are mistaken and misguided.
A failure to address HIV/AIDS in prisons affects everyone in this society. To not respond says
something far more damaging about our society and its brutality and indifference. To not respond is
actively killing entire communities inside and outside of prison.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

43
Prisons Aff

HIV Spreads to Communities


Lack of social support for prison healthcare reforms becomes detrimental to society, as
prisoners with chronic diseases such as STDs will cause spread in the society.
Jacobi, Prof. of Law at Seton Hall University, 05
(John V., Prison Health, Public Health: Obligations and Opportunities American Journal of Law and Medicine .Vol.
31, Iss. 4; pg. 447, JoY)
In the last fifty years, reformers shifted to individual rights arguments based on prisoners' constitutional
rights.7 Substantial progress in the early years of that era has given way to reaction from courts and legislatures, throwing this strategy
of prison reform into doubt. The harm that flows from mismanagement of chronic conditions and mental
illness comprises severe strain on community health facilities, harm to the communities flowing from
the inability of sick ex-prisoners to reintegrate into society , and the costs of recidivism when failure to reintegrate
contributes to ex-prisoners' return to crime. Almost all of the two million prisoners now in prisons and jails will
return to their communities one day.8 If, due to poor prison health care, they return with uncontrolled
syphilis, tuberculosis, HIV, and other infectious conditions, they will likely infect many around them . Positive
state constitutional rights obviously reach situations where federal constitutional protections do not.291 These positive rights
may be argued to extend to the community's right of protection from the state's mismanagement of prison health causing
avoidable public health injuries to poor communities and communities of color. Instead, it is "merely" a political argument, much like
that made by reformers such as Cobb Wines and Theodore Dwight in 1867, when they argued that brutal conditions in prisons were both
inhumane and contrary to social interests in reforming prisoners, permitting them to return with dignity to a useful role in society.292
Similarly, the political argument here is that poor prison health care is both inhumane and contrary to

social interests in achieving prisoner reentry maximizing ex-prisoner integration and minimizing the
public health threats to their communities. Prisons' and jails' failure to provide adequate treatment to a
wide variety of chronic conditions, mental illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, and communicable diseases threaten those
communities with physical and financial harm, infection, and illness. Public health arguments , drawn in part from the emerging
reentry movement, have the potential to move society to pay the costs for decent prison health care out of clear
self-interest, where it has been unwilling to do so as a matter of justice and morality.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

44
Prisons Aff

HIV Spreads to Communities


Condoms are needed in Prison because HIV/AIDS makes it back to the community
OHearn, Health Team Reporter, 2002
(Erin, ACT UP, Condoms in Prisons, 12-18-2, http://www.actupny.org/reports/prison12-02.html, 7-8-9, NB)
The AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power is asking prisons to distribute condoms to inmates. Why is
prevention in prisons important? After all, many people may find it hard to feel sympathy for convicted
criminals. But research has shown that inmates health will inevitably have an impact on general public.
Inmates are not allowed to have condoms because they are considered contraband. That is a problem
when it comes to the spread of HIV. Stevens said, "State Commissioner Gord, he's the State Commissioner
of DOCS, he says that condoms are illegal yet we have a letter from him saying prevention in his prisons is
important. Yet it flies in the face of all logic that he's saying prevention is important and the condom is a very
simple tool to provide that." Dave Howard knows a lot about the prison health care system. After all he spent
16 years of his life there. He is now an educator for the AIDS Council of Northeastern New York. But during
his time in prison, Howard saw more and more people become infected with HIV, Tuberculosis and Hepatitis
C. He considers himself lucky he does not have any of these diseases today. Howard said, "At this point all I
can say that its by God's grace of mercy that I've been spared because I've done everything everyone else is
doing." The rate of HIV in prison is five times higher than outside those walls. Non-profit groups like
ACT UP that advocate better health care in prison, claim the continued spread of HIV can be slowed down.
Gellman said, "The spread of HIV and Hepatitis C in New York State prisons could be dealt with and
addressed with the distribution of condoms. Inmates do have sex, it doesn't matter that it's illegal. It's still
a public health crisis if they have unprotected sex." Gellman said, "When they return to their
communities which are often poor, working class communities and they bring an enormous HIV
burden with them."

HIV/AIDS in prison will help the public health of the wider community
Ruiz et. al, Acting Director, Public Policy Office, amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, 2008
(Monica, HIV/AIDS in Correctional Settings: A Congressional Briefing, emerging issues AIDS 20/20 amfAR
briefings, March 2008, JWS)
As a result of poverty, addiction, and other forms of health and social disenfranchisement in their
home communities, inmates in correctional facilities have a uniquely high prevalence of communicable
disease, including HIV/AIDS.109 In some ways, this is not surprising given that, in almost every corner of
the world, HIV strikes the communities that are the least economically and politically empowered.110
The disparities observed in Americas correctional system reflect some of the problems seen in its
healthcare system. A strong commitment from all sectors of society is needed to reduce social and economic
disparities in both systems in order to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, regardless of race
or ethnicity. While it may seem that the goals of the public health and corrections communities are
worlds apart, the reality is that both strive to improve the conditions in society that enhance public
safety and contribute to overall quality of life. Given the multidimensional impact of HIV/AIDS on
individuals and families, the public health and corrections/criminal justice communities should work
more collaboratively to address the socioeconomic disparities and environmental factors that put
individuals at risk for both HIV infection and incarceration. Prison health is public health.111 In order
to alleviate the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS on communities that are already disproportionately
affected by the epidemic, it is imperative to address the individual, social, and environmental factors that
predispose members of these communities to both HIV risk and risk of incarceration. It is equally
imperative that we take full advantage of the window of opportunity provided by incarceration to give
inmates access to the healthcare and social services that could facilitate reductions in morbidity and
mortality, successful reentry, and decreased recidivism. Doing so would not only benefit the health of
incarcerated persons, but also their families and communities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

45
Prisons Aff

HIV Spreads to Communities


Minorities are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS spillover from prisons
Ruiz et. al, Acting Director, Public Policy Office, amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, 2008
(Monica, HIV/AIDS in Correctional Settings: A Congressional Briefing, emerging issues AIDS 20/20 amfAR
briefings, March 2008, JWS)
In 2005, more than 7 million people in the U.S. were under some form of correctional supervision, either in institutional correctional facilities (prisons or
jails) or in the community (e.g., on probation or parole).6 Approximately 3.2 percent of the U.S. populationor one in every 32 adults were incarcerated,
under probation, or on parole at the end of 2005.6 Approximately seven percent of all inmates were women.7 Communities

of color are
disproportionately represented in the U.S. correctional system. Approximately 60 percent of inmates in
state and federal prisons with sentences of longer than one year are African-American or Latino.7 In
addition to their over-representation in the correctional system, men and women of color are
disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS (see Figure 2). Although African Americans represent only 13
percent of the total U.S. population, they account for more HIV and AIDS cases and more HIV related
deaths8 than any other racial or ethnic group. Latinos, the fastest growing racial or ethnic group in the U.S., are not far behind.
They account for 14 percent of the total U.S. population, but have the second highest HIV prevalence in the nation after African Americans.Women of color
are particularly hard hit by the epidemic. They not only represent the majority of American women currently living with HIV, but also account for the
majority of new HIV infections and existing AIDS cases among women .8

The disproportionate impact of HIV in communities


of color and in correctional facilities is exacerbated by a lack of access to adequate health and social
services for inmates while incarcerated and upon their return to the community. Since more than 90
percent of inmates are eventually released into the community,9 the health profile of returning inmates
imposes specific demands on already overburdened community services. Many former inmates do not
have the resources to access services that are not part of post-release planning, such as addiction and
mental health treatment, psychological support,10 reproductive healthcare, education and job
training, and stable housing

Parolees bring health issues back into the communities


Davis et al., Senior Policy Researcher and Ph.D. in public health from the University of
California, Los Angeles, 2009
(Lois, Rand Corporation, RAND_TR687 2009,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR687.pdf, accessed 7-8-9, NB)
What do such insights mean for California? Most of the states prisoners ultimately will return to
California communities, bringing with them a variety of health and social needs that must be
addressed. Yet, the public is largely unaware of the health needs of parolees, and the challenges they
present to their communities are not being addressed in an explicit manner, despite the fact that
reentry directly affects almost every California community. Further, correctional health care in California
has been declared unacceptable and since June 30, 2005, has been under a court-appointed federal receiver.
The lack of quality health care provided to Californias prisoners and lack of communication with
prisoners about their health issues upon release allow them to carry their health problems into the
communities that receive them. The release of increasing numbers of individuals from prison raises
serious public health concerns. In addition to being disproportionately sicker than the general
populationparticularly with chronic conditions, such as diabetes or hypertension, as well as such
highly contagious diseases as tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and hepatitis Cthe prison population is aging.
In essence, it is undergoing a demographic and epidemiologic transition like that seen in many developing
countries. In such transitions, the burden of disease shifts from infectious to chronic diseases. Because of
this transition, the burden of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and hypertensiontypically associated
with older people but already higher than what one would expect in the prison populationis likely to
grow. Further, a disproportionate share of these individuals will likely be released into disadvantaged
communities and neighborhoods in California with limited health care and social services and an
already overextended safety net.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

46
Prisons Aff

HIV Spreads to Communities


Spread of HIV in prisons spills over to the general public
Larsen, Assistant Professor at St. Peter's College, teaching the law and ethics classes for the Criminal Justice
Department, 2008
(Kari, DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO HIV IN U.S. PRISONS, The Catholic
University of America Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 24:251, spring 2008, JWS)
In March 1991, the National Commission on AIDS "proposed that the U.S. Public Health Service
develop guidelines for the prevention and treatment of HIV in all U.S. correctional facilities." n71 Five
years later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended that education and
prevention programs be implemented for inmates in prisons and jails to assist in reducing the transmission of
HIV in the United States. n72 In spite of the Commission's proposal and the CDC's logical deduction
that the transmission of HIV in prisons will lead to the transmission of HIV in society, formal
guidelines regarding the prevention of HIV in correctional facilities have never been issued by the
federal government through the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS), the CDC, or any other agency.
n73 This omission was reflected in a 1992 study done for the World Health Organization, which revealed that
among nineteen countries surveyed, "the United States was one of only four that did not have a national
policy for HIV management in prison." n74 That the U.S. remains without such a policy is appalling,
especially in light of the fact that the U.S. has the world's largest prison population, n75 at 2,258,983.
n76 Furthermore, at least one U.S. [*262] federal court has acknowledged that "[h]igh-risk behavior,
particularly IV drug use and homosexual activity . . . is a given in the prison setting, and no correctional
approach can eliminate it." n77 As the CDC correctly stated, the vast majority of inmates in the United
States are eventually released. Indeed, 95% of inmates are expected to be released and returned to
society, n78 where they will reunite with their spouses, sexual partners, friends, and other social
contacts. Studies have shown that within twelve hours of their release, inmates typically "celebrate"
their liberation by engaging in conduct that is prohibited in prison. Typical celebratory conduct
includes high-risk behavior, such as sexual intercourse or the injection of IV drugs. Heightening the
risk of HIV transmission is the desire for "pure sex" without the use of a condom. n79

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

47
Prisons Aff

Condoms Spill Over


Practice of sex spills in prisons over into urban communities
Swarr, M.D. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 2002
(Daniel, Lafayette University, 7-16-2, AIDS, Prison, and Preventative Medicine: Society's Debt to its Debtors,
http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~vast/swarr.html, July 5, 2009, JTN)
It would be a mistake, therefore, not to consider the benefits of HIV/AIDS prevention programs in
America's prisons before discussing such objectives furtherfor if in fact the cause is hopeless, or
pointless, then perhaps the current funds spent on AIDS education in prisons could be redirected to a more
deserving cause. However, such a tragic fiscal mistake would indicate tremendous lack of foresight and
social ingenuity on our part. Prisoners represent a particularly high-risk group of individuals that are
more likely to be from poor, minority communities than otherwise and will probably be returning
there once their term is up. Prison therefore represents a unique manner by which the benefits of
HIV/AIDS prevention programs can be infused into communities otherwise extremely difficult to help.
Prison disease prevention programs extend beyond the rights of prisoners (which should in itself be
enough to stimulate action) into the domain of general public health. Prison populations are not static;
instead, their barred cells are in a continual dynamic interaction with the communities that lie beyond
their cold and concealing walls. If we, as a society, care at all about public health, particularly the health of
America's poorer citizens, successful HIV/AIDS prevention programs in prisons must be implemented to
take advantage of the relatively captive audience of otherwise unreachable individuals, while they are
confined to a controlled prison setting (Keeton 1998).

Condom distribution is keyit allows them to use safe sex skills, and it spills over into
communities when the prisoners return
Swarr, M.D. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 2002
(Daniel, Lafayette University, 7-16-2, AIDS, Prison, and Preventative Medicine: Society's Debt to its Debtors,
http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~vast/swarr.html, July 5, 2009, JTN)
Educational programs are certainly one of the most crucial components of any preventative medical plan;
however, if prisoners, current or former, find themselves without the necessary resources to protect
themselves, it is likely that they will simply shrug off their newly acquired skills and lapse back into
their old, unsafe behaviors. However politically unacceptable it may seem, it is critical that prison
administrators overcome such difficulties and provide prisoners with the resources they need to
protect themselves from disease. For example, the taboos associated with condom distribution are
further complicated within the prison system, in part because any such program could be viewed by
some as resulting in one of the most undesirable things in the world of correctionsa loss of control
over prisoners. To officials, such an act amounts to accepting the fact that they are unable to
completely stop prisoners from participating in illicit activities. As inevitable and expected as such a loss
of control might be, it is foreseeable that administrators and politicians alike will fight to the death before
admitting such defeat. However, the rewards that such programs would reap are tantalizing. Providing
free condom dispensers in locations of the prison to which prisoners would have easy access but could
still retain some privacy, would give these individuals the opportunity to actually implement the
knowledge they acquired as part of the prison's AIDS education program. In addition, encouraging the
social acceptance of condoms within the confines of a prison is likely to increase usage among exprisoners in the outside community. Again, it seems that programs offered within the confines of a prison
have a strong potential to affect otherwise hard-to-reach communities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

48
Prisons Aff

Condoms Spill Over


Health services to those in prison prevents spread to outside community and increases
health services upon release
Zaller, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Miriam Hospital/Brown Medical School,
Brown University, Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights, 2007
Correctional facilities have a profound effect on urban communities.27 Human traffic between jails
and prisons and the community increases the opportunity for infections to be passed between
community members and offenders (and vice versa, of course). In addition, recidivists may not have an
opportunity to access health care between the time they are in the community and the time they are
rearrested, and for those living with HIV infection it is clear that adequate health care is necessary to
prevent complications arising from advanced HIV infection. In jail populations, where the number of
offenders passing through and returning to the community is high, this is especially true.28 Many jail
inmates detained for periods of less than three months are either not tested or not treated for HIV. Correctional settings offer an
important public health opportunity to provide critical treatment to HIV-infected inmates through the removal of barriers often faced by
these individuals in the community.13,25 Correctional facilities are not only an opportunity to provide much-

needed access to adequate treatment and care, they may also encourage linkage to community-based
health care once inmates are released. Project BRIDGE, a study conducted in the Adult Correctional Institute in Rhode
Island, clearly demonstrated that inmates receiving HIV care can successfully adhere to treatment regimens and be linked to HIV care
services in the community upon release.29 These findings are also supported by Lincoln et al. in a study in which they linked
Connecticut inmates to general health care services in the community upon release.28 Knowledge of HIV status and access

to HIV care inside prison may encourage ex-offenders to access care in the community by acting as a
catalyst for an individual to seek medical help to continue HIV treatment.

Condoms prevent AIDS from spreading into the community


Associated Press, staff writer, 2007
(Associated Press, Fox News/Fox News, Activists Lobby for Condom Distribution in U.S. Prisons, Tuesday,
November 20, 2007, full URL, July 6, 2009, E.B.S.).
Though activists are convinced condom access would reduce STD transmission, they are cautious in
making specific health claims. "I don't know how we'd ever be able to prove how much they reduce
HIV," said Ron Snyder, who now works for the Center for Health Justice. "But if we could affect one
or two people who wouldn't bring it back to their women when they get home, that's dramatic impact
right there."

Condoms prevent the spread of HIV outside of prisons


Struckman-Johnson et. al. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)
1996
Sexual Coercion Reported by Men and Women in Prison The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 33, No. 1 pp. 67-76
JSTOR 07/07/2009
Research on strategies for HIV management in prison settings may save the lives of inmates, as well as
reduce the number of infected persons released from prison who can potentially spread AIDS to the
general population. Social scientists could also work to change current prison policies that prevent
implementation of practical solutions such as distributions of condoms . Illustrating this dilemma, psychologist
Mary E. Craig Shea (personal communication, September 9, 1995) reported that she once worked in a corrections mental health unit
where two young men were frequently targeted for sexual assault. One of the victims was a known HIV patient, and the other had
infectious TB. When staff requested that condoms be made available to inmates to prevent the spread of
diseases, the officials refused. Providing condoms, they explained, would be condoning sodomy an illegal sexual activity in prison

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

49
Prisons Aff

AIDS Impacts - Extinction


AIDS risk extinction
Rollnick, Writer for the UN, 2002
(Roman, United NAtions Botswana's high-stakes assault on AIDS, September 2002,
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol16no2/162aids2.htm, accessed 7/9/09, TAZ)
An African test case for wide distribution of life-prolonging medicines. The gleaming floors, white-frocked
technicians and humming electronic equipment of the Botswana-Harvard HIV Reference Laboratory here in
Botswana's capital are distant in more ways than geography from the dusty villages and crowded mining
compounds on the frontline of Botswana's desperate struggle against HIV/AIDS. But closing the gap
between the resources available at this modern new facility, and the nearly 40 per cent of the adult
population infected with the deadly virus, is at the heart of Botswana's high-stakes effort to provide
comprehensive HIV/AIDS treatment to all of its citizens. In January, Botswana became the first country in
Africa to offer expensive, but life-saving, anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) and other medications to all who need
them through the public health system. It is a costly and ambitious undertaking, one that many health care
experts say cannot be done in Africa. But for the 330,000 Botswanan adults estimated to be HIV-positive,
access to ARVs and to ongoing care, counselling and testing, is a matter of life or death. The vast but
sparsely-populated territory has the highest HIV infection rate in the world (see table, below). Some
26,000 people in this country of less than 1.6 million died from AIDS-related illnesses last year alone.
"We are threatened with extinction," President Festus Mogae told the UN General Assembly last year.
"People are dying in chillingly high numbers. It is a crisis of the first magnitude.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

50
Prisons Aff

AIDS Impacts - Laundry List


Aids wills devastate the population, food supplies, the economy, public health, and
capitalism immediate action is key
United Nations, Population Division Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 2008
(United Nations, Impact of AIDS, 2008, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/AIDSimpact/
AIDSWebAnnounce.htm accessed 7/9/09, TAZ)
The health and mortality of those living with HIV and AIDS and the demographic effects of AIDS
mortality are the focus of much research attention, but the wider implications of the epidemic are less
well explored. HIV/AIDS will have long-term effects on families, communities, enterprises, agriculture
and the well-being and economic future of society as a whole. Where the disease gained an early foothold
and has had the time and opportunity to spread, the consequences are already apparent. As more countries
experience outbreaks of the disease, the effects in todays high-prevalence countries are likely to be
played out in settings all over the world. Since 1981, when the first cases of AIDS were diagnosed, AIDS-related mortality has reached
orders of magnitude comparable to those associated with visitations of pestilence in earlier centuries. The Black Death of 1347-1351 killed more than 20
million people in Europe; by the end of 2002, 22 million people had lost their lives to AIDS, and more than 42 million were living with HIV/AIDS. The
future course of the disease and its real magnitude remain unknown. Thus,

it is of paramount importance to understand the


impact of the pandemic, to present the current state of knowledge of its impact and to identify areas
where research is vitally needed. In many developing countries, the effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic,
combined with the economic recessions of the 1970s and 1980s, have erased decades of demographic
and economic progress and have seriously compromised the living conditions of future generations
(Nicoll and others, 1994). The disease has such a staggering impact because it weakens and kills many
people in their young adulthood, the most productive years for income-generation and family
caregiving. It collapses and breaks up families by eliminating the generation that is important to the
survival of societys youngest and oldest members. The HIV/AIDS epidemic affects every aspect of
human life. It has imposed heavy burdens on individuals, families, communities and nations. The present
publication documents the wide-ranging impacts of HIV/AIDS on families and households;
agricultural sustainability; business; the health sector; education; and economic growth. The study
also shows that the AIDS epidemic will continue to have devastating consequences for decades to come
for virtually every sector of society. In many countries, the epidemic is undermining the achievement of the
goals outlined in the Millennium Declaration adopted by the General Assembly in 2000. Accordingly,
immediate action and investments in policies and programmes will be able to save millions of lives and
mitigate the destructive consequences of an unchecked epidemic.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

51
Prisons Aff

AIDS Impacts Structural Violence


AIDS increases structural violence as well as increases poverty, racism, gender inequalities,
and sexual oppression.
Parker, PhD Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University, 2002,
(Richard, American Journal of Public Health, The Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic, Structural Inequalities, and the Politics of
International Health, March 2002, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447073, accessed 7/9/09, TAZ)
Indeed, if we bring together the available data on HIV/AIDS in the developing world with the most recent trends on HIV infection in
countries such as the United States, it is impossible not to be impressed by the extent to which a range of

structural inequalities intersect and combine to shape the character of the HIV/AIDS epidemic
everywhere, both North and South, in developed as well as developing countries. In all societies,
regardless of their degree of development or prosperity, the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to rage
but it now affects almost exclusively the most marginalized sectors of society, people living in situations
characterized by diverse forms of structural violence.6 It is in the spaces of poverty, racism, gender
inequality, and sexual oppression that the HIV epidemic continues todayin large part unencumbered
by formal public health and education programs, let alone by the advances in treatment that might
otherwise convince us that the emergency has passed. The context in which the HIV/AIDS epidemic
continues to expand in countries around the world is one of growing polarization between the very rich
and the very poor, increasing the isolation of some segments of the population at a time when others are
perversely integrated into the criminal economies of international drug smuggling and the like, and
increasing social inequalities that seem to be an integral part of globalization based on neoliberal economic
policies.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

52
Prisons Aff

AIDS Impacts - Systemic


AIDS is a systemic impact People contract and die from AIDS every day.
Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2009
(Volume 48, Number S4, 15 May 2009 Supplement, pp. S231-S270, 5/15/09, HIV Policy: The Path ForwardA
Joint Position Paper of the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the
American College of Physicians, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/598169?cookieSet=1.,
accessed, 7/9/09, TAZ)
Since the first AIDS cases were reported in 1981, 1.7 million people have become infected with HIV in
the United States [5]. Of these individuals, >550,000 have died, and nearly 1.2 million people are
estimated to be living with the disease today [6, 7]. Of these, 415,000 are estimated to be living with
AIDS, and 417,000 are estimated to be living with HIV infection. Another 252,000312,000 people are
estimated to be living with HIV infection or AIDS in the United States and to be unaware of their
status. In August 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revised the annual HIV
infection incidence rate to 56,300 cases per year and asserted that this number has remained stable for more
than a decade [8]. In 2006, the largest estimated proportion of HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the United States
were among men who have sex with men [9], and a majority of those women who contracted HIV infection
did so through heterosexual contact [10]. HIV/AIDS continues to disproportionately impact racial and
ethnic minorities, who now account for 65% of new AIDS cases [6]. During the midtolate 1990s,
advances in treatment slowed the progression of HIV infection to AIDS and dramatically reduced the number
of deaths among people living with AIDS. Regionally, the South has had the greatest numbers of people
estimated to be living with AIDS, AIDS deaths, and new AIDS diagnoses, followed by the Northeast, West,
and Midwest

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

53
Prisons Aff

AIDS Impacts - Deadly


Aids is the deadliest disease in modern history.
United Nations, Population Division Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 2008
(United Nations, Impact of AIDS, 2008, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/AIDSimpact/
AIDSWebAnnounce.htm accessed 7/9/09, TAZ)
Since 1981, when the first cases of AIDS were diagnosed, the world has been facing the deadliest
epidemic in modern history. Nearly 22 years after the start of the epidemic, mortality caused by AIDS
has attained orders of magnitude comparable to those associated with other visitations of pestilence. In
Europe alone, it is thought that over 20 million people died during the period 1347 to 1351 as a result of the
Black Death. In contrast, the human immunodeficiency virus is a slow killer. However, the Joint United
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (with the World Health Organization, 2002) estimated that by the end
of 2002 42 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and that an additional 22 million people had
already lost their lives to AIDS. In spite of the progress made in treating people infected with HIV, in
particular in the more developed countries, AIDS remains an incurable disease, and, coupled with
malnutrition, it is a fatal disease. UNAIDS estimated that 29.4 million of the 42 million persons infected
with HIV were living in sub-Saharan Africa, 6 million in South and South-east Asia and 2 million in
Latin America and the Caribbean (UNAIDS and WHO, 2002). Since people infected with HIV remain
healthy for long periods before showing overt signs of immunodeficiency, the first stages of the HIV
epidemic are difficult to detect. However, social scientists and epidemiologists modeling the impact of
the epidemic have long known that its cumulative impact can be serious. In World Population Prospects:
The 2002 Revision (United Nations, 2003d), the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Population Division incorporated the impact of AIDS into the estimates and projections of the populations of
53 countries. In most of those countries, HIV prevalence is estimated to be 2 per cent or more among the
adult population aged 15-49. In addition, a few populous countries with lower prevalence levels were
included owing to the large number of persons living with HIV (more than one million persons).

Deaths from AIDS already equal the number of deaths from the Black Death.
United Nations, The Impact of AIDS, 2004
(The Impact of AIDS, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/AIDSimpact/5_CHAP_II.pdf, 7/9/09, GMK)
Since 1981, when the first cases of AIDS were diagnosed, the world has been facing the deadliest
epidemic in modern history. Nearly 22 years after the start of the epidemic, mortality caused by AIDS has
attained orders of magnitude comparable to those associated with other visitations of pestilence. In
Europe alone, it is thought that over 20 million people died during the period 1347 to 1351 as a result of
the Black Death. In contrast, the human immunodeficiency virus is a slow killer. However, the Joint United
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (with the World Health Organization, 2002) estimated that by the end
of 2002 42 million people were living with HIV/AIDS and that an additional 22 million people had
already lost their lives to AIDS.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

54
Prisons Aff

AIDS Impacts - Famine


Aids creates a food shortage by killing off the farmers
United Nations, Population Division Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 2008
(United Nations, Impact of AIDS, 2008, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/AIDSimpact/
AIDSWebAnnounce.htm accessed 7/9/09, TAZ)
Consequently, the important impacts of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on agriculture are food inse-curity
caused by the reduction of production, and loss of income from household members em-ployed in the
sector. The HIV/AIDS epidemic may also affect the traditional coping mechanisms that are often found
in rural areas. Traditionally, local residents have joined together to offer assistance to those in need during
periods of shock or crisis. Indeed, community-based initiatives have become one of the outstanding
features of the epidemic and a key coping mechanism for mitigating the impact of HIV/AIDS
(UNAIDS, 2002). However, as the number of HIV/AIDS cases increases, the need for assistance may
overwhelm the support system, and traditional coping mechanisms may begin to break down.

AIDS creates a food shortage


United Nations, Population Division Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 2008
(United Nations, Impact of AIDS, 2008, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/AIDSimpact/
AIDSWebAnnounce.htm accessed 7/9/09, TAZ)
The great majority of the population in the countries most affected by HIV/AIDS live in rural areas. In
many African countries, farming and other rural occupations provide a livelihood for more than 70 per
cent of the population. Hence, it is to be expected that the HIV/AIDS epidemic will cause serious
damage to the agriculture sector in those countries, especially in countries that rely heavily on
manpower for production. The present chapter explores the issues related to the impact of HIV/AIDS on
agriculture. First, a conceptual framework for analysis of the impact of HIV/AIDS on agriculture is
presented, based on previous work by the Food and Agriculture Or-ganization of the United Nations (FAO),
followed by a presentation of the evidence available on the impact of HIV/AIDS on agriculture. A.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE IMPACT OF HIV/AIDS ON AGRICULTURE HIV/AIDS can
affect agriculture in many ways (figure 10): Absenteeism caused by HIV-related ill-nesses and the loss of
labour from AIDS-related deaths may lead to the re-duction of the area of land under culti-vation and
to declining yields resulting in reduced food production and food in-security. The loss of labour may
also lead to de-clines in crop variety and to changes in cropping systems, particularly a change from
more labour-intensive systems to less intensive systems. Livestock pro-duction may become less
intensive, and weeding and pruning may be curtailed. A shift away from labour-intensive crops may
result in a less varied and less nutritious diet.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

55
Prisons Aff

AIDS Impacts - O/W


AND, strains of HIV will become as infectious as Bubonic Plague, risking massive species
extinction.
Powell, Sr. Editor at Discover Magazine, 01
(Corey S., 20 Ways the World Could End, Discover, 10/01, JoY)
If Earth doesn't do us in, our fellow organisms might be up to the task. Germs and people have always
coexisted, but occasionally the balance gets out of whack. The Black Plague killed one European in
four during the 14th century; influenza took at least 20 million lives between 1918 and 1919; the AIDS
epidemic has produced a similar death toll and is still going strong. From 1980 to 1992, reports the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mortality from infectious disease in the United States rose 58
percent. Old diseases such as cholera and measles have developed new resistance to antibiotics. Intensive
agriculture and land development is bringing humans closer to animal pathogens. International travel means
diseases can spread faster than ever. Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert who recently left the
Minnesota Department of Health, described the situation as "like trying to swim against the current of a
raging river." The grimmest possibility would be the emergence of a strain that spreads so fast we are
caught off guard or that resists all chemical means of control, perhaps as a result of our stirring of the
ecological pot. About 12,000 years ago, a sudden wave of mammal extinctions swept through the
Americas. Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History argues the culprit was extremely
virulent disease, which humans helped transport as they migrated into the New World.

Well win on magnitude- diseases outrank and outweigh terrorism and nukes.
Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, 05
(Fareed, A Threat Worse Than Terror, no date given, JoY)
A flu pandemic is the most dangerous threat the United States faces today," says Richard Falkenrath,
who until recently served in the Bush administration as deputy Homeland Security adviser. "It's a bigger
threat than terrorism. In fact it's bigger than anything I dealt with when I was in government." One makes a
threat assessment on the basis of two factors: the probability of the event, and the loss of life if it
happened. On both counts, a pandemic ranks higher than a major terror attack, even one involving
weapons of mass destruction. A crude nuclear device would probably kill hundreds of thousands. A flu
pandemic could easily kill millions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

56
Prisons Aff

Condoms Solve
Condoms are needed in prisons to reduce HIV/AIDS transfer
Ruiz et. al, Acting Director, Public Policy Office, amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, 2008
(Monica, HIV/AIDS in Correctional Settings: implications for prevention and treatment policy, emerging issues
AIDS 20/20 amfAR briefings, March 2008, JWS)
The incarcerated population in the U.S. is larger than that of any other nation. At the end of 2006,
more than one in 100 adults were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails. Compared
with the population at large, incarcerated individuals are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS; the
prevalence among prisoners is more than three times that of the general U.S. population. Communities of
color are disproportionately represented in the U.S. correctional system and are affected by HIV/AIDS
at higher rates than other groups.
The presence of HIV-infected persons and those at high risk of infection in the correctional system
poses a critical challenge to both the correctional health system and the public health community.
Addressing this challenge offers meaningful opportunities to effectively reach these individuals and
engage them in HIV prevention, treatment, and care. amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, has
reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to HIV prevention and treatment in correctional settings and has
developed the following recommendations based on the available evidence. HIV Prevention Preventing the
spread of HIV in correctional facilities requires the implementation of comprehensive testing, education,
and harm reduction programs, as well as mental health care and addiction treatment. HIV Testing Routine
HIV testing with the option to opt out should be offered as a component of standard medical care to inmates,
and those who refuse testing should not experience adverse consequences. Inmates choosing to be tested
should receive their results (whether positive or negative) in a timely fashion. Incarcerated individuals who
test positive for HIV should be provided with treatment, care, and supportive services. HIV Prevention and
Education Services Incarcerated individuals should be able to participate in HIV/AIDS education and
prevention programs. Special care must be taken to use instructors such as peer educators who are able to
establish the trust and rapport that are needed to discuss sensitive topics including sexual practices, substance
abuse, and HIV/AIDS. Comprehensive HIV/AIDS education programs should also be offered to
correctional staff in order to reduce stigma and discrimination against HIV-positive prisoners. Harm
Reduction Measures, Substance Use, and Mental Health Correctional facilities should consider
instituting harm reduction policies such as providing condoms and access to sterile syringes to inmates.
Research conducted at correctional facilities in Europe has shown that the provision of sterile syringes
in such settings has not resulted in increases in drug use or security concerns. Similarly, the provision of
condoms in correctional settings has not been associated with increased security concerns. Given this
evidence and in light of the fact that sharing injection equipment and engaging in unprotected sexual
intercourse place inmates at risk for a variety of infectious diseases, correctional officials should
reconsider policies prohibiting the provision of harm reduction and HIV prevention materials to
inmates

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

57
Prisons Aff

Condoms Solve
Distributing condoms in prisons would be an effective way to prevent HIV spread
Childs, ABC News Medical Unit, 2006
(Dan, ABC News, December 14, Free Condoms for Prisoners? Barrier Contraception Could Stem High Levels of
HIV Infection in Correctional Facilities, Experts Say http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AIDS/story?
id=2724605&page=1, Accessed July 6, 2009, JTN)
It is difficult to pin down an exact statistic on how many prisoners are having sex. Various studies have arrived at figures ranging from 2
percent to 30 percent. But research also shows that prison sex is risky sex. One study in 2002 estimated that

about one-quarter of the U.S. population infected with HIV had spent some time each year in a prison
or jail. Hence, a certain number of prisoners who go in HIV negative come out HIV positive. Health
experts say distributing condoms to these prisoners would be a wise approach to the problem. Some say
that distributing condoms in prisons and jails may also prevent taxpayers from eventually having to pay to care for HIV-infected
inmates. "If prisoners transmit [sexually transmitted infections] or HIV/AIDS to each other, the public will have to spend the money to
take care of them," said Dr. June Reinisch, director emeritus of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction.

"Whether you are on the side of caring about their health or are against their having sexual
interactions -- which we are unlikely to influence one way or another by providing condoms or not -we may be saving the public millions of dollars in health-care costs for taking care of the sick
prisoners," Reinisch said.

Condoms are essential to the prevention of AIDS and only four percent of prisons support
this cost-cutting measure
ACLU 2004
Prisoners Rights http://www.alrp.org/downloads/AIDS%20Law-%20Prisoner's%20Rights.pdf
Numerous studies have found that condoms are essential in the prevention of HIV.80 Properly cleaning
needles with bleach will prevent transmission through intravenous drug use. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention strongly supports the distribution of both condoms and bleach within the
prison system, yet only four percent of jails - specifically the urban jail systems of New York, Washington
D.C., San Francisco, and Philadelphia - make condoms available to inmates. Only ten percent allow
condom distribution. Twenty percent make bleach available.81 The remaining facilities consider syringes,
needles, bleach, condoms, or any latex barrier to be contraband. A commonly held estimate of the annual
cost of incarceration is $25,000 per prisoner. The Correctional HIV Consortium estimated in 2001 that
the cost of caring for an HIV positive inmate was $80,396 per year and $105,963 for those diagnosed
with AIDS.82 Preventing HIV in prisons, therefore, proves to be not only life-saving, but also cost
effective.

Prisoners have a right to preventative solutions to AIDS and condoms solve


Schaller and Harding International Conference on AIDS 1992
University Institute of Legal Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland International Conference on AIDS
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102200290.html
Prisoners have the right to receive health care equivalent to that in the community, including
preventive care. Public health authorities therefore have a duty to ensure effective AIDS prevention
within prisons. We have sought to define policy options in this field. METHOD: Information from 46 prison systems in 26 countries
has been collected from W.H.O. supported information exchange network in existence since 1988. Data is collected through an ongoing
two way exchange, so that trends can be monitored. Most recent information was collected in October-December 1991. RESULTS:
Providing information to prisoners and personnel of HIV transmission is practiced in all systems. However, condom distribution and
effective measures to prevent intravenous transmission while in prison or shortly after release pose problems. Condom distribution
during incarceration and on release is practised in a growing number of systems: 21/46 while in prison; 16/46 on release or parole. No
prison systems have adopted syringe/needle distribution or exchange during incarceration or on release. Security measures cannot ensure
a drug free environment and injection with shared material certainly occurs in prison. A few systems (14/46) have accepted distribution
of a disinfectant (usually dilute sodium hypochlorite solutions) with specific, detailed instructions on cleaning injection materials.
CONCLUSIONS: Considerable resistance to condom distribution still exists, but this appears to be a policy
option which should be strongly supported by health authorities. Disinfectant distribution appears acceptable to
both prisoners and prison authorities. It appears realistic to propose its wide-scale adoption in prisons housing significant numbers of
drug users.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

58
Prisons Aff

Condoms Solve
Condom programs are feasible, successful elsewhere, and crucial to prevent HIV
Tucker, Chang, and Tulsky Division of Infectious Diseases, Division of Medicine, Division of
Medicine and Positive Health Program 2007
(Joseph D., Susanne W, Jacqueline P. Massachusetts General Hospital, University of California San Francisco,
University of California San Fransisco October 21 The catch 22 of condoms in US correctional facilities BMC
Public Health 2007, 7:296 TBC)
This article makes the following arguments to justify a scalable and feasible next step in the prevention of HIV/STIs among inmates:

condoms are a basic and essential part of HIV/STI prevention, HIV/STI transmission occurs in the
context of corrections, and several model programs show the feasibility of condom distribution in
prisons. A lower end estimate for HIV incidence among incarcerated applied to 2,000,000 new inmates
annually results in thousands of new HIV infections acquired each year in corrections that could be
prevented with condoms in corrections facilities. Programs from parts of the United States, Canada,
and much of Europe show how programs distributing condoms in correctional facilities can be safe
and effective.

Empirically Proven: In all examples condoms have worked and overcome stigma
Tucker, Chang, and Tulsky Division of Infectious Diseases, Division of Medicine, Division of
Medicine and Positive Health Program 2007
(Joseph D., Susanne W, Jacqueline P. Massachusetts General Hospital, University of California San Francisco,
University of California San Fransisco October 21 The catch 22 of condoms in US correctional facilities BMC
Public Health 2007, 7:296 TBC)
Large scale national programs making condoms available in prisons have been present in Canada and
many European nations for over a decade. The proportion of European prison systems allowing condoms rose from 53%
in 1989 to 81% in 1997 [21]. More importantly, none of the penal systems that have introduced condom
distribution have reversed their policy, and the number of correctional facilities with condoms grows
each year. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian AIDS Society argued early in the 1990s for more widespread
condom availability independent of inmates asking for them [21]. This policy was adopted by the Canadian government, and has proven
feasible and effective [22]. Canadian law now guarantees that condoms be available in three discrete unique locations in the prison, in
addition to being provided for conjugal visits [23]. In Australia, 50 prisoners brought legal action against the state for non-provision of
condoms, prompting the provision of condoms in New South Wales. This policy has since been found effective and

sustainable [24]. Stigma associated with obtaining condoms in prison environments did not limit the
utility of the program since condoms were available in multiple locations without asking a physician;
such measures would be important to ensuring that the stigma associated with homosexual behaviors
often found in correctional settings does not limit opportunities for HIV prevention. The increasing number
of international jails and prisons distributing condoms provides useful information about structuring scalable successful programs.

Condoms cause literally no prison problems and decrease transmission


WHO 2007
(Effectiveness of interventions to manage HIV in prisons Provision of condoms and other
measures to decrease sexual transmission http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/view/208 TBC)
There is evidence that provision of condoms is feasible in a wide range of prison settings. No prison
system allowing condoms has reversed its policy, and none has reported security problems or any other
major negative consequences. In particular, it has been found that condom access is unobtrusive to the
prison routine, represents no threat to security or operations, does not lead to an increase in sexual
activity or drug use, and is accepted by most prisoners and prison staff once it is introduced. At the
same time, there is evidence that making condoms available to prisoners is not enough they need to be
easily accessible in various locations in the prison, so that prisoners do not have to ask for them and can pick
them up without being seen by staff or fellow prisoners. Studies have not determined whether infections have
been prevented thanks to condom provision in prison, but there is evidence that prisoners use condoms to
prevent infection during sexual activity when condoms are accessible in prison. It can therefore be
considered likely that infections have been prevented.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

59
Prisons Aff

Condoms Solve
Condoms are key to prevent sexually transmitted infections, solve the violation of prisoners
rights, and the stigma attached to homosexuality
Tucker, Chang, and Tulsky Division of Infectious Diseases, Division of Medicine, Division of
Medicine and Positive Health Program 2007
Joseph D., Susanne W, Jacqueline P. Massachusetts General Hospital, University of California San Francisco,
University of California San Fransisco October 21 The catch 22 of condoms in US correctional facilities BMC
Public Health 2007, 7:296
Basic HIV prevention services only begin with the widespread availability of condoms. While the
stigma associated with homosexual behaviors and condom use in prisons would be difficult to change,
providing prisoners direct access to condoms could serve to limit the stigma attached to these risk
behaviors. Security, medical and public health groups must collaborate to form policy introducing condoms,
HIV education, and comprehensive STD screening in jails and prisons. Experiences from several parts of
the US, Canada, and much of Europe show that condoms can safely and effectively prevent STIs in
prisons. Leverage from lawyers and activists to characterize how prisoners are currently denied their
right to the most basic HIV prevention tools may help serve to catalyze change. State and national
politicians in the US have identified this as important issue worthy of legislative action. Neither federal [25]
nor statewide[26] legislative efforts have successfully resolved the Catch-22 of ensuring condom access
among incarcerated individuals in the United States. Public health and corrections officials must work
together to ensure that condoms and broader sexual disease prevention programs are integrated into US jail
and prison health systems.

Other countries have already had success with similar programs, in spite of given reasons
against condom distribution
Larsen, Assistant Professor at St. Peter's College, teaching the law and ethics classes for the Criminal Justice
Department, 2008
(Kari, DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO HIV IN U.S. PRISONS, The Catholic
University of America Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 24:251, spring 2008, JWS)
Currently, a bill (AB 1677) regarding condom distribution within California prisons is pending in the
California State Assembly. If enacted, AB 1677 would allow not-for-profit organizations to distribute
sexual barrier protection devices, such as condoms or dental dams, to inmates. Included in the bill is a
disclaimer of sorts; a caveat to the reader that "the distribution of these devices shall not . . . be
deemed to encourage sexual acts between inmates." n96
Most U.S. prison systems refuse to distribute condoms for fear that 1) the condoms would be filled up
with sand or dirt and used as weapons; 2) that the condoms would be used to hide contraband; and 3)
that the distribution of condoms would implicitly suggest that sex is permitted. n97 Notwithstanding
these concerns, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) recommends the
distribution of condoms to all prisoners. n98 In keeping with this recommendation, 81% of prison
systems in Europe provide condoms to inmates, n99 as do all Canadian federal prisons, where there
have been no reported incidents of condoms being used as weapons. n100 However, 10% of Canadian
prison guards view condoms as a nuisance, because prisoners use them as water balloons. n101 In spite of the
availability of condoms to Canadian prisoners, sexual conduct in prison [*266] remains an institutional
offense. When asked if the distribution of condoms in Canadian prisons implies that sexual activity is
permitted, Ralf Jurgens, director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS legal Network, explained, "Fighting the
spread of HIV is more important than upholding so-called morality when the activity is occurring
(even in the absence of condoms)." n102

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

60
Prisons Aff

Condoms Solve
HIV Is A Major Problem In Prison, Condom Distribution Will Solve
McCroy, Freelance writer who works for numerous New York publications, including the
New York Blade and GO NYC Magazine, 2009,
(The foundation for aids research Putting HIV on Lockdown, April 20,
http://www.amfar.org/community/article.aspx?id=7176, Accessed 7/6/09 By SA )
In the U.S., HIV prevalence in correctional facilities is three times higher than in the general
population. With America incarcerating one in 100 adultsmore than any other countryHIV in
prisons is a national crisis. And since 90 percent of prisoners are released back into the community, this
problem impacts people in jail and in the community. Prisoner advocates agree that it is time to tackle the
problem aggressively, but a close look at HIV behind bars reveals the complexity of that task. An effective
campaign would start with HIV testing upon intake but it would also need to provide clinical care
during incarceration, plus prevention and harm reduction measures in prisons, including condom
distribution and syringe exchange.

Condoms needed in Prisons to stop AIDS


Reuters, 2006
(MSNBC, Condoms urged in prisons to curb AIDS, 11-16-6, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15753803/, accessed
7-8-9, NB)
U.S. prisons should make condoms available to inmates and test for HIV as part of a broader effort to
curb the spread of AIDS among blacks, hit disproportionately hard by the incurable disease, experts
urged Thursday. The National Minority AIDS Council advocacy group, backed by U.S. black lawmakers
and medical leaders, issued a series of recommendations aimed at U.S. policymakers to slow the epidemic
among blacks, 10 times more likely than whites to have AIDS. In 2006, AIDS in America is a black
disease, said Phill Wilson, executive director of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles. With U.S. black
men seven times more likely than whites and three times more likely than Latinos to be imprisoned, the
councils report said incarceration has become one of the most important drivers of HIV infection among
African-Americans. More than half of new U.S. HIV infections are in blacks, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. While blacks make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, more than 40
percent of U.S. prisoners are black. The AIDS rate among prisoners is three times the rate in the general
public. HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, most often is spread through sexual contact or intravenous
drug use. Behavior like unprotected homosexual sex and injection drug use raises HIV infection risk in
prisons, and the problem is compounded when black men infected in prison then transmit the virus to others
after their release, the report stated. The report urged prisons and jails to make available condoms, along
with HIV prevention education programs.

Condoms have been proven to prevent transmission of HIV and AIDS


CDC, 2009
(Center for Disease Control, Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases,
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm, March 26, 2009)
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual
transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS
HIV infection is, by far, the most deadly STD, and considerably more scientific evidence exists
regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of
research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both
comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been
scientifically established in real-life studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.
Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to
particles the size of HIV.
Theoretical basis for protection. Latex condoms cover the penis and provide an effective barrier to
exposure to secretions such as urethral and vaginal secretions, blocking the pathway of sexual
transmission of HIV infection.
Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other
partner is not, demonstrate that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

61
Prisons Aff

Condoms Solve
Current programs have worked, none have been cancelled
Ruiz et. al, Acting Director, Public Policy Office, amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, 2008
(Monica, HIV/AIDS in Correctional Settings: A Congressional Briefing, emerging issues AIDS 20/20 amfAR
briefings, March 2008, JWS)
Although sexual and substance use behaviors are not permitted in incarcerated settings, the reality is that
such behaviors do occur. Therefore, efforts to reduce the risk of infection from these behaviors would
benefit both the incarcerated persons and the communities to which they return. Indeed, researchers and
advocates have expressed the need for more harm reduction programs in prisons and jails.60 While the use
of harm reduction strategies such as condoms and access to sterile injection equipment in correctional
facilities is endorsed by theWorld Health Organization, 61 the vast majority of U.S. prisons and jails
specifically prohibit the distribution and possession of these items.50 Condoms are currently provided
on a limited basis in only two state prison systems (Vermont and Mississippi) and five county jail
systems (New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, andWashington, D.C. ).24 Contrary to
critics arguments, few inmates have used condoms as weapons or to smuggle contraband into
correctional facilities11,62 and there is no evidence that sexual activity within correctional facilities has
increased as an outcome of condom distribution.62,63 In fact, in those correctional institutions (both in
the U.S. and elsewhere) where a condom availability program exists, there have been no security or
custody issues that resulted in the closure of the program.

Leading health agencies concur that condoms are vital to prevent AIDS in prisons
Sylla, MPH, 08
(Mary, Champ Network, Prisoner Access to Condoms in the United States The Challenge of Introducing Harm
Reduction into a Law and Order Environment, 5/18/08,
http://www.champnetwork.org/media/Prisoner_Access_to_Condoms_in_the_United_States-Sylla.pdf, 7/8/09, JPW)
The combination of high HIV prevalence, documented risk behavior among prisoners and the high incarceration rates in the US have
resulted in many calls for prisoner access to condoms in U.S. jails and prisons . The World Health Organization says,

[s]ince penetrative anal sex occurs, even when prohibited, in prisons, condoms should be made
available to prisoners throughout their period of detention. (WHO, 2004). The United Nations Joint
Programme on AIDS concurs: UNAIDS believes it is vital that condoms, together with lubricant, should
be readily available to prisoners. (UNAIDS). And the National Minority AIDS Council recommends
that nonprofit organizations, government and public health agencies be allowed to distribute condoms
in prison facilities, pointing out that [e]nsuring access to condoms in prisons would not only protect
prisoners, but also the health and lives of the people in the communities to which they will return.
(NMAC) In many other countries, including Canada, Australia, Costa Rica, and Brazil, South Africa and throughout Europe, prisoners
have access to condoms (Hellard & Aitken, 2004; World Health Organization (WHO), 2001). International agencies consistently\ report
that the in-custody condom distributions programs throughout Europe, Canada, and Australia encounter few problems and are wellaccepted by both inmates and custody personnel (Hellard & Aitken, 2004; WHO, 2001). But in just two prisons and five jail systems in
the U.S. (Braithwaite & Arriola, 2003; Hammett, Harmon, & Rhodes, 2002)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

62
Prisons Aff

Try or Die for Condoms


The inevitability of sex in prisons means we should start a prevention program by using
condoms. Theres demand.
Santos P-I Reporter 2007
Melissa Jan. 18 Condom distribution to prisoners advocated Measure would create plan to reduce sexually
transmitted infections http://www.seattlepi.com/local/300173_prison18.html
OLYMPIA -- With studies showing that U.S. jails can't enforce bans on sex between inmates, lawmakers
and AIDS-prevention advocates say it's time to start distributing condoms in Washington prisons.
Legislators are pushing a bill calling for a five-year plan to reduce the number of sexually transmitted infections among inmates.
Though the bill does not specify condom distribution, its prime sponsor, Rep. Jeannie Darneille, D-Tacoma, said she hoped it would
rekindle stalled discussions about providing inmates with protection."We have to start somewhere," she said. An advisory council to
Gov. Chris Gregoire recommended in June 2006 that the state prison system look into ways of reducing the spread of sexually
transmitted infections among prisoners, including making condoms available. At the time, Department of Corrections officials said they
didn't think condoms were the solution. The governor has yet to weigh in on the issue. Members of the U.S. inmate

population are nearly five times more likely to be infected with HIV than members of the general
population, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . The rate of HIV infection in
Washington state is much lower than the national average, Department of Corrections officials estimate, but it is hard to tell for certain
because prisoners in Washington aren't required to take an HIV test upon entering the system. "We don't have a lot of data, and we don't
have a lot of plans for addressing this issue," Darneille said. "This bill tries to address that conundrum and establishes a process for the
Department of Corrections and the Department of Health to work together in addressing this issue of transmission and the level of
disease in the prison setting." The CDC identified sex between inmates, tattooing and intravenous drug use in

prisons as risk factors for HIV and Hepatitis C infection, which affects about 30 percent of inmates in
the state. Marc Stern, health services director for the Department of Corrections, said that because it is illegal for people to have sex
while incarcerated, giving them condoms could be seen as promoting illegal behavior. "We're trying to send the message that sex in
prison is not OK," he said. "We're afraid that issuing condoms sends a mixed message." He said it's also unclear how many inmates
actually get infected with HIV while in prison. A CDC study of inmates in Georgia found that although the prison population had a
higher prevalence of HIV infection, few of those infections occurred inside the prison system. Of those prisoners who were infected with
HIV, 91 percent of them were infected before they arrived in state care. Nearly two-thirds of those infected in jail reported having malemale sex with other inmates. "Our interpretation of those results is that every additional case of HIV is something that is important and
that we should try to avoid, but the amount of transmissions in prisons based on that data is very small," Stern said. "There might be one
case of HIV transmitted in prisons in the state of Washington in a four- to five-year period." Dr. Jeff Schouten, chairman of the
Governor's Advisory Council on HIV/ AIDS, said he and other members of the council interpreted the data differently: "We thought the
number of new infections was significant." He said there's evidence that prisoners would use protection if it were

made available to them. In the Georgia prison study, the CDC found that about 30 percent of inmates
engaging in consensual sex reported using condoms or improvised barrier protection methods.
"There's a demand for it," Schouten said. Darneille compared the act of distributing condoms in prisons to running a needle
exchange for IV drug users. "It doesn't really stop people to say, 'That's not allowed, so we'll just ignore it,' "
she said. "If you say to someone, 'You're utilizing drugs -- let me give you education and at the same
time make treatment available,' then you can move someone toward living a clean lifestyle. The same is
true in prison."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

63
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse Percieved Internationally


US human rights violations in prison are perceived as hypocritical especially in countries
where we are trying to lead on human rights
AFP 2005
(Thursday, March 3China Lashes Out at Serious US Human Rights Violations
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0303-04.htm Accessed 7/9/08 TC)
China accused the United States of serious human rights violations and told Washington to clean up its
own act before "wantonly trampling on the sovereignty of other countries". In its annual Human Rights
Record of the United States, China hit out at the "atrocity" of US troops in Iraq and criticised the Bush
administration for failing to deal with poverty, racial discrimination and crime at home. It was published just
days after the US released its own annual human rights report, which accused China of muting dissent, suppressing religious rights and
restricting freedom of speech. "Despite tons of problems in its own human rights, the United States continues to stick to its belligerent
stance, wantonly trampling on the sovereignty of other countries," said the report, the sixth China has issued. "The United States should
reflect on its erroneous behavior on human rights and take its own human rights problems seriously instead of indulging itself in
publishing the 'human rights country report' to censure other countries unreasonably." The report, which widely cited media and aid
group reports and official US statistics, focused on US abuse of Iraqi prisoners. "In 2004 the atrocity of US troops abusing Iraqi POWs
exposed the dark side of human rights performance of the United States," it said, adding that the US "frequently commits wanton
slaughters during external invasions and military attacks". "A survey on Iraqi civilian deaths, based on the natural death rate before the
war, estimates that the US-led invasion might have led to 100,000 more deaths in the country, with most victims being women and
children." It also charged that the United States has been "hindering" the work of the United Nation's

human rights mechanism. "And it either took no notice of or used delaying tactics on the requests of
relevant UN agencies to visit its Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba." Domestically, Americans were
"threatened by rampant violent crimes and severe infringement of civil rights by law enforcement
departments". "Police violence and infringement of human rights by law enforcement agencies also
constitute a serious problem," the report said. It highlighted the widely publicised case of Chinese citizen Zhao Yan who was
handcuffed and beaten last year while in the United States on a business trip. The report also lashed out at the US being a democracy
"manipulated by the rich", saying four billion dollars was spent on the presidential election while "poverty, hunger and homelessness
haunt the United States". China also bemoaned the fact that "racial discrimination has been deeply rooted in the

United States, permeating into every aspect of society", saying coloured people were generally poorer
than whites. "Racial prejudice is ubiquitous in judicial fields," it said. "The proportion for persons of colored races
being sentenced or being imprisoned is notably higher than whites." The situation of American women and children was also
"disturbing". "The rates of women and children physically or sexually victimized were high," said the report, claiming that 400,000
children were forced to work as prostitutes in the United States. "No country should exclude itself from the

international human rights development process, or view itself as the incarnation of human rights
which can reign over other countries and give orders to the others," it said. "Even the United States
shall be no exception."

US human rights violations undermine our ability to promote universal human rights
ACLU 2006
7/10/2006ACLU Urges U.S. Accountability for Human Rights Violations U.N. Committee Convenes to Evaluate
Abysmal U.S. Human Rights Record http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/26100prs20060710.html Accessed
7/9/08 TC
The American Civil Liberties Union today charged the U.S. government with failure to uphold civil
and political rights and expressed grave concerns over serious setbacks in rights protections over the
past several years. An ACLU delegation arrives this week in Geneva to brief the 18 human rights experts
of the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC) and to monitor the committee's examination of U.S.
compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a major international
human rights treaty ratified by the U.S. in 1992. "Respect for universal human rights begins at home
and not though public relations campaigns and programs to promote human rights overseas," said
Jamil Dakwar, an attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. "The commitment of the U.S. to civil
and political rights has proven to be hollow for many American citizens and non-citizens who suffered
from U.S. policies and actions in the United States and abroad."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

64
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse Percieved Internationally


US human rights violations in prisons are noticed internationally and are often part and
parcel with US failure to participate in international human rights efforts
Human Rights Watch 2001
United States World Report 2000 http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k1/usa/ Accessed 7/9/08 TC
As the Clinton Administration's second term ended in 2000, evidence of its domestic human rights legacy was scant. The

country
made little progress in embracing international human rights standards at home. Most public officials
remained either unaware of their human rights obligations or content to ignore them . As in previous years,
serious human rights violations were most apparent in the criminal justice system-including police
brutality, discriminatory racial disparities in incarceration, abusive conditions of confinement, and statesponsored executions, even of juvenile offenders and the mentally handicapped. But extensively documented human rights
violations also included violations of workers' rights, discrimination against gay men and lesbians in the military, and
the abuse of migrant child farmworkers. The United States in 2000 submitted reports on its compliance with two international human
rights treaties-the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment-to the respective treaty monitoring bodies. Both reports acknowledged
significant abuses of the rights affirmed in those treaties. The initial report of the U.S. to the United Nations Committee against Tortureproduced four years after it was due-acknowledged areas of "concern, contention and criticism" with regard to police abuse, excessive
use of force in prison, prison overcrowding, physical and mental abuse of inmates, and the lack of adequate training and oversight for
police and prison guards. Nevertheless, the initial report was incomplete and misleading in several important aspects. It failed to
acknowledge crucial weaknesses in laws and mechanisms to protect the right to be free of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, as well as the serious obstacles abuse victims face in securing legal redress. It failed also to confront
forthrightly the prevalence of abuses against detained and incarcerated men, women and children throughout the United States. The
report also glossed over the impact of the reservations, understandings, and declarations the United States made when it ratified the
convention. The United States redefined torture, as prohibited by the convention, to include only conduct already prohibited under the
U.S. Constitution and to exclude, with few exceptions, mental torture that is not accompanied by physical torture. It also declared the
treaty to be non-self-executing, and then failed to enact implementing legislation, with the result that U.S. residents cannot turn to the
courts to seek protection of the rights affirmed under the treaty. The U.S., in effect, declined to change its laws to bring

them up to international standards. In May, the U.N. Committee against Torture issued a statement of
conclusions and recommendations highlighting a range of U.S. practices that contravened the
convention. The committee's concerns included: ill-treatment by police and prison officials, much of it racially discriminatory; sexual
assaults upon female detainees and prisoners and degrading conditions of confinement of female prisoners; the use of electro-shock
devices and restraint chairs; the excessively harsh regime of super-maximum security prisons; and the holding of youths in adult prisons.
The committee urged the U.S. to enact legislation making torture a federal crime; to withdraw its reservations and declarations to the
convention; to take the necessary steps to ensure those who violate the convention are investigated, prosecuted, and punished; to prohibit
stun belts and restraint chairs; and to ensure that minors are not incarcerated in adult facilities. In September, the U.S. produced-five
years late-its initial report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination . With unprecedented

and welcome candor, the report acknowledged the persistence of racism, racial discrimination and de
facto segregation in the United States. The tenor and content of the report signaled the Clinton
Administration's recognition that despite decades of civil rights legislation and public and private
efforts, the inequalities faced by minorities remained one of the country's most crucial and unresolved
human rights challenges. One of the report's most significant weaknesses was in its consideration of
the role of race discrimination in the criminal justice system. It acknowledged the dramatically disproportionate
incarceration rates for minorities, noted the many studies indicating that members of minority groups, especially blacks and Hispanics,
"may be disproportionately subject to adverse treatment throughout the criminal justice process," and acknowledged concerns that
"incidents of police brutality seem to target disproportionately individuals belonging to racial or ethnic minorities." But it did not
question whether the ostensibly race-neutral criminal laws or law enforcement practices causing the incarceration disparities violated
CERD, nor did it acknowledge the federal government's obligation, under CERD, to ensure that state criminal justice systems (which
account for 90 percent of the incarcerated population) were free of racial discrimination. The report did acknowledge the dramatic,
racially disparate impact of federal sentencing laws that prescribe different sentences for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine offenses,
even though the two drugs are pharmacologically identical. The laws impose a mandatory five year prison sentence on anyone convicted
of selling five grams or more of crack cocaine, and a ten year mandatory sentence for selling fifty grams or more. One hundred times as
much powder cocaine must be sold to receive the same sentences. By setting a much lower drug-weight threshold for crack than powder
cocaine, the laws resulted in substantially higher sentences for crack cocaine offenders. Although the majority of crack users were white,
blacks comprised almost 90 percent of federal offenders convicted of crack offenses and hence served longer sentences for similar drug
crimes than whites. While recounting the Clinton Administration's unsuccessful effort to secure a limited reform of the cocaine
sentencing laws (a reform which, in any event, would still have left black drug defendants disproportionately vulnerable to higher
sentences), the report did not venture an assessment of whether the current laws violate CERD. Nor did it consider whether the striking
racial differences in the incarceration of drug offenders at the state level was consistent with CERD, reflecting the Administration's
general reluctance to subject the U.S. war on drugs to human rights scrutiny. As reflected in the report, the Administration also

Continued on next page

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

65
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse Percieved Internationally


Human Rights Watch Continued, No Text Removed
mistakenly believed that U.S. constitutional prohibitions on race discrimination meet its obligations under CERD. Under state and
federal constitutional law, racial disparities in law enforcement are constitutional as long as they are not undertaken with discriminatory
intent or purpose. But CERD prohibits policies or practices that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of race regardless of intent.
By requiring proof of discriminatory intent, U.S. constitutional law erects a frequently insurmountable obstacle to obtaining judicial
relief from criminal justice policies that have an unjustifiably discriminatory impact. Instead of championing reforms that would reduce
striking racial disparities in, for example, the rates at which blacks and whites are arrested and incarcerated on drug charges, the Clinton
Administration expressed pride in constitutional protections that do not, in fact, meet international standards. The U.S.

maintained its failure to become party to important human rights treaties, including the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). It was one of only two countries in the world-with
Somalia, which has no internationally recognized government-that had not ratified the Convention on
the Rights of the Child. In addition, little progress was made toward signing and ratifying core
International Labour Organization conventions intended to protect basic labor rights , though the Clinton
Administration did sign ILO Convention No. 182, the Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination
of the Worst Forms of Child Labour in December of 1999. It also submitted an ILO Convention concerning employment discrimination
to the Senate for ratification, but the Senate did not act.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

66
Prisons Aff

Gay Rights Perceived Internationally


The US is perceived in falling behind in Gay Rights
MACFARQUHAR, New York Times, 08
(Neil, In a First, Gay Rights Are Pressed At the U.N.,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.floyd.lib.umn.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T6935965306&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=2
9_T6935962084&cisb=22_T6935965308&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6742&docNo=3, 7/9/09, DKL)
An unprecedented declaration seeking to decriminalize homosexuality won the support of 66 countries
in the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, but opponents criticized it as an attempt to
legitimize pedophilia and other ''deplorable acts.'' The United States refused to support the
nonbinding measure, as did Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church and members of the Organization of
the Islamic Conference. The Holy See's observer mission issued a statement saying that the declaration
''challenges existing human rights norms.'' The declaration, sponsored by France with broad support in
Europe and Latin America, condemned human rights violations based on homophobia, saying such
measures run counter to the universal declaration of human rights. ''How can we tolerate the fact that
people are stoned, hanged, decapitated and tortured only because of their sexual orientation?'' said
Rama Yade, the French state secretary for human rights, noting that homosexuality is banned in
nearly 80 countries and subject to the death penalty in at least six. France decided to use the format of a
declaration because it did not have the support for an official resolution. Read out by Ambassador Jorge
Arguello of Argentina, the declaration was the first on gay rights read in the 192-member General Assembly
itself. Although laws against homosexuality are concentrated in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, more
than one speaker addressing a separate conference on the declaration noted that the laws stemmed as
much from the British colonial past as from religion or tradition. Navanethem Pillay, the United
Nations high commissioner for human rights, speaking by video telephone, said that just like apartheid
laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality ''are
increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and as inconsistent both with international law and
with traditional values of dignity, inclusion and respect for all.''

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

67
Prisons Aff

No Condoms = No HR
Denying access to condoms in prisons marginalizes populations and causes human
suffering
Keiger, Editor of the Johns Hopkins Public Health, 2004
(Dale, John Hopkins Public Health, Rights to Life, Fall 2004,
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/magazine/archive/Mag_Fall04/rights_life/index.html accessed 7/6/09, TAZ)
Beyrer cites another example, this one in the United States: Inmates of many federal prisons cannot obtain
condoms. Prisoners are asking for condoms to protect themselves from forced sexual partnerships. It
seems to me, since we know the prison population is the highest HIV population in the U.S., that this is
a clear example of the state actually denying people the right to protect themselves. This, he argues, is
a health problem made worse by human rights violations. Repressive and kleptocratic governments
and sometimes democratic onescreate public health problems. And public health research tools are
effective means of studying the consequences of misrule and rights violations. Discrimination against
marginalized social groups, suppression or distortion of information, violation of privacy rights, the
use of mass rape as a weapon of war, extrajudicial executions, torture, ethnic cleansingall cause
human suffering in ways that scientists like epidemiologists are good at assessing. Those assessments, says
Beyrer, can drive political change.

We have an ethical obligation to distribute condoms in prisons


Fullilove, EdD 2008
Robert E. February Condoms in Prison: The Ethical Dilemma Virtual Mentor. February 2008, Volume 10, Number 2: 110112.

Identifying conditions for safe sexual encounters is by now a public health no-brainer. HIV prevention
interventions must be instituted in both prisons and jails without further delay. Condoms are an
obvious element of such interventions, and, given that we have findings from a rigorously conducted
study that demonstrate the existence of the problem, we are, as a nation, ethically obligated to act.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

68
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse in Prisons
Because of the immense number of inmates with HIV/ AIDs, prisoners rights are often
ignored
Larsen, Assistant Professor at St. Peter's College, teaching the law and ethics classes for the Criminal Justice
Department, 2008
(Kari, DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO HIV IN U.S. PRISONS, The Catholic
University of America Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 24:251, spring 2008, JWS)
At the end of 2003, 22,028 state inmates and 1631 federal inmates were known to be infected with HIV.
n1 The HIV-positive inmates, a total of 23,659, accounted for 1.1% of all federal inmates and 2.0% of state
inmates, or 1.9% of the entire prison population in the United States. n2 Several states had exceedingly
high percentages of HIV-positive inmates. For example, 7.6% of state prisoners in New York and 4.2% of
state prisoners in Maryland were confirmed to be HIV positive. n3 Moreover, the number of confirmed
AIDS cases was more than three times higher among state and federal prisoners than in the general
population of the United States. n4 Although the total number of HIV-positive inmates in 2003 decreased from the 23,864 recorded in 2002, n5 this decrease reflects the deaths of 282
prisoners who succumbed to AIDS related causes during 2003. n6 Taking these deaths into account, it is apparent that United States prison systems recognized 359 new cases of HIV in 2003. It is unclear whether these
359 [*252] new infections were acquired by the inmates before they were taken into custody, or while they were incarcerated.

As a consequence of these formidable statistics, corrections officials have been faced with protecting
the constitutional rights of HIV-positive prisoners, while at the same time protecting the other inmates
from exposure to the virus. This is particularly difficult in an environment where behaviors known to spread the virus, particularly intravenous drug use and sex, are commonplace, even
though prohibited. Exact statistics regarding intraprison transmission are difficult to ascertain, because most statistics include a combination of inmates who were infected prior to entering the system as well as persons
infected while inside the system. n7 However, the spread of HIV in prison has been documented in the United States, n8 as well as abroad, n9 and it is recognized as a grave concern. n10

The difficulties faced by correctional administrators in containing the virus are intensified by the fact
that the federal government, through its health agencies, has not established a national policy
addressing HIV prevention in prison. The absence of a national policy to prevent HIV transmission in
prison has led to a public health crisis, exacerbated by the federal courts' reluctance to interfere with
the policies and practices of prison administrators, even when confronted with claims that correctional
officials' approaches to HIV care and prevention violate the constitutional rights of prisoners.
The first part of this article will discuss HIV and its transmission in prison, the lack of a national policy to prevent transmission among prisoners, and the federal recommendations that are systematically ignored by

prison administrations. The second part of the article will address the practice of segregating HIV-positive
prisoners and how this may compromise the constitutional rights of privacy and due process. The last
part of the article focuses on the Eighth Amendment and suggests that the distribution of [*253]
prophylactic devices, such as condoms and sterile needles, is required under the Eighth Amendment to
prevent the transmission of HIV among prisoners.

Not providing social health services to inmates is a violation of their rights


NMAC, a coalition of 3,000 F/CBOs and AIDS service organizations (ASOs) delivering HIV/AIDS services in
communities of color nationwide, 2009
(National Minority Aids Council, CRITICAL CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS
IN THE UNITED STATES A TO DO LIST FOR THE NEW U.S. ADMINISTRATIONS FIRST 100 DAYS,
http://nmac.org/index, 2009, JWS)
The high HIV prevalence among incarcerated populations makes HIV testing and HIVrelated health
care in correctional settings extremely important. But testing must be handled in ways that will ensure
that it is voluntary, non-coercive, and informed. Informed consent prior to testing is a legal and ethical
requirement. Moreover, it is imperative that testing results and HIVrelated care be provided confidentially, so
that other inmates, correctional officers, and others will not learn an inmates HIV status. In order for testing
and treatment programs to succeed, inmate confidentiality must be ensured. Fear of other inmates knowing
their status will keep inmates from being tested unless they can be assured that their health information will
be kept confidential. Prompt linkage to quality health care is essential from a public health standpoint
and also is constitutionally mandated. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized more than thirty years
ago in Estelle v. Gamble, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in the prison context is a
constitutional violation. An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the
authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met.17 Delaying or switching the provision of HIV
medications on the basis of cost considerations rather than medical efficacy, when the change or delay
has a negative impact on an inmates health, violates the inmates protected rights to adequate medical
care.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

69
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse in Prisons
Rights Key to Start Coalitions to Prevent Degradation and Otherization
Esplen, Research and Communications Assistant at BRIDGE, 07
(Emily, GENDER and SEXUALITY: Supporting Resources Collection, http://74.125.155.132/search?
q=cache:k10vYf-noD8J:www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/reports/CEP-SexualitySRC.doc+%22prisoners+rights%22+
%22sexual+health+care%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a, 7/5/09, DKL)
The idea of dignity and rights in the body is powerful and can unify coalitions across groups that for
too long have worked in fragmented ghettos: LGBT and trans groups; reproductive health and rights
groups; disability rights, HIV/AIDS and treatment access groups; feminists mobilised around violence
against women and female genital mutilation; sex workers, Central American banana workers challenging
use of harmful pesticides; and prisoners rights groups fighting sexual and other forms of torture and
degradation. (p.315) Much groundbreaking work has been done by the movement against Violence against
Women (VAW). At the same time, however, the emphasis on violence has produced an image of Third
World women as helpless victims of culture, which dovetails with right-wing rhetoric about preserving
womens chastity. For example, President Bush has justified waging war in Afghanistan on the grounds
of protecting women, and in UN speeches he has linked the war on terror with efforts to combat the
sexual slavery of girls and women. In contrast to women, sexual violence against men has been less
visible. However, with Abu Ghraib, the sexual humiliation and torture of Iraqi men became visible
throughout the world. This was partly a strategy of war, designed to spread far and wide the images of what
US intelligence had identified as particularly humiliating images in terms of Muslim cultural phobias, and
in terms of the views of the US Christian right itself: presenting men as less than men, or as
homosexualised. This 21st century perpetual war and the new possibilities of sexual rights
mobilisation call for a re-casting of the bodily integrity rights formulated in Cairo and Beijing. We
need to move beyond approaches that cast women as victims and men as invulnerable. We need to
forge alliances between womens movements and others mobilising for sexual and bodily rights such as
LGBT, sex workers, people living with HIV/AIDS, and intersex people. We need to move beyond the
exclusive focus on violence to ask for positive rights as well.

Prisoners in The U.S. Have Less Rights Than Most Places In the World
Smith Professor of Law at the American University Washington College of Law 06
(Brenda, Rethinking Prison Sex:: Self-Expression and Safety, Colum. J. Gender , http://74.125.155.132/search?
q=cache:HdCehj5CSH0J:www.wcl.american.edu/nic/documents/3.AnalyzingPrisonSex.pdf+%22prison+sex%22+
%22non+consensual%22+%22United+States%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a, 7/6/09, DKL)
Unfortunately, the United States has a history of exceptionalism or opting out of human rights
obligations.56 The U.S. has limited the application of the ICCPR, the CAT, and regional instruments
like the Declaration and Convention to its obligations under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.57 These exceptions limit the formal structures forholding the U.S.
accountable for compliance with international human rights norms but are still powerful and persuasive as
practices and norms adhered to by other countries. The challenge is to use these norms to influence U.S.
policies and practices.5 Notwithstanding its exceptionalism and antipathy toward international law,59 the
U.S. like any other country is influenced by the practices of other countries. In the area of granting
greater sexual expression to prisoners, however, the U.S. lags behind. Although the SMR is silent as to
sexual relations, Rule 60(1), die principle of normalcy, "implies that sexual contact between prisoners
and their partners should be allowed if [it] is possible under relatively normal conditions."60 Many
other countries permit sexual expression in institutional settings,61 define these visits under the rubric
of either intimate or conjugal visics, and permit prisoners to have intimate and other contact with
spouses, partners, and family.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

70
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse in Prisons
Prisoners Are Internationally Viewed As Able to Have Freedoms And Rights
World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, 06
(UNITED NATIONS, New York, 2006, HIV/AIDS Prevention, Care, Treatment and Support in Prison Settings,
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:hXQZSzc_6XkJ:www.afro.who.int/aids/publications/prison_framework.pdf+
%22prison+rights%22+%22public+opinion+%22&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a, 7/6/09, DKL)
The international community has generally accepted that prisoners retain all rights that are not taken
away as a fact of incarceration. Less of liberty alone is the punishment, not the deprivation of
fundamental human rights. Like all persons, therefore, prisoners have a right to enjoy the highest
attainable standard of health. This right is guaranteed under international law in Article 12 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 25 of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in various other international covenants, declarations, or
charters in par-ticular General Comment No. 14 (May 2000) on the Right to the Highest Attainable
Standard of Health adopted by the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights.

Prisoners Have Human Rights That Are Universal As Any Other Citizen
Namundjebo, Commanding Officer, Windhoek Prison, 05
(http://www.lac.org.na/projects/alu/Pdf/prisonerrights, 7/6/09, DKL)
Many people, including high ranking political leaders, sometimes argue that prisoners dont have or
should not be allowed to enjoy their human rights. Such arguments are wrong and have no basis in
law. Prisoners are human being and as such they retain their rights even when in prison. This is so
because human rights are universal. This means that every person, including a prisoner, has human
rights, no matter who he is, where s/he lives or his/her class, race, sex, age, social status, etc. Also,
human rights are said to be inalienable. This means that they cannot be taken away from a person,
including a prisoner.

Sexual Rights Shouldnt Be Imposed Upon By the State Act of Freedom


Smith, WCL Author, 06
(Brenda, Rethinking Prison Sex:: Self-Expression and Safety, Colum. J. Gender, http://74.125.155.132/search?
q=cache:HdCehj5CSH0J:www.wcl.american.edu/nic/documents/3.AnalyzingPrisonSex.pdf+%22prison+sex%22+
%22non+consensual%22+%22United+States%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a, 7/6/09, DKL)
For many prisoners sexual expression is a corollary of freedom. Whether imprisoned for short or long
sentences, sexual expression, although limited, is one of the few acts that prisoners control. Making the
choice to have sex when it is prohibited is an expression of freedom. The state should not regulate
sexual freedom to the extent that it does not impede safety or security, as is clearly the case of staffinmate sexual interactions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

71
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse in Prisons
Prisoners deserve equal healthcare as any other citizen
Cline, Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance, No Date
(Austin, About.com, Medical Care on Death Row: Should Condemned Prisoners Receive Organ Transplants?,
http://atheism.about.com/od/bioethics/a/deathrowtrans.htm, 7/6/09, JPW)
Should a person's social and moral worth play a role when it comes to allocation of medical resources?
This tends to be one of the most contentious issues in the debate over the provision of expensive medical care
to prisoners. Those who object rely heavily upon the visceral argument that these prisoners have committed
heinous acts and therefore no longer deserve to get the sort of medical care which is unavailable to poor, lawabiding citizens.
From a purely medical perspective, however, this is not a valid argument. Doctors are committed to
providing the best possible medical care to all human beings, regardless of any personal opinions about
their patients' moral and social worth. Doctors in the military, for example, are obligated to provide the
same treatment to captured prisoners who may have been responsible for the wounds on less seriously
injured soldiers who are comrades of the doctors and who are still waiting their turn for medical attention.
Any other standard of care would be dangerous. We certainly wouldn't want doctors to start using
their personal prejudices as the criteria by which they decide what sort of medical treatment will be
received by whom. Who wants their doctor to start deciding that this or that patient has less moral or
social "worth" and hence deserves less than her best efforts at care?

Current treatment of prisoners defies the rights guaranteed by the united nations
United Nations, 1990
(United Nations, Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly
resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990, JWS)
1. All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human
beings. 2. There shall be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 3. It is, however, desirable to respect
the religious beliefs and cultural precepts of the group to which prisoners belong, whenever local conditions
so require. 4. The responsibility of prisons for the custody of prisoners and for the protection of society
against crime shall be discharged in keeping with a State's other social objectives and its fundamental
responsibilities for promoting the well-being and development of all members of society. 5. Except for those
limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, all prisoners shall retain the
human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and,
where the State concerned is a party, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto, as well as
such other rights as are set out in other United Nations covenants. 6. All prisoners shall have the right to take
part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality. 7. Efforts
addressed to the abolition of solitary confinement as a punishment, or to the restriction of its use, should be
undertaken and encouraged. 8. Conditions shall be created enabling prisoners to undertake meaningful
remunerated employment which will facilitate their reintegration into the country's labour market and permit
them to contribute to their own financial support and to that of their families. 9. Prisoners shall have access
to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal
situation. 10. With the participation and help of the community and social institutions, and with due
regard to the interests of victims, favourable conditions shall be created for the reintegration of the exprisoner into society under the best possible conditions. 11. The above Principles shall be applied
impartially.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

72
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse in Prisons
Lack of healthcare to prisoners is a violation of rights under the UDHR
Consortium for Health and Human Rights, four nongovernmental
Organizations, 1998
(Consortium for Health and Human Rights, A Call to Action on the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, Health and Human Rights, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1998, JWS)
Article 25 guarantees the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of all
people and their families, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services.
One-fifth of the world's population live in absolute poverty.56 These people lack adequate food, clothing,
housing, and social services, and the opportunity to work. In addition to absolute poverty, relative poverty
within nations is associated with both diminished access to health care and to diminished health status.57'58
Throughout the world, in countries rich and poor, many people have no access to basic health care services,
mental health care or immunizations. Some people have no access to health care because they lack the
resources to purchase it and the state does not provide it; others lack access because services are not available
in their communities; and others lack access because of discrimination or social stigma, such as their
status as prisoners, detainees, refugees, undocumented or even documented immigrants, or members of a
lower class or caste. As a result, survivors of trauma from displacement, torture, and war often receive
insufficient help in coping with the physical and psychological effects of these traumas.

Society has an obligation to provide prisoners with healthcare


Kahn, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, 02
(Jeffrey, CNN, Prisoners and Transplants, 2/4/02,
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/02/04/ethics.matters/index.html, 7/6/09, JPW)
Almost thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners were entitled to receive adequate
medical care, effectively creating prisoners' rights to health care. The irony is that there is no such right
for law-abiding citizens, and in fact many inmates receive much better medical care when they are
incarcerated than they had when they were free.
But what counts as "adequate" medical care for prisoners? Should they receive only basic care such as first
aid and basic medications, all available treatments, or something in between?
Since prisoners forfeit many rights when they are convicted of committing crimes -- their freedom, the right
to vote, etc. -- why should they gain a new right to health care when they are imprisoned?
One answer is that by using prison as a means of protecting the public, society creates an obligation to
keep prisoners safe and treat them humanely, which ought to include health care.
The reality of prison medical care is that prisoners receive the same range of services available to
anybody else. Politicians and prison officials recognize that providing health care is an expensive
proposition, but have come to view it as a necessary cost of protecting society.

Prisoners are entitled to the highest attainable standard of health under international law to
protect themselves from HIV
Jrgens and Betteridge, the founding director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network,
Senior Policy Analyst with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2005
(Ralf and Glenn, Prisoners Who Inject Drugs: Public Health and Human Rights Imperatives, Health and Human
Rights, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 57, NAP)
The right to health in international law should be understood in the context of the broad concept of health set
forth in the WHO Constitution, which defines health as a "state of complete physical, mental and social
well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." Like all other persons, prisoners are
entitled to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health, as guaranteed under international law. Key
international instruments reveal a general consensus that the standard of health care provided to prisoners
must be comparable to that available in the general community (that is, the principle of "equivalence" of
health services).55 In the context of HIV/AIDS and HCV, health services would include providing
prisoners the means to protect themselves from exposure to HIV, HCV, and other forms of drugrelated harm.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

73
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse in Prisons
Prisoners Deserve The Same Treatment As All Human Beings, Otherwise Creates Stigmas,
And UN Declaration of Human Rights Agrees.
Maluwa- is Law and Human Rights Adviser for UNAIDS, Aggleton- is Professor University
of London, Parker- Columbia University, 02
(Miriam, Peter, Richard, HIV- AND AIDS-RELATED STIGMA, DISCRIMINATION, AND HUMAN RIGHTS: A
Critical Overview, 7-8, tch)
Each of these examples dramatically illustrates situations in which stigma has resulted in discriminatory action and violations of human
rights and fundamental freedoms. Stigma, discrimination, and human rights violations form a vicious,

regenerative circle. Conversely, condoning human rights violations can create, legitimize, and
reinforce stigma that can, if left to fester, lead to discriminatory action and further human rights violations. HIV- and AIDSrelated stigma and discrimination compound the suffering of people living with HIV and AIDS and of the poor, members of minority
groups, indigenous peoples, migrants, refugees, and internally displaced persons , men who have sex with men, prisoners,
injection-drug users, those with disabilities, and other marginalized, vulnerable groups. This situation is even worse for women and
children within these groups. HIV- and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination continue to erode the human rights of

these individuals or groups, thus increasing their vulnerability to HIV infection and lessening their
ability to cope effectively with the disease should they become infected. Freedom from discrimination is
a fundamental human right founded on universal and perpetual principles of natural justice. The core
existing international human rights instruments-the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the
Convention Against Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the
International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention
on the Rights of the Child- prohibit discrimination based on race; color; sex; language; religion; political or other opinion; national,
ethnic, or social origin; property; disability; fortune; birth; or other status.44-48 The right to nondiscrimination is also detailed in such
regional instruments as the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the
European Convention on Human Rights .

Prisoners who are not treated the same in a sexual manner leads to discrimination and
human rights abuses Brazil and Egypt proves. .
Saiz- Director of the Policy and Evaluation Program of the International Secretariat of
Amnesty International, 04
(Ignacio, BRACKETING SEXUALITY: Human Rights and Sexual Orientation- A Decade of Development and
Denial at the UN, 51-52, tch)
Since Toonen, other treaty-monitoring bodies of the UN have helped consolidate the principle that sexual-orientation discrimination is
proscribed in international human rights law. The Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR), and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have repeatedly and consistently called
for the repeal of laws criminalizing homosexuality in countries around the world .16 The HRC has

emphasized the harmful consequences of these laws for the enjoyment of other civil and political
rights, particularly where they result in the death penalty and other cruel, in- human, and degrading punishments . The concerns
of the treaty bodies have, furthermore, extended far beyond the criminalization of homosexual sex.
"Social cleansing" killings of sexual minorities, and the impunity surrounding them, have been
addressed by the Human Rights Committee. '8 The Committee against Torture has condemned the ill-treatment of
people detained on grounds of sexual orientation in Egypt and the discriminatory treatment of gay
prisoners in Brazil. 19 Both Committees have also addressed abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights
defenders, including threats and attacks against activists, restrictions on their freedom of association, and denial of police protection.20
In line with developments in refugee law, the treaty bodies have welcomed measures to protect refugees fleeing

persecution on grounds of sexual orientation and have voiced concern at the threat of arbitrary
deportation of non-nationals on these grounds.21 Abuses based on sexual orientation.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

74
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse in Prisons - AIDS


It is a Human Rights violation to not institute preventative care
McLemore Human Rights and HIV/AIDS Program at Human Rights Watch 2008
Megan VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, JULY 2008 HIV/AIDS POLICY & LAW REVIEW Access to Condoms in U.S. Prisons

Realization of the highest attainable standard of health requires not only access to a system of health
care; according to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it also requires states to
take affirmative steps to promote health and to refrain from conduct that limits peoples abilities to
safeguard their health. Laws and policies that are likely to result in unnecessary morbidity and
preventable mortality constitute specific breaches of the obligation to respect the right to health.

An ethic of care mandates prevention of life-threatening diseases


McLemore Human Rights and HIV/AIDS Program at Human Rights Watch 2008
Megan VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1, JULY 2008 HIV/AIDS POLICY & LAW REVIEW Access to Condoms in U.S. Prisons

In some cases, state obligations to protect prisoners fundamental rights, in particular the right to be
free from ill-treatment or torture, the right to health, and ultimately the right to life, may require states
to ensure a higher standard of care than is available to people outside of prison who are not wholly
dependent upon the state for protection of these rights.14 In prison, where most material conditions of
incarceration are directly attributable to the state, and inmates have been deprived of their liberty and means
of self-protection, the requirement to protect individuals from risk of torture or other ill-treatment can
give rise to a positive duty of care, which has been interpreted to include effective methods of
screening, prevention and treatment of life-threatening diseases.

Those with AIDS are stigmatized by society and their rights are not protected by the courts
Merijan, Member, New York and Connecticut Bars. J.D., Columbia University 1990; B.A., Yale University 1986 , 2002
(Armen H., THE COURT AT THE EPICENTER OF A NEW CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE: HIV/AIDS IN THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, St. Johns Law Review, 76:115, Winter 2002, JWS)

Individuals living with HIV and AIDS have experienced discrimination in every facet of life, including
such areas as housing, education, employment, health care, and insurance. n10 [*118] People with AIDS, suspected of having AIDS, and sometimes even suspected of being at heightened risk for AIDS were fired from
their jobs, denied access to public school classrooms, deprived of custody and visitation with their children, refused services of a variety of kinds, derided and defamed throughout society, and otherwise discriminated

t. Violent physical attacks on people with AIDS including school children, gays, prisoners, and others
were not uncommon. n11
agains

Opinion polls have consistently revealed widespread and profound prejudice against individuals living with HIV and AIDS. A December 1985 poll taken by the Los Angeles Times revealed, for example, that "most
Americans favor some sort of legal discrimination against homosexuals as a result of AIDS." n12 In that same poll, 51% favored banning people with AIDS from having sex; 51% favored quarantine for people living
with AIDS; 48% wanted people living with AIDS to carry special identification cards; and 15% favored tattooing people living with AIDS. n13 In a survey of 53 opinion polls conducted between 1983 and 1988, Harvard
School of Public Health researchers reported that 29% favored tattooing people living with HIV and AIDS; 25% would refuse to work near someone living with AIDS and believed that employers should have the right

17% said that those with AIDS should be treated as those with leprosy once
were - by being sent to "far-off islands." n14
to fire someone for [*119] this reason alone; and

Tragically, this ignorance and discrimination continues. In a recent survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, nearly one in five Americans polled felt that people living with HIV "have gotten what they
deserve." n15 Forty percent of those polled believed that HIV transmission could occur through sharing the same drinking glass and 41% believed that transmission could occur from being coughed or sneezed on by a
person living with HIV. n16

Thus a new civil rights battle - the battle against HIV/AIDS discrimination - was born of the epidemic,
one that would sorely test the ability of courts to protect the interests of those with multiple stigmas including people of color, gay individuals, prisoners, intravenous drug users, and a combination of one or
more of these categories. n17 Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case
involving HIV or AIDS for more than a decade after the first petition for certiorari in such a case was
filed in 1987. n18 Consequently, the Supreme Court did not decide its first case involving HIV/AIDS until
1998, fully 17 years after AIDS was first identified in this country. n19 "On more than twenty-five
occasions since 1987," one commentator explains, "the Supreme Court refused to grant writs of
certiorari in HIV-AIDS cases," n20 doing "absolutely nothing directly to curb the human rights abuses
that have attended the HIV-AIDS epidemic." n21 Additionally, many of the initiatives taken by state and local authorities are not subject to federal claims, leaving the
rights of those affected to be determined in state court. State supreme courts have thus served as the ultimate arbiters of the rights of people living with HIV and AIDS. It appears, however, [*120] that no one has
attempted an analysis of state supreme court jurisprudence regarding HIV and AIDS to determine how this new class has fared in our courts.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

75
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse in Prisons - AIDS


We have an ethical obligation to provide healthcare against the HIV epidemic in prisons
A failure to do so is a violation of human rights.
Strang and Stimson authors/editors, 1990
(John and Gerry, AIDS and drug misuse, p. 197-198, NAP)
Health policy concerning HIV infections based on information to the public designed to promote responsible
behavior. Repressive measures of control in particular, obligatory screening, segregation and isolation are
thought to be unnecessary and counterproductive. Respect for human rights and ethical principles has
therefore become a major element in the global effort to control the HIV epidemic.
Prisons are a place where the defence of human rights assumes special importance. Applying public
health policy on HIV infections and AIDS in the prison environment can therefore be regarded as a
test case in the respect for human rights of the individual, whether the individual is infected or not.
Health authorities were initially slow to react to the AIDS problem in prisons. In many countries, preventive
health and medical care in prisons are administered separately from community health services. Standards
of medial care in prisons are frequently criticised. Ethical issues of professional independence,
confidentiality and consent to treatment remain unresolved. Hygiene standards legally required in the
community are not uniformly applied in prisons.

International law states that prisoners have a human right to healthcare in context of the HIV
epidemic.
Jrgens and Betteridge, the founding director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network,
Senior Policy Analyst with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2005
(Ralf and Glenn, Prisoners Who Inject Drugs: Public Health and Human Rights Imperatives,
Health and Human Rights, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54-55, NAP)
Together the principle of limited exceptionalism and the rule of law form a mutually reinforcing core
and a starting point for the analysis of the human rights of prisoners.42 Under international law and
related international instruments, prisoners enjoy all human rights except those rights they are
necessarily deprived of as a fact of incarceration.43 Arguably, state actors should pay particular attention
to the rule of law in the prison context because prisoners are by and large deprived of the ability to affect
their own circumstances -in ethical terms, their autonomy and agency are constrained, which increases
the likelihood that their dignity will be compromised. Prisoners are under the authority of state officials
upon whom they rely for the essentials of life as well as all other entitlements and privileges. In the context
of prison health care, a number of domestic courts have determined that states owe greater obligations
to prisoners than to the population at large because prisoners do not have control over their
circumstances and cannot access prevention, care, and treatment services available in the community.
International human rights treaties, while general in nature, are relevant to the rights of prisoners in the
context of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.44 States that have ratified or acceded to these international laws are
legally bound to respect, protect, and fulfill prisoners' right to, inter alia: equality and non-discrimination;
life; security of the person; not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment; and enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Specific rules
and principles based in international human rights law apply to the situation of prisoners. The
following multilateral instruments outline standards regarding the treatment of prisoners and prison
conditions: Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners; Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment; Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners (SMR); and Recommendation No. R (98)7 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States
Concerning the Ethical and Organisational Aspects of Health Care in Prison.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

76
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse in Prisons - AIDS


Inmates have a constitutional right to HIV/AIDS care
Ruiz et. al, Acting Director, Public Policy Office, amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, 2008
(Monica, HIV/AIDS in Correctional Settings: A Congressional Briefing, emerging issues AIDS 20/20 amfAR
briefings, March 2008, JWS)
The implementation of routine testing policies in correctional facilities has important implications for the
correctional systems identification and case management of HIV-positive inmates.70 Privacy and
confidentiality concerns are significant barriers to HIV testing and care-seeking in correctional settings.
Given the unique living conditions (and, in many cases, overcrowding) in correctional facilities,
maintaining confidentiality of personal and/or medical information can be extremely difficult. While
confidentiality may be breached by other inmates, other breaches of confidentiality may be due to
inappropriate behaviors by correctional staff or procedures associated with accessing prison healthcare,71 by
attending pill call or standing in the medication dispensing line,56 or simply from having to fill out forms
requesting medical attention and the reasons for needing to see a clinician.72 All inmates in correctional
systems have a constitutional right to medical care, including HIV care. Given that about 75 percent of
HIV-positive inmates initiate treatment while incarcerated,73 the opportunities for successful viral
suppression and overall management of HIV disease can be improved through increased adherence to a welldesigned care system. Indeed, effective HIV treatment in prisons has led to a 75 percent reduction in
AIDS-related mortality, a decline mirroring that of nonincarcerated populations.7 Some have alleged
that HIV care and support in the correctional setting lags behind the standards in the community due
to cost concerns, lack of adequately trained care providers, and stigmatization of HIV/AIDS.69
Privatization of correctional healthcare has imposed further constraints on HIV care delivery.76 The
increased prevalence of HIV in correctional populations indicates the need for greater attention to
HIV/AIDS prevention, case management and care in correctional facilities, 77 as well as attention to
treating the co-morbid conditions (e.g., hepatitis, TB, addiction) that could negatively affect therapeutic
outcomes

Prisons have an obligation to provide condoms according to international human rights


organizations
IDS Health and Development Information, Institute of Development Studies, 2009
Responding to HIV risk in prisons HIV and AIDS reporter, the IDS Health and Development Information team in
collaboration with Eldis and the DFID Health Resource Centre, 5/19/09, www.eldis.org/go/topics/resourceguides/...aids/...aids.../may-2009, accessed 7/8/09 TAZ)
Moreover, numerous international health and human rights bodies support the position that, as a
corollary to the right of people in prison to preventive health services, the state has an obligation to
prevent the spread of contagious diseases in places of detention. Prison health standards and
declarations from the WHO and the World Medical Association, for example, are clear that prisoners
must be provided with measures to prevent the transmission of disease. Reinforcing this obligation,
UNAIDS and the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) in the
International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights call on prison authorities to provide
prisoners with access to such HIV prevention measures as condoms, bleach and clean injection
equipment. Similarly, the WHO in its Guidelines on HIV Infection and AIDS in Prisons recommends the
provision of condoms, bleach, clean needles and syringes and methadone maintenance treatment in prison.
And, reflecting the principle of equivalence, in HIV/AIDS Prevention, Care, Treatment, and Support in
Prison Settings, the UNODC, WHO and UNAIDS recommend that prison systems ensure the measures
available outside of prisons to prevent transmission of HIV through the exchange of bodily fluids are
also available to prisoners, including access to condoms, sterile needles and syringes, razor blades and
sterile tattooing equipment.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

77
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

US Key to HR
The US is critical to be a model for solving human rights violation Plan is key step to
solving AIDS and human rights.
The Center for HIV Law and Policy, 2007
(Human Rights Principles Need to Guide U.S. Response to AIDS, 11/30/09,
http://www.thebody.com/content/news/art44189.html, accessed 7/8/09, TAZ)
Advocates for people with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. said today that human rights violations that impede
the response to the AIDS epidemic globally are also a critical problem in the United States. Catherine
Hanssens, the Executive Director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy, one of the endorsers of the joint
declaration, "Human Rights and HIV/AIDS: Now More Than Ever," said that "the United States' response
to AIDS should be a model of commitment to both human rights and the public health. But instead,
our HIV/AIDS policies are increasingly ineffective and punitive, because they are driven by ideology
and bigotry, not by sound science." The statement follows the release yesterday of an unprecedented
declaration endorsed by more than 30 leading AIDS organizations around the world calling for a
major shift in the global response to HIV/AIDS that highlights the need to put legal and human rights
protections at the center of HIV efforts. The declaration, "Human Rights and HIV/AIDS: Now More
Than Ever," focuses on populations most vulnerable to HIV: women and girls, young people, injecting
drug users, sex workers, gay and bisexual men, and incarcerated people. These groups are the most in
need of comprehensive HIV prevention and treatment programs, including access to anti-retroviral
drugs, yet they continue to face discrimination worldwide and often are denied access to life-saving
services. As a result, HIV continues to spread unchecked in communities worldwide. Universal access
to comprehensive HIV prevention, testing and care is a core human rights principle. In the United
States, as in many less developed countries, such access remains a distant goal. Ideologically based
"abstinence only" prevention programs are known to be ineffective, but sound, evidence based
programs are not available to many at greatest risk. HIV-AIDS treatment and services are under-funded.
U.S. prisons, jails, and detention facilities, like those in post-Soviet countries, provide virtually no
comprehensive prevention education, and access to condoms and clean needles for injecting drug users is
widely proscribed. Gender-based violence and the stigmatization and criminalization of sex workers render
women especially vulnerable to HIV infection and are a barrier to receiving timely and appropriate care.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

78
Prisons Aff

HR=Moral Imperative
Human rights are made of a fixed set of rights- improving them are a priori and moral.
Ci, U of Hongkong, 05
(Jiwei, Taking the Reasons for Human Rights Seriously, Political Theory, Vol. 33, No.2, pg. 260, 4/05, JoY)
Recall that human rights make up a (more or less) fixed set of moral rights that are, or ought to be, legal
rights, and this for reasons having to do with the very humanity of the subjects of such rights. Recall
also that I have argued for interpreting this humanity in terms of agency. Now, the question is not whether
some moral rights ought to be legal rights, or even which moral rights should be legal rights, but
whether we have good reason to affirm categorically that there is a subset of moral rights that are so
incontrovertibly more important than other moral rights, though both are required by respect for
human agency, that they alone should be treated as human rights; that is, singled out for legal
codification and enforcement on a long-term basis, if not once and for all. The concept of human rights, as
distinct from those of moral and legal rights, requires nothing less than a fixed, almost a priori,
determination of the order of relative importance of all the moral rights dictated, say, by respect for
human agency (or by some other set of reasons). It is the possibility of some such determination that I
want to call into question, taking Rawls's difference principle as an example.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

79
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse Hierarchal
Human Rights cannot be denied to prisoners, it is hierarchical and un-American
Smiley, Pulitzer Prize Winner, 2007
(Jane, The Huffington Post, Why Human Rights are More Important than National Security, 11-19-7,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/why-human-rights-are-more_b_73286.html, accessed 7-8-9, NB)
Human rights are profoundly local -- they reside in individuals. According to humans rights theory, if
someone is human, he or she has the same rights as every other human. The rights of American citizens
as described in the Bill of Rights have been expanded and extrapolated around the world so that they
apply not only to us but to everyone. While in the U.S. this idea is a bit controversial, in other countries
it is standard, accepted, and cherished. The codification of human rights, and the widespread
acknowledgment of this, is one of the things that makes the modern world modern. To roll back human
rights, even for some individuals, is to return to a more primitive, hierarchical, and un-American
theory of human relations. One example, of course, concerns women. Can women routinely be imprisoned,
sold, mutilated, or killed by their relatives? U.S. law says they cannot; in practice, many are, but no one
openly promotes what many secretly do. If a candidate, even a Republican, ran on a platform of reducing the
legal rights of women, he wouldn't get far (ask me again in 10 years, though). Or consider lynching. The
U.S. has a long tradition of lynching. It was only after the Second World War that the Federal
Government and state governments began enforcing their own anti-lynching laws. This was a victory
for human rights. Do you want to go back? The Republicans would like you to, in the name of: "national
security."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

80
Prisons Aff

Decreased HR Violence
Prisoners maintain their rights even when detained- refusing them healthcare only
perpetuates cycles of crime and hate.
Restum, Prof. at St. Joes College of Maine, 05
(Zulficar Gregory, Public Health Implications of Substandardized Health Care, Pub Med, 4/26/2005)
There is a general misconception that when a person commits a crime and goes to prison, he or she
surrenders all rights. In fact, while being held in custody, judged, and sentenced, the individual maintains
certain rightsto be protected, to be represented by legal counsel, and to have access to health care
services. The general public, including correctional staff and health care professionals, tend to view prisoners as subhuman, as those
who have surrendered their rights by being convicted of crimes. This mentality , fueled by political rhetoric, leads to the
erection of barriers that affect the delivery of health care to prisoners.9 Doctors, who take the Hippocratic Oath
upon graduating from medical school, vow to use all measures required for the benefit of the sick. Those who take the classical version
of the oath repeat, Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice.10

The negative view of prisoners adopted by the public and by health care professionals ignores the
spiritual laws of compassion, forgiveness, reconciliation, and responsibility. The price of this attitude has
been an endless recycling of crime and violence, all stemming from hatred. Teens, especially, are affected by this
attitude. The effects can be felt across the boardteen murders have doubled and murders of children by children have increased. At the
same time, the general populations attitudes are also being skewed: people of all ages have grown comfortable celebrating the
executions of criminals.

And human rights, especially for those in poverty, are key to security and averting the
death of millions.
Hoffman, Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International,
(Paul, Human Rights Quarterly, p. 932-935, 11/04, JoY)
For hundreds of millions of people in the world today, the most important source of insecurity is not a
terrorist threat but grinding, extreme poverty. More than a billion of the world's six billion people live on less than one
dollar a day. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the entire human rights framework is based on the
indivisibility of human rights. This includes not only civil and political rights but also economic, social,
and cultural rights. The discrepancy between these human rights promises and the reality of life for more than one-sixth of the
world's people must be eliminated if terrorism is to be controlled. Every human being is entitled to a standard of living
that allows for their health and wellbeing, including food, shelter, and medical care. Yet more than three thousand African
children die of malaria each day. Only a tiny percentage of the twenty-six million people infected with
HIV/AIDS have access to the health care and medicine they need to survive . Many additional examples could be
given. Many governments have adopted the Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by 2015. The goals include targets for child and infant mortality,
the availability of primary education for all children, halving the number of people without access to clean water along with many others. According to the
World Bank, these goals will not be achieved, in part because the "war on terrorism" is shifting attention and resources away from long-term development
issues. How can we eradicate violent challenges to the existing world order if education is not universal? Without education and peaceful exchanges
between peoples, the "war on terrorism" will only succeed in creating new generations of warriors. Why is terrorism given more attention than the scourge
of violence against women? Millions of women are terrorized in their daily lives, yet no "war" on violence against women is being waged. Clearly, this

If
some of the resources and attention devoted to the "war on terrorism" were diverted to the eradication
of world poverty or eliminating violence against women, would the world be more secure ? There is no easy
problem is more widespread than terrorist violence and invariably makes women insecure as well as second-class citizens in every corner of the world.

answer to this question, but the "war on terrorism" seems to sideline any serious discussions, along with any serious action on the other
pressing causes of human insecurity. True security depends on all of the world's peoples having a stake in the

international system and receiving the basic rights promised by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, regardless of race, gender, religion, or any other status.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

81
Prisons Aff

HR Key to Peace
Strong human rights policy promotes peace
Carothers, Director, Democracy and Rule of Law Project, 94
(Thomas, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, 1994, 106., accessed July 9, 09)
In most of the countries that have undergone democratic transitions in recent years, during the generative
period of the transitions (generally the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s), the emphasis of external actors
was on human rights advocacy rather than democracy promotion per se. Therefore, just as human
rights advocates should not overlook the fact that democratization has advanced the cause of human
rights in many countries, democracy promotion proponents should not ignore the contribution of
human rights advocacy to democratization.

Respect for human rights key to preventing mass killings


Linarelli, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University, 93
(John, DENVER JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY, 253, July 9, 2009)
Liberal democracy and the rule of law (in the broadest sense) are valuable to the new world order
centrally and fundamentally because an impressive body of human knowledge now tells us
unmistakably that there is a direct correlation between these concepts and: human rights, the
avoidance of government-sponsored "democide" (the massive killing of a nation's own population and
the most extreme human rights failure of government), vigorous economic progress, and the avoidance
of a synergy that has produced the major international wars of this century. In short, the spread of
liberal democracy, or at least the minimization of totalitarianism, is of the greatest importance in
realizing fundamental human aspirations.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

82
Prisons Aff

HR Key to Survival
Protection of human rights is necessary for individual survival.
Hoffman, Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International, 04
(Paul, HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY, 932-935, accessed July 9, 2009)
For hundreds of millions of people in the world today, the most important source of insecurity is not a
terrorist threat but grinding, extreme poverty. More than a billion of the world's six billion people live on
less than one dollar a day. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the entire human rights
framework is based on the indivisibility of human rights. This includes not only civil and political
rights but also economic, social, and cultural rights. The discrepancy between these human rights
promises and the reality of life for more than one-sixth of the world's people must be eliminated if
terrorism is to be controlled. Every human being is entitled to a standard of living that allows for their
health and wellbeing, including food, shelter, and medical care. Yet more than three thousand African
children die of malaria each day. Only a tiny percentage of the twenty-six million people infected with
HIV/AIDS have access to the health care and medicine they need to survive. Many additional examples
could be given. Many governments have adopted the Millennium Development Goals to be achieved by
2015. The goals include targets for child and infant mortality, the availability of primary education for all
children, halving the number of people without access to clean water along with many others. According to
the World Bank, these goals will not be achieved, in part because the "war on terrorism" is shifting attention
and resources away from long-term development issues. How can we eradicate violent challenges to the
existing world order if education is not universal? Without education and peaceful exchanges between
peoples, the "war on terrorism" will only succeed in creating new generations of warriors. Why is terrorism
given more attention than the scourge of violence against women? Millions of women are terrorized in their
daily lives, yet no "war" on violence against women is being waged. Clearly, this problem is more
widespread than terrorist violence and invariably makes women insecure as well as second-class citizens in
every corner of the world. If some of the resources and attention devoted to the "war on terrorism" were
diverted to the eradication of world poverty or eliminating violence against women, would the world be more
secure? There is no easy answer to this question, but the "war on terrorism" seems to sideline any serious
discussions, along with any serious action on the other pressing causes of human insecurity. True security
depends on all of the world's peoples having a stake in the international system and receiving the basic
rights promised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless of race, gender, religion, or
any other status.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

83
Prisons Aff

HR Abuse=Genocide
Human Rights Violations Against Those Living With HIV/AIDS Constitutes genocide
Closen, * Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School, 1998
(Michael L., WHAT LESSONS HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THE AIDS PANDEMIC: ARTICLE: THE
DECADE OF SUPREME COURT AVOIDANCE OF AIDS: DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN HIV-AIDS CASES
AND ITS ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Albany Law Review, 61:897, 1998, JWS)
The Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) epidemic of the early 1980s and its successor, the
Human Im-munodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV-AIDS) epidemic of the
latter 1980s and 1990s, has been more than a disease epidemic. n3 It has spawned an epidemic of human
rights abuses as well. The violations of the human rights of those living with HIV and AIDS, of those
perceived to be afflicted with HIV and AIDS, and of those perceived to be at heightened risk for HIV
and AIDS, have seriously hindered efforts to combat the disease. n4 An inordinate amount of time and
vast financial resources have been wasted on misguided and counterproductive campaigns to fight
individuals and groups of people, rather than to fight the disease. n5 Such misdirected campaigns have
been particularly invidious, for as Professor Altman [*899] noted in his comments quoted above, the people
most affected have "come largely from unpopular and distrusted groups." n6
Widespread human rights breaches have caused devastating consequences. Some people have
committed suicide, a few have been murdered, and many others have died sooner than they should have. n7
Careers have been jeopardized and have been ruined. n8 Many persons living with HIV-AIDS have been
needlessly ravaged by unbearable pain, horrific disfigurement, financial calamity, and callous
isolation. n9 It is no exaggeration to suggest that we have witnessed a disease holocaust now
approaching twenty years in duration. n10
The description tendered thus far is not a picture of developments in some Third World country. n11
Rather, it is the United States that is [*900] being described. Worse yet, these human rights violations
continue. To illustrate, some dentists and doctors still refuse to treat patients with HIV and AIDS. n12 Some
shelters for the homeless still test or screen people for HIV and deny admission to those infected with HIV.
n13 Also, as recently as October of 1997, the Chicago Board of Education was still screening all applicants
for teaching positions for HIV-AIDS - even though such screening was unwarranted, counterproductive, and
unlawful. n14 Unfortunately, many more instances could be cited. n15 And, what has been the role of the
United States Supreme Court in this continuing tragedy? The short answer is that the Supreme Court must
share some of the blame. From 1987, when the first petition for a writ of certiorari in an HIV-AIDS case
was filed, until 1997, the Court had done absolutely nothing directly to curb the human rights abuses
that have attended the HIV-AIDS epidemic. n16 Incredibly, the Supreme Court had not heard a case
involving a subs-tantive HIV-AIDS issue, although the Court had plenty of opportunities to accept one.
On more than twenty-five occa-sions since 1987, and on at least fifteen occasions in the last three years,
[*901] the Supreme Court refused to grant writs of certiorari in HIV-AIDS cases. n17 That is a
shameful record. n18 Ours has been "that much less a good and a just society" because of it. n19 Not until
November of 1997 did the Supreme Court finally grant a petition for certiorari in an HIV-AIDS case,
captioned Bragdon v. Abbott, n20 that is scheduled for oral argument on March 30, 1998.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

84
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

HR O/W
A violation of human rights outweighs even the greatest consequential impacts
Sosa, assistant professor of philosophy at Dartmouth College, 1993
(David, Consequences of Consequentialism, Mind, Vol. 102, No. 405, Jan. 1993, p.102-103,
NAP)
Rights-based ethical theories are often opposed to consequentialist theories over examples such as this.
The hanging of the innocent is wrong because it violates the innocent's rights and no amount of good
consequences can outweigh that right. Rights trump utilities, as it is sometimes put. The version of
consequentialism defended here has a response that partially accommodates that intuition. The
violation of the innocent's rights must be weighed along with the other factors in evaluating the states of
affairs consequent upon his hanging. If the officials hang him they violate his right not to be punished unless
guilty. The violation of that right is a very serious harm, perhaps greater even than many deaths which
are not in punishment of innocent people.4 Of course we need not be absolutist (in Anscombe's sense, see
1958, pp. 9-19). We can consistently believe that even that great harm could be outweighed (although I
do not think, as consequentialists, we must do even that). If it is wrong to punish the innocent in that case,
consequentialism can consistently explain it. If we do take the non-absolutist line, and hold that the
disvalue of the violation can be outweighed then we disagree with the "trumpers", those who think rights
trump utilities. They are at odds even with our partially conciliatory consequentialism. For them it is not
enough that rights violations figure, negatively, in the evaluation of states of affairs. But consequentialism
can be even more conciliatory. It can allow that some bad consequences trump. Consistent with the
version of consequentialism here being developed, we could hold that if one of the con-sequences of an act is
that a right is violated, then that act cannot be made right by any amount of positive value of any other kind.
This may sound nonconsequentialist, but it can be assimilated. The disvalue of a rights violation is so
great, goes the consequentialist interpretation, that no consequences of other kinds can compete.
Rights trump (other) utilities, as it were, simply because of the enormous disvalue of a rights violation.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

85
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

HR O/W
The troubled history of human rights does not warrant wholesale rejection, a new framing
for human rights can build resistance to domination and violence
Weissman, Associate Professor of Law, UNC School of Law 2004
(Deboarah, The Human Rights Dilemma: Rethinking the Humanitarian Project,, 259, accessed July 9,
2009)
The development of usable universal human rights values has been at the heart of international legal deliberations for much of the last fifty years. 1 The
human rights project has drawn inspiration from the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has gained new
momentum in recent decades. 2 Human rights concerns have deepened as new technologies act to collapse time and space, where the circumstances of
everyday life in distant places are made known instantly through telecommunication systems and media networks. The

suffering of
humanity in the form of genocide and ethnic cleansing, torture and mass murder, war and
repression, seems to implicate the world at large and arouse the conscience of well-meaning
people everywhere. 3 [*260] The human rights project offers the possibility of using the law
as a means of social change based on a commitment to humanitarian values on a global scale .
4 The project addresses the plight of vast numbers of men, women, and children who fall victim to
national violence or whose lives are shattered by laissez-faire global capitalism, registered most notably in
widening disparities in wealth, diminution of government benefits, and increasing social injustice. 5 As
people are displaced and dispersed, and as workers migrate to meet the demands of the transnational markets,

the human rights movement can offer "global solidarity against national particularism and
preferences." 6 The international human rights project currently finds salience within the domestic juridical discourse. Recent U.S. Supreme Court
decisions have endorsed the relevance of international human rights norms in cases dealing with such fundamental interests as the death penalty, affirmative
action, and the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct. 7 More and more plaintiffs file lawsuits in the United States seeking remedies for human rights
abuses that [*261] have occurred elsewhere, intensifying debates over whether U.S. courts are proper sites for resolution of these claims. 8 International
legal norms have been invoked to guide the adjudication of a number of legal issues. They have been urged as binding principles in adjudicating the validity
of civil rights laws addressing gender-based violence, as catalysts for improvement of law-related policies dealing with childcare issues, and as a framework
in drafting state English-only laws. 9 Increasingly, international human rights law is moving into the deliberations of domestic legal fora. These
developments suggest that the legal community will inevitably be obliged to consider larger issues of international human rights concerns in the everyday
domains of law. The human rights project seems to represent an endeavor of self-evident and self-confirming virtue, but it is more complicated. It arrives in

The human rights project has served a variety of uses, often less altruistic
than the humanitarian purposes with which it is now associated. Colonial powers often proclaimed humanitarian
our time possessed of a past.

purpose as [*262] justification for conquest and territorial aggrandizement. More recently, human rights concerns have served as a rationale for U.S.
military intervention. 10 Human rights norms are subject to malleable standards and have been capable of advancing U.S. strategic and economic interests
through coercive means, often at the expense of humanitarian concerns. It

is, therefore, appropriate to subject the human


rights project to new scrutiny, to determine if it functions under the cover of virtue to insulate and immunize national policies against
criticism. What concerns should be raised for the future of the human rights project in light of the ease with which it can be appropriated to serve national
interests? How can the legal community respond to issues of globalization without an awareness of the historical antecedents of the human rights project?
Given the complex cultural terrain of human rights, what difficulties face U.S. courts that are asked not only to adjudicate matters involving international
human rights violations, but also to consider international law perspectives in domestic matters? 12 Are there lessons to be learned that bear on the
convergence of sources of law and morality and the exercise of power and coercion associated with the human rights project? This Article provides an
interpretive account of the human rights discourse at a time when the U.S. legal community is deepening its relationship with these issues. It maps the
context of the human rights project over the past hundred years with a critical eye and as a cautionary tale. It reviews the historical circumstances and the
ideological framework in which human rights have been appropriated as an instrument of national policy, often to the detriment of humanitarian objectives.
It considers the role of law, not only as an instrument by which colonial rule was maintained, but as a system that has claimed center stage in the human
rights project, often producing outcomes inimical to human rights. It demonstrates that the disparity in power between the colonizer and the colonized
continues to affect the ongoing development of human rights norms and has resulted in the production of legal remedies that are often incapable of
safeguarding international human rights. [*263] This Article suggests that the

human rights project must be guided by an


awareness of the power relationships that shape proposed remedies. Without such concerns,
humanitarian enterprises may inadvertently reproduce the very wrongs they seek to correct .
13 It argues for the importance of preserving human rights as a transcendent endeavor and as a
means of opposing, rather than facilitating the domination of other cultures

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

86
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

HR O/W
Human Rights Must Be Dealt With Sooner Than Later And It Is Violation of Basic Rights
To Not Put It as a Priority.
Hougas, 03.
(Angie, Protection of Human Rights Should Be Highest Priority, December 10, 2003,
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1210-11.htm, accessed July 9, 2009)
Today is International Human Rights Day. This is a day we can reflect back on the long and rugged journey
from where we came, to where we are, and to where we are heading. Today we ask: How fine is the line
between protecting our rights and freedoms and security? If our country wants to export democracy, it
must be done with moral leadership and in accordance with international law. But the highest priority
should be the protection of human rights - both abroad and right here at home. If we are to set a
standard and demand transparency and accountability by others, we must be willing to do nothing less
than the same ourselves. We would do well to remember that what we do unto others can be done unto
us. So let's reflect on how we're doing. One violation of basic human rights is to arrest innocent
people in order to extract or coerce information from them regarding a family member. When people
across America hear about this action taken in countries with despot rulers, they are outraged and
enraged, and rightly so. Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is the former vice chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council. His
wife and daughter were recently taken into custody by U.S.-led coalition officials, who are not giving out any details as to why or what
the legal basis was for their arrests. There are also reports that U.S. forces are arresting relatives of fugitives to interrogate them on the
whereabouts of family members. I am wondering if we will be equally as outraged and enraged now that this is becoming an approved
and common tactic used by our own country. Will there be the same widespread condemnation as when other countries do this, or will
there be silence and excuses as justification for the action ? One of our prized and valued rights is our First

Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press and to assemble peaceably. This is
also reflected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says everyone has the
right to freedom of opinion and expression. President Bush tells us we are bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. At the
same time, U.S. military officials in Iraq are closing down TV stations. This not only has happened in Mosul, where the military
commander stated he knew it was an act of blatant censorship, but also very recently in Baghdad. While legislators debated french vs.
freedom fries and repeatedly debate an amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. flag, they have desecrated the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by approving the USA Patriot Act. We can no longer be complacent regarding our human rights,
our Bill of Rights and our freedoms. With passage of the Patriot Act, the cornerstones of our judicial system - innocent until proven
guilty and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - have been flip-flopped. Now you can be presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
When we look at other judicial systems around the world, we are outraged at this concept of presumed guilt upon arrest and before trial.
What we never thought could happen is now legal right here in our own country. A person can be held incommunicado. A person can be
held indefinitely without charge. A person no longer has the right to contact family or a lawyer. How can a person hope to prove his
innocence under these conditions? There are reasons for our laws, for our rules, for rules of war, and for international laws. These
reasons include the protection of innocent civilians in times of conflict and protection of human rights. It takes courage to put human
dignity and human worth first, but we are up to the challenge. Human rights need not be the sacrificial lamb. Human

rights do not have to be a casualty of war.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

87
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

HR key to SP
The US gains soft power and attracts allies by living up to its political values and
protecting its moral authority
Nye Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University 2006
(Think Again: Soft Power Joseph S. Jr. Foreign Policy, 1 March http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?
id=7059 Accessed 7/9/09 TC)
Soft Power Is Cultural Power Partly. Power is the ability to alter the behavior of others to get what you
want. There are basically three ways to do that: coercion (sticks), payments (carrots), and attraction (soft
power). British historian Niall Ferguson described soft power as non-traditional forces such as cultural and
commercial goodsand then promptly dismissed it on the grounds that its, well, soft. Of course, the fact
that a foreigner drinks Coca-Cola or wears a Michael Jordan T-shirt does not in itself mean that America has
power over him. This view confuses resources with behavior. Whether power resources produce a favorable
outcome depends upon the context. This reality is not unique to soft-power resources: Having a larger tank
army may produce military victory if a battle is fought in the desert, but not if it is fought in swampy jungles
such as Vietnam. A countrys soft power can come from three resources: its culture (in places where it is
attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign
policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority). Consider Iran. Western music and
videos are anathema to the ruling mullahs, but attractive to many of the younger generation to whom they
transmit ideas of freedom and choice. American culture produces soft power among some Iranians, but not
others.

Internal US policies which promote human rights increase soft power


Blatt Harvard Law School 2004
Dan Book Review of Soft Power by Joseph Nye FUTURECASTS online magazine Vol. 6, No. 9, 9/1/04.
http://www.futurecasts.com/book%20review%206-4.htm
Internal policies can have an impact on soft power. Efforts to promote human rights and democracy
have noticeably enhanced U.S. influence, while capital punishment and weak gun control laws have
undermined it in Europe. Apparent military, economic and soft power influence abroad can both
enhance and hinder soft power. "The publics in most nations continued to admire the United States for its
technology, music, movies, and television. But large majorities in most countries said they disliked the
growing influence of America in their country."

Empirically proven perceived human rights abuses reduce our ability to project soft power
Nye Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University 2005
Soft Power pg. 59-60 google books Accessed 7/9/09 TC
Also damaging to American attractiveness is the perception that the United States has not lived up to
its own profession of values in its response to terrorism. It is perhaps predictable when Amnesty International referred to the
Guantanamo Bay detentions as a "human rights scandal, and Human Rights Watch charged the United States with hypocrisy that
undercuts its own policies and puts itself in "a weak position to insist on compliance from others." Even
more damaging perhaps is when such criticism came from conservative pro-American sources. The Financial Times worried that the
very character of American democracy has been altered. Most countries have chosen to adjust the balance between liberty and security
since September 11. But in America, the adjustment has gone beyond mere tinkering to the point where
fundamental values may be jeopardized." Meanwhile The Economist argued that President Bush is setting up a shadow
court system outside the reach of either Congress or Americas judiciary, and answerable only to himself .... Mr. Bush rightly noted that
American ideals have been a beacon of hope to others around the world. In compromising those ideals in this matter, Mr. Bush is not
only dismaying Americas friends, but also blunting one of Americas most powerful weapons against terrorism. Pictures of prisoner
abuse at lraqs Abu Ghraib prison achieved iconic status after being published around the world. It remains to be seen how

lasting such damage will be to Americas ability to obtain the outcomes it wants from other countries.
At a minimum, it tends to make our preaching on human rights policies appear hypocritical to some
people.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

88
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

HR Key to SP
Human Rights promote soft power
Nye Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University 2005
Soft Power pg. 62 google books Accessed 7/9/09 TC
Foreign policies also produce soft power when they promote broadly shared values such as democracy
and human rights. Americans have wrestled with how to integrate our values with other interests since the
early days of the republic, and the main views cut across party lines. Realists like john Quincy Adams
warned that the United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy, and we should not involve
ourselves beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue. Others follow the
tradition of Woodrow Wilson and emphasize democracy and human rights as foreign policy objectives.
As we shall see in chapter 5, to- days neoconservatives are, in effect, right-wing Wilsonians, and they are
interested in the soft power that can be generated by the promotion of democracy.

Human Rights Is A Key Component of Soft Power


Nye, joined the Harvard faculty in 1964, serving as Director of the Center for International
Affairs and as Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences, 06
(Joesph S., Think Again: Soft Power, Foreign Policy, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=7059, 7/10/9,
DKL)
Economic Strength Is Soft Power"
No. In a recent article on options for dealing with Iran, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation refers to
soft power options such as economic sanctions. But there is nothing soft about sanctions if you are on the
receiving end. They are clearly intended to coerce and are thus a form of hard power. Economic strength can
be converted into hard or soft power: You can coerce countries with sanctions or woo them with wealth. As
Walter Russell Mead has argued, economic power is sticky power; it seduces as much as it compels.
Theres no doubt that a successful economy is an important source of attraction. Sometimes in real-world
situations, it is difficult to distinguish what part of an economic relationship is comprised of hard and
soft power. European leaders describe other countries desire to accede to the European Union (EU) as
a sign of Europes soft power. Turkey today is making changes in its human rights policies and
domestic law to adjust to EU standards. How much of this change is driven by the economic
inducement of market access, and how much by the attractiveness of Europes successful economic and
political system? Its clear that some Turks are replying more to the hard power of inducement,
whereas others are attracted to the European model of human rights and economic freedom.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

89
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

SP Key to Heg
SOFT POWER KEY COMPONENT OF US HEGEMONY
The Business Times Singapore, 2006
(The Business Times Singapore, 10/19/06,Lexis Nexis, accessed July 9, 2009)
But it's incomplete. Even in the heyday of the post-Cold War era - during America's so-called Unilateral
Moment - Washington's political-military power was never invincible. The notion that the US was the
global hegemon reflected it success in asserting its soft power' in the aftermath of the collapse of the
communist bloc and the subsequent process of globalisation which has been driven by American
economic and cultural power.

SOFT POWER KEY TO MAINTAINING US PRIMACY


Thayer, Professor Defense & Strategic Studies Missouri State University, 2006,
(Bradley A, The National Interest, December 2006, Lexis Nexis, accessed July 9, 2006)
There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the dominant
state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic
and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The United
States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely
potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the case for the
foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this.

SOFT POWER HAS PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN US ACHIEVING AND


MAINTAINING POSITION OF GLOBAL DOMINANCE
Carnes- Professor, Naval War College, 2006, Hughes, 06
(Lord, John, Losing Hearts and Minds? Public diplomacy and strategic influence in the age of terror, 15-6, accessed
July 9, 2009)
Soft power; a concept popularized in recent years by the political scientist Joseph Nye, is useful for
understanding the larger context in which public diplomacy functions. Soft power has been a strong
suit for the United States virtually from its inception; certainly long before the country became a
recognized world power in the 20th century. American exceptionalism the nations devotion to freedom,
the rule of law, and republican government, its openness to immigrants of all races and religions, its
opposition to traditional power politics and imperialism; has had a great deal to do with the rise of the
United States to its currently dominant global role. But other great powers throughout history have
also been adept at exploiting the advantages of soft power. The Roman and British empires, for
example, were both able to control vast territories with very limited military forces through the appeal
of the civilization they spread before them and the relatively benign character of their rule. Today,
there are signs that a number of countries besides of the United States are becoming more conscious of
their own soft power resources and seeking more actively to take advantage of them. Perhaps the best
example is the Peoples Republic of China, which has undertaken a major effort over the last few years to
improve its image as a responsible member of the international community and to promote Chinese culture
and Chinese language instruction around the world. But comparable developments have been taking place as
well in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Russia, not to speak of minor states such as
Norway or Venezuela or indeed of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

90
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

SP Key to Heg
Soft power is critical for Americas use of hard power, soft power inevitably re-enforces
hard power
Nye, Harvard, 03
(Joseph, Power and Strategy After Iraq Foreign Affairs, accessed July 9, 2009)
The willingness of other countries to cooperate in dealing with transnational issues such as terrorism
depends in part on their own self-interest, but also on the attractiveness of American positions. Soft
power lies in the ability to attract and persuade rather than coerce. It means that others want what the
United States wants, and there is less need to use carrots and sticks. Hard power, the ability to coerce,
grows out of a countrys military and economic might. Soft power arises from the attractiveness of a
countrys culture, political ideals, and policies. When U.S. policies appear legitimate in the eyes of
others, American soft power is enhanced. Hard power will always remain crucial in a world of nationstates guarding their independence, but soft power will become increasingly important in dealing with
the transnational issues that require multilateral cooperation for their solution. One of Rumsfelds rules
is that weakness is provocative In this, he is correct. As Osama bin Laden observed, it is best to bet on the
strong horse. The effective demonstration of military power in the second Gulf War, as in the first,
might have a deterrent as well as a transformative effect in the Middle East. But the first Gulf War,
which led to the Oslo peace process, was widely regarded as legitimate, whereas the legitimacy of the
more recent war was contested. Unable to balance American military power, France, Germany, Russia,
and China created a coalition to balance American soft power by depriving the United States of the
legitimacy that might have been bestowed by a second UN resolution. Although such balancing did not
avert the war in Iraq, it did significantly raise its price. When Turkish parliamentarians regarded U.S. policy
as illegitimate, they refused Pentagon requests to allow the Fourth Infantry Division to enter Iraq from the
north. Inadequate attention to soft power was detrimental to the hard power the United States could
bring to bear in the early days of the war. Hard and soft power may sometimes conflict, but they can
also reinforce each other. And when the Jacksonians mistake soft power for weakness, they do so at their
own risk.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

91
Prisons Aff

No Condoms=Racism
Racist federal prison policies lead to destroyed minority communities and the spread of
HIV/AIDS
Ruiz et. al, Acting Director, Public Policy Office, amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, 2008
(Monica, HIV/AIDS in Correctional Settings: A Congressional Briefing, emerging issues AIDS 20/20 amfAR
briefings, March 2008, JWS)
Ensuring that ex-offenders and their families have sufficient social and economic support may help prevent
them from participating in illegal activities as a means of support, or engaging in behaviors such as drug use
that increase their risk for HIV. In order to support themselves and their families, many ex-offenders turn to
public assistance. However, obtaining such support can be problematic. The Personal Responsibility
andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (which instituted the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families [TANF] Discharge planning programs focusing on HIV prevention have been found to have
significant, positive effects on sexual risk behavior. 9 Act; P.L. 104-193) stipulates that persons convicted of
a state or federal felony drug conviction are subject to a lifetime ban on eligibility for food stamps and
other benefits.While this policy has a direct effect on individual inmates ability to rebuild their own lives, it
also has a substantial impact on inmates ability to support their children and families. Because formerly
incarcerated men have diminished earning capacity (as much as 40 percent less) over the course of
their lifetimes, they are unable to provide as much support to the families with whom they live.100
Hence, a vicious cycle is perpetuated: the communities from which inmates come are places with very
few economic resources, and inmates returning to these communities are unable to contribute to the
economic stability of the community due to diminished earning potential. The result is diminished
family health and well-being, as well as weakened family stability.101 Furthermore, because of the
demographic profile of incarcerated persons with felony drug convictions, this policy has a
disproportionate impact on African-American and Latina women, as well as African- American men
populations already experiencing significant social and health disparities, including greater risk of HIV
infection. 93 Revising this policy to reinstate eligibility for benefits to those with felony drug convictions
for example, after some prescribed period of time and after proof of rehabilitationcould have a positive
impact on ex-offenders and their families, who are trying to re-establish stable lives in their communities.
Lack of employment, income, and access to public assistance all contribute to housing instability for exoffenders and their families. Given the links between housing instability and health outcomes (such as
HIV risk, mental illness, and addiction), ensuring resources for and linkages to stable housing for newly
released individuals is another critical step to successful re-entry. Research has shown that inability to
secure stable housing and employment after release from prison may lead drug-involved ex-offenders
back to drug dealing and to risks associated with this lifestyle, including risky sexual behaviors.
60,102,103 Federal legislation (such as the Department of Housing and Urban Developments Housing
Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996) restricts or, in some cases, denies access to public housing
for many exoffenders, particularly those convicted of drug-related offenses.93,95 While some
exoffenders may try to find housing with family members or friends, such efforts may not always be
successful. If family members or friends reside in public housing, accepting an ex-offender into their home
may jeopardize their own residential stability due to the exclusion policies applicable to federally subsidized
housing. While the lack of affordable housing is a problem for the general population, making efforts to
link newly released inmates with affordable, stable housing has been shown to reduce rates of
recidivism.104,105 For those inmates with HIV or at risk of infection, access to stable housing can be
the critical factor in maintaining HIV treatment adherence and risk reduction behaviors, increasing
access to medical services, and improving health outcomes.106-108 Incorporating efforts to secure stable
housing as a part of effective discharge planning for soon-to-be-released inmates could help to reduce
recidivism and ensure that any health-related gains achieved during incarceration are not reversed once
individuals are back in their communities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

92
Prisons Aff

No Condoms=Racism
HIV in prisons furthers racial inequality due to disproportionate representation of African
Americans.
Lane, Rubinstein, and Keefe et. al. PhD MPH 2004
Lane, Sandra D. and Rubinstein, Robert A. and Keefe, Robert H. et. al. "Structural Violence and Racial Disparity
in HIV Transmission." Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 15.3 (2004): 319-335. Project
MUSE. 7 Jul. 2009 <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
HIV in correctional facilities. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) has become the second
leading cause of death in U.S. prisons.25 Health care services in prisons to care for those with
HIV/AIDS have been described as inadequate.26 Seroprevalence rates vary between correctional systems, but nationwide
estimates are that the inmate population is at least five times more likely to be infected with HIV than the general population.27 Inmates
in the New York State system have the highest rate of HIV among inmates nationwide, with over 10% of the male and 20% of the female
inmates infected. It is estimated that 20% to 26% of all people living with HIV in 1997 spent time as inmates that year.28
Substantial evidence suggests that many inmates become infected while incarcerated .29,30 Only a few
studies, however, have assessed the incidence of HIV seroconversion occurring in correctional facilities. In 1998, Brewer, Vlahof,
Taylor, and colleagues calculated a rate of 4.15 HIV infections per 1,000 person-years in prison.31 In 1990, the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention conducted a study, which was not released to the public, on HIV seroconversion in the Illinois State Correction
facility. The magazine Mother Jones, through a Freedom of Information Act obtained and published the results of this study. The results
indicate a rate of 3 HIV seroconversions per 1,000 person-years, which is 10 times greater than the state non-inmate rate during that time
period.32 Studies of smaller, less-representative populations found seroconversion rates that were much higher; for [End Page 323]
example, the rate of new HIV infections among 1,309 inmates in Illinois was 25 per 1,000 person-years of prison.33 Not all studies on
inmate populations, however, found evidence of elevated HIV seroconversion. Horsburgh, Jarvis, McArther, and associates reported 1
infection per 604 prison-years (for a rate of 1.66 per 1,000 prison-years), but cautioned that the inmate could have seroconverted before
being incarcerated.34 HIV/AIDS testing in correctional facilities could be enhanced by changing the type of test used. Bauserman, Ward,
and Eldred report that many African American men in their study of prison inmates in Maryland were willing to undergo HIV testing if
the prison health officials used oral testing methods.35 The risk factors leading to the transmission of sexual and
bloodborne infections occur frequently in correctional facilities. An estimated 7% to 12% of the inmates across
several studies report being raped while incarcerated; inmates who had been raped reported that it occurred an average of nine times
during their incarceration.36 Moreover, prisoners have been found to trade sex for drugs or other items, or to engage in
consensual/companionship sexual behavior, which is more often than not unprotected;37 an estimated 90% of the sex in
correctional facilities occurs without the use of condoms.38 In fact, less than 1% of all jails and prisons in the U.S.
allow inmates access to condoms.39 The Federal Bureau of Prisons provides a conservative estimate of 30% of
federal inmates engaging in homosexual activity while incarcerated . A case-control study of formerly incarcerated
males reported that 23% of the men with HIV, and 9% of the men without HIV, claimed to have had anal sex while incarcerated.40
Injecting drugs and tattooing are also potential routes of HIV transmission among inmates. With respect to intravenous drug use, the
Office of National Drug Control Policy concludes that roughly 25% of all inmates entering U.S. prisons have injected drugs, which puts
them at risk for HIV as well as hepatitis B and C infection.41 Some of these inmates continue to inject drugs while in prison, sharing
syringes and drugs purchased on the underground prison market.42 Tattooing, which a former Onondaga County inmate reported being
performed with metal guitar strings, was reported by 48% of inmates in a CDC study.43 The HIV seroprevalence of inmates

potentially affects the larger communities to which the inmates return when they are released from
prison. Among HIV-infected African American women living in the South who had fewer than 10
lifetime sexual partners and could identify no high-risk behavior, one quarter reported that one of
their last three sexual partners had been incarcerated for more than 24 hours. Disproportionate
incarceration by race and ethnicity. The disproportionate representation of African Americans in the
criminal justice system has been well documented. 44,45 In New York State, African Americans make up 16% of the
population but suffer 43% of arrests and make up 51% of people in state prisons.46 In Onondaga County, African Americans
make up 52% of all people sentenced to jail, and 61% of all people sentenced to state prison .47

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

93
Prisons Aff

No Condoms=Racism
Lack of Condoms is Racist
Winkelman, Staff Writer, 2006
(Cheryl, Oakland Tribune/findarticle,com, Condoms For Inmates: Outlawed HIV Prevention, December 18, 2006,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061218/ai_n16895619/, July 5, 2009, E.B.S.).
Blacks are disproportionately represented in state and federal prisons: According to 2005 statistics
from the U.S. Department of Justice, 40 percent of inmates with a sentence longer than one year were
black. Black men are being hit the hardest. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
47 percent of people estimated to be living with HIV at the end of 2003, the last year data were
available, were black and 74 percent were male. "We know that our young men are being infected in
prison," said Damon Dozier, director of government relations and public policy at the AIDS Council.

African Americans are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS because of the federal


prison system
Economic instabilities lead to increase of societal spread
Blankenship et al., PhD and associate research scientist at Yale University, 2005
(Kim, Black-White Disparities in HIV/AIDS:The Role of Drug Policy and
the Corrections System, J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005 November ; 16(4 Suppl B): 140156., JWS)
African Americans in the United States are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS, with the rate of
AIDS for African Americans nine times that of Whites.1 As a growing number of researchers emphasize
the need to examine and address the structural and contextual sources of HIV/AIDS risk, we suggest in this
paper that among the most important contextual factors associated with these disparities are drug policy
and the corrections system. In particular, high rates of exposure to the corrections system (including
incarceration, probation, and parole) spurred in large part by the war on drugs being carried out by both
federal and local governments in the United States, have disproportionately affected African
Americans. We review a wide range of research literature to suggest how this, in turn, may affect the HIV/
AIDS-related risks of African Americans. We then discuss the implications of the information reviewed for
interventions to address that risk.

African Americans make up a disproportionate amount of those living with HIV/ AIDS
Blankenship et al., PhD and associate research scientist at Yale University, 2005
(Kim, Black-White Disparities in HIV/AIDS:The Role of Drug Policy and
the Corrections System, J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005 November ; 16(4 Suppl B): 140156., JWS)
While African Americans make up only 13% of the U.S. population, they represent 39% of all AIDS
cases reported in the U.S. through 2002.1 Furthermore, the proportion of AIDS cases accounted for by
African Americans has steadily and markedly increased over time: of the more than 42,000 new cases
reported in 2002, 50% were African American, an overall rate that was almost 11 times greater than
the rate for Whites in that year.1 In the same year, African Americans constituted almost two-thirds of all
AIDS cases in women and two-thirds of all pediatric AIDS cases.1 These trends are likely to continue, or
even worsen: African Americans accounted for 54% of the new HIV diagnoses reported in the United States
in 2002.1 Through 2001, 56% of all HIV diagnoses among 1324 year olds were in African Americans.2
Sexual contact is the most common route of HIV infection among African Americans. Among the African
Americans living with HIV/AIDS at the end of 2003, 75% of women and 22% of men reported acquiring the virus through heterosexual
contact; 47% of men reported being infected through male-to-male sexual contact; 22% and 23% of men and women, respectively,
reported acquiring HIV through injection drug use.3 Still, injection drug use is more frequently the source of AIDS among African
Americans than among Whites. While injection drug use accounted for 9% of cumulative AIDS cases in White men through 2003, it
accounted for 32% of such cases in African American men.3 In a recent study investigating HIV diagnoses among injection drug users in
25 states with HIV surveillance, researchers found that Blacks continue to be disproportionately represented among diagnosed injection
drug use-related HIV cases. Among women, African Americans represented 66% of all injection drug use-related HIV cases, while
among men, African Americans represented 64% of all such cases.3 Other recent studies confirm that African American

injection drug users (IDUs) are more likely to be HIV-infected than their White counterparts. Kral and
colleagues found that 12.5% of African American injectors but only 2.8% of White injectors tested HIV
positive.4 Similarly, Day found that African American IDUs were four times as likely to have AIDS as
their White counterparts.5

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

94
Prisons Aff

No Condoms=Racism
HIV/AIDS rates are higher in blacks because of structural reasons, especially incarceration
Blankenship et al., PhD and associate research scientist at Yale University, 2005
(Kim, Black-White Disparities in HIV/AIDS:The Role of Drug Policy and
the Corrections System, J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005 November ; 16(4 Suppl B): 140156., JWS)
To what can these disparities be attributed? Explanations for HIV/AIDS often focus on individual risk
behaviors, with Black-White disparities in HIV/AIDS viewed as the result of race differences in risk
behaviors related to drug use or sex. Yet in general, African Americans report less risky drug use and
sexual behaviors than their White counterparts. In terms of drug use, White adolescents are more likely to use illicit drugs than
their African American counterparts,6 and to initiate both illicit and non-illicit (alcohol, tobacco) drug use at younger ages.610 Relative to White adults in
2002,

African American adults reported less lifetime and past year use of illicit drugs other than
marijuana (24.9% vs. 33.0% and 7.3% vs. 8.2%, respectively) and only slightly more use in the past month (3.8% vs. 3.5%).11 Furthermore, in a
study of currently non-injecting heroine users, including individuals who had, in the past, frequently, infrequently and never injected drugs, Neaigus and
colleagues found that African Americans were underrepresented in the group of those with an injection history.12 Similarly, in a study of risk behaviors of
female jail detainees, rates of reported needle sharing were much higher among non-Hispanic Whites than among either African American or Hispanic

African Americans also do not appear to be engaging in


riskier sexual behavior than their White counterparts. Though African American youth do report more sexual behavior earlier
women.13 Examination of sexual risk reveals that, as a group,

than White youth,14 consistent use of a reliable means of contraception has been more strongly associated with African American than White youth;15
reported condom use is higher among Blacks than among other racial and ethnic groups.14, 1618

More promising for understanding race differences in HIV/AIDS than explanations based on
individual risk behaviors are structural explanations, which focus on the social and contextual factors
that determine health. While high rates of HIV/AIDS among African Americans have been attributed
to a variety of structural factors (such as poverty,1921 homelessness,2223 community disintegration,24
access to sexually transmitted disease services and discrimination and racism2529) arguably one of the
most pronounced relevant features of the social context of the past several decades is the
disproportionately high rate of incarceration among African Americans.25

The prison system creates racist disparities in HIV/AIDS, plan is key to solving
Blankenship et al., PhD and associate research scientist at Yale University, 2005
(Kim, Black-White Disparities in HIV/AIDS:The Role of Drug Policy and
the Corrections System, J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005 November ; 16(4 Suppl B): 140156., JWS)
To the extent that incarceration, associated community re-entry, and potential subsequent supervision
under parole and probation, do contribute to HIV risk among drug users in general and race
disparities in HIV/AIDS in particular, then interventions that address these factors may reduce HIV
risk and race disparities. One group of such interventions are those aimed at delivering HIV prevention
messages within the corrections system to those under its jurisdiction, run either by corrections personnel
themselves or by others under contract with the system.106107 This would include such things as programs to promote HIV risk
awareness among prison inmates and efforts to work with probation and parole officers to link their clients with prevention programs.

More important still are structural interventions, which can take a number of forms, including:

* Interventions aimed at
reducing the likelihood of involvement with the corrections system. To the extent that U.S. drug policy has been associated with increased incarceration and
other forms of criminal justice supervision, reform of drug policy would constitute a major HIV prevention intervention of this type. Examples of such
reform can be found throughout the country: in 1997, New Mexico established a statewide needle exchange program (Senate Bill 220); in 1999, Connecticut
increased the amount of syringes that can be purchased at a pharmacy without a prescription (House Bill (HB) 7501); in 2001, Indiana eliminated
mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug offenders and reformed its Drug-Free Zone law (HB1892).108 Other efforts aimed at providing
substance abuse treatment and reducing the likelihood of initiation of drug use or entrance into the drug trade would also serve this purpose. *
Interventions aimed at reducing the risks associated with incarceration and supervision .

Efforts to initiate harm reduction programs


within the prisons, such as providing condoms and clean syringes to inmates, would be interventions of
this type, as would the provision of a broad array of drug treatment options, including pharmacological interventions (e.g., methadone
and buprenorphine detoxification programs) within the prison. Prison needle exchange programs have successfully reduced risk behavior
and HIV transmission, without endangering staff or prisoner safety or increasing drug use, in Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Moldova,
Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus.109 As more is known about the risks associated with probation and parole, it may become clear what
modifications of these systems would reduce HIV-related risks. * Interventions aimed at easing the burden of re-entry. Interventions of
this type might include such initiatives as intensive case management programs that help link former inmates to existing services. But
they also include efforts to expand the services available to inmates and others under the supervision of the corrections system, such as
special employment or housing programs.6667, 71, 7677, 93, 98, 103, 110111 In addition, reforms in welfare policy that, for
example, would end restrictions on access to income maintenance and benefit programs among those convicted of drug-related crimes
would also be interventions of this type.73, 108 These are just a few examples of structural interventions that have the potential to
address the HIV risk associated with involvement in the corrections system. To the extent that African Americans are

disproportionately exposed to this system, and the subsequent risk it represents, such interventions
have the potential to reduce racial disparities in HIV as well.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

95
Prisons Aff

No Condoms=Racism
Drug policies in the last decade have targeted black men disproportionately greatly
increasing the proportion of black men in jail
Blankenship et al., PhD and associate research scientist at Yale University, 2005
(Kim, Black-White Disparities in HIV/AIDS:The Role of Drug Policy and
the Corrections System, J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005 November ; 16(4 Suppl B): 140156., JWS)
Over the past decade, the number of individuals in U.S. prisons and jails has increased dramatically.
Nearly 1.4 million people were incarcerated in U.S. federal or state adult prison systems, and an additional
700,000 were residing in jails at the close of 2003.30 This growth was especially magnified in the African
American community: the rate of current incarceration among African American men went from 1 in 30
individuals to 1 in 15 between 1984 and 1997.31 The U.S. distinguishes itself not only in its scale of
punishment but also in its degree of racial disparity across all levels of the corrections system. Consider these
statistics from 2003: in 2003, Blacks were 5 times more likely than Whites to have been to jail;30 39% of
local jail inmates were Black;30 44% of the prisoners under federal or state jurisdiction were African
Americans;32 the rate of sentenced male prisoners under the jurisdiction of state and federal correctional
authorities per 100,000 residents was 465 for Whites and 3,405 for Blacks.33 As of 1997, an African
American male was estimated to have a 1 in 4 likelihood of going to prison in his lifetime, compared
with a chance of 1 in 23 for a White male.34 These racial disparities are magnified among young men: in
2003, 12.8% of all Black males aged 25 to 29 years were in prison or jail, compared with just 1.6% of White
males of the same age;30 similarly, in 1999, 40% of all the juveniles in public and private residential custody
facilities, and 52% of those in such facilities for drug offenses, were Black.31 Finally, while women are
incarcerated at lower rates than men, a racial disparity also exists between African American and White
women. Black females were 5 times more likely than White females to be in prison in 2003.32 Growth of
the incarcerated population, as well as the racially disparate form that it has taken, relates in large
part to U.S. drug policy. U.S. policies towards drug offenses have become increasingly punitive since
the 1980s. Measures such as mandatory minimum sentences, penalty enhancements for the sale and use of
drugs in certain areas (drug free zones), disparities in the penalties associated with possession of crack
and powder cocaine, and restrictions on syringe availability are examples of policies that increase the
frequency of arrest and incarceration of drug offenders.35 Between 1980 and 1995, the number of drug
offenders in state prison increased by more than 1000%, accounting for 1 out of every 16 inmates in 1980,
but 1 out of every 4 in 1995.36 In the same time period, drug offenders represented 50% of the growth in
state prison populations, and more than 80% of the total growth in the federal inmate population.36
These increases in drug-related incarceration were not distributed equally between African Americans
and Whites. While the number of White state prison inmates sentenced for drug offenses increased 306%
between 1985 and 1995, the number of African American state prison inmates sentenced for drug
offenses increased 707% in the same time period.37 The increase in the number of drug offenders in state
prisons accounted for 42% of the total increase for African Americans, but only 26% of the total increase for
Whites.38 Among federal prisoners, African American men account for 34% of those incarcerated on
non-drug offenses, but 42% of those incarcerated on drug offenses.33 The tripling of the female
incarcerated population between 1980 and 1990 is similarly related to drug policy.39 The number of women
arrested for drug offenses increased by 89% from 1982 to 1991,40 and sentencing of drug offenders
accounted for 55% of the increase in the female prison population between 1986 and 1991.39 What is true
for men is true for women as well: incarceration rates have increased more rapidly among African American
women than among White women, resulting in a growing race disparity in womens incarceration rates.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

96
Prisons Aff

No Condoms=Racism
Disproportionate numbers of blacks in jail and situations they face upon release increase
the spread of HIV/AIDS in the African American community
Blankenship et al., PhD and associate research scientist at Yale University, 2005
(Kim, Black-White Disparities in HIV/AIDS:The Role of Drug Policy and
the Corrections System, J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005 November ; 16(4 Suppl B): 140156., JWS)
Whatever the explanations for race disparities in incarceration, it is reasonable to hypothesize that
incarceration affects the HIV/AIDS risk of individuals with a history of incarceration. First, the prison
environment itself may be a high-risk setting for the transmission of HIV/ AIDS due to both the
prevalence of HIV among inmate populations and the high-risk activities that occur inside the prison
walls. In 2002, the known cases of HIV, as a proportion of the total custody population in state and federal
prisons, varied across the nation from 0.2% to 7.5% with an average across prisons of 1.9%.41 In 1997, 20%
to 26% of all people living with HIV in the U.S. were incarcerated at some point during the year.42 The exact
magnitude of sexual risk behaviors occurring in prison is difficult to ascertain given the unreliability of
official prison sexual assault records, the social pressures that inhibit mens willingness to report samesex
behavior, the differences in sample size and populations that are studied, and the variety of ways in which
researchers define sexual activity.4344 While several studies estimate that about 20% of men experience
some form of sexual contact while incarcerated, others have reported much higher and much lower
rates.4347 Whatever the rate may be, the majority of these sexual activities are likely to be unsafe due to
the dearth of condoms in prisons. Injection drug use also occurs in prison and is associated with increased
HIV risk;4751 tattooing may be an additional risk factor.52 Using HIV testing to investigate HIV
transmission within U.S. jails or prisons, some studies have found no strong evidence of intraprison spread of
HIV,53 54 while Mutter and colleagues found that 3% of a sample of individuals continuously
incarcerated since 1977 had seroconverted to HIV-positive status.55 In a more recent study, Krebs and
Simmons56 found that, among a sample of 5,265 inmates, the intraprison HIV transmission rate was
0.63% and HIV transmission while in prison largely occurred through sex with another man. In
general, studies suggest that while sex and drug use decrease overall among the incarcerated, they are
conducted in a riskier manner inside prison than outside.5758 Though it is difficult to assess whether
African Americans have a greater risk of HIV transmission while in prison than Whites, some studies
indicate that their risk behavior while in prison differs little from that of Whites.57, 59 This suggests that any
association between incarceration and Black-White disparities in HIV/AIDS that relates to prison as a
risk environment results from the greater likelihood that African Americans will be exposed to this
environment and not to any differences in risk behavior while incarcerated. In addition to any risk associated
with prison itself, it is important to consider the consequences of incarceration for the lives of released
inmates. In particular, incarceration affects social networks and family relationships, economic vulnerability,
and access to social and risk reduction services. Before elaborating on these, two caveats are worth noting.
First, the literature about the consequences of incarceration does not generally examine how the race of the
ex-prisoner shapes the challenges that he or she faces upon re-entry. While there is research that specifically
explores the effect of incarceration on African Americans, especially as it relates to social and family
networks,25, 6061 these studies do not always include analysis by race. Second, clearly many of the issues
faced after incarceration (e.g. weak social networks, economic insecurity, uncertain access to safe housing
and health care) may have been obstacles faced before incarceration. The point here is not that these factors
are necessarily novel, but that they are intensified by the stigma, disconnection, and legal consequences of
incarceration.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

97
Prisons Aff

Racism - Moral Imperative


Taking action against racism is morally imperative and works against exploitation and
capitalism
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., American Civil Rights Hero, 1967
(Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., The World House, Where do we go from here: Chaos or community?, 1967, JWS)
Among the moral imperatives of our time, we are challenged to work all over the world with
unshakable determination to wipe out the last vestiges of racism. As early as 1906 W.E.B. DuBois
prophesied that "the problem of the twentieth century will be the problem of the color line." Now as we stand
two-thirds into this exciting period of history we know full well that racism is still that hound of hell which
dogs the tracks of our civilization.
Racism is no mere American phenomenon. Its vicious grasp knows no geographical boundaries. In fact,
racism and its perennial allyeconomic exploitationprovide the key to understanding most of the
international complications of this generation.
The classic example of organized and institutionalized racism is the Union of South Africa. Its national
policy and practice are the incarnation of the doctrine of white supremacy in the midst of a population which
is overwhelmingly black. But the tragedy of South Africa is not simply in its own policy; it is the fact that the
racist government of South Africa is virtually made possible by the economic policies of the United States
and Great Britain, two countries which profess to be the moral bastions of our Western world.
In country after country we see white men building empires on the sweat and suffering of colored
people. Portugal continues its practices of slave labor and subjugation in Angola; the Ian Smith government
in Rhodesia continues to enjoy the support of British-based industry and private capital, despite the stated
opposition of British Government policy. Even in the case of the little country of South West Africa we find
the powerful nations of the world incapable of taking a moral position against South Africa, though the
smaller country is under the trusteeship of the United Nations. Its policies are controlled by South Africa
and its manpower is lured into the mines under slave-labor conditions.
During the Kennedy administration there was some awareness of the problems that breed in the racist and
exploitative conditions throughout the colored world, and a temporary concern emerged to free the United
States from its complicity, though the effort was only on a diplomatic level. Through our Ambassador to the
United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, there emerged the beginnings of an intelligent approach to the colored
peoples of the world. However, there remained little or no attempt to deal with the economic aspects of racist
exploitation. We have been notoriously silent about the more than $700 million of American capital
which props up the system of apartheid, not to mention the billions of dollars in trade and the military
alliances which are maintained under the pretext of fighting Communism in Africa.

Racism is the root cause of exploitation and will cause societal destruction
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., American Civil Rights Hero, 1967
(Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., The World House, Where do we go from here: Chaos or community?, 1967, JWS)
Former generations could not conceive of such luxury, but their children now take this vision and demand
that it become a reality. And when they look around and see that the only people who do not share in the
abundance of Western technology are colored people, it is an almost inescapable conclusion that their
condition and their exploitation are somehow related to their color and the racism of the white Western
world.
This is a treacherous foundation for a world house. Racism can well be that corrosive evil that will
bring down the curtain on Western civilization. Arnold Toynbee has said that some twenty-six
civilizations have risen upon the face of the earth. Almost all of them have descended into the junk heaps of
destruction. The decline and fall of these civilizations, according to Toynbee, was not caused by external
invasions but by internal decay. They failed to respond creatively to the challenges impinging upon them.
If Western civilization does not now respond constructively to the challenge to banish racism, some
future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and
commitment to make justice a reality for all men.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

98
Prisons Aff

Racism - Moral Imperative


Genocidal racism has always been a part of the united states and will continue to be unless
action is taken against it
Barndt, parish pastor and antiracist trainer and author, 1991
(Joseph, dismantling racism, 4-5, 1991, JWS)
Racism is an evil weed sown in the garden of humanity. It has grown wildly, entangling the healthy
plants and covering the pathways, creating a great maze, a labyrinth with twists and turns that have
led humanity astray. Racism has entwined and entrapped us all.
Before we begin to define and dissect racism in our present day, it is essential to realize how deeply the
roots of racism are embedded and intertwined in the life and history of the United States. From its
earliest days, the seeds were sown and this evil plant has grown and flourished, it is clearly evident in
the genocide of Native Americans, in the enslavement of Africans, and in the drafting of a constitution
that reserved and guaranteed the precious fruits of freedom almost exclusively for European
immigrants.
As the decades and centuries passed, the roots of racism remained strong, sending up fresh shoots each
season. With chilling regularity, to this very day, new crops of racial violence and death are harvested
in the streets and alleys of U.S. cities and in the dusty lanes of our rural countryside. Each time this
undesirable harvest manifests itself, our nations leaders express their moral outrage and indignation,
Then, nodding in agreement and pledging to prevent its recurrence, we kwget that ii ever happened.
guaranteeing thereby that it will happen again and again, just as surely as seedtime turns to harvest.
With this pattern we passed through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and are now nearly through the twentieth century as well
Each time a parncularty horrible phase of racial turmoil breaks ow, we pretend at its passing that we have finally achieved racisms
defeat and death. And we pretend to be newly surprised when, months or years bier, another and another and still another shoot of the
evil pLant emerges, promising a greater harvest than ever,

And so today in the final decade of the twentieth century, we have became alarmed once again at the
persistent evil of racism. The daily headlines assert its reality. The evening news assaults our consciences.
New names and places become household words, and a new geography lesson ia taught, from the
wanton killings of African Americans in New York Citys Howard &ch and Bcnaonhurai, to the daughter
of Asians in Stockton, California; front senseless police brutality videotaped in Los Angeles, to violent
campaigns against Native Americans in Wisconsin. A collage of names, places, facts, and figures reshapes our
consciousness, Words and phrases like regcntrificatxm and pcrmancnt underclass become part of a new vocabulary, created to
explain the current racial situation. The latest graphs, charts, and surveys demonstrate once again that little has changed for the better
and much has taken a turn for the worse.

Racism traps everyone and it is imperative that white leaders of society take action against
it
Barndt, parish pastor and antiracist trainer and author, 2007
(Joseph, understanding and dismantling racism, 2007, JWS)
this hook on racism is written especially for white people and about white people. and it is written by a white person. It is a book about
our problem of white racism. More often than not, books about racial problems arc about people of color

about African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Amentans, Latinos/Hispanics. and Arab
Americans. Those books are usually concerned especially with the problems that racism causes for
people of color.
The purpose of this book is different. Ihe ccntral focus of this book is not about how racism affects people of color , Rather, the
primary subject is how racism is caused by and how it affects white people and the predominantly
white institutions and culture of our white society I bdieve that we who are white need to come to new
understanding about ourselves and about our racism, and we need to take responsibility for bringing
racism to an end. ibc two primary goals of this book are, first, to help white people understand how racism
functions and how it is perpetuated in our homes, schools, churches, and other institutions; and second, to
help equip white people to combat and dismantle racism and to help build an antiracist/multicultural society.
While this hook is addressed to white people. it is not an attack on white people; k is not based on accusations or blame, and does not
seek to produce
guilt. As I hope will become clear, my primary thesis about racism is that we are all prisoners of racism people of color

and white people alike. Almost every leader in the struggle against racism, from Frederick Douglass to
Martin Luther King Jr. and from Mahatma Gandhi to Nelson Mandela, has emphasized that racism is
as debilitating to white people as it is to people of color, and that the goal of freedom is for all people. By
die time the reader reaches the end of this book, I hope there will be new clarity on how we in all reach this goal.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

99
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

Racism O/W
Racism is the precondition of killing and justifies genocide, becoming the root cause of all
impacts.
Foucault, shiny, smiling Frenchman, liked croissants, '76
(Michel, Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976, p. 254-257, JoY)
What in fact is racism? It is primarily a way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is
under power's control: the break between what must live and what must die. The appearance within the
biological continuum of the human race of races, the distinction among races, the hierarchy of races, the fact that certain races are
described as good and that others, in contrast, are described as inferior: all this is a way of fragmenting the field of the biological that
power controls. It is a way of separating out the groups that exist within a population. It is, in short, a way of establishing a biological
type caesura within a population that appears to be a biological domain. This will allow power to treat that population as a mixture of
races, or to be more accurate, to treat the species, to subdivide the species it controls, into the subspecies known, precisely, as races. That
is the first function of racism: to fragment, to create caesuras within the biological continuum addressed by biopower. Racism also has a
second function. Its role is, if you like, to allow the establishment of a positive relation of this type: "The more you kill, the more deaths
you will cause" or "The very fact that you let more die will allow you to live more." I would say that this relation ("If you want to live,
you must take lives, you must be able to kill") was not invented by either racism or the modern State. It is the relationship of war: "In
order to live, you must destroy your enemies." But racism does make the relationship of war-"If you want to live, the other must die" function in a way that is completely new and that is quite compatible with the exercise of biopower. On the one hand, racism makes
it possible to establish a relationship between my life and the death of the other that is not a military or warlike
relationship of confrontation, but a biological-type relationship: "The more inferior species die out, the more abnormal
individuals are eliminated, the fewer degenerates there will be in the species as a whole, and the more Ias
species rather than individual-can live, the stronger I will be, the more vigorous I will be. I will be able to proliferate." The fact that the
other dies does not mean simply that I live in the sense that his death guarantees my safety; the death of the other, the death of the bad
race, of the inferior race (or the degenerate, or the abnormal) is something that will make life in general healthier: healthier and purer.
This is not, then, a military, warlike, or political relationship, but a biological relationship. And the reason this mechanism can come into
play is that the enemies who have to be done away with are not adversaries in the political sense of the term; they are threats, either
external or internal, to the population and for the population. In the biopower system, in other words, killing or the imperative to kill is
acceptable only if it results not in a victory over political adversaries, but in the elimination of the biological threat to and the
improvement of the species or race. There is a direct connection between the two. In a normalizing society, race or racism is the
precondition that makes killing acceptable. When you have a normalizing society, you have a power which is, at least
superficially, in the first instance, or in the first line a biopower, and racism is the indispensable precondition that allows
someone to be killed, that allows others to be killed. Once the State functions in the biopower mode, racism alone can
justify the murderous function of the State. So you can understand the importance-I almost said the vital importance-of racism to the
exercise of such a power: it is the precondition for exercising the right to kill. If the power of normalization wished to exercise the old
sovereign right to kill, it must become racist. And if, conversely, a power of sovereignty, or in other words, a power that has the right of
life and death, wishes to work with the instruments, mechanisms, and technology of normalization, it too must become racist. When I
say "killing," I obviously do not mean simply murder as such, but also every form of indirect murder: the fact of exposing someone to
death, increasing the risk of death for some people, or, quite simply, political death, expulsion, rejection, and so on. I think that we are
now in a position to understand a number of things. We can understand, first of all, the link that was quickly-I almost said immediatelyestablished between nineteenth-century biological theory and the discourse of power. Basically, evolutionism, understood in the broad
sense-or in other words, not so much Darwin's theory itself as a set, a bundle, of notions (such as: the hierarchy of species that grow
from a common evolutionary tree, the struggle for existence among species, the selection that eliminates the less fit) naturally became
within a few years during the nineteenth century not simply a way of transcribing a political discourse into biological terms, and not
simply a way of dressing up a political discourse in scientific clothing, but a real way of thinking about the relations between
colonization, the necessity for wars, criminality, the phenomena of madness and mental illness, the history of societies with their
different classes, and so on. Whenever, in other words, there was a confrontation, a killing or the risk of death, the nineteenth century
was quite literally obliged to think about them in the form of evolutionism. And we can also understand why racism should have
developed in modern societies that function in the biopower mode; we can understand why racism broke out at a number of .privileged
moments, and why they were precisely the moments when the right to take life was imperative. Racism first develops with
colonization, or in other words, with colonizing genocide. If you are functioning in the biopower mode, how can you justify the
need to kill people, to kill populations, and to kill civilizations? By using the themes of evolutionism, by appealing to a racism. War.

How can one not only wage war on one's adversaries but also expose one's own citizens to war, and let
them be killed by the million (and this is precisely what has been going on since the nineteenth century, or since the second half
of the nineteenth century), except by activating the theme of racism? From this point onward, war is about two things: it is
not simply a matter of destroying a political adversary, but of destroying the enemy race, of destroying that [sort] of biological threat that
those people over there represent to our race. In one sense, this is of course no more than a biological extrapolation from the theme of
the political enemy. But there is more to it than that. In the nineteenth century-and this is completely new-war will be seen not only as a
way of improving one's own race by eliminating the enemy race (in accordance with the themes of natural selection and the struggle for
existence), but also as a way of regenerating one's own race. As more and more of our number die, the race to which we belong will
become all the purer.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

100
Prisons Aff

Condoms Fight Racism


Distributing condoms fights racial inequality
Ramos, L. J.D., University of the Pacific (2008)
Comment: Beyond Reasonable: A Constitutional and Policy Analysis of Why it is Reasonable and Prudent to
Allow Nonprofits or Health Care Agencies to Distribute Sexual Barrier Protection Devices to Inmates.
McGeorge Law Review 39, 329.
Attacking racial inequality is another reason to provide sexual barrier devices within penal
institutions. As indicated above, HIV/AIDS plagues minority communities. n188 The increase of
HIV/AIDS cases among minorities directly correlates with the HIV/AIDS exposure the minority
population receives within penal institutions. A 2006 news article re-ported "so powerful is the relationship
between race, prison and AIDS that it almost completely explains why half of all new AIDS patients in 2002
were African Americans even though only [twelve] percent of the population is black ... ." n189 Preventing
HIV transmission in prison may help to shrink the "AIDS gap," or the large disparity between the
number of minorities and non-minorities who have AIDS. n190

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

101
Prisons Aff

Lack of Condoms Dehum


The law currently stigmatizes and dehumanizes those living with AIDS, especially in prison
Maluwa, trained and practiced lawyer with a Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB Hons) and
Masters of Laws Degree (LLM), from the University of London specializing in
International Economic Law, 2002
(Miriam, HIV- AND AIDS-RELATED STIGMA,DISCRIMINATION, ANDHUMAN RIGHTS: A Critical
Overview, Health and Human Rights, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2002), pp. 1-18, JWS)
The Freedom from Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Individuals may be segregated in schools and
hospitals. Cases of degrading treatment are particularly prevalent in prisons where inmates may be
forced into mandatory confinement, often being denied their basic needs, including access to sufficient
medical care. Each of these examples dramatically illustrates situations in which stigma has resulted in
discriminatory action and violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Stigma,
discrimination, and human rights violations form avicious, regenerative circle. Conversely, condoning
human rights violations can create, legitimize, and reinforce stigma that can, if left to fester, lead to
discriminatory action and further human rights violations. HIV- and AIDS-related stigma and
discrimination compoundthe suffering of people living with HIV and AIDS andof the poor, members of
minority groups, indigenous peoples,migrants, refugees, and internally displaced persons, men who have sex
with men, prisoners, injection-drug users, those with disabilities, and other marginalized, vulnerable groups.
This situation is even worse for women and children within these groups. HIV- and AIDS-related stigma
and discrimination continue to erode the human rights of these individuals or groups, thus increasing
their vulnerability to HIV infection and lessening their ability to cope effectively with the disease
should they become infected.43 Freedom from discrimination is a fundamental human right founded
on universal and perpetual principles of natural justice. The core existing international human rights
instruments-the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Convention Against Torture, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Childprohibit discrimination based
on race; color; sex; language; religion; political or other opinion; national, ethnic, or social origin; property;
disability; fortune; birth; or other status.44-48 The right to nondiscrimination is also detailed in such
regional instruments as the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, the American Convention
on Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights.49-51 In addition, recent
resolutions of the UN Commission on Human Rights, have stated unequivocally that "the term or
other status in nondiscrimination provisions in international human rights texts should be interpreted
to cover health status, including HIV/AIDS," and has confirmed that "discrimination on the basis of
HIV/AIDS status, actual or presumed, is prohibited by existing human rights standards."'52
Discrimination against people living with HIV and AIDS, or those thought to be infected, is therefore a
clear violation of their human rights. People living with or affected by HIV and AIDS are entitled to
the same rights as all other members of society and to equal protection under the law. They must be
legally protected from discrimination is all spheres of life-both public and private including in health care,
employment, education, travel, housing, and social welfare.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

102
Prisons Aff

Lack of Condoms Dehum


Lack of healthcare leads to substandard environments, causing dehumanization.
Jacobi, Prof. of Law at Seton Hall University, 05
(John V., Prison Health, Public Health: Obligations and Opportunities American Journal of Law and Medicine .Vol.
31, Iss. 4; pg. 447, JoY)
Prison conditions in America have been dismal since the founding of the Republic. Oppressive, brutal
conditions predominated with reformist zeal for improving the conditions leading to brief periods of improvement.39
Overcrowded, brutal prisons are of course unhealthy, and prison reformers of course attempted to ameliorate those conditions.40 With
the rise in the 20th Century of curative medicine, access to or denial of decent health services became a significant issue in prison
reform. It is clear that prison health care was shockingly bad during much of the 20th Century, as vital, lifesaving care was delay, denied, or provided by untrained fellow prisoners.41 The quality of health care services in modern prisons
varies from prison to prison, and state to state. Reform efforts, including prisoners rights litigation, have increased funding and
oversight in some prison systems. For example, the Re-Entry Councils recent report, drawing on a variety of federal and state sources
state and federal corrections sources, recently asserted that the quality and availability of medical services for the prisoner population
has been enhanced by multiple federal judicial decisions and by initiatives of a host of professional organizations. 42 It is possible,
however, to exaggerate the improvements. Too often prison care is abysmal and dehumanizing. This is true even in the
state highlighted as an example of improvement in the Re-Entry Councils Report: California.43 Shortly after the Re-Entry Council
issued its report, a federal judge blasted Californias prison health care, issuing an Order to Show Cause why management of health
services in the California Department of Corrections should not be taken away from the State and assigned to a court-appointed
receiver.44 The text of the order relates a hair-raising account of a totally broken system45 The court found that, [e]ven the
most simple and basic elements of a minimally adequate medical system were lacking. 46 In one of the California
prisons toured by the Judge, the main medical examining room lacked any means of sanitation there was no

sink and no alcohol gel where roughly one hundred per day undergo medical screening, and the
Court observed that the dentist neither washed his hands nor changed his gloves after treating patients
into whose mouths he had placed his hands.47 Expert reports on this prison noted referral slips for health care unattended
for over one month,48 and dirty, dangerous, and antiquated facilities, unchanged by prior court orders due to the indifference of
corrections officials.49 Remarkably, the Department of Corrections apparently did not either disagree with the facts or object to the
proposal to divest it of its authority to manage prison health, and officials acknowledged that they were unable to correct the problems
on their own, and that unconstitutional conditions will remain until an outside agency is hired to take over.50

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

103
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Unaddressed
Prisons are very homophobic
Van De Mark, Gay and Lesbian Times, 2007
(Brian, Living hell, Aug 16 2007, JWS)
One of the primary reasons for the high numbers of male sexual assault in prisons is the lack of
intervention by the prison guards. In fact, Helen Eigenbergs groundbreaking 1989 study of Texas
correction officers attitudes toward prison rape indicated that 46 percent of the prison officers
believed that some inmates deserve to be raped and 34 percent believed rape victims are weak. A 1996
study of Nebraska corrections officers had similar findings. Attitudes are no different today. When the
American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Roderick Keith Johnson against six
correctional officers for failing to protect him, the jury voted 10-2 not to hold prison officials accountable.
Johnson says he was raped up to 100 times during his 18-month sentence and sold as a sex slave to
prison gangs for as little as $3 per service. He said one of the guards told him to fight or fuck. Some
members of the jury said they didnt believe the abuse was as bad as Johnson said it was. Charles Carbone
is an inmate rights advocate and attorney in northern California. Carbone works with California Prison
Focus, a non-profit organization that represents inmates. There is a real homophobic mentality in
California or really, in all of our facilities, Carbone said. Were dealing with a population of prison
guards who havent had a lot of experience with the LGBT community and have little to no sensitivity
training. There is a high toleration of ridicule and abuse, of homophobia. And its a testosterone-ridden
environment, so this just breeds a homophobic environment. While prison rape is an issue for all male
inmates, it is particularly an issue for gay inmates who are often perceived as willing participants in
sexual assaults. As soon as word gets around youre a fag, youre basically fucked, said Raul, who
served time in several jails and prisons in California. And word gets around. The prison grapevine is huge,
man.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

104
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Prevents Condoms


Homosexual stigma is the largest barrier against condoms
AP, 2007
(Activists Lobby for Condom Distribution in U.S. Prisons, November 20, 2007, JWS)
Despite such warnings, recent efforts to expand behind-bars condom access have gone almost nowhere. Prison
officials contend that condoms can be used to conceal drugs, and law-and-order politicians scoff at what they depict as
a step that would encourage both consensual and coercive sex. "Removing the freedoms of criminals is
in itself a deterrent," said California Assemblyman Paul Cook. "Allowing condoms into prisons simply sends the
wrong message and confirms what we all suspect: Our prison system has serious and severe behavioral
and inmate-control issues." A measure introduced by Lee in Congress this year to allow condom access in federal prisons has
made little headway. A bill in Illinois failed to clear a legislative committee in March. And a bill in
California was vetoed last month by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said the proposal conflicted
with prison regulations banning sexual activity.

Opposition to condom distribution stems from a stigmatization against gay sex


AP, 2006
(Associated Press, Legislature sends prison condom bill to Schwarzenegger, San Francisco Chronicle, August 25,
2006, JWS)
Critics say the spread of sexual diseases could be prevented by enforcing state law, which bans sex
between inmates. Republicans who oppose the bill said distributing condoms in prisons will only
encourage sex between male inmates. Sen. Charles Poochigian, R-Fresno, said the bill "sends entirely
the wrong message." "Prisons are to punish criminals. They shouldn't be sanctioning activities that
are illicit," said Poochigian, who is running for state attorney general. Instead, Poochigian said state
prisons should clamp down on prison gang activity, which encourages sexual acts between inmates.

Resistance to condoms comes from gay sex stigma, stemming from the Bush administration
NYT, 2006
(New York Times, A Warning About AIDS in Prison, July 24 2006, JWS)
Foreign governments and international health organizations have long recognized the need to use the same AIDS prevention programs
within the prisons as on the outside. At the very least, that means providing inmates information about AIDS and
access to condoms. The situation is quite different in the United States, where the vast majority of

corrections systems either decline to distribute condoms or bar them outright, on the grounds that sex
behind bars is against prison rules. Discomfort with the idea of men having sex with men has led a few
prison officials to suggest that sex between prisoners behind bars doesn't happen all that often. The
danger of this denial-based approach to public health was recently underscored in a bulletin from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A study of the state prison system in Georgia, covering the years between
1992 and 2005, focused on 88 inmates who tested negative when they entered prison but who became H.I.V. positive while incarcerated.
Despite denials to the contrary, the C.D.C. reports, ''sex among inmates occurs,'' and laws or policies prohibiting it have been ''difficult to
implement or enforce.'' The Bush administration's hostility toward condom distribution -- and toward

straight talk about sex in general -- has had a chilling effect at the C.D.C. Nonetheless, the bulletin
urges state corrections systems that don't have condom distribution programs to investigate the
feasibility of adding them. The states need to take this advice seriously. Diseases that fester in prison
spill over into society as a whole when the infected inmates return to the streets.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

105
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Prevents Condoms


No action on condoms because the stigma surrounding HIV positive prisoners
Steinberg Wasserton Public Interest Fellow at Harvard Law School 2005
Robin G. Unprotected: HIV Prison Policy and the Deadly Politics of Denial June 22, 2005 Harvard Journal of
African American Public Policy
http://www.bronxdefenders.org/UserFiles/d629eddc95ad3b072b33e5363def437f.pdf
When it comes to HIV among African American women, the epidemic nature of the problem among this
population of women is, at best, on the back burner But even more in the shadows, more hidden from the
attention of policy makers, is the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and other diseases in this country's prison
system. In our prisons live the people who few want to acknowledge, few want to support, and few
want to help. But add the stigma of being incarcerated to the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS, and
infected prisoners often become completely invisible to policy makers, despite the reality that HIV and
AIDS are very much a part of American prison life. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in U.S. prisons exists and
continues to persist not because we do not know how to deal with the public health issues. In fact, we
do. We know exactly what works in prisons. We can look to many successful models in this country and
abroad. Thus, the question is not whether there is an epidemic. nor even how to deal with the epidemic. The
question is why we am not doing what needs to be done.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

106
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Prevents Condoms


Condoms arent allowed in prisons because of governmental homophobia This recreates
systems of structural violence against LGBT, also allows them to be at a greater risk for
contracting HIV and being capable of exposing it to the outside world
Padilla, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Health Behavior & Health Education, Aguila, PhD
student, Parker, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School
of Public Health, Columbia University, 2007
(Mark B., Ernesto Vsquez del, Richard G., The Health of Sexual Minorities , Globalization, Structural Violence,
and LGBT Health: A Cross-Cultural Perspective,
The fact that LGBT persons are often criminalized by institutionalized sexual discrimination has at
least two consequences for considerations of LGBT health in prisons and detention centers. First,
because of such discriminatory laws and policiessupported by social prejudices LGBT persons are
at very high risk of incarceration and/or persecution by the authorities. A number of studies in
international settings, particularly studies focusing on HIV/AIDS prevention, have demonstrated that
prisons can be harmful environments in terms of epidemics and public health (Sagarin, 1976; Moss et
al., 1979; Douglas et al., 1989; Wiggs, 1989; Carbajal et al., 1991; Guerena Burgueno et al., 1992; Ducos et
al., 1993; Anonymous, 1998; Odujinrin & Adebajo, 2001; Chen et al., 2003; Green et al., 2003). Thus, if
LGBT persons are at high risk of exposure to prison environments, they are similarly at high risk for
exposure to the various risks associated with being incarcerated. The epidemiologic significance of this is
emphasized by the fact that prison environments, although often considered marginal institutions
disconnected from the rest of the society, are part of a continuous flow of people between prison
environments and the outside world that can contribute significantly to epidemiologic patterns of
infectious diseases in the larger society (Wiggs, 1989). Thus, LGBT persons may be implicated in
epidemiologic relationships that link incarcerated settings with outside settings, an argument that has been
made frequently in the context of HIV infection and transmission to women among African American
populations in the United States (Peterson, 1997; Lichtenstein, 2000; Lemelle & Battle, 2004). The second
consequence of the institutionalized discrimination faced by LGBT persons is that once they are placed
in prison environments they are vulnerable to additional abuses by both fellow inmates and the prison
staff. In terms of nonconsensual sex, violence in prisons is a complex phenomenon not only occurring
between and among inmates but also wielded as a form of institutional violence committed by the authorities
in charge of the prison (Moss et al., 1979; Aubrey & Christiaan, 1995). Many studies report high numbers
of men who report having been coerced into having sex at some point during their imprisonment
(Green et al., 2003), and in some cases this violence results in the victims suicide (Wiggs, 1989). In the
case of HIV/AIDS, the situation is made worse by the fact that there is often a common cultural
opposition to providing condoms in prison, often because this service would represent institutional
recognition of active homosexual behavior among inmates (Anonymous, 1998). In Malawi prisons, for
example, prison inmates are not allowed access to condoms because of the belief that such an
intervention could encourage homosexuality, which is illegal in the country (Zachariah et al., 2002). In
his analysis of South African prisons, Achmat (1993) 9 Globalization, Structural Violence, and LGBT
Health 227 argued that biomedical and other hegemonic discourses about sexuality seek to neutralize
the subversive and destabilizing effects of samesex sexuality in all-male environments such as
compounds and prisons. In this sense, efforts to provide condoms to prisoners confront strong
opposition from politicians and government officials, who frequently share the view that introducing
condom in prisons is an invitation to (or an acknowledgement of) forbidden homosexual practices. An
additional problem is that many programs for preventing HIV infection in prisons emphasize the idea of
mandatory HIV testing as a way of preventing the spread of the disease, rather than offering voluntary
programs with emphasis on education and counseling (Andrus et al., 1989). In the context of societal
discrimination against HIV-positive persons, such mandatory testing programs could add another layer of
discrimination and abuse, as inmates may be forcibly tested and their HIV status exposed.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

107
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Prevents Condoms


The attitude towards condoms is indicative of prison attitude to punish homosexuality
Dubler and Sidel Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine 1989
Nancy Neverloff, Victor, On Research on HIV Infection and AIDS in Correctional Institutions The Milbank
Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 2 pp. 171-207 JSTOR
Mississippi, Vermont, and New York City at the Rikers Island jail provide condoms, the first two with no
barriers to access and the last only by a medical prescription and only on the "gay" dorm. Much prurient
popular medical and press attention has focused on prison rape, from the staging of the play Fortune and
Men's Eyes in the late 1960s to the famed episode of "St. Elsewhere" in the mid 1980s. Prison rape, the
ultimate violation and degradation of prison life, is a reflection of the violence and power struggles that
characterize prison society rather than a preprison pattern of homosexual behavior. This type of
forced homosexuality is distinct from most homosexuality outside prisons. Prison rape has no relation
to sexual need. The provision or withholding of condoms tests how prison authorities will respond to
the real situation of inmates-a choice to confine or to punish.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

108
Prisons Aff

Condoms Fight Homophobia


Insuring access to condoms sends a message which spills over and fights homophobia
Cahalane Reporter for the Guardian 2005
Claudia Society Guardian, Monday 31 October 2005 Unlocking equal rights
Claudia Cahalane reports on the campaign group trying to secure equality - and safety - for gay male prisoners
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/31/crime.penal
The murder of a young gay man on Clapham Common shocked many people. In light of the Civil Partnership
Act, which will allow gay people to marry from December, many felt that society was moving on from homophobia. But the truth is
gay people are still regularly dealing with prejudice and bullying in the classroom, in the workplace,
and some of the most extreme examples are in male prisons, where they can face abuse or rape and are
having their health put at risk because of their sexuality. Steve Taylor, director of campaign group Forum on Prisoner
Education, says that while life has improved for gay male prisoners in the past couple of years, he still regularly speaks to men who are
being treated appallingly by staff and fellow inmates. For the past two years, Mr Taylor, who is gay himself, has been involved in trying
to set up the Campaign for Gay Prisoners to promote equal treatment and help gay men in prison gain better access to condoms and gay
magazines. The campaign is yet to fully get off the ground, but he says this kind of organisation is very much needed. "Only a year ago
I met a prisoner who was lying in his cell reading a copy of Gay Times when three inmates burst in and set fire to the magazine and
injured him," says Mr Taylor. "He had to spend three days in hospital." Working in prisons every day, he is certainly not short of these
stories. He talks of another situation where a gay prisoner who, upon telling a guard that he had just been beaten up by six prisoners, was
met with the response that he should have "kept his head down" to avoid trouble. Rape is also a serious concern in prison. Many of
these attacks involve gay men being raped by prisoners who identify as heterosexual, says Mr Taylor. One gay prisoner told him that he
reported being raped to a guard who replied: "Well you are gay aren't you, so what's the problem?" As well as the physical violence,
there are a number of other examples of poor treatment of gay prisoners, such as the fact that sexually explicit gay magazine Boyz has
often been barred, whereas straight men are allowed equally explicit material. Love letters which contain graphic, but legal, content have
also been censored from gay prisoners, according to campaigners. But perhaps the most serious issue is the lack of
condoms available to those who are sexually active. The gay media has reported incidents where prisoners have used
makeshift condoms from clingfilm, cellotape or empty crisp packets, along with shampoo or Vaseline for lubricant. Safer sex charity the
Terrence Higgins Trust, which provides sexual health services in some prisons, says access to condoms varies from one prison to the
next. Prison doctors were advised by the service in 1995 that they should supply condoms to individual inmates, "on application if in
their clinical judgment there is a risk of transmission of HIV infection during sexual activity". But campaigners say that many prisoners
do not have the confidence to request condoms, and are therefore putting themselves and others at risk. "Condoms need to be
freely available to all prisoners from a place where they can pick up a packet easily and discreetly," says
Mr Taylor. A spokesman for the Prison Service says early next year it plans to issue "revised guidance and instructions which aim to
clarify the policy on condoms, so that it can be applied more evenly across the prison estate". Hopes will be pinned on better access to
condoms being contained in the revisions, but some guaranteed pots of gold at the other side of the rainbow for gay prisoners were
announced at the end of September. The outgoing chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, Martin Narey, has
issued a statement saying that gay prisoners can now "embrace, hug and kiss their partners" at visiting time, as is the case with straight
prisoners, and that prisoners, staff and visitors would not be allowed to try to prevent this. In his statement he also dispelled gay
prisoners' concerns that provisions would not be made for them under the Civil Partnership Act. Mr Narey explained that the intention is
to allow inmates to attend civil partnership ceremonies outside of prisons, and he confirmed that guidance on registration is being
prepared. In the same way that a crackdown on homophobic hate crime outside of prisons may not prevent more incidents like the
murder on Clapham Common, this news will not solve all the issues for gay prisoners. Maybe what it should do though is send a

message to staff, inmates and visitors that gay people on the inside should be allowed the same rights as
their heterosexual cellmates.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

109
Prisons Aff

Condoms Fight Homophobia


Condoms Stop the Spread Of AIDS In Prisons Which Is Key A Cause of Homophobia
Solves Racism As Well
Chinese In Vancouver, 06
(Chinese In Vancouver, http://www.chineseinvancouver.ca/2006/12/homophobia-causes-aids-study/, 7/7/09, DKL)
Study fingers anti-gay sentiment as a major factor in HIVs spread among black men Washington,
D.C.The verdict is in, again. Homophobia is a major cause of AIDS among black men. Homophobia
evidenced through stigma, discrimination and violence . . . creates vulnerability to behaviors and
conditions associated with risk for HIV infection among black men who have sex with men,says the
National Minority AIDS Council in a paper released on World AIDS Day. The report is arguably the loudest alarm to
date on the role of anti-gay sentiment in the spread of HIV among black men. Investing in research to produce interventions that will work for a diverse
population of black MSM [men who have sex with men] is essential to a national prevention effort that will reverse the course of the epidemic in this
population,wrote the reports author, Robert E. Fullilove, an associate dean of sociomedical sciences at Columbia University. Black Americans become
infected with and die from HIV and AIDS far more than any other racial or ethnic group, and Fullilove wanted to examine why. The report says, African
Americans comprised only 13 percent of the U.S. population but accounted for half of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. The disease strikes subgroups of
African Americans, especially young women and gay, bisexual, or same-gender loving men. Fullilove also noted that African Americans with HIV/AIDS
are more likely than other racial groups to postpone medical care and become hospitalized, with the result that they are more likely to die from HIV-related

Advances in retroviral medications have reduced AIDS related deaths among whites by 19
percent, but only seven percent among blacks, from 2000 to 2004 HIVs racial divide is not
new,wrote Fullilove. Each year we ask the same question: Why is AIDS hitting black Americans
hardest? Fullilove goes on to answer that question saying, The HIV/AIDS epidemic in AfricanAmerican communities results from a complex set of social, individual and environmental factors.
One of those factors, according to Fullilove, is community and religious beliefs often stigmatize
homosexuality as both immoral, but also as anti-black. Fulliloves study of the scientific literature
indicates that because of that stigma, black men who have sex with men are less likely to identify as
gay or disclose their sexual behavior to others. The considerable stigma and homophobia experienced
by many black MSM can also have an impact on their self-esteem and behaviors,wrote Fullilove. One
study found a reduction in self-esteem among black MSM who attended churches that fostered
homophobia,Fullilove continued. For some black MSM, this loss of self-esteem undermined the
individuals ability to practice safe sex, seek medical care in a timely fashion, or follow other health
practices essential to well being. Rebuilding self-esteem is an important task for those involved with AIDS treatment and
causes.

prevention,Fullilove concluded. The report highlights five other factors, including economic disparity and lack of access to health care
that is also credited with higher rates and lower treatment among blacks compared to whites in other diseases such as cancer, diabetes,
and cardiovascular disease. Fullilove also pays a lot of attention to incarcerated men, where the rate of

infection is three times higher than in the general population. Ensuring access to condoms in prisons
would not only protect prisoners, but also the health and the lives of the people in the communities to
which they will return,Fullilove wrote. Prisons increasingly hold members of poor communities who are
both under-educated and unemployable,wrote Fullilove, also advocating voluntary, routine HIV testing to
prisoners on entry and release.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

110
Prisons Aff

Condoms Fight Homophobia


Distributing Condoms In Prisons Stops Homophobic Sexual Protection Policy Mindsets
Young, New York Press Writer, 08
(Jamaal, Real Politikin: Loving Is Best, New York Press, http://www.nypress.com/article-19616-real-politikinlovinrs-is-best.html, 7/8/09, DKL)
This being a clear danger to public health, youd think there would be broad-based support for
developing a national strategy to fight HIV within the prison system. Youd be wrong. California,
Illinois and the United States Congress have all failed in the past three years to pass bills that would
have allowed condom distribution in prisons, saying that such programs would run counter to
nationwide laws banning prison sex. Unions representing correctional officers are also opposed, saying
condoms would hurt prison discipline. And then there are the moralists, like Rev. Harold Bailey, the former
head of the Chicago prison system who was quoted saying Anytime anyone puts two men together, which is
against the law of God, then gives them permission to do it with a condom, that's despicable. So basically,
our public health (and my private fantasy) is threatened because politicians think laws prohibiting prison sex
are effective (which they obviously arent); unions think condoms rile up prisoners (when the L.A. sheriffs
office has reported no major infractions since their condom program began in 2001); and homophobia
amongst public officials is shaping policy. A good first step towards developing a national strategy would
be for Congress to pass the JUSTICE Act, first introduced in January 2007. This legislation would into
which infected order all Federal correctional facilities to allow community organizations to distribute
condoms. But passing out prophylactics isnt enough. Dr. Robert Fullilove, associate dean at Columbia
Universitys Mailman School of Public Health, wrote in the American Medical Association Journal of
Ethics that while condom distribution might limit exposure to infection while an individual is
incarcerated, the risk that requires more attention is the risk to the community inmateswho are
neither aware of their [HIV status] nor getting appropriate monitoring and treatmentare released.
Congress should include provisions in the JUSTICE Act that fund testing at the start and end of a prison
sentence for all inmates and a plan that mandates treatment in prison and linkage to care upon the inmate's
return to the outside world.

Stigma against homosexual sex is the reason condoms are not provided
Jordan, 2006
(Mary McLean, Care to Prevent HIV Infection in Prison: A Moral Right Recognized by Canada, While the United
States Lags Behind, Miama Inter-Am. L. Rev. 37:319, winter 2006)
The main argument advanced by prison officials against supplying U.S. prisoners with measures to
prevent the spread of disease is that most of the high-risk behavior transmitting the virus is against
prison rules3 For example, sex is forbidden in prisons (in exception of conjugal visits).37 Engaging in
sexual acts and making sexual proposals or threats are considered high category disciplinary violations.36
Illegal drug use is similarly prohibited and is ranked in the greatest category of discipline violations.39
However, the reality is that such forbidden activities occur regardless of the prison rules. This reality is
evidenced by prison drug addiction and discipline policies and special housing policies for HIV positive
sexually threatening inmates.40 Prison administrators do not dispute the fact that prophylactic materials
(including bleach and condoms) reduce the risk that prisoners might contract HIV or other infectious
diseases.4 While many prisons have HIV/AIDS educational programs in place, those prisoners that receive
such an education are denied the means to effectuate such safe habits.42 Rather than use resources to curb
the risk of such dangerous behavior, prison officials and administrators argue that providing condoms
and bleach would give an inappropriate and confusing message to prisoners if materials were
supplied to protect inmates participating in otherwise banned activities.43 This logic is disappointing.
The system effectively accepts transmission of an incurable and lethal disease to avoid the risk of
confusing inmates about what is permitted within prison walls. Prisoner health succumbs to prison
rules. Consequently, an inmate willing to violate sex and drug regulations has no protection from contracting
a lethal disease.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

111
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Structural Violence


Heteronormativity causes structural violence via discrimination-must fight every instance
Mepschen no date (Paul, PhD-researcher at the Amsterdam School for Social science Research University of
Amsterdam, International Viewpoint, Islam, sexuality, and the politics of belonging in the Netherlands,
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1673)
What causes the disgust mentioned above is heteronormativity, which is still a structural, essential aspect
of Dutch society and moral order. In other words, heterosexuality remains the self-evident norm, a
normativity which is reproduced through the family, in the educational system, popular culture, and media.
The tolerated homosexual fits this heteronormativity very well: in almost every way he behaves
according to heteronormative norms. As Steven Seidman says, the emphasis on tolerance has normalized
homosexuality. The modern homosexual changed from a deviant, excluded other into the mirror-image of the
ideal heterosexual. In a 2001 article on normalization, Seidman argues: "Normalization is made possible
because it simultaneously reproduces a dominant order of gender, intimate, economic, and national
practices. He warns: "[L]egitimation through normalization leaves in place the polluted status of there
marginal sexualities and all the norms that regulate our sexual intimate conduct apart from the norm
of heterosexuality". He also points out: "Ultimately, normalization [renders] sexual difference a minor,
superficial aspect of a self who in every other way reproduces an ideal of a national citizen". As argued,
many people in the Netherlands still look the other way, disgusted, shamed, when confronted with
homosexuality in public. In such a heteronormative culture it needs not surprise that many homosexual
men and women are depressed; that suicide rates among young gays and lesbians remain high; that
transgenderism and other forms of gender nonconformity are ridiculed and transgenders are excluded; that
violence keeps threatening the lgbt-community. The solution for such problems is not a politics based on
tolerance, but on the struggle against heteronormativity.

Lack of health care for under-served populations is a form of structural violence-Lane, Rubinstein, and Keefe et. al. PhD MPH 2004
Lane, Sandra D. and Rubinstein, Robert A. and Keefe, Robert H. et. al. "Structural Violence and Racial Disparity
in HIV Transmission." Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 15.3 (2004): 319-335. Project
MUSE. 7 Jul. 2009 <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
Structural violence is a construct first discussed by Galtung,13 and later described by Weigert 14 as
"preventable harm or damage . . . where there is no actor committing the violence or where it is not
meaningful to search for the actor(s); such violence emerges from the unequal distribution of power
and resources or, in other words, is said to be built into the structure(s)" (p. 431). Structural violence
encompasses institutional racism, disease-ridden environments, stigmatizing social norms, and barriers
preventing underserved populations from getting adequate health care. A search for actors to blame for
preventable harm often misses macro-level entities such as state and federal bureaucracies, health
institutions, social environments, and social and health policies that form the context in which
disproportionate illness and death occur.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

112
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Structural Violence


The racial disparities in prisons and the stigma surrounding stigmatizing homosexuality
lead to structural violence and a disproportionate rate of HIV infection
Lane, Rubinstein, and Keefe et. al. PhD MPH 2004
Lane, Sandra D. and Rubinstein, Robert A. and Keefe, Robert H. et. al. "Structural Violence and Racial Disparity
in HIV Transmission." Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 15.3 (2004): 319-335. Project
MUSE. 7 Jul. 2009 <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
Growing racial and ethnic disparities in HIV transmission, particularly through heterosexual
transmission to women, can be explained only partially by individual-level behaviors. It is clear that
individual behaviors take place in social contexts where structural violence limits health-promoting
behaviors. Empirical investigations of macro-level social and environmental factors must be undertaken.
Six ecological variables appear to exacerbate HIV transmission among women of color in Syracuse. First,
African American incarceration rates are far higher than the incarceration rates of non-Hispanic
whites; the behaviors that occur in correctional facilities may increase the rate of sexual and
bloodborne infections for both the inmates and the populations to which they return. Second, de facto
residential segregation, reinforced by gang turf, may serve to maintain elevated rates of STD infections in
already plagued social and sexual networks. Third, limited access to STD services delays the timeliness of
effective treatment, thus increasing the likelihood that additional individuals will be exposed to infection.
Fourth, the sex ratio for African Americans, in which adult women significantly outnumber adult men,
appears to result from African American males' premature death and disproportionate incarceration; these
phenomena ultimately decrease women's bargaining power in forming relationships; the relevant effect is an
increase in the number of women involved with a man who has two or more sexual partners simultaneously.
Fifth, social norms stigmatizing homosexuality influence some MSM to hide their same-sex
relationships, while maintaining sexual relationships with women. Men engaged in these covert samesex encounters are not likely to use condoms. Sixth, douching, which is more prevalent among African
American women than others, may enhance the transmission of HIV; douching is fostered by a major
industry.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

113
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Otherization
Heteronormativity is the root of gay discrimination-it results in the Otherization of
populations considered deviant, culminating in physical violence toward Others.
Tania Ferfolja in 2k7 (School of Education @ Univ of Western Sydney, International Journal of
Inclusive Education, Schooling cultures: institutionalizing heteronormativity and heterosexism)
Anti-lesbian/gay discrimination, harassment and marginalization in schools are an international
phenomenon, and frequently involve overt and/or covert, physical, psychological, and/or sexualized
abuse (Olson, 1987; Griffin, 1991; Khayatt, 1992; Juul, 1994; Appleby, 1996; Clarke, 1996). Despite
legislation condemning anti- homosexual discrimination in education in NSW and the espousal of the need
for equity for non-heterosexual identities in schooling, prejudice and discrimination is still evident (Griffin
1994, 1997; Ferfolja, 1998, 2003, 2005; Hillier et al., 1998; Irwin, 2002). Frequently, this condemnation is
positioned (and often condoned) within discourses of derision, fuelled by mythologies, misinformation
and stereotypes historically constructed and perpetuated through dominant socio-political and cultural
institutions, such as the law, media, medicine, psychiatry, religion, the family and education (Hinson, 1996).
Undoubtedly, legislation is crucial in providing potential legal redress for discrimination. Yet, many
individuals are compelled to hide their sexual subjectivity at work, illustrating the seemingly limited effect of
such legislated protections on their everyday lives in many Western nations (Olson, 1987; Griffin, 1991,
1992; Khayatt, 1992; Clarke, 1996). Heterosexuality, deemed as the natural and normal sexuality, by
which all Other sexualities are measured and subordinated, is reinforced through dominant discourses
of biological determinism. Non-heterosexual identities are constructed as hypersexual, paedophilic,
deviant, abnormal, sick, and sexually predatory and much of the international research in the field reports
lesbian and gay individuals fears in relation to the impact and repercussions of being read and positioned
within these negative discourses (Olson, 1987; Griffin, 1991; Khayatt, 1992; Hinson, 1996; Ferfolja, 1998).
Such constructions are problematic for gay and lesbian youth who often experience discrimination and
marginalization; however, they are also particularly problematic for teachers who work in schools with
children (Olson, 1987; Griffin, 1991; Khayatt, 1992; Robinson & Ferfolja, 2001). In Australia, Western
discourses of childhood prevail, constructing youth as innocent, vulnerable, asexual, unknowing, in need of
protection from moral turpitude, and in binary opposition to adults (Kitzinger, 1990; Robinson, 2002).
Lesbian and gay individuals are socially defined by their sexuality, while simultaneously other aspects
of their subjectivity are rendered invisible and irrelevant to social relations (Richardson & May, 1999). By
default then, lesbian and gay identities as sexualized subjects constituted in adult discourses of
sexuality, are perceived to be irrelevant to the lives of young people, despite growing visibility of nonheterosexuality in popular culture. For example, a famous Australian adolescent mainstream television series,
Neighbours, recently presented a lesbian narrative, including a lesbian kiss between two teenagers. Play
School, an educational programme for early childhood aired on the Australian national broadcasting network,
depicted a young girl Brenna, and her friend going to the park with Brennas two mothers. Pop divas
Madonna and Britney Spears made international media headlines when they kissed in a public performance
which was witnessed and discussed by adults and children alike.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

114
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Otherization
Socially Constructed Barriers Stemming From Homophobia Otherize Prisoners With AIDS
And Create Racism
Lane et al, PHd at Meharry Medical College, 04
(Sandra D., Robert A. Rubinstein, PhD, MsPH Robert H. Keefe, PhD, ACSW Noah Webster, Donald A. Cibula,
PhD,Alan Rosenthal, JD Jesse Dowdell, MA, Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Undeserved, 7/7/09, DKL)
The HIV seroprevalence of inmates potentially affects the larger communities to which the inmates
return when they are released from prison. Among HIV-infected African American women living in the
South who had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners and could identify no high-risk behavior, one quarter
reported that one of their last three sexual partners had been incarcerated for more than 24 hours.
Disproportionate incarceration by race and ethnicity.The disproportionate representation of African
Americans in the criminal justice system has been well documented.44,45 In New York State, African
Americans make up 16% of the population but suffer 43% of arrests and make up 51% of people in
state prisons.46 In Onondaga County, African Americans make up 52% of all people sentenced to jail,
and 61% of all people sentenced to state prison.47 Constrained sexual networks.Social or geographical
isolation of human networks can result in the maintenance of elevated rates of sexually transmitted
infections; socially isolated individuals choose partners from within their network and likely transmit
infections among fellow members.48-50 In Syracuse, substantial [End Page 324] de facto racial
segregation concentrates the majority of African American residents in the near-west and near-south
sides of the city. Racial prejudice severely limits upward mobility, thus promoting residential
segregation, which in turn limits mate selection. Moreover, the prevalence of gangs, which threaten
harm to people who enter a turf in which they do not reside, further limits the ability of teens and
young adults to initiate relationships outside of a few narrowly defined neighborhoods.

Heterosexism creates a dichotomy against the homosexual which devalues the homosexual
Heteronormativity only reinforces the current state of oppression.
Herek, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, 2004,
(Gregory M, Journal of NSRC, Beyond Homophobia: Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the
Twenty-First Century, April 2004, http://www.safeguards.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/Sexual%20Stigma.pdf.,
accessed 7/8/09, TAZ)
In line with these authors, I suggest that heterosexism be used to refer to the cultural ideology that
perpetuates sexual stigma by denying and denigrating any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity,
relationship, or community. Heterosexism is inherent in cultural institutions, such as language and the
law, through which it expresses and perpetuates a set of hierarchical relations. In that hierarchy of
power and status, everything homosexual is devalued and considered inferior to what is heterosexual.
Homosexual and bisexual people, same-sex relationships, and communities of sexual minorities are kept
invisible and, when acknowledged, are denigrated as sick, immoral, criminal or, at best, suboptimal.
The dichotomy between heterosexuality and homosexuality lies at the heart of heterosexism. Beginning
in the early 1990s, queer theorists and other postmodernists began to refer to this core assumption as
normative heterosexuality or heteronormativity (Seidman, 1997; Warner, 1993). A single definition of
heteronormativity is not forthcoming in the writings of queer theorists and, as Adam (1998) noted,
characterizing heterosexuality simply as a social norm is less than adequate. Nevertheless, the term
heteronormativity nicely encapsulates queer theorys critique of the cultural dichotomy that structures
social relations entirely in terms of heterosexuality- homosexuality. As Adam explained If languages
consist of binary oppositions, then heterosexuality and homosexuality are opposed terms. By
constructing itself in opposition to the homosexual, the heterosexual is rendered intrinsically antihomosexual. For queer theory, the issue is not one of appealing for tolerance or acceptance for a quasiethnic, 20th century, urban community but of deconstructing the entire heterosexual-homosexual binary
complex that fuels the distinction in the first place. Homophobia and heterosexism can make sense only
if homosexuality makes sense. How a portion of the population is split off and constructed as
homosexual at all must be understood to make sense of anti-homosexuality. (p. 388

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

115
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Nazism
Homophobias Mindset Is That of Nazism and Leads to Never Ending Violence
Alves, Human Rights Quarterly, 05
(John, The Declaration of Human Rights in Postmodernity,
http://muse.jhu.edu.floyd.lib.umn.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v022/22.2alves.html, 7/7/09, DKL)
The state, previously regarded as the essential promoter of freedom and minimum conditions of
equality in its capacity as social regulator, tends to become a simple manager of economic
competitiveness, domestically and on the world market. Distorted, ineffective, and deprived of the idea of
human progress, politics lacks credibility and becomes suspect. Not only does it acquire mostly ceremonial
functions, but it also tends to be seen as a "natural bearer" of corruption and waste. Popular opinion loses
interest in political matters, as noticed both in the growing levels of electoral abstention (wherever abstention
is legal) and in the lack of enthusiasm of voters (wherever voting is compulsory). Political rights, one of the
most outstanding achievements of modernity, tend in consequence to lack luster and appeal. Bereft of a
unifying capacity as a result of both its abuse of "metadiscourses" and of the contemporary
acknowledgement of the "capilarity of power," 23 the national state, formerly the locus of social
assertion and individual self-fulfillment, is gradually deprived even of its identity function. The
individual, often discriminated against within national borders as a result of incomplete--or biased-implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, looks for other sorts of communities for
his or her self-identification. Ethnicity, religion, cultural origins, gender, and sexual orientation impose
themselves above the notion of nationality and citizenship. Obviously, such new forms of selfidentification are positive and in full conformity with the anti-discriminatory stance of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. A problem only arises when they assert themselves in a fundamentalist
mode. When exacerbated, they can lead to practices like those of the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, of the
bloody Algerian massacres perpetrated in the name of religious purity, of the genocidal frenzy of Hutus
and Tutsis in Rwanda, or of the delirious anti-feminism of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Such
identification might even contrario sensu "legitimize" other obnoxious kinds of radicalism like that of
"supremacist militias," ethnic hatred, and subnational separatism, as well as the more widespread
occurrences of xenophobia, nazi-fascist ultra-nationalism, reactionary isolationism, male antifeminism--now substantially controlled in the West--and aggressive homophobia, still present and often
violent worldwide.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

116
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Dehumanization
Homophobic Rhetoric leads to dehumanization and violence against sexual minorities
Herek, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, 2004,
(Gregory M, Journal of NSRC, Beyond Homophobia: Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the
Twenty-First Century, April 2004, http://www.safeguards.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/Sexual%20Stigma.pdf.,
accessed 7/8/09, TAZ)
Empirical research more strongly indicates that anger and disgust are central to heterosexuals
negative emotional responses to homosexuality (e.g., Bernat, Calhoun, Adams, & Zeichner, 2001; Ernulf &
Innala, 1987; Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993; Herek, 1994; Van de Ven, Bornholt, & Bailey, 1996). Thus, in
identifying discontinuities between homophobia and true phobias, Haaga (1991) noted that the emotional
component of a phobia is anxiety, whereas the emotional component of homophobia is presumably anger.
These conclusions are consistent with research on emotion and on other types of prejudice, which
suggests that anger and disgust are more likely than fear to underlie dominant groups hostility toward
minority groups (e.g., Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000; Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999; Smith, 1993).
Indeed, the dehumanization of gay people in much antigay rhetoric (e.g., Herman, 1997) and the intense
brutality that characterizes many hate crimes against sexual minorities (e.g., Herek & Berrill, 1992) are
probably more consistent with the emotion of anger than fear (on the association between anger and
aggression, see, e.g., Buss & Perry, 1992).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

117
Prisons Aff

Homophobia - Dehum O/W


Dehumanization leads to genocide and war
David Berube, professor as the University of South Carolina, 1997
{David, Ph.D. in Communications, "Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side", NanoTechnology
Magazine. June/July t997, p. 1-6, URL:
http:/fvvvvvv.cla.sc.edu/ENGtjtacuityfnerubefproiong.htm) [Nithya]
This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matsous treatise on the dehumanization of humanity.
They warn "its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural
calamity on record and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is
beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of
the Apocalypse. Behind the genocide of the Holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menecide
of deviants and dissident. in the cuckoos next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man. [Montagu and
Matsou 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantity the impacts dehumanizing ethics may
have had on humanity. it is sate to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which
would be foregone. When we calculate the actual tosses and the virtual benefits, we approach a DEATH}
inestimatrle value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is
nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things. they
become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once
justified, they seem to be inevitable tor every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most
powerful weapon.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

118
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Violence
Homophobia leads to violence
Conyers, Democratic Representative of Detroit, 1987
(John, US Government Printing Office, Anti-Gay Violence, 10-9-87,
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1c/45/1d.pdf, accessed 7-7-9,
NB)
Since that time, we have witnessed a rising tide of antigay violence. The National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force, in an 8 city study of antigay violence concluded that 1 in 5 gay men and 1 in 10 lesbians had been
physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation. The Community united Against Violence in
San Francisco reports that the victims of antigay violence it served in 1985 increased 61 percent over
the previous year. In New York City, the Gay and Lesbian Violence project reported a 41-percent
increase in the number of victims it served in 1985 over the previous year, and 91-percent increase
during the first months of this year. These statistics are even more disturbing since much of the antigay
violence goes unreported. A 1982 survey of victims of violent crimes in San Francisco showed that 82
percent of antigay attacks were not reported to the police. A 1985 survey of antigay violence in Philadelphia
revealed that 76 percent of the victims never notified the authorities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

119
Prisons Aff

Homophobia prevents Healthcare


Homophobic attitudes prevent equal access to healthcare and cause abuse
NCLR, 2008
(National Center For Lesbian Rights, Meeting to Highlight Issues Faced by LGBT People in California Prisons,
December 11, 2008, JWS)
Today, the California Senate Committee on Public Safety held an informational meeting to examine issues
affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Californias prison system. Chaired
by Sen. Gloria Romero (D-East Los Angeles), the meeting focused on the problems faced by LGBT people
who are incarcerated, including harassment and abuse, unequal access to healthcare, and difficulties
faced when re-entering into society. I am concerned by reports that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
prisoners are being misclassified by gender in our states prisons, which places them at risk for violence and
abuse, said Sen. Gloria Romero. Additionally, we want to ensure they have the same opportunities to
participate in rehabilitation programs to allow them to successfully re-enter society so we can reduce
recidivism rates and alleviate prison overcrowding. Speakers at todays meeting included Alexander
Lee, Director of the Transgender, Gender Variant and Intersex Justice Project, and Bamby Salcedo, the
Transgender Harm Reduction Project Coordinator with the Los Angeles Childrens Hospital. The Committee
also heard testimony from LGBT people who are currently incarcerated. The witnesses discussed problems
with the current classification system, which harms LGBT people by putting them at increased risk of
violence and harassment, and suggested policy changes that would improve safety without costing the
corrections system additional money. California needs to get out of the middle ages when it comes to
protecting LGBT people's basic human rights in prison, says Alexander Lee, Director of the
Transgender, Gender Variant and Intersex Justice Project. We lag behind the best thinking and planning
on this issue, and homophobic and transphobic physical and sexual assaults are commonfrequently
facilitated by prison staff. At minimum, our state needs a better classification system to anticipate and
prevent violence against our community members who are locked up.

Homophobic attitudes prevent equal access to healthcare and cause abuse


NCLR, 2005
(National Center For Lesbian Rights, Meeting to In Historic First, Advocates for LGBT Prisoners Address National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission, August 19 2005, JWS)
"In a prison environment where sexual violence is generally rampant and homophobia is a given, it is
well known that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender places a prisoner at heightened risk of
torture, sexual assault, and rape. This is also true for LGBT youth in juvenile correctional facilities.
Transgender youth and adults are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse, harassment, and forced nudity in
correctional facilities." testified NCLR Equal Justice Works Fellow Attorney, Jody Marksamer. "One of the
most significant obstacles to meaningful change is the lack of information that policymakers, advocates,
and government have about transgender, intersex, and gender non-conforming prisoners," said Silvia Rivera
Law Project founder, Dean Spade. "This lack of knowledge has caused real harm to countless individuals."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

120
Prisons Aff

Homophobia Bad Prison Conditions


Homophobia causes an indifference to prison conditions
Thompson, Professor of Clinical Law, New York University School of Law, 2009
(Anthony, What Happens Behind Locked Doors: The Difficulty of Addressing and Eliminating Rape in Prison,
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, Winter 2009, JWS)
In a non-custodial setting one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who believes that rape is ever
appropriate. However, in the prison context, some citizens believe that prison rape may be part of the price
that criminals pay for their illegal behavior. n106 Although one might not articulate this view in [*135]
these precise terms, many seem to hold the belief that sexual assault in prison follows from our notions of
punishment, because such assaults may serve a deterrent or retributive end. The argument would essentially
suggest that prison should be undesirable; if it poses dangers and proves threatening, individuals will
more likely conform to societal norms to avoid the possibility of facing a prison term. The general public
would not condone rape, but instead may typically accept it as a part of prison life. n107 Consistent with this
view, people outside of prison tend to have little sympathy for inmates who are victimized. n108 The
public's lack of sympathy may, in part, be related to attitudes toward the prisoners themselves. Rather
than being sympathetic victims, these inmates have already been judged guilty by society: They have
faced conviction and sentencing for their criminal conduct. Perhaps given the extent to which we simply turn
a blind eye to that which occurs in prison, we may simply assume as a general matter that whatever occurs
within prison is simply consistent with just deserts. When we add race to that dynamic, the issues become
all the more complex. As a nation, we have tolerated high rates of incarceration among men of color, in
particular. n109 Research shows that one in three African American males between the ages of eighteen and
twenty-four are under the control of the criminal justice system, n110 but this overrepresentation of young
men of color in the system has not led to comprehensive criminal justice reform or analysis. If the identical
rates of incarceration faced young white men, more would have been done to address this problem. Thus,
where problems face the incarcerated, the same level of apathy may come into play. n111 Finally, a degree
of homophobia and ignorance about same-sex encounters may be present. Inmate-on-inmate sexual
assaults involve a victim and perpetrator of the same sex. Corrections officers often have a general
discomfort looking at this criminal conduct and are more willing to turn a blind eye. n112 Moreover, there is
a mistaken belief that such conduct may be a necessary and invited outlet for sexual expression, given the
denial of other forms of sexual activity. This of course ignores the reality [*136] that rape is more a
reflection of power dynamics than sexual outlet. n113 Instances of staff-on-inmate sexual assault through
force or coercion involving the rape of women prisoners may engender more public sympathy than same-sex
assaults, but race and criminal background still appear to play a role in the investigative and adjudicative
processes. The obstacles to altering public and political attitudes toward prison rape are daunting. However,
there does seem to be a potential historical context from which to draw. The success of the anti-rape and
domestic violence movement suggests that there are both parallels and lessons to be learned that may provide
some direction for the movement to stop custodial rape.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

121
Prisons Aff

Moral Obligation - General


There are legal, ethical, and social reasons to provide prisoners with further healthcare,
including measures to prevent detrimental diseases and risks.
Paris, Doctor at Dept. Of Corrections, 08
(Joseph E., Why Prisoners Deserve Healthcare, American Medical Association, Virtual Mentor Vol. 10, Number 2,
pg. 113, JoY)
Proponents of the state's being the single payer of medical care reimbursement for U.S. residents often
quip that prisoners are assured necessary care while law-abiding citizens are not. They make the argument
that such a dichotomy is morally intolerable and that all U.S. residents (citizens and non-citizens alike) should also be assured health
care. The challenges of providing health care to all U.S. residents are complex and continue to be

debated nationwide. A few states have legislation that approaches universal coverage, but implementation
requires political will and an agreement on the part of the public to finance the care of large groups of residentsincluding
noncitizenswith low or moderate incomes. There are legal, ethical, social, and public health reasons why
prisoners, as wards of the state, must be supplied with health care. The legal reasons for providing health care to
prisoners were stipulated in the 1976 Supreme Court Estelle v. Gamble decision, in which the Court held that deprivation of health care
constituted cruel and unusual punishment [1], a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. This

interpretation created a de facto right to health care for all persons in custody, whether convicted
(prisoners) or not (pretrial detainees). The decision also brought forth the concept of "deliberate
indifference," a legal definition that prohibits ignoring the plight of prisoners who need care and
translates into a mandate to provide all persons in custody with access to medical care and a professional
medical opinion. Correctional authorities and health care professionals who infringe this right do so at their peril and may be prosecuted
in federal or state courts [1]. Beyond the legal mandate, there are fundamental ethical reasons why prisoners
should be given medical care. Free persons may or may not have health insurance, based, at least in part, on their decisions about how to
prioritize the use of their money. Some who decide against buying insurance have the option to pay cash for the health services they
seek. The very poor, the aged, and the disabled are generally provided with assistance in the form of

federal and state Medicare and Medicaid programs. Even the so-called "working poor," loosely defined
as those who earn too much to qualify for assistance and too little to afford to pay for health care, have
the option to use or borrow cash when they need medical treatment. Moreover, federal law requires that hospitals
provide medically necessary emergency health services regardless of a patient's health insurance status or ability to pay. My point is not
that all U.S. residents have the resources they need to cover their medical care; certainly many do not. My point is that prisoners

have none of the choices just enumerated. If the correctional institution's staff denied care, the inmate
would have no alternatives. In the past two decades, a substantial number of prisons and jails have decreed that prisoners must
pay at least part of the bill for their medical services [2]. These policies always include the provision that indigent prisoners will receive
medically necessary, urgent care regardless of their financial status. It is evident that society has embraced the concept that,

when incarcerated, a person cannot see to his or her own medical needs, and, therefore, society must
do so. Health care is given to prisoners for social reasons too. The vast majority of inmates will return
to society within a few years. Proper care helps to preserve their physical function, which makes it possible for ex-inmates
reintegrating into society to embark on productive activities and avoid becoming a burden to all. For example, hypertension and diabetes
treatment are known to prevent strokes, heart attacks, and other sequelae that would burden society with long-term care of disabled
persons. It is in society's best interest that recently released prisoners be free of disabling diseases. Public health reasons for

providing care to prisoners are so strong that many view correctional medicine and public health
medicine as essentially two approaches to the same problem [3]. As a class, prisoners include a larger
share of risk-taking individuals than a similar sampling of free persons, and statistics show that they have a
larger proportion of the health problems associated with risk takinghepatitis B and C, HIV, TB, and
syphilis, to name a few [4-6]. If any of these diseases is to be eradicated, or even contained, it makes sense that public
health officers would develop prevention strategies in the prisons and jails, where large numbers of infected subjects reside. Disease
prevention education, vaccination where appropriate, and disease surveillance are basic public health tools that can be used in the
correctional setting with public health goals in mind. I have shown that it makes sense from a legal, ethical, social, and
public health point of view to provide health care to prisoners, but doing so creates the perceived injustice that those
who behave badly are rewarded with free medical care, while those who soldier on working for low pay and resist the temptation to
resort to crime are punished by not receiving free care. Why is it, we ask, that the health of prisoners seems more important to the state
than the health of other U.S. residents? I have no solution to the apparent paradox. And the inequity does not even stop there. Under U.S.
law, prisoners have the right to food, clothing, shelter, and so on. None of these rights applies to free persons. Prisoners are expensive to
maintain. The average prisoner in a southern state institution costs about $34,000 a year. Of note, about 16 percent of that sum is
allocated to health care. Why, then, is this relatively small amount of a prison system's budget a lightning rod? I believe that the public's
desire for affordable or free health insurance as part of a societal package for all is deep-seated and leads us to envy for the prisoner's
status, if only because of medical care coverage. Civilized, highly developed countries such as England, Canada, Germany, and the
Scandinavian countries have long endowed all their residents with medical care coverage. The fact that the U.S. lags behind riles a
number of people, and especially those who understand how universal coverage applies to all U.S. prisoners. This dilemma will persist
until health insurance is available to all U.S. residents. Meanwhile, coverage of all U.S. prisoners continues and it is a good thing.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

122
Prisons Aff

Stigma Disease
The racial disparities in prisons and the stigma surrounding stigmatizing homosexuality
lead to disproportionate rate of HIC infection
Lane, Rubinstein, and Keefe et. al. PhD MPH 2004
Lane, Sandra D. and Rubinstein, Robert A. and Keefe, Robert H. et. al. "Structural Violence and Racial Disparity
in HIV Transmission." Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 15.3 (2004): 319-335. Project
MUSE. 7 Jul. 2009 <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
Growing racial and ethnic disparities in HIV transmission, particularly through heterosexual
transmission to women, can be explained only partially by individual-level behaviors. It is clear that
individual behaviors take place in social contexts where structural violence limits health-promoting
behaviors. Empirical investigations of macro-level social and environmental factors must be undertaken.
Six ecological variables appear to exacerbate HIV transmission among women of color in Syracuse. First,
African American incarceration rates are far higher than the incarceration rates of non-Hispanic
whites; the behaviors that occur in correctional facilities may increase the rate of sexual and
bloodborne infections for both the inmates and the populations to which they return. Second, de facto
residential segregation, reinforced by gang turf, may serve to maintain elevated rates of STD infections in
already plagued social and sexual networks. Third, limited access to STD services delays the timeliness of
effective treatment, thus increasing the likelihood that additional individuals will be exposed to infection.
Fourth, the sex ratio for African Americans, in which adult women significantly outnumber adult men,
appears to result from African American males' premature death and disproportionate incarceration; these
phenomena ultimately decrease women's bargaining power in forming relationships; the relevant effect is an
increase in the number of women involved with a man who has two or more sexual partners simultaneously.
Fifth, social norms stigmatizing homosexuality influence some MSM to hide their same-sex
relationships, while maintaining sexual relationships with women. Men engaged in these covert samesex encounters are not likely to use condoms. Sixth, douching, which is more prevalent among African
American women than others, may enhance the transmission of HIV; douching is fostered by a major
industry.

Its a vicious cycle: stigmatization leads to more HIV


AAWH, 00
(American Association for World Health, TheBody.com, Fact Sheet: Mens Fear of Stigma Denial of Risk,
12/1/00, http://www.thebody.com/content/art33109.html, 7/7/09, JPW)
In the U.S., as in most cultures, there is a social stigma in being identified as homosexual. Fear of being
stigmatized as gay is so powerful that it causes some men who have sex with men to deny the reality of
their sexual orientation and to identify themselves as heterosexual. As a consequence, they do not
perceive themselves as being at high risk for HIV, even though having unprotected sex with men is one
of the highest risk behaviors for HIV infection. This causes many heterosexual and bisexual men to
discount warning messages that they perceive to apply only to "gay" men.

Stigmatization and homophobia lead to more AIDS


Vitagliano, News editor for the AFA Journal, 09
(Ed, Virtue Online, Does Homophobia Cause AIDS?, 6/4/09,
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10593, 7/7/09, JPW)
This line of logic used by activists is not hard to understand. They claim that homosexuals have a sexual
orientation that cannot be changed, and if a gay man lives in a culture that abhors him he will most
likely hide that orientation. If he hides that orientation, then he will not be able to seek homosexual
romance openly but will instead be more likely to seek out anonymous partners and engage in risky, casual
and often unprotected sex. This results in an increased likelihood of getting AIDS. Moreover, this
would increase the likelihood that a homosexual will not get tested for AIDS (out of fear of being
revealed as a homosexual) and will be less likely to reveal his HIV status to his anonymous sex partners.
So the number of AIDS cases will continue to grow. As one gay activist who works with homosexual
groups in Asia explained, "We live in an environment where nobody likes us.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

123
Prisons Aff

Negs Args=Homophobic
The negs arguments are based on stigma and homophobia
Mehta graduate of Boston University and an intern at The Nation 2006
Shreema Sept. 1 Cali. Gov. Considers Prison Condom Distribution Bill California legislators passed a bill
recently allowing the distribution of condoms in state prisons by nonprofit and public healthcare agencies.
AIDS advocates say that given the low expectation of privacy in prisons and the stigma associated with
the virus, many inmates avoid testing, possibly making the actual rate of infection in prisons higher.
Fresno Senator Charles Poochigian told the Associated Press the bill "sends entirely the wrong message" and
said prisons should work to reduce gang activity, which he says encourages sexual activity in prison.
Opponents also said condoms can be used as weapons or smuggling devices. But that argument is a
"smokescreen," prison AIDS activist Mel Stevens told The NewStandard in a previous article. "What
really is the bottom line is [corrections officials] don't want to know that men are having sex with
men." Various studies have illustrated that most sex among prisoners is consensual.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

124
Prisons Aff

Sex Rights Solve Dehum


Prohibition of Condoms And Sexual Rights Is Described As Dehumanizing
Mahan, The NewStandard Journalist, 06
(Shreema, Activists Fight for Basic Safe-sex Options for Prisoners, The NewStandard,
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3240, 7/6/09, DKL)
While the rate at which AIDS is spreading in prisons has actually decreased of late, it is still staggeringly
high in some places, and advocates say improvements have too-rarely been the result of good policies.
June 1, 2006 Prison activist Antoine Mahan said that when he was locked up twelve years ago, many
inmates would use whatever they could get their hands on to protect themselves during sex. Mahan,
who has been HIV positive for seventeen years, said that with condoms prohibited in California
prisons, he would regularly smuggle rubber gloves or plastic bags from laundry rooms or the nurse?s
office to use as makeshift barriers. With HIV rates higher among the nation?s prisoners than in the general
population, activists like Mahan say that prison officials should make condoms and safe-sex education
readily available. Only a handful of states and cities distribute condoms to their captive population. Judy
Greenspan, a board member of California Prison Focus, which works to protect prisoners? rights, said
prohibiting condoms is a "head-in-the-sand approach" to preventing sex among prisoners. She added that
corrections officials "would never sanction homosexual sex." "It?s part of the dehumanization of
prisoners," she said. "It?s part of the punishment to say you can?t be intimate with anyone."

Structural Barriers Of Classes View Prisoners In A Dehumanizing Way Presenting


Sexual Rights Solves This Barrier
Mendoza, University of Texas, 08
(Louis C., ralrsalinas and the Jail Machine: My Weapon Is My Pen Selected Writings by Ral Salinas, University
of Texas Press, 7/6/09
This book is relevant to the fields of Chicana/o history, literature, and culture, and makes a significant
contribution to the study of penology, criminal justice, and human rights. Salinas undermines the
stereotype of prisoners as non-intellectual, barbaric individuals and challenges the discourse of
dehumanization, which purports that, as violators of the law, prisoners have no rights. Salinas
exemplifies the power of education to transform an individual and exposes the problems of a penal
system that focuses on eradicating symptoms, instead of addressing the underlying social causes that
drive people to live outside the law. As Salinas proclaims in the dedication, May we triumph against
those cages of iron and those cages of the mind that prohibit the full realization of our humanity.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

125
Prisons Aff

A2: Plan Increases Rape


Current penal policies only focus on punishment as a response to rape-this makes sexual
violence inextricably linked to the prison system. The plans refocus on prevention is key.
Ristroph in 2k6 (Alice, Associate Professor of Law @ University of Utah, Columbia Journal of Gender and
Law, Prison and Punishment: Sexual Punishments, 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 139, lexis-nexis)
The claim that incarceration is a sexual punishment -- the central claim of this Article -- may be disputed with
respect to both the adjective and the noun. The challenge to the choice of noun is this: any sex, including sexual assaults, that may occur
in prison is "not part of the penalty." 1 Only officially sanctioned deprivations of rights and liberties are properly called "punishment,"
and since no prisons officially sanction inmate sex and most officially condemn it, sex in prison is not penal. 2 In other words, the prison
rapist is not an arm of the state. The challenge to the adjective is this: "sex" in prison is not really "sexual." The word "sexual" should be
reserved to describe a realm of erotic desire and physical gratification, and there is much evidence that the physical interactions and
threatened assaults that occur in prison, even the ones that involve genitals, are expressions of dominance and power that have little to do
with desire. 3 In short, coerced intercourse in prison is violent, inhumane, and illegal -- it is not sexual, and it is not
punishment. [*140] With specific reference to current American penal practices, this Article defends both the adjective and the
noun of the phrase "sexual punishment." The phrase prompts an array of questions about theory and practice, about
concept and strategy. It encourages us to probe the concepts of sexuality and of punishment and the normative claims that pervade those
concepts; it encourages us to rethink strategic approaches to the problems of penal and sexual abuse. Should we think of prison rape as a
locationally specific instance of rape, a form of sexual assault that happens to occur in prison but is similar to sexual assaults that occur
outside of prison? Should we think of prison rape as an intrinsic aspect of the prison rather than a species of rape? Might prison produce
certain forms of sexual interaction that differ in fundamental ways from rape (and consensual sex) outside prison walls? Is sex severable
from prison: will the right laws and regulations help us eliminate the sexual aspects of incarceration? Would we even want to eliminate
the sexual aspects of incarceration? The juxtaposition of sex and punishment, categories imbued with deeply
held and deeply contested normative commitments, prompts difficult but important questions. Some of these questions
have discomforting answers. Most discomforting, perhaps, is the strong indication that sexual coercion is intrinsic
to the experience of imprisonment. Prisoners' rights advocates on the left and right have labored to show that this is not the
case, that we can and should eliminate prison rape even though we have no intention of eliminating the prison. 4 For much too long, the
general attitude toward prison rape was: "That's just part of the penalty; those criminals deserve whatever they get in prison," or, only
slightly better, "It's too bad that such rapes occur, but there's nothing we can do about it." 5 To insist now that coerced sex is inherent to
incarceration would seem to take a step backward. [*141] And yet sex in prison is in many ways a peculiar product of
the carceral environment, and far more complicated than the paradigmatic account of prison rape. That account
posits predator and prey: a cruel, sadistic perpetrator who manipulates or violently overpowers a vulnerable victim. 6 Much in that
account is true of many prison rapes -- there is a great deal of cruelty, sadism, manipulation, violence, and exploitation of vulnerability.
At the same time, this account is misleading and radically incomplete.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

126
Prisons Aff

A2: Plan Increases Rape


It greatly overemphasizes direct physical violence: most coerced sex in prison is not procured through an
act or direct threat of violence. 7 And the paradigmatic narrative of prison rape does not situate this sexual abuse as
a problem of the prison, except to the extent that prisons are blamed for not being prisonly enough : not
surveilling enough, not controlling inmates enough, not punishing cruel and sadistic men enough. In the standard account
of prison rape, the solution to the problem is to expand and intensify imprisonment. 8 The prison is so entrenched in our
criminal justice system, and its basic legitimacy so unquestioned, that to insist on an account of prison rape that links
it to the basic structure of the prison may seem foolish. But even if we take for granted that prisons are here to stay, we
should think carefully about the ways in which the institution of mass confinement produces sexual coercion. Sexual coercion in

prisons probably can be reduced, but that task will require changes to the character of the prison
rather than a mere intensification of imprisonment. Furthermore, to the extent that sexual coercion in prison cannot be
eliminated, we should make that fact part of debates about the appropriate use of imprisonment as a penalty. [*142] Thus, the
intersection of sex and punishment prompts new questions and new doubts about the character and consequences of incarceration. But
this inquiry is useful not only for the study of punishment, but also for the study of sex and gender, including
analyses of sexual inequality. To date, these inquiries have rarely merged: most of the scanty literature on sex and rape among
male prisoners makes no mention of the extensive scholarship on non-carceral rape, 9 and most of that extensive scholarship on rape
addresses only rapes of women by men. 10 Prison rape researchers can learn much from feminist investigations of
the concepts of force and consent; in all-male prisons, as in free-world heterosexual relationships, coerced sex is only rarely
marked by bruises and blood. Furthermore, some feminist accounts of rape may insist too much that rape is something men do to
women, and research on prison sex should inform revised accounts of sexual violence. Of course, it is risky, and usually inaccurate, to
generalize about rape, and this is not to suggest that heterosexual rape in the free world is easily comparable to same-sex prison rape.
Social inequalities between men and women produce unique abuses , and the coercive conditions of incarceration
produce different abuses. In fact, a central claim of this Article is that sexual coercion in prison is a distinctive
product of the carceral environment. Nevertheless, prison sex researchers can learn much from feminists, and vice versa.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

127
Prisons Aff

A2: Plan Increases Rape


Not all sex in prisons is rape-this assumption is part of the same punishment mentality
that causes sexual assault in prison
Ristroph in 2k6 (Alice, Associate Professor of Law @ University of Utah, Columbia Journal of Gender and
Law, Prison and Punishment: Sexual Punishments, 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 139, lexis-nexis)
To identify institutional or structural causes of crime is not to exclude the possibility of agency in the criminal. Nevertheless, a likely
reaction to the argument presented here is an accusation that this "excuses" rapists. To be clear: perpetrators of sexual coercion exercise a
good deal of choice, even in prison walls. This does not mean that we must insist individual choice is the exclusive explanation for
sexual coercion in prison. We sometimes equate causation (an empirical issue) with blameworthiness (a normative one). And sometimes
we act as though causation/blame were a scarce resource, so that if we identified social or institutional causes of crime we would be
forced to diminish the blame that we assign to individual wrongdoers. In fact, moral disapprobation is a normative construct of
seemingly infinite capacity. Blame away, but keep in mind the potential drawbacks of primarily punitive responses to prison rape. If we

care not only about punishment of sexual coercion but also about its prevention, then we must be
attentive to every contributing cause. And indeed, as detailed in Part I, not every instance of coerced sex
has a clear perpetrator, an individual aggressor who is the source of the coercion. A great deal of sex in
prisons stems not from a direct exercise or threat of superior physical force, but from a bargain made
under the coercive conditions that are intrinsic to prison. Prisoners are denied almost every
opportunity for agency, which is why some commentators are reluctant to call any prisoner sex
consensual. And it seems impossible to restore a significant measure of agency to prisoners and still
maintain security and inflict the pain or harm that we see as essential to punishment. To regulate the most
obvious physical coercion, the graphically violent rapes, is an important improvement, but it will not address much of the sex. Or, we
could ban sex altogether, which seems fruitless and probably undesirable. In short, it would be very difficult to disaggregate coercive sex
from imprisonment.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

128
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Not all sex in prison is violent rape-much is consensual or for mutual gain. Current law
focusing on banning sex is inadequate
Ristroph in 2k6 (Alice, Associate Professor of Law @ University of Utah, Columbia Journal of Gender and
Law, Prison and Punishment: Sexual Punishments, 15 Colum. J. Gender & L. 139, lexis-nexis)
This is still not a full account of sex in prison. By prisoners' own direct reports and empirical studies based on interviews or surveys of
prisoners, many inmates choose to engage in sexual activity for reasons other than fear of immediate or
possible violence. They have sex -- again, this is by their own reports -- for money, drugs, food, comfort, physical
gratification, and love. 70 It is worth emphasizing, for example, that prisoners distinguish between "punks" (who submit to sex but do
not choose it) and "fags" (who actively seek sexual relationships in prison). Here, then, is a crucial problem for policymakers and
academics who address prison rape: is all prison sex rape? There is a fine line to walk: on one hand, we do not want to ignore or
worse, romanticize, sexual activity that is in fact coerced. On the other hand, prisoners have been stripped of so much control over their
own lives that their professed advocates would be perverse to deny prisoners what shreds of agency or control they may retain. Some
scholars and prison officials would insist that no prison sex is fully "consensual." 71 This claim may have some merit, but it is also too
[*157] simplistic to see all prison sex as equally coerced. Beyond prison walls, the law assumes that most adult sex is
consensual as long as nobody complains. 72 In prison, there are clearly many rapes; there also are reports of
instances in which inmates choose to have sex though they could easily abstain. 73 And a substantial percentage
of sex in prison appears to be sexual encounters of a third kind: sex that is produced by the overwhelmingly
coercive environment of prison, sex sought or agreed to under ambiguous circumstances, sex that may constitute prostitution
or "sexual extortion," or just a conflicted quest for a measure of safety in an inherently dangerous environment. 74 Because even
egregiously violent prison rapes were so long ignored by free society, it bears reiterating that much of the sexual interaction in prison is
violent, cruel, and void of comfort, desire, or reciprocity. It is tempting to insist that every instance of prison sex is like this, but
prisoners' own accounts suggest otherwise. The key point here is that sex in prison extends far beyond the violent assault. This, as
elaborated in Part III below, complicates attempts to eliminate sexual coercion among inmates; the policies
and legal tactics that we use to address non-carceral rape are not necessarily well-suited to the prison . A
few further points about sexuality and prison hierarchies are worth noting. First, there appear to be complex relationships between prison
sex and more general social inequalities. Several studies have reported racial disparities among the various sexual roles. Aggressors are
disproportionately African-American; the targets of sexual aggression are [*158] disproportionately white. 75 These disparities appear
to be particular to American prisons, although little research has been conducted on prison rape in other countries. 76 Some scholars
have suggested that sex in U.S. prisons must be understood in the context of social inequalities and America's history of race relations.
77

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

129
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Despite the ban on prison sex, it is inevitable-failure to provide condoms only risks
increasing the spread of HIV
Jordan, J.D. Candidate, University of Miami, 2007; B.A. Davidson College, 2001, 06
(Mary, Care to Prevent HIV Infection in Prison: A Moral Right Recognized by Canada, While the United States
Lags Behind, The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 37 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 319, JPW)
Unfortunately, the United States has not responded to the problem of HIV in its prison system in a
progressive manner. In fact, it can be argued that the United States prison system and its management
either ignore or do not care about the spread of HIV within prison walls. Rather than prevent HIV
infection among inmates, the U.S. prison system attempts to regulate behavior that runs rampant in its
prisons. [*325] The main argument advanced by prison officials against supplying U.S. prisoners with
measures to prevent the spread of disease is that most of the high-risk behavior transmitting the virus is
against prison rules. 36 For example, sex is forbidden in prisons (in exception of conjugal visits). 37
Engaging in sexual acts and making sexual proposals or threats are considered "high category"
disciplinary violations. 38 Illegal drug use is similarly prohibited and is ranked in the "greatest category" of
discipline violations. 39 However, the reality is that such forbidden activities occur regardless of the
prison rules. This reality is evidenced by prison drug addiction and discipline policies and special housing
policies for HIV positive sexually threatening inmates. 40 Prison administrators do not dispute the fact
that prophylactic materials (including bleach and condoms) reduce the risk that prisoners might contract
HIV or other infectious diseases. 41 While many prisons have HIV/AIDS educational programs in place,
those prisoners that receive such an education are denied the means to effectuate such safe habits. 42 Rather
than use resources to curb the risk of such dangerous behavior, prison officials and administrators argue
that providing condoms and bleach would give an "inappropriate and confusing message to prisoners" if
materials were supplied to protect inmates participating in otherwise banned activities. 43 This logic is
disappointing. The system effectively accepts transmission of an incurable and lethal disease to avoid
the risk of "confusing" inmates about what is permitted within prison walls. Prisoner health succumbs
to prison rules. Consequently, an inmate willing to violate sex and drug regulations has no protection
from contracting a lethal disease.

Sex in prisons occurs without condom distribution


Crary, Associated Press Writer, 2007
(David, The Record, Nov 22. Most prison systems still averse to condom use ; Despite risk of HIV, officials ban
distribution; [All Editions], p. A. 32, Proquest, JTN)
Yet Ron Snyder, an HIV-positive Californian who served 19 months in the state's prison systems for
embezzlement, said sex was widespread despite the rules. Some inmates used rubber gloves as
makeshift condoms, and some supervisors allowed men known to be sexual partners to share cells, he
said. Schwarzenegger, in his veto message, offered a ray of hope to advocates of condom access. He
described it as "not an unreasonable public policy" and instructed corrections officials to assess the
feasibility of a pilot program at a yet-to-be-selected state prison. Snyder predicted a "tough struggle" to
extend any such program systemwide because of staff attitudes. Many of the correctional officers are from
rural areas, "and they assume men don't have sex with men," he said. "They just don't understand the
picture."
California already is home to two of the local condom programs, at jails in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., also have programs New York's dates back to 1987.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

130
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Even without condoms, there is sexual activity in prisons
McLemore, Health and Human Rights Researcher at the Human Rights Watch, 2008
(Megan, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 6-27-8 Access to condoms in U.S. prisons HIV/AIDS Policy &
Law Review 13(1) http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=1349, Accessed July 5,
2009, JTN)
Regardless of institutional regulations, sexual activity, both consensual and coerced, is common in
prisons. Sex among inmates has been documented extensively not only in academic studies and by
human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, but by correctional systems themselves in
the form of individual grievances and disciplinary actions against inmates engaging in prohibited
behaviour.7

Condom distribution has resulted in use of the condoms, but hasnt increased sexual
activity or caused security issues
McLemore, Health and Human Rights Researcher at the Human Rights Watch, 2008
(Megan, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 6-27-8 Access to condoms in U.S. prisons HIV/AIDS Policy &
Law Review 13(1) http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=1349, Accessed July 5,
2009, JTN)
Some corrections officials have expressed concern that condom distribution would negatively affect
institutional security. This concern has proved unfounded in studies from Canada and Australia .10 As
discussed below, a recent evaluation of a U.S. condom distribution program provides further evidence that
security is not compromised by this vital harm reduction measure. One study examined the condom
distribution program in effect since 1993 at the Central Detention Facility in Washington, D.C. (CDF). The study
found that the CDF housed approximately 1400 adult males, 100 adult females and 40 juveniles, and processed an average of 2800
inmates per month. It was staffed by 551 correctional officers. Condoms were provided free of charge through public

health and AIDS service organizations. Inmates had access to the condoms during health education
classes, voluntary HIV pre-test or post-test counselling, or upon request to members of the health care
staff. Approximately 200 condoms were distributed each month according to inventory audits. Both
inmates and staff were interviewed about their opinion of the condom distribution program. The findings indicate that 55 percent of
inmates and 64 percent of correctional officers supported the availability of condoms at the CDF facility. Objections related primarily to
moral and religious concerns about homosexual activity. Thirteen percent of correctional officers said that they were aware of
institutional problems associated with condom distribution, though none provided descriptions of those problems. No major

security infractions related to condoms had been reported since commencement of the program. There
was no evidence that sexual activity had increased, based upon staff interviews as well as a review of
disciplinary reports for the relevant period. The researchers stated: Permitting inmates access to condoms remains
controversial among most correctional professionals. Even so, no jail or prison in the United States allowing
condoms has reversed their policies, and none has reported major security problems. In the
Washington, D.C. jail, the program has proceeded since 1993 without serious incident. Inmate and
correctional officer surveys found condom access to be generally accepted by both.11 Several large urban prisons, including the Los
Angeles and San Francisco County prisons, make condoms available to inmates. San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey was a strong
supporter of Californias legislation permitting condom distribution in prison, which was passed in 2005 and again in 2007, but was
vetoed in both instances by the Governor. In an editorial opinion letter published April 19, 2005 in the San Francisco Chronicle, Sheriff
Hennessey stated that correctional officials should do everything we can to prevent sexual activity in custody, but we shouldnt turn a
blind eye to the reality that it occurs. Further, he noted that the risk of contraband smuggling was much greater from routine contact
between inmates and outside visitors than from the availability of condoms inside the facility. Significantly, following his recent veto of
the bill, Governor Schwarzenegger agreed to permit a pilot program for condom distribution, the first of its kind in the California state
prison system.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

131
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Sex is inevitable in jailsit is just a matter of whether or not there is protection
Bloomekatz, LA Times Writer, 2009
(Ari B., Deleware Online, 7-5-9 Sexual health advocates work to fight AIDS behind bars Once-taboo condom
programs taking hold, http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090705/NEWS01/907050328, Accessed July 6,
2009, JTN)
Osorio, who was incarcerated for 19 months in 1999, said that consensual sex in prisons is common and
that inmates often go to extreme and unsafe lengths for protection, using plastic wrap from their
sandwiches, rubber gloves and empty candy wrappers during sex. "One condom per week is not enough,"
Osorio said. "To believe they're doing it one time -- come on." According to a U.N. report published in
2008 on HIV and AIDS in places of detention, about 1.9 percent of U.S. prisoners are known to be HIVpositive. The report also says the issue is international and calls for more education, efforts to reduce the
supply of drugs in institutions and condom distribution, among other things, as a way to combat the diseases.
Currently, only a few U.S. jails -- including some in San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia Washington -offer condoms to inmates. Condoms are also available in prisons in Vermont. Providing condoms to
inmates seems like a "no-brainer," said Mary Sylla, who founded the Center for Health Justice, a
nonprofit organization based in West Hollywood that focuses on reducing HIV cases in prisons. She said
that when condoms are offered, inmates do take them and reports of unsafe sexual activity decline.

Sex is occurring in prisons, between the inmates, and even with the prison staff, risking
large spread of HIV
Manier, Writer for the Chicago tribune, 2007
(Jeremy, McClatchy Tribune News Service, 3-23, Condom debate targets prisons p. 1 Proquest, JTN)
In reality, much of the high-risk homosexual contact in prison involves men who don't consider
themselves gay outside prison, former prisoners and researchers said. About 1 percent of prisoners report
having been raped. According to an in-depth study the CDC published last year on HIV transmission in
Georgia prisons, most sex among prisoners was either consensual or what the authors called
"exchange sex." Those inmates said they use sex as a bartering tool to get cigarettes, drugs, food or
protection from other inmates. One striking finding of the Georgia study was that a third of HIVinfected prisoners said they had sex with male prison staffers, and one-fifth had sex with female
staffers. The CDC report called condoms an integral part of HIV prevention efforts outside prisons and
suggested that states weigh the risks and benefits of allowing condoms. Part of the urgency that Green feels
stems from figures showing that African-Americans account for a growing proportion of HIV cases in the
general population. Two-thirds of the inmates who contracted HIV in Georgia prisons are black, the CDC
study said. "It is a public health crisis," Green said. "And it is infecting the community we claim we want to
save."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

132
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Empirically Proven: Condoms decrease sex in prison and there are no risks to distributing
them
Yap et. al. National Centre in HIV Social Research 2006
University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Do condoms cause rape and mayhem? The
long-term effects of condoms in New South Wales prisons http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/83/3/219
December 19 Lorraine Yap1, Tony Butler2, Juliet Richters1, Kristie Kirkwood2, Luke Grant3, Max Saxby3,
Frederick Ropp3 and Basil Donovan4
Results: There was a decrease in reports of both consensual male-to-male sex and male sexual assaults
5 years after the introduction of condoms into prisons in 1996. The contents of condom kits were often
used for concealing contraband items and for other purposes, but this was not associated with an increase in
drug injecting in prison. Only three incidents of a condom being used in assaults on prison officers were
recorded between 1996 and 2005; none was serious. Conclusions: There exists no evidence of serious
adverse consequences of distributing condoms and dental dams to prisoners in NSW. Condoms are an
important public health measure in the fight against HIV and sexually transmitted diseases; they
should be made freely available to prisoners as they are to other high-risk groups in the community.

The inevitability of sex in prisons justify the distribution of condoms to stop the spread of
HIV
McCroy Freelance Writer 2009
Putting HIV on Lockdown HIV TESTING AND PREVENTION BEHIND BARS Winnie April 20,
http://www.amfar.org/community/article.aspx?id=7176
In addition to testing, more can be done to prevent the spread of HIV among prisoners. Advocates
insist that condoms be provided during conjugal visits; many also urge that they be provided among
general prison populations. Only four jail systems, in New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and
Washington, and two prison systems, Vermont and Mississippi, make condoms available to some of their
inmates. Most U.S. correctional facilities do not distribute condoms due to security concerns or
because of fears that condom distribution suggests that sex is permitted. There have been no reported
events of condoms being used as any type of weapon, said Ralf Jrgens, director of the Canadian
HIV/AIDS Legal Network, in a 2002 article. Condoms have been available in Canadian federal prisons
since 1992. Jrgens said that while sex in prison is still an institutional offense, fighting the spread of
HIV is more important than upholding morality, especially since sex in prisons is occurring with or
without condoms. After 10 years distributing condoms, the issues [surrounding condom distribution in
corrections] have become non-issues, said Jrgens.

Sex inevitably occurs in prisons, condoms are needed to stop transmission


Snchez a long-term advocate for prisoners with HIV/HCV and affected communities.
He is Deputy Director of the New York City AIDS Housing Network 2005
Romeo Prison Health = Public Health:HIV Care in New York State Prisons AIDS Community Research
Initiative of America (ACRIA) - Fall http://www.aegis.com/pubs/cria/2005/CR051002.html
Advocates are also pressing for harm reduction techniques to be taught to prisoners, including safer
sex and safer injecting drug use. Not everyone coming out of prison will remain drug free. In fact, there are
prisoners who are released from prison with drug habits. In some prisons there is easy access to illegal drugs
but a scarcity of syringes, leading to many prisoners sharing the same syringe. In addition, condoms are
desperately needed to help stop the spread of HIV/HCV and sexually transmitted diseases. Sex occurs
in prison on a daily basis, whether it is consensual, coerced, bartered, or involuntary. There is
prostitution and there are same-sex marriages in prison. Sexual activity is not limited to prisoners correctional staff also engage in unsafe sex with inmates. Another bill in the NYS legislature, A.3720
(Gottfried) and S.3048 (Duane), would require every correctional facility to implement STD/HIV education
and prevention programs, including the distribution of condoms and latex barriers.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

133
Prisons Aff

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

134
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Even the Federal courts admit that High Risk Behavior is inevitable in Federal Prisons
Fay, Eleventh Circuit Judge, 1991
(Fay, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. No. 87-V-1109-N; Robert E.
Varner, Judge., UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, 941 F.2d 1495; 1991
U.S., September 18,1991)
In this case the DOC's belief that testing and separation will reduce transmission of HIV, as well as its
security concerns attending a policy of "mainstreaming" seropositive prisoners, are at least reasonably
founded. It is a fact that the stakes in dealing with HIV infection could not be higher; the disease is
communicable, incurable, and certain at some point in the seropositive patient's life to result in a
nightmarish death. It is also a fact that high risk behavior occurs disproportionately in prison systems.
Alabama is no exception. Undisputed testimony established that high risk behavior such as homosexual
relations, IV drug use, tattooing, and ear piercing occurs regularly within the Alabama system, as well as frequent fights and blood spills. The DOC,
like all correctional systems confronting the already difficult task of prison administration, has been forced to formulate some response to these problems. That response must incorporate not only the prison's interest
[**71] in reducing transmission of the disease, but also preserve the prison's "core" security concerns, which include maintaining internal security and minimizing violence within the system. With such objectives in
mind, even appellants' experts conceded that two bodies of thought currently exist within correctional and public health communities regarding HIV and AIDS prevention in prisons: mandatory testing and separation
versus voluntary testing and education. Although appellants have successfully identified numerous difficulties with the former approach, some quite serious, they have not demonstrated in a convincing manner that the
costs to Alabama's legitimate penological goals of adopting the latter as an alternative would be de minimis.
The importance of AIDS education in both prisons and the population at large is immense, and, for that matter, not disputed. Both parties agree that education should have a significant role in the correctional response to
HIV infection. Considered as a complete alternative to segregation, however, the record indicates that it is also at best an imperfect option. The [*1520] parties agree that under any system of prison administration, the
elimination of [**72] high risk behavior, such as homosexual activity or IV drug use, is impossible. Moreover, the extent and speed with which education alone is capable of changing such behavior, particularly among

. The record indicates that a significant amount of high risk


behavior continued to occur in the HIV dorms after inmates had been diagnosed as seropositive 35;
there is simply no basis upon which to conclude that such behavior would not continue to occur if such
inmates were mainstreamed. The anticipated violent reaction by some general population prisoners to integration is likely predicated on fear, some of it irrational and magnified by
prison populations (who are in a sense recalcitrant to begin with), was disputed at trial

misinformation; such fear might or might not be allayed with more education about the disease than is already being provided. 36 Given the distressingly high stakes, however, we do not think that the evidence in the
record is so substantial as to indicate that the DOC's conservative approach is an "exaggerated response" to the presence of the disease. See Pell, 417 U.S. at 827, 94 S. Ct. at 2806. 37
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 35 In addition, there was evidence that a majority of inmates who had already tested positive for HIV infection experienced psychological "denial," and steadfastly denied their seropositivity. Other evidence established
that inmates in the HIV unit who had been previously instructed by nursing staff not to engage in high risk behavior nevertheless were subsequently treated for sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, gonorrhea,
chlamydia, and anal warts acquired through anal intercourse. [**73] 36 The close quarters and heightened occurrences of high-risk activity in prisons undoubtedly accentuate "AIDS phobia" for those who must
continually deal with the presence of HIV in the correctional context; "'when patients with AIDS [or HIV] are discovered in the prison system, there is a crescendo of concern leading to panic on the part of prisoners,
correctional staff, as well as the medical staff.'" Note, In Prison with AIDS: The Constitutionality of Mass Screening and Segregation Policies, 1988 U.Ill.L.Rev. 151 (quoting Pear, Prisons Are on the Alert Against AIDS,
N.Y. Times, Jan. 12, 1986, at 28E, col. 1).

High-risk
behavior, particularly IV drug use and homosexual activity (consensual and nonconsensual), is a given in
the prison setting, and no correctional approach can eliminate it. Homosexual rape is commonplace. As Justice Blackmun
However, we are unwilling merely to dismiss as alarmist or illegitimate all of the concerns expressed by the class of general population prisoners that has intervened in this lawsuit.

has observed, "[a] youthful inmate can expect to be subjected to homosexual gang rape his first night in jail, or, it has been said, on the way to jail. Weaker
inmates become the property of stronger prisoners or gangs, who sell the sexual services of the victim." United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 421, 100 S.
Ct. 624, 640, 62 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1980) (footnotes omitted) (Blackmun, J., dissenting).

We ignore prisoners because we dont want to believe gay sex occurs in prison
Steinberg Wasserton Public Interest Fellow at Harvard Law School 2005
Robin G. Unprotected: HIV Prison Policy and the Deadly Politics of Denial June 22, 2005 Harvard Journal of
African American Public Policy
Because prison officials barely acknowledge that prison sex and rape exist, they fail to provide
prisoners with resources to protect themselves (condoms, lubricants). Because prison officials deny that
intravenous drug use happens inside prisons, they fail to provide clean needles or bleach for needle
sterilization. Because they do not want to examine the problem, they fail to provide culturally and
contextually appropriate education to prisoners. And because they refuse to accept the continuing spread of
the virus through the incarcerated population, they fail to provide prisoners with opportunities to learn and
practice skills that they need to protect themselves inside and outside prison.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

135
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Sex in prison is inevitable. Instead, increasing the number of contraceptives will help
prevent the spread of STDs.
Carlin, British Reporter, 08
Tom, Free Condoms in Jail For Rapists, Killers, and Paedos.., The People, pg. 17, 4/27/08, JoY)
Prisoners collect contraceptives from nurses who run a health advice centre at Wakefield jail - dubbed Monster
Mansion because of the perverts it houses. Most of the 700 inmates are serious sex offenders and included Soham beast Ian Huntley
until he was moved to another prison recently. The condoms campaign, which follows the arrival of new governor Jacqui Tilley
earlier this year, is meant to cut HIV, hepatitis and other sexually transmitted diseases. But staff at the West
Yorkshire jail claim it - encourages inmates to have sex. One staff member said: "At one time if you caught prisoners
having sex they were taken before the courts. "Now we have to knock at the cell door for permission to enter in case we catch them in
the act. "You want safe sex for health reasons but many staff feel this is encouraging prisoners to have
sex. "Whether the Government should be subsidising such activities at all is questionable." A Wakefield jail source

confirmed that any prisoner who has had a sexually transmitted disease or fears he is at risk from one
is entitled to free condoms with a doctor's prescription." Inmates include Roy Whiting, who murdered eight-year-old
Sarah Payne, fellow child killer Robert Black and notorious paedophile Sidney Cook. Huntley, 34, who killed 10-year-olds Holly Wells
and Jessica Chapman, has now been transferred to tough Frankland jail, Durham. The source added: " It doesn't matter how

disgusting the crimes were. Free condoms are issued as a policy to cut the spread of sexually
transmitted diseases." Staff are also angry that they will have to dispose of used condoms, which are supposed to be bag ged and
dropped in a clinical waste bin outside the health unit. It should be a prisoner's task to remove the waste. But no one has volunteered so
officers will do the job. A Prison Service spokesman said: "Prisons should not encourage overt sexual behaviour. But
we recognise that sex in prisons is a reality, which carries a public health dimension. "Condoms will not be
made available to prisoners without sexual health education." Once if prisoners were caught having sex they'd be taken to court..now we
have to knock at their cell doors.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

136
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Prisoners trade sex for other items
Smith, WCL Author, 06
(Brenda, Rethinking Prison Sex:: Self-Expression and Safety, Colum. J. Gender , http://74.125.155.132/search?
q=cache:HdCehj5CSH0J:www.wcl.american.edu/nic/documents/3.AnalyzingPrisonSex.pdf+%22prison+sex%22+
%22non+consensual%22+%22United+States%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a, 7/6/09, DKL)
In prison, sex is valued because it is highly desired and forbidden. Therefore, prisoners use sex as a
commodity to gain access to items they would not have access to otherwise. Prisoners engage in sexual
practices in exchange for common items like cigarettes, candy, chips, or a phone call. This system of
bartering often occurs because there are not legitimate methods for inmates to gain access to those
items or decrease desire for them.18 In other iterations of the exchange, prisoners who have desired
items are exploited sexually and intimidated sexually for their goods. The prison's interest in safety and
security suggests that sex for trade should be prohibited. The potential for violence is great because
staff and inmatesoften do not deliver what they agreed to exchange." In these circumstances sex
becomes less of a prisoner's choice and more of a commodity to obtain goods.

Sex Occurs In Prisons Regardless, Providing Condoms To Combat AIDS Is Well Worth It
McCroy, Freelance writer who works for numerous New York publications, including the
New York Blade and GO NYC Magazine, 2009,
(The foundation for aids research Putting HIV on Lockdown, April 20,
http://www.amfar.org/community/article.aspx?id=7176, Accessed 7/6/09 By SA )
Drug use and sex both occur in prisons, regardless of what we want to happen, said Dr. Strick. I
would personally support condoms in prisons, and I think custody could bring in a third party to
distribute them. And education is always good. We can argue that not everyone is using condoms
correctly, but it is still better than no one having them. It is still making a difference.

Statistics of sex in prisons are lower than the actual amount of sex because there is no
incentive for prisoners to report
Jurgens World Health Organization 2007
EVIDENCE FOR ACTION TECHNICAL PAPERS EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS HIV
IN PRISONS Pg. 23 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596190_eng.pdf
Studies may underestimate the prevalence of activities and behaviours that present risks of HIV (and/
or HCV) transmission in particular, injecting drug use and sexual intercourse because of the many
methodological, logistical, and ethical challenges of undertaking a study of prisoners high-risk
behaviours. These challenges stem primarily from three aspects of prisoners lives: prisons are by
nature coercive environments; sex and drug use violate prison regulations; and, sexual behaviour
involves identity issues that often spur shame and a fear of homophobic violence from other prisoners.
(Mahon, 1997). Many prisoners decline to participate in studies because they claim not to have engaged in
any high-risk behaviours (Health Canada, 2004, with reference to Pearson, 1995). This can result in low
generalizability and underreporting of risk behaviours affecting statistics in prisons worldwide. As
well, prisoners who do participate can be reluctant to give data regarding risk behaviours, the
majority of which constitute institutional offences (Health Canada, 2004). Prisoners are afraid of
reprisal for admitting illegal behaviours (Rutter, 2001, with reference to Dolan, Wodak & Penny, 1995).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

137
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Prisoners have sex despite rules and regulations, it often just goes unreported
Jurgens World Health Organization 2007
EVIDENCE FOR ACTION TECHNICAL PAPERS EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS HIV
IN PRISONS Pg. 29 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596190_eng.pdf
It is difficult to obtain reliable data on the prevalence of sexual activities in prisons because of the many
methodological, logistical, and ethical challenges of undertaking a study of sexual activities in prisons. Sex
violates prison regulations and sexual behaviour involves identity issues that often spur shame and a
fear of homophobic violence from other prisoners (Mahon, 1997). Many prisoners decline to participate in
studies because they claim not to have engaged in any high-risk behaviours (Health Canada, 2004, with
reference to Pearson, 1995). This can result in low generalizability and underreporting. Prisoners who do
participate may underestimate the incidence of sex because they are concerned with possible
repercussions from fellow prisoners and correctional officers (Saum et al., 1995; Rutter, 2001, with
reference to Dolan, Wodak & Penny, 1995; Awafeso & Naoum, 2002; Health Canada, 2004). They may be
embarrassed to admit engaging in sex with same sex partners for fear of being labeled as weak or gay,
and they may fear the possibility of punitive measures. Even worse, admitting to having been raped in
prison goes against the prisoner code whereby status and power are based on domination and
gratification (Wooden & Parker, 1982). Only a small minority of victims of rape or other sexual abuse in
prison ever report it to the authorities. Indeed, many victims cowed into silence by shame, embarrassment
and fear do not even tell their family or friends of the experience. Despite these challenges, the evidence
from studies undertaken in prisons around the world is clear on one point: consensual and nonconsensual sex do occur in prisons, despite laws or policies prohibiting sex, which have been difficult to
implement or enforce (CDC, 2006).

Consensual sex is often underreported and condoms would prevent the spread of HIV in
prisons
Jurgens World Health Organization 2007
Ralf EVIDENCE FOR ACTION TECHNICAL PAPERS EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS
HIV IN PRISONS Pg. 29 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596190_eng.pdf
All forms of sex, even consensual sex, tend to be uniformly forbidden under prison disciplinary codes.
However, consensual sex is seen as less of a threat to prisoner or institutional security than rape and other
forms of sexual violence, and thus does not demand the attention of more violent behaviour (May and
Williams, 2002, with reference to Saum et al., 1995; Awofeso & Naoum, 2002). Some such activity occurs as
a consequence of sexual orientation. Zachariah et al. (2002) reported that prison does not modify the
behaviour of men who have homosexual relations before imprisonment, and therefore does not
significantly modify the risk of infection (if condoms are accessible), except for their choice of partner
(Niveau, 2005). However, most men who have sex in prisons do not identify themselves as homosexuals and
may not have experienced same sex relationships prior to their incarceration. Freud differentiated between
exclusive (obligatory) homosexuality and situational (facultative) homosexuality. The latter term applies to
someone engaging in a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex, but whose sexual preference is for
a person of the opposite sex. Temporarily, under conditions of deprivation, such as imprisonment, such
persons may engage in same-sex behaviour (Awofeso & Naoum, 2002, with reference to Freud, 1905). Many
prisoners do not think of their behaviour as homosexual if they are the penetrating partner (Johnson,
1971), or are reluctant to acknowledge any such practice. In studies, this often results in
underreporting of sexual activity in prisons (Mahon, 1997).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

138
Prisons Aff

Prison Sex Inev.


Sex in prison is inevitable and all the negs arguments ignore both empirics and the status
of prisons now
Ramos, L. J.D., University of the Pacific (2008)
Comment: Beyond Reasonable: A Constitutional and Policy Analysis of Why it is Reasonable and Prudent to
Allow Nonprofits or Health Care Agencies to Distribute Sexual Barrier Protection Devices to Inmates.
McGeorge Law Review 39, 329.
The Bureau of Prisons does not support the use of condoms in penal facilities, despite the proof that
they prevent disease transmission. n200 In jurisdictions that make sexual activity within penal institutions
illegal, officials contend that condom distribution sends the wrong message by validating or endorsing an
illegal activity. n201 In response, a Los Angeles Deputy remarked, "We're not promoting sex; we're
promoting health." n202 Other opponents contend that condoms will be used in inappropriate ways,
including as weapons n203 or to hide or transport drugs. n204 But these fears have not [*354]
materialized, as is apparent in the Canadian penal officers' study, and no institution has ever started a
condom distribution program and later removed it. n205 Another objection by the opposition, including
inmates and penal officers, is based on purely moral grounds. n206 A member of the Traditional Values
Coalition, a faith-based, conservative group that lobbies for social and familial responsibility, commented,
"it's obscene, disgusting and absurd." n207 But these arguments do not change the reality of homosexual
acts occurring within these institutions, and preventing inmates from having condoms puts those inside
and outside of the institution at risk for contraction of a deadly disease. n208 The San Francisco AIDS
Foundation argues, "despite its legal status, sex will occur in our prisons. To ignore that fact is to
jeopardize lives and assume needless public cost of care and treatment of preventable cases of HIV
transmission." n209

Sex in prison is inevitable


NY Times, 05
(NY Times, NY Times.com, A Simple Way to Fight HIV and AIDS, 4/29/05,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/opinion/29fri2.html?_r=1, 7/8/09, JPW)
In any given year, perhaps a third of the people infected with hepatitis C and more than 15 percent of those
with AIDS spend time behind bars. With infection levels far higher than in the outside world, the jails and
prisons are a potential public health menace. Officials have a special duty to curb the spread of disease
among the more than 11 million people who pass through the system each year. No one knows for sure how
many people pick up H.I.V. while incarcerated. But a 2002 survey of prisoners' own estimates found that
about 44 percent of the inmates were probably participating in sex acts. Researchers suspect that
about 70 percent had their first same-sex experiences in prison. If those estimates are anywhere near
accurate, the risk of infection behind bars is substantial, and the men who contract H.I.V. in prison return
home to infect wives and girlfriends. Still, condoms are barred or unavailable in 95 percent of the country's
prisons.

Condom distribution doesnt increase sex or decrease security


NY Times, 05
(NY Times, NY Times.com, A Simple Way to Fight HIV and AIDS, 4/29/05,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/opinion/29fri2.html?_r=1, 7/8/09, JPW)
Distributing condoms does not encourage sex in prison - that appears to be going on anyway. And data
from Canada and American jurisdictions found no evidence that sexual activity goes up or that
security declines once prisoners have access to condoms. On the contrary, jurisdictions that adopt such
programs tend to keep and build upon them. Corrections officers usually support the programs once
they have been proved to be effective.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

139
Prisons Aff

A2: Violence Turn


Vermont and LA provecondom distribution does not lead to increased violence
Crary, Associated Press Writer, 2007
(David, The Record, Nov 22. Most prison systems still averse to condom use ; Despite risk of HIV, officials ban
distribution; [All Editions], p. A. 32, Proquest, JTN)
In Los Angeles, the condoms are distributed by an activist group, the Center for Health Justice, only in a
special unit reserved for gay men who ask to be assigned there. San Francisco, for nearly 20 years, has
allowed prisoners to be issued condoms by the health staff; distribution was expanded in April in the form of
a condom- dispensing machine placed in a jail recreation hall. Mary Sylla, the Center for Health Justice's
policy director, said there have been no security problems in either city. "If there was a case of
somebody doing something horrible with a condom, we would have heard about it it would be all over
the corrections community," she said. "But it doesn't happen." Though disappointed by Schwarzenegger's
veto, Sylla is hopeful that a pilot program will indeed get started in the state prison system. She said
corrections officials already had visited the Los Angeles unit to see that local program in action. But Sylla
acknowledged that the cause is tough to promote. "It's easy to make fun of," she said. "People don't like to
think about prisoners having sex, even though everybody knows it goes on." Vermont's Corrections
Department, although it holds relatively few HIV-positive inmates, has been making condoms available
in prisons since 1992 even though sexual activity remains officially prohibited. "It's a courageous
position that Vermont took then and continues to have now," said the department's health services director,
Dr. Dolores Burroughs-Biron. Under the program, inmates are granted a single condom at a time if they
request one from a nurse. Burroughs-Biron said there had been no reports of any security problems.

Worries of condom attacks are empirically disprovenother nations have given condoms
to inmates
Bloomekatz, LA Times Writer, 2009
(Ari B., Deleware Online, 7-5-9 Sexual health advocates work to fight AIDS behind bars Once-taboo condom
programs taking hold, http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090705/NEWS01/907050328, Accessed July 6,
2009, JTN)
Some prison officials worry that inmates will use the condoms to attack prison guards by filling
condoms with urine or feces and throwing them at guards in what is known as "gassing." Richard L.
Tatum, state president of the California Correctional Supervisors Organization, said his group opposes
condom distribution programs in jails and prisons because inmates could use them to smuggle drugs
and other contraband. He said educational programs, not condoms, are the answer. But Whitmore said the
condom giveaways have not proved to be a problem in Men's Central. At the prison in Solano, where
condoms are dispensed in a type of vending machine available to the general prison population, few
problems have been reported, Sylla said. "No place that has instituted condom distribution has then
revoked it because of problems," said Nina Harawa, an assistant professor at Charles Drew University in
South Los Angeles who researches HIV/AIDS in incarcerated populations. Harawa said condoms are
provided to prisoners in parts of Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and South Africa and that
the program at Men's Central "is an ideal example of how this can work successfully in the United
States." For Osorio, who is HIV-positive, the issue is personal. He said he makes the trek to Men's Central
Jail every Friday because condoms can save lives and money. "How much money are we saving the state if
we can keep one person from being infected? When they're in the jail system, you and I are paying for it.
That's what we need to understand."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

140
Prisons Aff

A2: Drugs DA - Drugs Inev.


Drug Abuse is rampant in prisons in the status quo
Larsen, an Assistant Professor at St. Peter's College, teaching the law and ethics classes for
the Criminal Justice Department. She has worked as an Assistant District Attorney in
Kings County (Brooklyn), and a Municipal Prosecutor in a New Jersey suburb. Professor
Larsen received her J.D. from Fordham University School of Law and her LI.M. from
Seton Hall University. This article was submitted as her L1.M. thesis. Special thanks to
Mentor Carl H. Coleman., 2008
(Kari, Copyright (c) 2008 The Catholic University of America Journal of Contemporary Health Law &
Policy/LexisNexis, ARTICLE: DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO HIV IN U.S.
PRISONSe, Spring, 2008, http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do, July 10,
2009, E.B.S.).
As with sexual activity, the exact percentage of inmates who use drugs is difficult to ascertain. The criminal
justice system is a "reservoir" for drug abusers, n55 most of whom continue to use drugs after being
placed in custody. n56 "[B]oth visitors and correctional officers supply inmates with illegal drugs." n57
Additionally, inside the prisons, drugs are sold by both the corrections officials and the inmates. n58
One study has shown that 58% of surveyed prisoners injected drugs during incarceration. n59

Drug abuse is inevitable


Sterling, Presented At: The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation Before the Shadow
Convention. Philadelphia, PA. Aug 1, 2000.
(Eric, Publication/Who runs the website, Improving the Bottom Line., Aug 1, 2000. ,
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/shadow_sterling2.cfm,July 10, 2009, E.B.S.).
Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Guests, Honored Colleagues, Brothers and Sisters, good afternoon.
Tonight, thousands, tens of thousands of Americans and their families will hear the horrifying sound of
gunfire echo in their neighborhood. Today hundreds of thousands of American kids were offered illegal and
dangerous drugs. Last month, well over 1000 persons died, poisoned by black market drugs or from
AIDS from sharing needles. This violence, these out-of-control drug markets, these deaths, are the
bottom line of our war on drugs. This bottom line is not inevitable from the use of drugs. But as long as
absolute prohibition of drug use prevails; as long as the $40 billion market for illegal drugs in America
remains uncontrolled, then these tragedies, these threats to our communities and our families are inevitable.
What America has been doing to fight drugs is a monumental failure, and the American people know that. In
fact, the managers of our bi-partisan prohibition drug policy are spending a fortune trying to sweep that
failure under a rug. In the National Drug Control Strategy, the White House drug czar, General Barry
McCaffrey, insists National Anti-Drug Policy is Working." He may believe this, but the scorecard he
shows us is as fudged as those Bill Clinton routinely offers up after eighteen holes. In this March 1999
strategy, for example, he claimed that coca production is declining. He quietly repudiated that claim
five months after it was published.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

141
Prisons Aff

Condoms Safe
Empirically Proven: Condom programs save money and avoid problems
Shauntel Times Herald 2009
CALIFORNIA: Prison Condom Program Reports No Major Problems The Reporter (Vacaville) (02.07.09) Thursday, February 12, 2009 Shauntel Lowe, Times-Herald
http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/2009/AD090267.html
The prison-based condom-access program at the California State Prison in Solano is going smoothly,
prison officials said recently. Concerns that condoms would be used as weapons or as a hiding place for
drugs have not borne out in practice since the one-year pilot began in November, said Terry Thornton, a
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesperson. The program was approved by Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger despite controversy over distributing condoms to inmates in prison, where having
sex is illegal. It costs about $25,000 per year to provide medical care to one HIV-positive inmate, while
the provision of condoms costs a fraction of that, said Julie Lifshay, research and evaluation manager for
Centerforce, a prisoner support and advocacy group. Based in California, Centerforce trains San Quentin inmates as peer
educators to prevent HIV/AIDS. Inmates are allowed one packaged condom at a time, Thornton said. The condoms are
dispensed through seven machines in Facility II at the prison, where 1,000 inmates are housed. The Center for Health
Justice is funding the pilot and purchased the condom machines, which are re-stocked once a week with up to 144
condoms, said Mary Sylla, CHJ's interim executive director. The HIV rate among inmates is at least five times higher
than that of the general population, she said.

Prisons doing the plan internationally had no problems, including no increase in drug use,
decreased needle exchange, decrease in disease, and no use of needles being used as
weapons.
Okie, M.D. 2007
Susan January 11 New England Journal of Medicine Volume 356:105-108 Number 2 Sex, Drugs, Prisons, and
HIV
U.S. public health experts consider the Rhode Island prison's human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
counseling and testing practices, medical care, and prerelease services to be among the best in the country.
Yet according to international guidelines for reducing the risk of HIV transmission inside prisons, all
U.S. prison systems fall short. Recognizing that sex occurs in prison despite prohibitions, the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have
recommended for more than a decade that condoms be made available to prisoners. They also
recommend that prisoners have access to bleach for cleaning injecting equipment, that drugdependence treatment and methadone maintenance programs be offered in prisons if they are
provided in the community, and that needle-exchange programs be considered. Prisons in several
Western European countries and in Australia, Canada, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Moldova, Indonesia, and
Iran have adopted some or all of these approaches to "harm reduction," with largely favorable results.
For example, programs providing sterile needles and syringes have been established in some 50 prisons
in eight countries; evaluations of such programs in Switzerland, Spain, and Germany found no
increase in drug use, a dramatic decrease in needle sharing, no new cases of infection with HIV or
hepatitis B or C, and no reported instances of needles being used as weapons.1 Nevertheless, in the
United States, condoms are currently provided on a limited basis in only two state prison systems (Vermont
and Mississippi) and five county jail systems (New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and
Washington, DC). Methadone maintenance programs are rarer still, and no U.S. prison has piloted a needleexchange program.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

142
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

Condoms Safe
Successful examples in other countries and U.S. cities proves solvency, and no increase in
violence
Tucker, Chang and Tulsky, Division of Infectious Diseases Massachusetts General Hospital, University of
California San Francisco, Department of Medicine and the Positive Health Program, University of California San
Francisco, 2007
(Joseph, Suzanne and Jacqueline, The catch 22 of condoms in US correctional facilities, BMC Public Health, 7:296,
2007, JWS)
Analyzing the critiques of condom distribution in prison is essential to understanding current
correctional HIV prevention policy. As the 1990s saw major developments in HIV law outside of the US
permitting use of condoms in prisons and jails, concerns about transport of contraband and use of condoms as
weapons plagued American correctional facilities. These hesitations about the safety, acceptability, and
feasibility of providing condoms to prisoners have been addressed by successful model programs in
many US cities and states (San Francisco, District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, parts of NYC,
Mississippi, Vermont) [20]. For example, most correctional officers and inmates at the Washington, DC
jail, which has provided condoms in jails over ten years, favored condom distribution. The majority of
inmates felt there was no increase in sexual activity as a result of condom availability. In addition, the
vast majority (87%) of correctional officers reported no problems with this policy [20]. While these US
cities and states provide experience to support condom distribution, these programs are dwarfed in breadth
and depth by other country's programs. Large scale national programs making condoms available in
prisons have been present in Canada and many European nations for over a decade. The proportion of
European prison systems allowing condoms rose from 53% in 1989 to 81% in 1997 [21]. More importantly,
none of the penal systems that have introduced condom distribution have reversed their policy, and the
number of correctional facilities with condoms grows each year. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal
Network and the Canadian AIDS Society argued early in the 1990s for more widespread condom
availability independent of inmates asking for them [21]. This policy was adopted by the Canadian
government, and has proven feasible and effective [22]. Canadian law now guarantees that condoms be
available in three discrete unique locations in the prison, in addition to being provided for conjugal
visits [23]. In Australia, 50 prisoners brought legal action against the state for non-provision of condoms,
prompting the provision of condoms in New South Wales. This policy has since been found effective and
sustainable [24]. Stigma associated with obtaining condoms in prison environments did not limit the
utility of the program since condoms were available in multiple locations without asking a physician;
such measures would be important to ensuring that the stigma associated with homosexual behaviors
often found in correctional settings does not limit opportunities for HIV prevention. The increasing
number of international jails and prisons distributing condoms provides useful information about
structuring scalable successful programs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

143
Prisons Aff

A2: Drug Smuggling


Places to store drugs exists within the status quo in prisons Condoms do not add to the
risk
Hudak, Student of Law at the University of Seattle, 2009
(Courtney, It's Not Just Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Why Prisons Should Provide Inmates with Access to
Condoms, 4/15/09, https://courses.law.washington.edu/Myhre/A506g_Sp09/public/
Not_Just_Cruel_and_Unusual_Punishment.pdf, accessed 7/6/09, TAZ)
Most correctional facilities do not currently provide inmates with access to condoms. According to an article
in the CHR Law Review, "Two state prison systems (Vermont and Mississippi) and four city/county jail
systems (New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.) provide condoms to inmates
in their facilities." Correctional facilities workers cite rules against sex as reason for not providing
condoms; they also suggest that condoms might be used to hide and transfer drugs. However,
according to an article in the American Journal of Public Health, "there are no similar prohibitions
against plastic storage bags, which could also be used to hide contraband." In a sad twist on the problem,
inmates seeking to protect themselves will resort to using plastic bags as makeshift condoms.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

144
Prisons Aff

A2: Alt Cause - Tattooing


Tattooing is not an alt cause No reported cases
Crippen et. al. Georgia Dept. of Correction 2006
D, Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report. 2006;55(15):421-426. 2006 Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) HIV Transmission Among Male Inmates in a State Prison System: Editorial Note
Although no case of HIV transmission via tattooing has been documented, the procedure carries a
theoretical risk for transmission if nonsterile equipment is used. In this investigation, receipt of a tattoo was
associated with HIV seroconversion. Further investigation is required to explore commonalities in time
frames, tattoo artists, or equipment among HIV-infected inmates who reported tattooing as their only
risk behavior and to determine whether the association between tattooing and HIV seroconversion
identified in this investigation is causal.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

145
Prisons Aff

A2: Spending DA - Link Turn


Preventative healthcare measures against chronic diseases would save the government
billions of dollars in the long term.
The Milken Institute, Economic think tank, 07
(The Milken Institute, An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease, 10/07, JoY
In a groundbreaking study released today by the Milken Institute, the annual economic impact on the U.S.
economy of the most common chronic diseases is calculated to be more than $1 trillion , which could balloon
to nearly $6 trillion by the middle of the century. Yet the news is not entirely grim because much of this cost is
avoidable.An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease brings to light for the first time what is often
overlooked in the discussion of the impact of chronic disease the economic loss associated with preventable illness and the cost to the
nations Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and American businesses in lost growth.In every community in our country, people are
suffering from preventable chronic diseases. Not only does that suffering affect our nations overall health but
also our nations economic productivity, said Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., FACS. With this new data from the
Milken Institute, we now know the cost burden of chronic disease in our nation, and its truly staggering. If we are unable to reduce the
rate of chronic disease, the potential economic damage to our nation could be devastating. For both the physical and

economic health of our country, we must bring together all sectors to find new, innovative, and costeffective ways to prevent chronic disease. Any funding that we spend to prevent chronic disease today
will actually be a valuable investment with long-term dividends. Dr. Carmona is Chairperson of the Partnership
to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD), 17th U.S. Surgeon General (2002-2006), and President of Canyon Ranch Institute. According to the
study, seven chronic diseases cancer, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, heart disease, pulmonary conditions and mental illness have a
total impact on the economy of $1.3 trillion annually. Of this amount, $1.1 trillion represents the cost of lost productivity.

The Aff saves money


Ramos, L. J.D., University of the Pacific (2008)
Comment: Beyond Reasonable: A Constitutional and Policy Analysis of Why it is Reasonable and Prudent to
Allow Nonprofits or Health Care Agencies to Distribute Sexual Barrier Protection Devices to Inmates.
McGeorge Law Review 39, 329.
Inmates with HIV also cost prisons an extraordinary amount of money devoted to health services in
terms of testing, medication, and medical staff. n191 While HIV/AIDS is no longer necessarily a death
sentence, proper medical care for HIV-infected persons is essential to longevity and quality of life. n192
WHO-issued guidelines suggest that the right to health care treatment, including preventive care, should be
the same for prisoners as it is for members of the general population, without regard to nationality or legal
status. While there is no right to protective devices for the general population, they are freely available,
often at no cost. n193 By preventing new HIV cases, fewer inmates will require the [*353] costly
treatments. n194 Additionally, "taxpayers will benefit because former inmates often receive subsidized
health care and the average cost to Medi-Cal (California's version of Medicaid) to treat HIV-infected
patients is $ 23,964 per year." n195 Therefore, prevention of new cases is a health conscious way of
limiting the government's fiscal responsibility to inmates and ex-inmates with HIV.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

146
Prisons Aff

A2: States - Federal Prisons


The Federal Bureau of Prisons has jurisdiction over all of the operations of federal prisons
United States Department of Justice
Bureau of Prisons About the Bureau of Prisons http://www.bop.gov/about/index.jsp Accessed 7/9/08 TC)
The Federal Bureau of Prisons was established in 1930 to provide more progressive and humane care
for Federal inmates, to professionalize the prison service, and to ensure consistent and centralized
administration of the 11 Federal prisons in operation at the time. Today, the Bureau consists of 115
institutions, 6 regional offices, a Central Office (headquarters), 2 staff training centers, and 28 community
corrections offices. The regional offices and Central Office provide administrative oversight and support to
Bureau facilities and community corrections offices. In turn, community corrections offices oversee
residential re-entry centers and home confinement programs. The Bureau is responsible for the custody
and care of more than 204,000 Federal offenders. Approximately 82 percent of these inmates are confined
in Bureau-operated facilities, while the balance is confined in secure privately-managed or community-based
facilities and local jails. The Bureau protects public safety by ensuring that Federal offenders serve their
sentences of imprisonment in facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure. The
Bureau helps reduce the potential for future criminal activity by encouraging inmates to participate in a range
of programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism. The Bureau's approximately more than 36,000
employees ensure the security of Federal prisons, provide inmates with needed programs and services,
and model mainstream values.

Federal prisons are entirely under the charge of the Bureau of Prisons and the Attorney
General
US Code
Title 18 Chapter 303 4042 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?
terms=prisons&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00004042----000-.html Accessed 7/9/08 TC
The Bureau of Prisons, under the direction of the Attorney General, shall (1) have charge of the
management and regulation of all Federal penal and correctional institutions; (2) provide suitable
quarters and provide for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons charged with or
convicted of offenses against the United States, or held as witnesses or otherwise;

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

147
Prisons Aff

A2: States - Solvency: States Bad


Managed care provided by states is inadequate- Only federal intervention is key.
Robbins, Prof. of Law and Justice, American University, Washington College of Law, 99
Ira P., Managed Health Care In Prisons As Cruel And Unusual Punishment, no date, JoY)
This is not an isolated case. In an effort to cut costs or to provide constitutionally adequate health care to inmates, an increasing
number of prisons have been using managed care systems [*196] to provide health care. n7 Although the use of
managed care has saved states money, the quality of health care arguably has decreased. Inadequate care has
been a recurring problem in prisons run by private managed health care firms . Consequently, prisoners and
staff continue to complain, and prisoners are filing suits asserting that their constitutional rights have been violated. n8 Courts have
evaluated claims of constitutional violations in cases in which prisoners have challenged the adequacy of their

medical treatment under the "deliberate indifference" standard, first announced by the Supreme
Court in 1976, in Estelle v. Gamble. n9 In Estelle, the Supreme Court established that, when prison officials are deliberately
indifferent to the serious medical needs of prisoners, the prisoners' Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment has been violated. n10 In Ancata v. Prison Health Services, n11 for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit held that, "if necessary medical treatment has been delayed for non-medical reasons, a case
of deliberate indifference has been made out." n12 Financial considerations constitute "non-medical reasons." n13 Thus,
the use of managed care in prisons with the intent of cutting costs may constitute an institutional deliberate indifference on the part of the
prisons.

States do not know how to adequately treat prisoners historically and in current day.
Rothfeld, Feb 10
(Michael, Los Angeles Times, Judges indicate they may order prison population reduced by 58,000, 2/10/09,
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/10/local/me-prisons10, accessed July 8, 2009, tch)
Reporting from Sacramento A panel of three federal judges, ruling that overcrowding in state prisons
has deprived inmates of their right to adequate healthcare, indicated they would order the state to
reduce the population in those lockups by as many as 58,000 people. The judges issued the tentative
ruling after a trial in two long-running cases brought by inmates to protest the state of medical and mental
healthcare in the prisons. Although the order is not final, U.S. District Court Judges Thelton Henderson and
Lawrence Karlton and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt effectively told the state
that it had lost the case and would have to make dramatic changes in its prisons unless it could reach a
settlement with inmates' lawyers. If the state is ordered to reduce the population, it would likely be able to do
so over several years by limiting new admissions and other measures, so that it would not have to release
large numbers of prisoners at once. State prisons right now operate at about double their designed
capacity, and the judges found that with inmates crammed into institutions, they could not receive the
care to which they are entitled. "There is . . . uncontroverted evidence that, because of overcrowding, there
are not enough clinical facilities or resources to accommodate inmates with medical or mental health needs at
the level of care they require," the judges wrote. The state's 33 prisons hold 159,000 inmates, the vast
majority of the 170,000 in the correctional system. The rest are in out-of-state prisons and other facilities.
The judges said they believe the prisons can safely operate at between 101,000 and 122,000, a potential
reduction of 37,000 to 58,000 inmates.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

148
Prisons Aff

A2: States - Solvency: States Bad


The CP cant solve California lawmakers have continuously failed to solve prison
problems despite various reform recommendations and jurisdiction has been handed over
to the Courts.
Los Angeles Times, Hella Awesome Newspaper, 2009
(Shame of the prisons; A panel of judges had to come up with a plan because, once again,
lawmakers failed California, March 12, p. 26, NAP)
Now that a panel of three federal judges is calling for California to cut its prison population by as much
as a third, effectively ruling that our dysfunctional state government is incapable of overseeing the
prison system, it makes us wonder what other legislative duties could be delegated to the judiciary.
Redistricting? Schools? The budget process? It wouldn't exactly be democratic, but it would beat the anarchy
in Sacramento. The judicial order on prisons isn't final and can be appealed, but it's an unmistakable
statement about how spectacularly our lawmakers have failed. California's prison conditions are so
bad, and the standard of medical care that inmates receive is so poor, that the state is violating
protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In other words, you don't have to go to Guantanamo Bay
to find abuses of human rights and American law -- just go to Lompoc. California's prisons were designed to
hold 84,000 inmates but now hold 158,000. This isn't a new problem; the overcrowding crisis has been
worsening for decades, and expert panels have repeatedly told lawmakers how to solve it. The 1990 Blue
Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population Management recommended changes to mandatory sentencing
rules and parole policies that have been reaffirmed many times since, most recently in a report from the Little
Hoover Commission in 2007. These reforms are designed to reduce the prison population without
increasing crime, by focusing state resources on the truly dangerous inmates and giving less
supervision to those who aren't much of a threat. Yet they have never been implemented by the
Legislature because members are terrified that doing so would make them look soft on crime. Of
course, it will take more than sentencing and parole reforms to make our prison system sustainable. It will
also take money. Some of the state burden will shift to counties as inmates are sent to community
rehabilitation facilities, built and maintained with taxpayer dollars. That will probably infuriate voters,
who continually pass get-tough-on-crime laws such as November's Proposition 9 ("Marsy's Law") yet don't
want to pay higher taxes to cover the added costs. Because politicians lack the courage to end this cycle, it
fell to a panel of judges to do the job. Rather than cooperating with the panel's decision, California
corrections officials plan to appeal it. Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry
Brown have filed a motion to end court oversight of prison healthcare even though conditions still
don't meet constitutional standards, thus fighting to maintain a status quo that's a national disgrace. Case
closed, your honors -- throw the book at them.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

149
Prisons Aff

A2: States - Solvency: States Bad


Poor prison conditions created by state prisons actually increase crime and death in prisons
opposed to Capital Punishment that shows little effect.
Katz, Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research, Levitt, University of
Chicago and American Bar Foundation, and Shustorovich, University of New York, 03
(Lawrence, Steven, Ellen, Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence, 320, 2003, tch)
Among the sub sample of individuals engaged in illegal activities, the death rates are likely to be much higher. Levitt and Venkatesh (2000) report a death
rate of 7% annually for street-level drug sellers in the gang they analyze. Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga (1996) estimate violent death rates to be 1%2%
annually among all gang members in Boston. With these gures, it is hard to believe that in modern America the fear of execution would be a driving force
in a rational criminal's calculus. Given these arguments, it

seems plausible that the quality of life in prisons might exert a


far more important effect on criminal behavior than the death penalty. The lower the quality of life in
prison, the greater the punishment for a xed amount of time served.3 Thus, poor prison conditions
are likely to be a deterrent to crime. Unlike capital punishment, prison conditions affect all inmates,
regardless of the crime committed. Also, unlike capital punishment, the rarity of which makes it
difficult to accurately estimate the likelihood of implementation, knowledge of prison conditions
among potential criminals is likely to be accurate, either because of personal experience or that of
acquaintances. It is also possible that poor prison conditions will lead to more crime rather than less.
Murton (1976) and Selke (1993), for instance, argue that poor prison conditions have a dehumanizing
effect on inmates, arousing greater bitterness and hostility towards society, which manifest themselves
as increased rates or severity of deviant behavior upon release from prison. Poor conditions may also
serve to elevate the level of violence in prisons, which may in turn inhibit the reassimilation of released
prisoners into general society.

State prison condition are terrible and dont have the funding or organization to solve
Boston Globe, 2007
(Boston Globe, Patrick aide spurns prison policy change Rejects call to ban solitary confinement for the mentally ill,
Boston Globe, December 12, 2007, JWS)
The Globe reported that 15 inmates have committed suicide in Massachusetts prisons in the past three
years, and a 16th was left brain dead. Nine of these prisoners were being held in isolation. Many of them
suffered from mental illness or drug addiction. Patrick said the money he wanted to spend on state prisons
this year was trimmed by state lawmakers. His spokesman said the governor expects to file legislation
"within a month" that would provide an additional $10 million to $15 million in funds for improvements in
prison facilities. "But I don't think anybody believes that the solution resides in more money alone," the
governor said. "It's better strategies. It's more accountability. I think we have the right leadership at the
[Department of Correction] to help deliver that, and they know I'm watching." When Patrick was heading the
civil rights division of the US Department of Justice during the Clinton administration, he issued sharp
criticism of states that he said failed to implement policies that adhered to "notions of humanity and decency"
when housing mentally ill inmates. In 1996, for example, Patrick threatened Maryland's governor, Parris N.
Glendening, with a lawsuit, in part because of the state's practice of housing mentally ill inmates in solitary
confinement. "Where conditions of segregation greatly exacerbate mental illness, and the period of
segregated confinement is prolonged or indefinite, feasible alternative custodial arrangements should be
explored," Patrick said then in a 13-page letter outlining his concerns about Maryland prisons. As prison
suicides surged, the Massachusetts correction department sought an independent study, which pointed
to prison practices and policies that have exacerbated the problem. Conducted by Lindsay M. Hayes, a
national prison specialist, the study, released earlier this year, made 29 recommendations for change that
were quickly adopted.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

150
Prisons Aff

A2: States - Solvency: States Bad


State prisons subject inmates to illegal, dangerous and dehumanizing tests
Reiter, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall), expected 2009; Ph.D. in Jurisprudence and
Social Policy, 2009
(Keramet, Experimentation on Prisoners: Persistent Dilemmas in Rights and Regulations, California Law Review,
97: 501, April 2009)JWS
Between 1965 and 1966, Dr. Albert M. Kligman exposed approximately seventy-five prisoners at
Holmesburg prison in Pennsylvania to high doses of dioxin, the main poisonous ingredient in Agent
Orange. n1 Dow Chemical paid Dr. Kligman $ 10,000 to conduct the experiments on the toxicity effects of this Vietnam War-era chemical warfare
agent. Dr. Kligman exposed prisoners to a dosage 468 times greater than that in the Dow Chemical
protocol for the experiments. n2 Records from the experiments have been destroyed, and the
Environmental Protection Agency's 1981 investigation into the matter failed to identify the exact
participants, rendering the long-term effects of the exposure untraceable. n3 Nonetheless, prisoners who participated
in dermatological experiments under Dr. Kligman's hand in 1965 and 1966 report that they still experience scars, blisters, cysts, and ongoing rashes. n4
Indeed, at least two prisoners filed lawsuits against Dow Chemical in the 1980s for the exposure they suffered in the 1960s; both settled their claims for
undisclosed sums. n5 Dr. Kligman is perhaps better known for developing the skin treatment Retin-A, at [*502] least partially on the basis of experiments
he conducted on prisoners at Holmesburg prison. n6 The story of Dr. Kligman's experiments was fully explored in 1998 in a book entitled Acres of Skin; the
title is based on a quotation from Dr. Kligman himself, who recalled visiting Holmesburg prison for the first time and seeing "acres of skin" on which he
could experiment. n7
In response to experiments conducted in prisons across the United States, under the supervision of doctors such as Dr. Kligman and sponsored by drug
companies such as Dow Chemical, the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare released a report in 1976 condemning the use of
prisoners in human subjects research. n8 This report (1976 DHEW Report) inspired the federal government to pass strict regulations limiting prisoner
experimentation to narrow categories of non-intrusive, low-risk, individually beneficial research. n9 Congress passed these regulations, codified at Title 45
of the Code of Federal Regulations, in 1978, a scant two years after the release of the DHEW Report. n10 Following the 1976 DHEW Report's release and
the codification of its recommendations into Title 45, Upjohn and Parke Davis, two of the largest drug companies in the United States, closed their Phase I
drug-testing facilities in Michigan state prisons. n11 Simultaneously, state prison systems forced doctors like Dr. Kligman to stop their research programs in
the prisons. n12

But medical experimentation on prisoners was far from over. Forty years after Dr. Kligman conducted
his dioxin experiments, and thirty years after the implementation of strict federal regulations virtually
banning the use of prisoners in medical experiments, prisoner subjects continue to be used in medical
experiments. For instance, between 2006 and 2008, a drug company called Hythian contracted with
jurisdictions in at least five different states including Indiana, Washington, Texas, Louisiana, and
Georgia to enroll criminal defendants in an experimental drug addiction treatment program. n13 As part of
this program, state judges "divert" drug court participants, who have been found in possession of drugs, into an experimental treatment program [*503]
called Prometa. Hythian runs the Prometa program at a cost of $ 15,000 per participant. The

program involves thirty days of


treatment with three different drugs, none of which has been approved for use in addiction treatment
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). n14 At least one Collin County, Texas, participant in the
Prometa program died; the court recorded the death as a suicide. n15 Unlike Dr. Kligman's experiments,
the Prometa program has not yet inspired an investigative journalism project. No participants have been
publicly interviewed, and no federal agency has investigated the effects of the program.

State prison healthcare conditions horrible


AP, March 27, 2009
(Associated Press, Prison overseer who wants $8 billion for health facilities to remain, The Boston Globe, March 27,
2009, JWS)
Henderson gave the receiver control of the prison medical system in 2006 after finding conditions in the
state's 33 adult prisons so bad that an average of an inmate a week was dying of neglect or
malpractice. That hasn't changed, he said in yesterday's ruling. ``The court is far from confident that
[state officials] have the will, capacity, or leadership to provide constitutionally adequate medical care
in the absence of a receivership,'' Henderson said in his 24-page ruling in San Francisco. Still, he promised to
make sure Kelso's plans don't exceed what is needed to improve conditions to legally required levels, and to
turn the system back to the state once he's satisfied conditions have improved.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

151
Prisons Aff

A2: States - Solvency: States Bad


States have proven to be unreliable with prison healthcare systems. Only federal
governments can solve.
Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer, 05
(James, U.S. Seizes State Prison Health Care Judge Cites Preventable Death of Inmates, Depravity of System,
San Francisco Chronicle, 7/1/05, JoY)
A federal judge, saying he was acting urgently to stop the needless deaths of inmates because of medical malfeasance, ordered Thursday that a receiver take
control of California's prison health care system and correct what he called deplorable conditions. Experts said the order by U.S. District Judge Thelton
Henderson of San Francisco was unprecedented in its scope given that the

prison system provides health care to roughly


164,000 inmates at an annual cost of $1.1 billion. The order also was an embarrassing blow for the
administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, which has promised to deliver major medical reforms for nearly two years but,
Henderson said, has utterly failed. The prison medical system offered "at times outright depravity, and I intentionally call it that," said Henderson. He also
said the

need for action was so dire that he might appoint a temporary receiver in just weeks to at least
begin to limit the harm to inmates from the poor medical care before a permanent receiver is put in place. Inmate families
and those who have long fought for change in the prisons were ebullient. "It's certainly everything we asked for," said Donald Specter, head of the Prison
Law Office, the prisoner rights group that filed the suit on which the judge was acting. Henderson said he would begin the process of selecting a receiver
and defining his or her powers in consultation with state officials and the inmates' lawyers. The decision followed weeks of testimony from medical experts
that Henderson described as horrifying in its depiction of barbaric medical conditions in some prisons, resulting in as many as 64 preventable deaths of
inmates a year and injury to countless others. The state's attorneys have never even bothered to fight those characterizations or the need for federal
intervention in spite of their damning reflection on prison managers. "This is humiliating," said James Jacobs, a law professor at New York University and
an expert on court intervention in prison management. "What's extreme here is, it's like the judge is saying to the state, 'I'm totally giving up on you -- you
are unwilling or unable to do this on your own.' " Indeed ,

top prisons officials for months have admitted the department


was incapable of administering the system, a massive and complex medical program stretching the
length of the state, often in remote locations. The state's lawyers have focused principally on trying to limit the power of the receiver.
"Nobody can do this by themselves," said Bruce Slavin, the prison system's general counsel. "A receiver can help us do what we want to do faster. " The
unions representing prison health workers, who have been at war with the prisons department, in part over who was responsible for conditions in the
prisons, said they were thrilled at the judge's decision. The unions had jointly filed a brief in favor of the appointment of a receiver. "All the unions are
more than willing to work with the receiver," said Gary Robinson, the executive director of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. "We think the
department is incapable of the reforms that are necessary. The judge's position is absolutely correct. The management has been incompetent." Michael
Jacobson, the director of the Vera Institute of Justice and the former head of New York City's jails, said the receiver should begin a process of deep changes
reaching into all levels of management and the culture inside the prisons. "Nothing is going to happen for some years," he said. "This has to be a catalyst
for longer-term structural changes. The potential implications of this are just so humongous." Henderson said appointing a receiver was a last resort but was
a result of the Schwarzenegger administration's refusal to comply with his orders to improve the

appalling quality of prison medical


care. A federal injunction has been in place for three years requiring phased-in medical improvements at each
state prison, but the Corrections Department has met none of the goals. In one case described by court-appointed experts,
an inmate's spine was injured in a fight. A prison doctor refused to believe the inmate's claim that he couldn't move, and the doctor wrenched the inmate's
head and neck during the examination, aggravating his paralysis. In a case at San Quentin in January, an inmate reported to the infirmary seeking emergency
treatment with signs of shock. A doctor already under investigation for two previous suspicious deaths prescribed antibiotics for what he said was bronchitis.
When the inmate collapsed on the way back to his cell, the guards brought him back. The doctor ordered that the inmate be given intravenous fluids, but
when the staff could not find a vein, the inmate was simply returned to his cell. The inmate died the next day from a serious lung ailment. He indicated that
the receiver was likely to have the ability, at the least, to fire incompetent doctors and hire quickly to fill the more than 150 positions that have been vacant
for years and to order construction to improve conditions in the state's 33 prisons. "This is no panacea," said Jacobs. "It's a staggeringly large job."
Henderson was clear that the process is likely to be long and arduous because of the depth of the problems. In spite of condemning incompetent doctors
described in earlier testimony, Henderson went out of his way to praise the rank-and-file prison health workers while excoriating prison managers.

"It's

also become apparent that the state has no effective management structure to offer health care,"
Henderson said. He added later in his comments from the bench, "My decision to establish a receivership is just a start." What happened A U.S. district
judge found that substandard medical care violated prisoners' rights and has led to unnecessary injuries and deaths in California prisons. He agreed to
appoint an administrator to take over the health care system. What it means The administrator will answer to the court, not the Schwarzenegger
administration, and will have the power to order improvements regardless of how much it costs state taxpayers. What's next Prisoner rights advocates and
prison officials will recommend candidates to take control of health care programs. The judge will have the final say. The judge also may appoint a
temporary receiver until a permanent appointee is named. The numbers 164,000: Approximate number of inmates at 33 state prisons. $1.1 billion: What
state will spend this year on prison health care. 64: The number of inmates who may be dying unnecessarily in state prisons each year because of poor
medical care, according to court-appointed physician Michael Puisis.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

152
Prisons Aff

A2: States - Solvency: No Funding


States are slashing their criminal justice programs due to the recession As the recession
deepens more cuts will occur.
Wilson, writer for the NYT 2009
(Mark, Prison Legal News.org, As Economy Falters, Rehabilitative and ?Substance Abuse Programs Get the Axe,
2009, https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/(S(4mjilqqe3wzyk3m1opzxf055))/21343_displayArticle.aspx, accessed
7/8/09, TAZ)
Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, states are slashing rehabilitative criminal
justice programs in a desperate attempt to save money. Critics contend, however, that this is a
shortsighted approach that will lead to increased crime rates and associated costs in the long run. Juvenile
offenders are among the hardest hit groups affected by recent budget cuts. Tennessee, South Carolina,
Kentucky, Virginia and other states have responded to declining tax revenues by reducing juvenile
justice spending by up to 30 percent. According to a 2008 survey by the American Correctional
Association, five states reported cuts to their juvenile justice budgets totaling over $62 million. Youth
advocates predict that as the recession deepens, such cuts will become more widespread. [See: PLN,
April 2009, pp.8-9].

States cant support the prisons and are facing funding cuts
DWC, Drug War Chronicle a website devoted to reporting on drug related causes, 2009
(Prisons Under Pressure, Corrections Budgets in the Age of Austerity, 1/30/09,
http://www.november.org/razorwire/2009-01/Pressure.html, accessed 7/8/09, TAZ
If there are any silver linings in the current economic, fiscal, and budgetary disaster that afflicts the
US, one of them could be that the budget crunch at statehouses around the country means that even
formerly sacrosanct programs are on the chopping block. With drug offenders filling approximately 2025% of prison cells in any given state, prison budgets are now under intense scrutiny, creating
opportunities to advance sentencing, prison, and drug law reform in one fell swoop. Nationwide,
corrections spending ranks fourth in eating up state budget dollars, trailing only health care, education,
and transportation. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, five states -Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Oregon and Vermont -- spend more on prisons they than do on
schools. The US currently spends about $68 billion a year on corrections, mostly at the state level.
Even at a time when people are talking about trillion dollar bail-outs, that's a lot of money. And with
states from California to the Carolinas facing severe budget squeezes, even "law and order" legislators and
executive branch officials are eyeing their expensive state prison systems in an increasingly desperate search
to cut costs. "If we want to talk about a sustainable reduction in the prison population, we need to revisit
who is going and for how long, as well as a critical evaluation of sentencing laws, repealing mandatory
minimums, and expanding parole eligibility." "If you look at the amount of money spent on corrections
in the states, it's an enormous amount," said Lawanda Johnson of the Justice Policy Institute. "If they
could reduce prison spending, that would definitely have an impact on their state budgets. Now, a few states
are starting to look at their jail and prison populations," she said.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

153
Prisons Aff

A2: States - Solvency: No Funding


California and other states cannot provide the necessary funding specifically for prison
programs. They are just letting prisoners free and fail at rehabilitation services.
Meyer, Jan 21.
(Don, Los Angeles Times, Fix probation to fix prisons, January 21, 2009, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/
la-oew-meyer21-2009jan21,0,7363039.story, accessed July 8, 2009, tch)
California's corrections system is in a state of disarray and is in dire need of reform. As The Times
described in a Jan. 5 editorial, the state is awaiting a decision from a panel of federal judges that will decide
whether to release more than 50,000 criminals into our communities to ease prison overcrowding. Evidently,
California is failing to rehabilitate criminals and adding to a cyclical problem facing our prison system
that returns more than 70% of released convicts back to state prison. As probation officers, our job is to
ensure that rehabilitated probationers do not become a statistic in our ever-growing prison population. But
with more than 300,000 offenders on probation and only 1,400 probation officers to monitor them, we lack
the necessary resources to properly supervise the probationers. More important, without the adequate
funding for rehabilitation and prevention services, probationers will likely continue their cycle of crime
and end up in our state prison system. Failing to provide adequate resources to local probation services
will only continue to place pressure on our overcrowded prisons and may result in more crime in our
communities. A large majority of inmates incarcerated in state prisons have been on probation, sometimes
several times, before ever setting a toe inside prison. This means that the state fails to provide enough
supervision and rehabilitation services to prevent most of its prisoners from escalating the severity of
their crimes and being locked up at taxpayers' expense. Worse, the state's failure makes our
communities less safe. The problem will only get worse if Sacramento continues to neglect the needs of
California's local probation services and does not take a comprehensive approach to fixing our prison system.
If Sacramento properly funded local adult probation services, as it has for our juvenile population, probation
departments throughout the state could provide the proper rehabilitation services and supervision to many
offenders and prevent them from imprisonment. This would help stem the flow of probationers moving into
prison and also have the added benefit of reducing our parole caseloads and creating safer communities for
our families. For example, a decade ago the number of minors in the state's juvenile justice system was more
than 10,000; today, it is less than 3,000. This decline in recidivism is directly related to the funding the
juvenile justice system receives for rehabilitation and prevention programs. We know this model works, and
we know it can provide immediate and long-term relief to the state prison system. Spending years or months
in custody with little or no rehabilitation services does nothing to prepare offenders for their transition into
law-abiding communities. The tragedy is that many of these offenders, if given the proper supervision and
services, could turn their lives around and end their cycle of criminal activity. The evidence has shown
time and time again that the best time to provide these services is immediately after offenders commit
their first crime. In practice, intervention is most effective when the offenders are on probation for
lower-level offenses. California must address funding for probation supervision and rehabilitation to
effectively deal with its myriad prison issues. Unless the state does so, Californians will always have
overcrowded prisons and the attendant budget woes.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

154
Prisons Aff

A2: States - Solvency: No Funding


States fail 31 states are already having problems with prisoners and have begun to close
them
USA Today, All-Knowing Newspaper, 2009
(To save money on prisons, states take a softer stance; Critics see threat to public safety, March 18, p.1A, NAP)
Here and across the nation, the deepening financial crisis is forcing dramatic changes in the hard-line, punishment-based philosophy that
has dominated the USA's criminal justice system for nearly two decades. As 31 states report budget gaps that the National Governors
Association says totaled nearly $30 billion last year, criminal justice officials and lawmakers are proposing and enacting cost-

cutting changes across the public safety spectrum, with uncertain ramifications for the public. There is
no dispute that the fiscal crisis is driving the changes, but the potential risks of pursuing such policies is the subject of
growing debate. While some analysts believe the philosophical shift is long overdue, others fear it could undermine public safety. Ryan
King of The Sentencing Project, a group that advocates for alternatives to incarceration, says the financial crisis has created enough
"political cover" to fuel a new look at the realities of incarcerating more than 2 million people and supervising 5 million others on
probation and parole. "It's clear that locking up hundreds of thousands of people does not guarantee public
safety," he says. Joshua Marquis, a past vice president of the National District Attorneys Association, agrees the economy is

prompting an overhaul of justice policy but reaches a very different conclusion about its impact on
public safety. "State after state after state appears to be waiting for the opportunity to wind back some
of the most intelligent sentencing policy we have," Marquis says. "If we do this, we will pay a price. No
question." Among recent state actions: *Kansas officials closed two detention facilities last month to save about $3.5
million. A third will be shuttered by April 1, says Roger Werholtz, chief of the state prison system. Inmates housed in the
closed units will be moved to other facilities in the state. *A California panel of federal judges recommended last month that
the cash-strapped state release up to 57,000 non-violent inmates from the overcrowded system to help save $800 million.
*Kentucky officials last year allowed for the early release of non-violent offenders up to six months before their sentences end to serve
the balance of their time at home. *New Mexico and Colorado are among seven states where some lawmakers are calling for an end to
the death penalty, arguing capital cases have become too costly to prosecute, reports the Death Penalty Information Center, which tracks
death penalty law and supports abolition of the death penalty. "State governments operated on the principle that if you built it, they
would come," King says of prison construction during the economic boom. Since 1990, corrections spending has increased
by an average of 7.5% annually, reports the National Association of State Budget Officers. "As soon as they built
those prisons, they filled them," King says. "They were never able to keep up with it. There is certainly a different
atmosphere now."

Several states are experiencing rapid increases in prisoners. Many states will result with
not enough money in the squo- Vermont proves.
Sears, US Senator, 07
(Senator Richard Sears, Vermont Can't Afford To Keep Locking Up Nonviolent Offenders, July 2007, JoY)
In 10 years, Vermont's incarceration rate has increased 73 percent, compared with 19 percent nationwide.
In those same 10 years, Vermont's violent crime rate has increased by 2 percent and property crime has decreased by 31 percent. A
recent study, released in February by the Pew Charitable Trust, estimates that, "By 2011, without changes in sentencing or
release policies, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Vermont can expect to see one new prisoner for
every three currently in the system."Over the past 10 years, Vermont has seen an increase of about 100 beds per year. On
June 6, 2006, Vermont's in-state prison population was 1,591, and there were 562 out of state, for a total of 2,153. In fact, state spending
on corrections has risen faster than any other area of state government; double-digit increases have been the norm for several years.
Between 2006 and 2008 the budget rose by 16.4 percent, from $110 million in 2006 to nearly $129 million for fiscal year 2008, and if
nothing changes, that trend can be expected for the foreseeable future. To put it another way, a family of four will pay an average of
$800 in state taxes just to support corrections.It may be little consolation, but we are not alone: In 1982 American
taxpayers spent $9 billion for corrections; by 2002 that number had mushroomed to $60 billion. The Pew
Charitable Trust study found that "one in every 32 U.S. adults is currently under some form of correctional supervision" and that "by
2011 one in every 182 U.S. residents will live in prison." I doubt many would argue the need for prison space for

violent offenders, but in Vermont between 40 percent and 45 percent of the males who are incarcerated
are in prison for offenses that the Corrections Department classifies as nonviolent. With females, roughly 70 percent are incarcerated
for nonviolent offenses. That means that on any given day, from 900 to 1,000 offenders are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

155
Prisons Aff

A2: Courts CP - Previous Rulings


The counterplan reverses years of court precedent on equal protection
Jordan, J.D. Candidate, University of Miami, 2007; B.A. Davidson College, 2001, 06
(Mary, Care to Prevent HIV Infection in Prison: A Moral Right Recognized by Canada, While the United States
Lags Behind, The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 37 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 319, JPW)
Prisoners also have rights which stem from the equal protection doctrine. Section one of the Fourteenth
Amendment, ratified July 9, 1968, states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws."
67 Although the Federal Prison system is not administered by the states (and thus not analyzed under the
Fourteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court stated in Buckley v. Valeo that "equal protection analysis in
the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment." 68 Thus, equal
protection analysis under the Fourteenth Amendment applies to both state and federal prisons. Prisoners
may assert that their status as prisoners (as opposed to free persons) unconstitutionally limits rights they are
entitled to under the Equal Protection Clause. However, these equal protection claims prove difficult
under Dandridge v. Williams, a 1979 equal protection suit brought against the Maryland Department of
Public Health. 69 In Dandridge, the Supreme Court ruled that Maryland was free to cap funds disbursed to
welfare recipients, despite differences in family size. 70 While Dandridge and others argued this practice was
discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court disagreed. 71 The regulation in
question dealt with the social and economic fields, not with freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights. 72
The Court stated that so long as the classification has some "reasonable basis," the Equal Protection
Clause is not violated simply because such classification is "merely ... imperfect" and results in some
inequality. 73 [*329] The Court held that although Maryland's regulation may not have been wise, ideal, or
the most just and humane system possible, the Constitution does not allow the Court to second-guess state
officials responsible for allocating limited public welfare resources within the pool of possible recipients. 74
Thus, Dandridge allows state prison officials to allocate their limited resources as they see fit. So long as
access to preventative health care is not protected by the Bill of Rights, states may allocate limited
funds as they wish. 75 Dandridge requires only that there be a reasonable justification for the state's
decision. 76 Therefore, to overcome an equal protection claim the prison system need only demonstrate a
reasonable justification for using funds for prophylactic materials elsewhere.

Courts dont perceive the contraction of HIV in prison cruel or unusual punishment
courts found in favor of the State
Hudak, Student of Law at the University of Seattle, 2009
(Courtney, It's Not Just Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Why Prisons Should Provide Inmates with Access to
Condoms, 4/15/09, https://courses.law.washington.edu/Myhre/A506g_Sp09/public/
Not_Just_Cruel_and_Unusual_Punishment.pdf, accessed 7/6/09, TAZ)
In Johnson v. U.S. 816 F.Supp. 1519 (N.D.Ala.,1993), an inmate brought suit against the Federal
Bureau of Prisons and prison officials. Johnson argued that the state and its officials inflicted cruel and
unusual punishment when they housed him in the same cell as an HIV positive inmate. When
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a magistrate judge found for the Federal Bureau, and
the appellate court affirmed. In their decision, the court stated that to establish an Eighth Amendment
claim, the evidence "must show that the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and
suffering ... or was totally without penological justification." Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318, 322 (11th
Cir.1987); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). (As quoted in Johnson at 1523.) Inmates are faced
with high burdens of proof when attempting to establish Eight Amendment claims. As a result, other causes
of action should be considered.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

156
Prisons Aff

A2: Courts CP - Previous Rulings


The counterplan massively undermines court legitimacy-hearing the case would require a
reversal of article 3 standing requirements under the constitution
Jordan, J.D. Candidate, University of Miami, 2007; B.A. Davidson College, 2001, 06
(Mary, Care to Prevent HIV Infection in Prison: A Moral Right Recognized by Canada, While the United States
Lags Behind, The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 37 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 319, JPW)
It seems extremely difficult for a prison inmate to successfully assert either an Equal Protection or Eighth
Amendment claim to secure HIV prevention materials while incarcerated. However, despite the fact that
these claims will likely fail under current law, a more fundamental problem exists regarding prisoner suits
aiming to secure prophylactic materials. The standing doctrine ensures that the elements of a case or
controversy, as required by Article III of the Constitution, exist in each claim. 118 In Lujan v. Defenders
of Wildlife, Justice Scalia articulated the elements necessary for standing: injury in fact which is concrete and
particularized, actual or imminent; the existence of a fairly traceable causal connection between the injury
and the action of the defendant, not some third party; and the likelihood, rather than speculation of, the
injury. 119 The power of the injury requirement is illustrated by examination of City of Los Angeles v.
Lyons, a case seeking an injunction to prevent the continued use of the Los Angeles Police Department's
chokehold policy. 120 Mr. Lyons had been stopped by police and put in a chokehold that left him
unconscious and physically [*334] injured. 121 Although several other citizens had been killed via similar
chokeholds, the Court held that Lyons did not meet the case or controversy requirements of Article III. 122
Lyons' claim that he could be choked again by the L.A.P.D. did not create an actual controversy required for
the Court to enter a declaratory judgment. 123 Thus, because Mr. Lyons could not definitively prove that he
would be choked again, his injunction request failed. 124 Inmates uninfected with HIV face similar
problems asserting injury. Like Mr. Lyons, inmates are unlikely to prove they will be victimized by HIV
infection. Although it is possible that any inmate in our nation's hyper-infected prison system will
contract HIV, infection remains a mere hypothetical possibility. Similarly problematic, the standing
doctrine requires that the injury be fairly traceable to the defendant. 125 Prison authorities will have
the actions of third parties (other prison inmates) to protect them from the causal connection required
for an Article III case or controversy. After all, it is not the prison authorities themselves infecting inmates,
but other prisoners harboring the virus. Unfortunately, legal relief seems difficult to secure for HIV
seronegative prisoners seeking HIV prevention measures and materials during incarceration. Not only
do inmates face serious hurdles in asserting either Equal Protection or Eighth Amendment claims, it is
unlikely that a healthy inmate will meet the requirements to secure Article III standing.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

157
Prisons Aff

A2: Isolation/monitoring CP - Fails


Isolation and increased monitoring failmultiple reasons
Childs, ABC News Medical Unit, 2006
(Dan, ABC News, December 14, Free Condoms for Prisoners? Barrier Contraception Could Stem High Levels of
HIV Infection in Correctional Facilities, Experts Say http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AIDS/story?
id=2724605&page=3, Accessed July 6, 2009, JTN)
Proponents of condom distribution in prisons say the measure would cost only pennies per inmate.
Condom distribution is more preferable than more direct intervention to prevent sex among inmates,
such as additional monitoring or isolation. "More stringent monitoring, well you could do that," said
Dr. Rebecca Finn, director of HIV services for the New York City Department of Corrections. "But
you'd need more people. It would be more expensive. And I'm not sure it would really do anything. If
people are going to be sexually active, they're going to find out ways to do it whether they're being
monitored or not," Finn said. Finn adds that because many prisons are so large -- Riker's Island, for
example, holds between 10,000 and 12,000 inmates -- isolation would not be a feasible alternative.
"Isolation is just not healthy," she said. "People end up getting mentally very unstable if you isolate
them."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

158
Prisons Aff

A2: Sex Ed CP - No Solvency


Sex Education FailsIt doesnt prevent sex, and the resources arent available without condoms
Childs, ABC News Medical Unit, 2006
(Dan, ABC News, December 14, Free Condoms for Prisoners? Barrier Contraception Could Stem High Levels of
HIV Infection in Correctional Facilities, Experts Say http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AIDS/story?
id=2724605&page=3, Accessed July 6, 2009, JTN)
Sex education is another option currently used by many prisons. "Our inmate- and employee-education
programs for treatment and counseling of infected inmates is in line with state-of-the-art recommendations
and consistent with or ahead of usual community practice," said Harrisburg's Moore. "We might not be able
to prevent inmates from engaging in sex, but we feel that we need to continue to educate them." But
Finn says education can go only so far -- particularly when inmates don't have the resources available
to ensure their sexual encounters are as safe as possible. "Whether we think it's appropriate or not for
inmates to have sex with each other, they do," Finn said. "If we refuse to accept the fact that when you
put all these inmates together in a dormitory setting that they're going to be sexually active, then I
think we are inviting new disease to occur."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

159
Prisons Aff

A2: Sex Ed - Homophobia


Homophobia prevents AIDS from being solved for
Senterfitt, Writer for AIDS2008, 2008
(Walt, aids2008.com, Battling Homophobia is Key to Ending AIDS ... Worldwide, 8/3/2008,
http://www.aids2008.com/blog/battling-homophobia-key-ending-aids-worldwide, accessed 7/8/09, TAZ)
"Homophobia - in all its forms - is one of the top five barriers to ending this epidemic, worldwide. The
fight against the epidemic is entering a new phase, and if governments and NGOs and international
organizations like my own do not take up the fight for gay rights, and the rights of all people with
diverse sexuality, we will not end AIDS." He went on to say that in nearly every country (including the
USA) the resources devoted to prevention, research and care among MSM are vastly smaller than their
numerical weight in the epidemic would compel as a matter of fairness and effectiveness.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

160
Prisons Aff

A2: Private Actor CP - Legal Barriers


No solvency, condoms are banned in most prisons, only plan eliminates legal barriers and has
solvency
Manier, Chicago Tribune, 2007
(Jeremy, Condom debate targets prisons, march 23 2007, JWS)
Only Vermont and several big cities allow condoms for at-risk inmates. A bill to permit condoms in
California prisons passed that state's Legislature but was vetoed in October by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger. Though specific policies vary, most prisons that permit condoms either sell them in the
commissary or let an outside group distribute them. The focus is on male prisoners because sexual
transmission of HIV among women is not considered a major risk. Some criticisms of the proposals to let
prisoners use condoms recall the debate from the 1980s over promotion of condoms as a "safe sex"
tool. Many religious groups argued then that condoms would encourage immoral or dangerous sexual
behavior, though public health forces effectively won that debate. The Rev. Harold Bailey, former chairman
of the Cook County (Ill.) Board of Corrections, said he believes the moral implications of condom use among
homosexuals remain paramount. "Anytime anyone puts two men together, which is against the law of God,
then gives them permission to do it with a condom, that's despicable," said Bailey, who served as the county's
jail chief until 2004. "Having that sexual involvement, even with a condom, is not righteous," Bailey said.
"If they're going to (have sex), they're going to do it on their own, and not with my permission. ... I'm
not going to hell for nobody."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

161
Prisons Aff

A2: Private Actor CP - Private Actors Fail


Private organizations antagonize prisons officials and are rejected when attempting to
provide condoms
ACT UP, 2002
(ACT UP, AIDS ACTIVISTS CONFRONT WARDEN WITH CONDOMS AT NY STATE PRISON, December 17,
2002 JWS)
Coxsackie, NY -- AIDS activists today attempted to deliver 2000 condoms to the medical officer at
Coxsackie Correctional Facility. Ten members of ACT UP/NY, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power,
brought the condoms to prison gates, but were stopped by prison guards. Activists deposited the condoms
at guard's feet, chanting "Stop breeding AIDS and HEP C in New York prisons!" Prison guards ultimately
agreed to bring the condoms to the watch commander, but it remains illegal for prisoners to receive them.
Activists also delivered a letter to Coxsackie Supt. Filion outlining demands for a coherent HIV prevention
program in NYS prisons. Inmates in the New York state prison system are prohibited from obtaining or
possessing condoms, except during conjugal visits. NYS Corrections Commissioner Glenn Goord has
alternately denied that sex occurs among inmates or between inmates and guards; and claimed that sex
between inmates, since it is illegal, should not be addressed as a health issue by prison staff. The
Department of Correctional Services defines condoms as "contraband

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

162
Prisons Aff

A2: Biopower K - Link Turn


The State exerts its control over the populations by repressing sexuality
Kane, Stephanie Kane is an associate professor in the Departments of Criminal Justice and
Gender Studies at IUB, Mason, Assistant Professor; Regional Academic Director at Park
University. Washington D.C 2001
(Stephen, Theresa, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 30 (2001), pp. 457-479, AIDS and Criminal Justice, 2001,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3069224.pdf, accessed 7/7/09, TAZ)
Anthropologists have few opportunities to do research in prisons, but it is tempting to think about what our
approach would be if opportunities arose. The question of whether sex is an instinct-whether we are
driven to have sex-has not been settled by the essentialists and constructionists. But perhaps less
subject to dispute is the idea that one's sexuality is an elemental and/or fundamental part of one's
personhood and cannot easily be repressed. Foucault's (1980) historic insight is that we miss the point
if we only see the side of the state that represses sexuality. The state is, indeed, a parasite on our
sexuality. It busies itself inciting our desires. If it is outlawed, our sexuality is not merely repressed. It
may also be aroused.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

163
Prisons Aff

A2: Biopower K - Link Turn


Destroying the stigma of AIDS is best opportunity to destroy the societal categories that are
bound for biopolitical use
Comaroff, Ph.D. in Sociology from the London School of Economics, 07 (Jean, Beyond Bare Life: AIDS,
(Bio)Politics, and the Neoliberal Order, Volume 19, Number 1, http://publicculture.org/articles/view/19/1/beyondbare-life-aids-biopolitics-and-the-neolibe/) PMK
As all this suggests, AIDS has been rewriting the global geopolitical coordinates within which we think
and act. We may lack the nerve or imagination to theorize it adequately, but it has certainly been
theorizing us for quite a while. It doesnt matter if you are HIV-positive or negative, insists South Africa
activist Adam Levin (2004: 226), the world has AIDS. And if you give a shit about the world, you have
it too. The threatening mutability of the disease challenges efforts to impose stable categories of
recognition and exclusion in an already disrupted late-modern geography. The pandemic is savagely
cosmopolitan, making blatant the existence of dynamic, translocal intimacies across received lines of
segregation, difference, and propriety. But it has also revived old specters, marking out pathologized
publics and crystallizing latent contradictions and anxieties. And, in so doing, it has exacerbated
existing economic and moral divides on an ever more planetary scale. Coming as it did at the time of a radical
restructuring of the axes of a bipolar world, of the liberal-democratic nation-state and the workings of capitalism itself, the disease
served as both a sign and a vector of a global order-in-formation and with it, a new sense of the nature and possibilities of the
political. Here again, the timing has not been coincidental. It scarcely needs saying anymore that as states around the world set about
outsourcing key aspects of governance, withdrawing from a politics of redistribution, the grand disciplinary institutions of the modern
state have shrunk, or that the task of social reproduction of schooling, healing, law enforcement, frail care has been ceded to ever
more complex public-private collaborations, to volunteer workers and more or less viable communities under the sway of corporatized
regimes of expert knowledge. If family values are the all-purpose glue meant to ensure social and moral

reproduction under these conditions, AIDS has been read as a quintessential sign of all that imperils a
civilized future-in-the-world, an iconic social pathology. In its primal association with non-normative
sexuality, AIDS also lends itself to a language of revelation and retribution, evoking strong emotions
that, at least in the West, suggest barely repressed anxieties about sexual subjectivity and desire at a
time of profound upheaval in gendered relations of power and production (Butler 1997: 27). Also in play in all this is
the uncertain issue of citizenship. Here too AIDS has figured as a standardized nightmare (Wilson 1951). Across the world, as nationstates disengage from
the regulation of processes of production, the political subject is defined less as a patriotic producer, homo faber, than as a consumer of services; the state,
reciprocally, is expected to superintend service-delivery, security, and the conditions of healthy, untrammeled commerce. With the erosion, if not the erasure,
of social categories rooted in nation, territory, and class, identity vests ever more crucially in individual bodies: bodies defined as objects of biological
nature and subjects of commodified desire. Would-be statesmen represent the predicament of contemporary governance as a Herculean battle to balance
minimal government with maximum personal safety and self-realization, their rhetoric focusing centrally on the quality of life, understood in simultaneously
moral and material terms. AIDS embodies, all too literally, core contradictions at issue in such discourse. For some, its onset made plain the dangers of
laissez-faire and a drastic reduction of the reach of the polis the erosion of institutions of public health, for example, in the name of corporate science
(Brazier 1989). But such critical, social reflection, at least in the global North, has been overpowered by another process already noted: a projection of the
dystopic implications of neoliberalism onto the victims themselves. Thus it is that the archetype of the homosexual AIDS sufferer became the specter of a
world driven by desire sans moral commitment. The

hysteria that erupted in the United States with the first awareness
of the epidemic made plain how central is the register of sexual perversion to the neoconservative
imagination (Berlant 1997). This is an imagination that strives to reduce expansive vocabularies of
politics, social debate, and intimacy to a straightjacket of absolute oppositions: nature and
abomination, truth and deception, good and evil.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

164
Prisons Aff

A2: Biopower K - Resistance Bad: Good Biopower


Pure resistance bad Biopower does not seek to reject beneficial biopolitical institutions.
Elbe, Lecturer in International Relations Department of Government University of Essex, 04
(Stefan, Activism and Practices of Dissent in Global
Politics: Interdisciplinary and Critical Perspectives, The Futility of Protest? Biopower and Biopolitics
in the Securitization of HIV/AIDS, http://www.stefanelbe.com/resources/ElbeISA2004Final.pdf)
Such a conclusion would also be premature, thirdly, because any a priori rejection of biopower and
biopolitical gestures would be to misrepresent the intention of Foucaults critical resistances and
interventions. These interventions sought to further the work of freedom by raising difficult questions
about concrete social practices, but this does not mean that these interventions should be read as
outright dismissals of these practices altogether. Foucault was bemused by the frequent yet erroneous
construal of his positions as being complete rejections of certain practices. Regarding the reception of his
work on psychiatry, for example, he complained in an interview that that despite not once commenting
on current psychiatric practice, his book was immediately and widely construed as an antipsychiatry
position.79 So the fact that Foucault raised critical questions about practices such as psychiatry does
not mean that he rejected them altogether, or wanted them completely abandoned. By way of
extension, it does not follow from the fact that Foucault raised critical questions of biopower that he
was against all of its manifestations. It would be just as absurd, for example, to suggest that Foucault
was against hospitals because they are biopolitical institutions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

165
Prisons Aff

A2: Biopower K - Resistance Bad: Ethical Obligations


Resistance bad Biopolitics is flexible Resistance is not key in unethical circumstances
where lives are saved, such as the AIDS battle.
Elbe, Lecturer in International Relations Department of Government University of Essex, 04
(Stefan, Activism and Practices of Dissent in Global
Politics: Interdisciplinary and Critical Perspectives, The Futility of Protest? Biopower and Biopolitics
in the Securitization of HIV/AIDS, http://www.stefanelbe.com/resources/ElbeISA2004Final.pdf)
Secondly, any such conclusion would also be rendered problematic because Foucault frequently altered
his views throughout his lifetime. Foucault had himself found it difficult to write in unitary terms
about thinkers whose work he drew upon. Regarding Karl Marx he once observed that [a]s far as Im
concerned, Marx doesnt exist. I mean, the sort of entity constructed around the proper name, signifying at
once a certain individual, the totality of his writings; and an immense historical process deriving from
him.77 Such a unity similarly does not exist regarding Michel Foucault, who demanded from his
readers the right to change his views over time; there is consequently no correct Foucault, and at a
minimum one would always need to specify which Foucault one is referring to. What is more, any such
unity pertains even less to Foucaults specific reflections on biopower and biopolitics; given that he
never had the opportunity before his death to fully flesh out these ideas, they remain inconclusive as
to the kinds of ethical conclusions that might ultimately derive from them. Much in this vein some
Foucault scholars have even sought to draw a sharp distinction between biopower and biopolitics, and have
tired to read a more positive trajectory into his discussion of biopolitics by attempting to develop a
biopolitics that resists modern forms of biopower.78 In either case, Foucaults reflections on biopower
and biopolitics simply remained too cursory and imprecise to firmly derive an unequivocal rejection of
the biopolitics such as securitization of AIDS as a biopolitical gesture from them.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

166
Prisons Aff

A2: Biopower K - Resistance Bad: Ethics/Perm Solves


Immediate rejection and resistance of biopower is bad Even Foucault argues for personal
ethical and moral consideration on a personal level with regard to what instance of
biopower is being addressed. Sometimes, he argues, resistance is bad. At best this proves
the perm solves.
Elbe, Lecturer in International Relations Department of Government University of Essex, 04
(Stefan, Activism and Practices of Dissent in Global
Politics: Interdisciplinary and Critical Perspectives, The Futility of Protest? Biopower and Biopolitics
in the Securitization of HIV/AIDS, http://www.stefanelbe.com/resources/ElbeISA2004Final.pdf)
What, then, of the second question raised at the outset of this paper? Is the biopolitical nature of the
securitization of AIDS reason enough for grass roots activists and critically-minded scholars to resist it? In
light of the new normative dangers identified above, this would seem to be a natural conclusion to draw, not
least as Foucault himself pointed to the need to resist modern forms of power: [t]o say no is the
minimum form of resistance. You have to say no as a decisive form of resistance.73 Nevertheless
more sustained reflection on this question is undoubtedly required before arriving at such a conclusion
as there are also other competing trajectories present in Foucaults corpus that would generate doubt about
the veracity of such a conclusion. Indeed, and to anticipate, it may well turn out counter intuitively that the
opposite conclusion is justified that, under certain conditions, the securitization of AIDS can actually be
appropriated in Foucauldian terms as a valuable strategic resource combating the state of domination that
many parts of the world are experiencing with regard to HIV/AIDS. Firstly, it would be hasty to reject the
securitization of AIDS on Foucauldian grounds because, even though there is arguably a strong ethical
sensibility contained in Foucaults corpus, there are by the latters own admission no clear ethical
rules that follow from his work. Foucault remained true to his Nietzschean roots in despising all
believers; he too did not wish to read as a prophet, nor himself serve as a normalizing force. The
point of his genealogies was therefore not to prescribe universal ethical rules, but rather to show
people that they are much freer than they feel.74 Even his reflections on ethics in his later works
such as The Use of Pleasure advocated the aesthetic creation of a unique style of life without recourse
to universal moral codes. Any such morals have to be the result of a personal journey of trial and error,
rather than being predetermined by overarching ethical theories. People, Foucault concluded
accordingly, have to build their own ethics, taking as a point of departure the historical analysis,
sociological analysis, and so on that one can provide for them.75 Elsewhere he insisted unequivocally
that [t]he role of an intellectual is not to tell others what they have to do. By what right would he do so?76
Although Foucaults work arguably seeks to instil a strong ethical sensibility in its readers, there are
no clear ethical prescriptions that follow from his work; there is no overall Foucauldian programme
and this must ultimately caution readers against deriving any firm ethical conclusions from his work,
including any normative stance regarding the securitization of AIDS as a biopolitical gesture.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

167
Prisons Aff

A2: Biopower - Perm Solves


Perm Solves - Power relations are inevitable Even Foucault believed complete rejection is
not plausible, but the uprooting of racism and normalization alongside biopolitics is.
Elbe, Lecturer in International Relations Department of Government University of Essex, 04
(Stefan, Activism and Practices of Dissent in Global
Politics: Interdisciplinary and Critical Perspectives, The Futility of Protest? Biopower and Biopolitics
in the Securitization of HIV/AIDS, http://www.stefanelbe.com/resources/ElbeISA2004Final.pdf)
Nor, finally, were Foucaults writings even opposed to power as such. For Foucault all political activity
inevitably reproduces power relations and it would be utopian to believe that it would be possible to
develop a political position free of power relations. He went to great lengths to communicate to his
readers that his analysis of power was not pejorative. In one of his interviews, for example, he pointed to a
failure of some of his readers to see that power relations are not something that is bad in itself, that
we have to break free of.80 He went on to specify that I do not think that a society can exist without
power relations, if by that one means the strategies by which individuals try to direct and control the
conduct of others.81 In the same interview Foucault reiterated in no uncertain terms that [p]ower is not
evil.82 This view of power also had important political consequences in that it compelled Foucault to
doubt contra Habermas whether it would ever be possible to find political strategies that
completely divorce themselves from power relations.83 Foucault was of course at pains to point out that
this did not mean that resistance is futile, quite the contrary; [t]o say that one can never be outside power
does not mean that one is trapped and condemned to defeat no matter what [but] that there are no spaces
of primal liberty.84 For Foucault, then, the fact that actions were enmeshed in power relations could
not be taken as grounds for rejecting such actions altogether because all actions were ultimately
enmeshed in power relations. His critique of biopolitical practices was concomitantly never a priori,
but always tied more narrowly to other ethical dangers such as the racism and normalizing practices
that historically accompanied such practices; it is consequently also on the basis of these specific dangers,
rather than on the basis of its biopolitical nature as such, that the securitization would have to be evaluated.
In either case, all of these factors combined would clearly make it premature to reject the securitization of
AIDS out of hand simply because of its biopolitical nature.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

168
Prisons Aff

Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

A2: Ks
Fighting for queer rights is key to any leftist coalition-exclusion of the plan guarantees the
alternative cant solve
Libretti -associate professor of English and women's studies at Northeastern Illinois
University, 2004
(Tim, Sexual Outlaws and Class Struggle: Rethinking History and Class Consciousness from a Queer Perspective,
155-156, 2004, tch)
Conference in his article, Lemisch recounts reading Bogdan Denitch's remarks in the introduction to the conference program,
where he wrote, "We must learn to effectively confront the splintering politics of identity," and then later hearing Denitch
announce, "We don't care if you are gay; we want to know whether you are a left gay!" (99). These remarks underline that particular
perspective of a left faction that comprehends working-class revolutionary politics as utterly distinct from gay poli- tics and that
imagines the task of gays on the left to be to assimilate into an implicitly heterosexist radical socialist political subjectivity and not
to influence and deepen a revolutionary anticapitalist working-class politics (see also Tucker). Indeed, gay liberationist attempts to
introduce their politics have not only been rebuffed but also erroneously scapegoated for the fragmentation of the left, as scholars
such as Lemisch, Mary Bernstein, and Robin D. G. Kelley have pointed out in discussing the work of Todd Gitlin and others. The
irony, these scholars point out, is that it is precisely this homophobia and general dismissal of identity

politics that have divided the left, as, in Bernstein's analysis, "it is the failure to articulate a shared
vision of social change that included, for example, heterosexual women, gays, and lesbians that
inspired the fragmentation of the left" (533). Moreover, on a theoretical level, this homophobia
results in an impoverished and undialectical understanding of class and class consciousness, as it
precludes the comprehension that classes are composed of peoples of different genders and diverse
races and sexual orientations and that factors such as race, gender, and sexual orientation play a
role in determining people's position in the class structure. As Kelley has argued in his critique of Gitlin, Michael
Tomasky, and others who sim- plistically reject the validity of movements led by African Americans, women, Latinos, gays, and
lesbians, "[T]hey either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that class is lived through race and gender." And he continues ,

There is no universal class identity, just as there is no universal racial or sexual iden- tity. The
idea that race, gender, and sexuality are particular whereas class is universal not only presumes
that class struggle is some sort of race- and gender-neutral terrain but takes for granted that
movements focused on race, gender, or sexuality necessar- ily undermine class unity and, by
definition, cannot be emancipatory for the whole. (86-87) Kelley's analysis here challenges simple dichotomies
between the so-called Marxist politics espoused by the likes of Gitlin, Denitch, and Tomasky and the identity poli- tics such
writers excoriate, as he underscores that Marxist constructions of the pro- letariat as the agent of revolutionary transformation also
constitute identity politics. Moreover, any construction of the proletariat, of a class identity, implicitly contains a racial, gender, and
sexual politics, just as constructions of sexual, racial, or gender identities necessarily contain a class politics, whether acknowledged
explicitly or 156 College English not. Hence, a more complex Marxism with a deeper, more historical, more dialecti- cal conception
of class and class agency, Kelley suggests, is in order.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

169
Prisons Aff

A2: AIDS Reps - Biopower over reps Inevitable


Biopower is inescapable because it comes from an array of places in modern society. AIDS
fight proves
Elbe, Lecturer in International Relations Department of Government University of Essex, 04
(Stefan, Activism and Practices of Dissent in Global
Politics: Interdisciplinary and Critical Perspectives, The Futility of Protest? Biopower and Biopolitics
in the Securitization of HIV/AIDS, http://www.stefanelbe.com/resources/ElbeISA2004Final.pdf)
The securitization of AIDS is simultaneously being driven by a plethora of actors ranging from
governments and multinational corporations, through to non- governmental organisations and
members of civil society. This is not to deny that states are particularly important for understanding the
attempt to frame HIV/AIDS as an international security issue. The United States government, especially
under the Clinton administration, took a leading role in the securitization of AIDS, and the Bush
administration has largely stayed this course under pressure from Colin Powell. Yet, the United States
government has also been joined in their quest by international organizations such as the World Health
Organization, UNAIDS, the European Union, the United Nations Development Program, and the Security
Council. These institutions, in turn, have been assisted by powerful economic actors such as the
Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS (GBC) whose members include illustrious multinational
corporations such as Coca-Cola, AOL Time Warner, Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum, American Express,
Citigroup, GlaxoSmithKline, to name but a few. They, in turn, have been joined by non-governmental
organizations, such as the Civil- Military Alliance to Combat HIV/AIDS,37 the Chemical and Biological
Arms Control Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., the
International Crisis Group,38 Saferworld, International Alert,39 and the International Institute for Strategic
Studies (IISS) in London.40 Non-governmental organizations in Africa too have been participating in
these securitizing moves, as can be seen by the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa which
devoted a recent issue of its African Security Revue to the security implications of HIV/AIDS.41 These
non- governmental organisations, in turn, have found allies in faith-based organisations and the
academy; Andrew T. Price-Smith was amongst the early scholars to pioneer this field of health security,42
but articles on AIDS and security have since appeared in the most influential journals in the field of security
studies, ranging from Survival43 and International Security,44 through to Foreign Affairs,45Third World
Quarterly,46 and the Washington Quarterly.47 The net of the securitization of AIDS has thus been widely
cast, illustrating how biopower is never solely the property of only one agent; it is always plural,
decentralized, and capillary in nature. What is more, precisely because it is productive and operates in
the name of enhancing life (rather than being repressive as in liberal, Marxist and Freudian inspired
theories of power), biopower is capable of generating impressive degrees of consent amongst a wide
range of social actors.48 Power, Foucault reminded his readers, is everywhere; not because it
embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.49 All three aspects, then, of the shift
towards biopolitics that Foucault traced in eighteenth century Europe the growing concern with
populations rather than with territory, the concomitant deployment of political strategies aimed at
improving the collective health of populations, and the participation of a plethora of political, economic,
and social actors in this deployment can today be found resonating at the global level in ongoing attempts
to frame the global AIDS pandemic as an international security issue. The deeper relevance of this ongoing
securitization of AIDS, however, stems not merely from the fact that it is yet another biopolitical
gesture, or even that it marks a significant extension of international securitys dominion over life;
rather, its deeper significance stems from the fact that it marks one of the clearest contemporary
examples of how the Wests biopolitical strategies are now gradually being diffused to the nonWestern world through international institutions such as the United Nations. Foucault had famously
described the emergence of the biopolitical age in modern Europe in the following terms:

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

170
Prisons Aff

A2: Topicality - Poverty


Prisoners are below the poverty line
Chang, assistant professor at the Center for Labor Education and Research Center at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Thompkins, doctoral fellow in the Department of
Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2002
(Tracy, Douglas, Project Muse, Corporations Go to Prisons: The Expansion of Corporate Power in the Correctional
Industry, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/labor_studies_journal/v027/27.1chang.html#authbio1, accessed 7-8-9, NB)
The largest government prison industry is the Federal Prison Industries (FPI), Inc., operating under the
trade name UNICOR. It was established by Congress in 1934 and is a wholly owned government corporation
within the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2000, the FPI operated 103 factories at 68 facilities within the
Federal Prison System, offering 150 diverse products and services, and generated $546 million in net sales
and $17 million in profit (Federal Prison Industries, 2000). It employed 22,000 inmates (18 percent of federal
inmates). Thirty percent of the inmates work in textile, 22 percent in furniture, 18 percent in electronics, 16
percent in metals, and 14 percent in graphics and services. In 1999, the FPI paid $38 million, seven percent
of its budget, on inmate wages. The FPI workers work an average of 7.5 hours and receive a daily wage
ranging from $1.73 to $8.63 (see Table 1). Fifty percent of the inmate wages are garnished for court
fines, child support, and victim restitution. After the deduction, the actual wage is miniscule.

Most prisoners live in poverty


Wheelock, Professor of Sociology, Marquette University & Uggen, Professor of Sociology,
University of Minnesota, 06
Darren, Christopher, Poverty and Punishment: The Impact Of Criminal Sanctions On Racial, Ethnic, and
Socioeconomic Inequality, National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #06-15 June, 2006, accessed 7 9 09
http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/workingpaper06/paper15/working_paper06-15.pdf )
Based on these inmate surveys and self-reported income information, we calculated the percentage of
prisoners falling below inflation-adjusted federal poverty guidelines at the time of their most recent arrest.
We must caution that the inmate surveys do not include an independent verification of prisoners self-reported
income information and that these data are therefore subject to potential validity and reliability problems.
Nevertheless, they are useful for showing trends in the percentage of inmates who report very low incomes. As
Figure 3 shows, the share of inmates that report being impoverished fluctuated between 40 and 60 percent
in the past thirty years. Nevertheless, the total number of inmates in poverty has increased dramatically with
the prison population, as shown in the dotted line of the figure. In 1974, fewer than 100,000 prisoners had been
in poverty prior to their most recent arrest. In 2004, by contrast, that figure exceeded 600,000. The data suggest
that prisoners have always been poor but that imprisonment is now much more prevalent among those in
poverty today, relative to 30 years ago. Further examination of these trends, however, shows the linkages
between poverty and race in the incarceration figures.

Prisoners live in poverty


Samaha, Joel Samaha received his B.A. (1958), J.D. (1961), and Ph.D. (1972) from Northwestern University,
2005
(Joel, Criminal Justice, 483, JWS)
Prisons are supposed to be islands of poverty in a sea of plenty. This means prisoners live lives of
enforced poverty, where the state provides only the bare essentials- plain food, clothing, medical care,
and shelter

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

171
Prisons Aff

A2: Topicality - Poverty


Living in poverty includes the inability to have adequate healthcare
a Dollar a Day, 2006
(a Dollar a Day, What is Poverty?, http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00282/over_whatis.htm, accessed 7-9-9,
NB)
Some people describe poverty as a lack of essential items such as food, clothing, water, and shelter
needed for proper living. At the UNs World Summit on Social Development, the Copenhagen
Declaration described poverty as a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human
needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and
information. When people are unable to eat, go to school, or have any access to health care, then they
can be considered to be in poverty, regardless of their income.

A person is living in poverty if they are deficient in money


Barker, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine,
University of Louisville, 1995
(Robert L., The Social Work Dictionary, NB)
No one common definition of poverty is accepted by all countries. Poverty is generally categorized as
material deprivation. Generally, poverty is defined as the state of being poor or deficient in money or
means of subsistence.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

172
Prisons Aff

A2: Topicality - Condoms=Social Services


Social Services include condoms
Haar, author of multiple publications, 2002
(Charlene K., The politics of the PTA, p. 96, NB)
Goals 2000 authorizes public schools to provide various social services, health care, and related
services through school-based health clinics. The school-based services include dispensing condoms
and contraceptives, abortion advice, and psychological testing for mental health reasons, often without
parental notification.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

173
Prisons Aff

A2: Topicality - AIDS Prevention=Social Service


HIV prevention falls under social services
Sisak in 97 (Janine, Fordham Law Review, CONFIDENTIALITY, COUNSELING, AND CARE: WHEN
OTHERS NEED TO KNOW WHAT CLIENTS NEED TO DISCLOSE, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 2747, lexis-nexis)
Foot note n9. Although a person with HIV can obtain appropriate services from general legal services
organizations, he might feel more comfortable at a legal organization that specializes in providing a
wide range of services to people with HIV. See Bradford, supra note 7, at 24 (encouraging lawyers to work
with AIDS service organizations because people with HIV are most likely to trust a lawyer affiliated with
such groups). Specialized organizations might be better at addressing some of the common sensitive legal
issues like discrimination and confidentiality. See Rivera, supra note 7, at 891 (suggesting that these
organizations have experience in resolving common problems). They might also be better suited to offer
HIV/AIDS-related social services in conjunction with legal assistance. See Bradford, supra note 7, at 24
(explaining that AIDS service organizations are often equipped to provide anonymous HIV testing,
counseling, AIDS prevention education, medical referrals, and housing assistance).

HIV/AIDS prevention is part of social services


Lazzarini in 2k1 (Zita, JD and MPH, Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, legal and ethical issues of
physician prescription and pharmacy sale of syringes to patients who inject illegal drugs, lexis-nexis)
Finally, any discussion of HIV and drug use today must consider the principle of justice. African-Americans
and Hispanics bear a disproportionate burden of both of these epidemics in the United States. Adding socioeconomic status to the picture reveals a concentration of all three among society's most vulnerable
communities. Consequently, the policies we, as a society, adopt to deal with drug use and HIV will
disproportionately affect these communities. Arguably, communities of color may already feel they have
been ill-served by state and federal policies for HIV/AIDS prevention, education, medicines, drug
treatment, and other social services. 35 Among the most important critiques of these communities has
been the poor access many minority and impoverished people have to medical treatment [*97] for
routine care, health promotion, and diagnosis and treatment of chronic conditions. A policy that promotes
increased access by IDUs to regular medical care, that improves their chances of entering drug treatment and
avoiding infection with HIV and other blood-borne diseases, would also promote the principle of justice.

HIV prevention can be a form of social service.


Davis 08
HIV, Women and Social Work Davis, LA Miles College, Birmingham, AL, and University of Alabama, Birmingham,
AL, Nov. 3, 2008, http://www.2009nhpc.org/archivepdf/2001_NHPC_All_Abstracts.pdf, accessed 7/9/09, KLM
Today approximately two out of every five professionally qualified social workers practice in the health
field and nearly all the nations graduate schools of social work offer a health or health related
concentration to their students. Therefore, it is reasonable to conceptualize HIV prevention programs
being integrated into traditional social service programs. Those at risk of contracting HIV include
populations that social workers traditionally serve, such as, members of disadvantaged racial and
ethnic minority groups, drug users, and the poor. In the United States, poor and ethnic minority women
are disproportionately represented among cases of HIV/AIDS. Womens economic and social situation in
themselves may increase vulnerability and therefore risk of infection.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

174
Prisons Aff

A2: Topicality - Preventative Care=Social Services


Preventive care falls under social service agencies
Gottfredson in 2k5 (Linda, University of Delaware, What if the Hereditarian Hypothesis is True, Psychology,
Public Policy and Law, 11 Psych. Pub. Pol. and L. 311, lexis-nexis)
We might especially target individuals below IQ 80 for special support, intellectual as well as material. This is the cognitive ability
("trainability") level below which federal law prohibits induction into the American military and below which no civilian jobs in the
United States routinely recruit their workers. It includes about 10% of Whites and a third of Blacks in the United States and the segment
of both groups most at risk for multiple health and social problems, regardless of family background and material resources
(Gottfredson, 1997, 2002). Moreover, the risks that lower-IQ people face in relation to more able individuals have been growing as the
complexity of work, health care, and daily life has increased. The g theory suggests that their relative risk might be lowered if
(a) education and training were better targeted to their learning needs (instruction is more narrowly focused, nontheoretical, concrete,
hands-on, repetitive, personalized, and requiring no inferences); (b) they were provided more assistance and direct instruction in matters
of daily well-being that we expect most people acquire on their own (e.g., learning how best to avoid various kinds of illness and injury);
and (c) health care providers, social service agencies, and other institutions removed some of the unnecessary

complexity (e.g., inadequate or overly complex labeling, instructions, and forms) that often impedes full
and effective use of services, medical regimens, and preventive care by the less able. Less favorable genes for g
impose constraints on individuals and their helpers, but they certainly do not prevent us from improving lives in crucial ways.

Preventive care falls under social services


Trubek in 96 (Louise, Clinical Professor of Law @ University of Wisconsin Law School, Seton Hall Law
Review, Medicaid managed care, 26 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1143, lexis-nexis)
Two mechanisms encourage this interaction: HMO prepaid capitation and regulatory provisions. HMOs provide a comprehensive
package of services in exchange for a prepaid capitation fee. Local social service groups, specialized health care

providers, and public health agencies can be cost-effective, accessible, and culturally diverse sources for
services. Community organizations and public agencies assist low-income families in health care through
outreach, social services, and specialized health care services. 39 Planned Parenthood provides
reproductive health services, public schools provide acute nursing care, and Head Start programs facilitate
preventive care.

Preventive care is falls under social service programs


Jacobi in 97 (John v, Associate Professor of Law, Washington University Law Quarterly, 75 Wash. U. L. Q. 1431,
MISSION AND MARKETS IN HEALTH CARE: PROTECTING ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY PROVIDERS FOR
THE POOR, lexis-nexis)
A minor theme of the mainstreaming discussion is contrapuntal to the major theme, and supports the existence of essential community
providers in the Medicaid managed care system. Many have observed that the poor have different needs due to historical neglect of their
health and general economic disadvantage. 54 The poor therefore require some health services beyond those

[*1441] provided to more economically advantaged populations through commercial health insurance. 55
Medicaid beneficiaries' historical (and continuing 56 ) lack of access to health care providers, and lack of
resources with which to supplement insurance benefits in the purchase of services, has driven the program
to support the development of specialized community health clinics through directing grants, mandating
access to the clinics for Medicaid beneficiaries, and requiring enhanced reimbursement levels; 57 to develop
highly structured preventive care programs; 58 and to create substantial links with other social service
systems. 59 Prior to the emergence of managed care, Medicaid evolved into a program intended to go beyond "simply giving eligible
recipients a Medicaid "credit card' and leaving them to find their own way in a fragmented and inadequate health care system." 60
Rather, the special needs of the poor were recognized by assisting them in finding providers willing to

serve them, 61 and by integrating their health care with other social support and service systems. 62

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

175
Prisons Aff

A2: Topicality - Preventative Care=Social Services


Preventive care is included in Obamas health care plan
Rubin, USA TODAY, 09
(Rita, Health suffers in recession; preventive care often cut first, 6/24/2009, JWS)
Although the details of President Obama's health care plan are not yet known, much of the discussion
has centered on preventive care

Preventive care is included in health care


USNWR, 2009
(U.S. News and World Report, March 30, 2009, JWS)
Health-care professionals must continue advocating for programs that increase the number of
adolescents who are insured, because insurance is key to gaining access to preventive care

Obamas healthcare initiative includes preventive care


Reuters, 2009
(U.S. Preventive Medicine Praises President Obama`s Appeal for Modernizing Health Care System by Investing in
Prevention, 3/5/2009, JWS)
U.S. Preventive Medicine, the leader in disease prevention services, today applauded U.S. President
Barack Obama`s call for modernizing the health care system by investing in prevention initiatives
aimed at controlling costs and improving the health of Americans. President Obama, in remarks at the White
House Forum on Health Reform, said it is imperative the nation take action now to bring down exploding
health care costs that further threaten the foundation of the economy. He called for investment in
prevention as a component of comprehensive health care reform needed by the end of the year. "It is
heartening that the time has finally come when preventive care is moving to the center of the national
spotlight. We can only `bend the trend` of skyrocketing costs by investing in intelligent prevention solutions
today, before tomorrow comes and brings even higher costs," said Christopher Fey, CEO and Chairman of
U.S. Preventive Medicine. "This nation can`t continue business as usual."

Preventive care is a key part of healthcare


Arvantes, American Academy of Family physicians, 6/17/2009
(James, Obama Stresses Need for Primary Care, Calls for Physician Payment Changes, 6/17/2009, JWS)
Obama called for greater investments in preventive care to avoid illnesses and diseases in the first place.
"Building a health care system that promotes prevention rather than just managing diseases will require
all of us to do our part," he said. "It will take doctors telling us what risk factors we should avoid and what
preventive measures we should pursue."

Preventive care is given by social service providers and health care centers
MLCHC, 2007
(Massachusetts league of community health centers, About community health centers, March 2007
http://www.massleague.org/HealthCenters.htm, July 7 2009, JWS)
Community health centers are receiving increasing attention as a solution for reducing health costs and
ensuring health care quality in Massachusetts and across the nation. Staffed by board-certified physicians,
nurse practitioners, physician assistants, registered nurses, nutritionists, dentists and a range of other of
medical and social service providers, community health centers excel at providing preventive care and
chronic disease management in lower cost community settings. These savings are passed on to the states
Medicaid program and other insurers. For studies on health center quality and cost-effectiveness, please
contact the League.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

176
Prisons Aff

A2: Topicality - Family Planning=Social Services


Family planning services are considered social welfare services.
Sung, Ph.D., 1978
(Kyu-taik, International Social Work, Social Work as an Integral Part of Family Planning Service for Low-Income
Families: an Example of U.S. Experience, http://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/2/23, 7/9/09, GMK)
The family planning movement in the United States is oriented not only toward regulating the fertility
rate but also toward promoting the welfare of families. Thus, family planning assistance has become a
standard component of public health and welfare services. The intent of the movement has been well
realized in the government-supported maternity and infant care program designed to serve mothers and
children of low-income families. Social work and family planning services are major parts of this
comprehensive, free-of-charge, health care program.

Family planning is included under the social service block grant.


Gold and Sonfield, director of policy analysis and senior public policy associate at the
Guttmacher Institute, 1999
(Rachel Benson and Adam, The Guttmacher Institute, Block Grants Are Key Sources of Support For Family
Planning, August, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/02/4/gr020406.html, 7/9/09, GMK)
Dating back to the 1970s, the social services program required states to address several major goals:
promotion of self-support and self-sufficiency; prevention of or remedying abuse of children or adults;
prevention of inappropriate institutionalization; and referral and admission services when necessary
for institutional care. State programs were required to fund at least one program addressing each of these goals, and the law
required that at least half the funding be spent on individuals eligible for welfare or Medicaid. Family planning was virtually
alone as a medical service that could be funded in this program, which otherwise focused exclusively on social
services such as day care, protective services for children and home-based services. Moreover, while the federal government reimbursed
states for 75% of most of their expenses, family planning was eligible for reimbursement at 90%. When Congress transformed
the program into a block grant in 1981, it eliminated numerous federal requirements . States were now free
to set their own eligibility requirements and determine which population groups to serve, and they were no longer required to match
federal spending. The block grant, however, continued to list family planning among the services states could
provide.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

177
Prisons Aff

A2: Politics - N/U


Politics is non unique-Obama already announced plan and received backlash-this evidence
proves comparatively GOP is more concerned with other pro-gay initiatives
Weinstein 1/21/2k9 (Steve, Editor in Chief, Edge Magazine, on first day, obama puts gay rights front and
center, http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=86089)
He certainly didnt waste any time. President Barack Obamas hand hadnt even left the Bible his wife was
holding in front of the Capital before he demonstrated a marked respect for LGBT issues. On the
revamped White House website, the new administration put gay rights front and center. After an
introduction from a 2007 speech on civil rights in general, the site targets employment discrimination--with a
shoutout "to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression." Right after
that, the site moves to expanding hate crimes to urge passage of the Matthew Shepherd Act, which would
include LGBT-oriented crime. Then he cites another 2007 speech in which he discussed the unfinished work
of the "Stonewall riots": "Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us," he
said in the speech. "But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. Its about whether this nation
is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect." He
goes on to a laundry list of LGBT needs: Hate crimes. Workplace discrimination. He brings up the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which died in the last Congress, and vows to fight for its passage.
Marriage. While he stops of endorsing gay marriage, he advocates strongly for equal-rights civil unions and
repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as well as opposing a constitutional amendment.
"Repeal Dont Ask Dont Tell." This is his strongest statement to date on the militarys anti-gay policy. In
no uncertain terms, he states that "discrimination should be prohibited." Equal adoption rights for gay
couples Fighting AIDS. Here, too, he states a very forceful agenda: promoting needle exchanges; prison
condoms and other outreach to prison populations; fighting homophobia; an end to abstinence-only
rules about AIDS education programs; and "empowering women," who now represent the fastest-growing
group of seroconverters. While its only speculation as to which of these he will move on first, and how
quickly, its probably safe to say that AIDS--the least controversial of these proposals-- would be a good
place to start. The Washington Blade has reported that Obama would ask Bushs out-gay AIDS czar, Mark
Dybul, to resign because he feared that Dybul would want continue Bushs abstinence-only policies.
Obamas quick action on gay rights did not go unnoticed by the right. World Net Daily had a "news story"
that complained mightily about the rapid change: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural
address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to overturn the
Supreme Courts precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to
provide special protections for homosexuals and others with gender issues.

Obama already announced the plan as a policy objective


Ambinder Associate Editor of the Atlantic 2009
Marc 20 Jan 02:27 pm The Atlantic
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/obamas_promises_to_gays.php Obamas Promises to Gays
In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive
national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce
HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support
common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about
contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception,
and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal
ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has
also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround
HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president. \

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009


Gordon/Lacy/Symonds

178
Prisons Aff

A2: Politics - N/U


Obama proposed a very similar plan
MacAskill the Guardian's Washington DC bureau chief 2009
(Ewen Obama to scrap funding for abstinence-only programmes US president proposes a new $110m plan to help
teens avoid pregnancy Friday 8 May 2009 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/08/obamaadministration-abstinence-bristol-palin Accessed 7/8/09 TC)
President Barack Obama faces a Republican backlash over his plan to scrap one of the most divisive
policies left over from the Bush era: education programmes for teenagers that promote only sexual
abstinence. The decision, which emerged last night when details of Obama's budget for next year were
published, will see $138m (91.2m) a year redirected from abstinence-only programmes to "evidencebased and promising teen pregnancy prevention programmes." It would eliminate $34m in grants to
states for abstinence education and a further $100m spent by a federal department, the administration for
children and families, which was in vanguard of abstinence promotion. In its place, he is proposing a new
$110m "teen prevention initiative" and a further $50m to states for pregnancy prevention
programmes. The budget says that the most positive results are achieved by programmes that "provide
a range of services in addition to comprehensive sex education, such as after school activities, academic
support or service learning". The announcement came in a week in which sex and the family was a dominant
topic in the US media, including the launch of a high-profile campaign in favour of abstinence by Sarah
Palin's daughter, Bristol. Bristol, whose teenage pregnancy became an issue in last year's presidential
election campaign, said: "Regardless of what I did personally, I just think that abstinence is the only way you
can effectively - 100% foolproof way - you can prevent pregnancy." President Bush was cheered by the
Christian right and social conservatives in the Republican party for a series of school programmes that
taught only sexual abstinence, without any mention of condoms, the birth control pill or any other
methods for avoiding pregnancy.

Obamas agenda has included the plan. No backlash occurred.


Cover 2009
Matt Obama White House Calls for Repealing Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday, January 21, CNSNews.com
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42233
Obama further promises to distribute contraceptives through the nations public health system, saying
the move is vital to combating HIV and AIDS and the new president wants contraceptives to be
distributed in federal prisons. The president will support common-sense approaches including ageappropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our
prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our
public health system.