In the South, HIV Prison Discrimination Charges On
Posted by , September 08, 2010 at 7:23pm
A positive test in two states condemns prisoners to isolation and a 23-hour lockdown.
AIDS advocates have hailed a recent decision in Michigan to overturn a policy that prevented HIV-positive inmates from working in food service positions, often the most coveted jobs in the state’s prison system.
The sad truth, though, is that Michigan was not the only state penalizing inmates according to their status. Two states—South Carolina and Alabama—still have terribly draconian policies on the books. Inside those state prisons, isolation cells, separate clothing, housing segregation and activity restrictions are the norm for HIV positive people, according to a report released this year by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch.
“I believe if [these policies] were more widely known, there would be a lot of outrage.” said Margaret Winter, associate director of the National Prison Project at the ACLU.
Here’s what it’s like, according to Winter’s team, to be a state prisoner with HIV in Alabama or South Carolina.
- Upon entry to the state prison system, inmates are subject to a mandatory HIV test. A positive test sends an individual immediately to an isolation cell, where he or she is put on 23-hour lockdown. The person remains there for period of “a week to several months,” awaiting a confirmation test and placement in an HIV housing unit.
- Upon confirmation, the individual is sent to a segregated HIV/AIDS housing facility. Conditions in these facilities tend to be harsher, and placement opens the person to harassment by both prison guards and other inmates.
- The inmate is given a mandatory arm band, badge or other marker signifying his or her status.
- Activities—many of which could earn the person credit toward early release—are strictly limited. Restrictions include limits on working in the kitchen and barbershop, as well as in industries such as textiles and carpentry. Alabama prohibits HIV-positive people from residing in either “faith-based” or “honor” dorms.
“If you are barred from what few opportunities there are for education and rehabilitation,” said Winter, “then essentially you’re being warehoused.”
Until July, Michigan had prevented HIV-positive prisoners from serving food, arguing first that a cafeteria employee might sneeze onto a food item, then later simply positing that other inmates might be upset if they knew person feeding them had HIV.
South Carolina and Alabama resist change
Other states have gradually moved away from policies that segregate prisoners based on HIV status, changes prompted by years of research showing that such policies are not medically necessary. Twenty-five years ago, 47 of 51 federal or state prison systems segregated prisoners by HIV status. By 1994 just six did so.
South Carolina and Alabama are the last two with housing segregation policies in place. Mississippi—which is also the subject of the report—had employed many of the same practices as its southern neighbors. But in March, just before the report’s release, state corrections commissioner Christopher Epps called for the desegregation of housing facilities within Mississippi state prisons.
According to Luke Versher, field organizer for AIDS Action in Mississippi, implementation of the policy change will be a key issue at an upcoming town hall to discuss the qualities desired in the state’s new AIDS director.
While South Carolina and Alabama have the nation’s harshest prison discrimination practices, HIV legal expert Catherine Hanssens said it’s difficult to know how many other states implement other, albeit less severe, policies.
These states are fostering “the idea that people with HIV are highly toxic,” said Hanssens, executive director at the Center for HIV Law and Policy. “And I think there are policies that are going on that are discriminatory but not part of the [official] statewide policy.”
blog comments powered by DisqusShare
Donate Today
Join our healing community by becoming a member today
