A call for reform: U.S. prisons waste taxes, resources, time

Have you ever wondered where your state tax dollars are going? About $50 billion goes toward prison systems, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Inmates are entitled to humane facilities, short-term and long-term medical treatment and adequate mental health care. This is free of charge, courtesy of our W-2s. Yet, the United States’ prison system is still ineffective––we surpass all other countries in our incarceration rate while still dealing with a higher crime rate than other developed nations. What really drains the states’ funds is the medical care that inmates receive. They are entitled to treatment for the entirety of their sentence, no matter the severity of ailments. This includes dental care, medications and flu shots. Many inmates come from impoverished backgrounds where they don’t have this sort of medical coverage; giving them a higher quality of health care than they would receive outside of prison.

I understand the need for humane treatment—prisoners are still people—but they are in prison for a reason. Jails have a right to be slightly more lenient, but prisons only hold convicted criminals. Some inmates have committed murder, rape or theft, and then they receive a free teeth cleaning? It is no question why our recidivism rate, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is 56.7 percent—how else will they get everything for free?

We are a civilized nation and I do not believe we should resort to cruel and unusual punishment, but there need to be greater consequences than those that currently exist. If an inmate has a life-threatening condition or one causing them significant pain, then they should receive treatment.

But if they are in a less severe condition that poses no risk to the guards or their fellow inmates, it would make more sense for them to pay for it. If they cannot pay and it’s not significant enough to have it dealt with by the state, they just have to persevere. A considerable number of inmates would not have been able to afford treatment outside of jail and yet, they have managed to survive thus far.

According to a study by Carolyn Deady of Salve Regina University, punishment on its own is not effective. It is obvious that rehabilitation outside of the prison system is an important step to reducing the crime rate in the U.S. The cost of supporting an inmate in prison is between $20,000 and $40,000 per year, whereas the cost of supervision while on probation is approximately $3,433 per year.

It would be more cost effective to reserve prisons for more severe punishment for shorter sentences and create longer parole periods with a focus on rehabilitation. This would serve to reduce recidivism rates in the long run while also cutting costs.

There is a large disparity between the state funding of students and the state funding of inmates. In all 40 states where data was collected, the 2010 U.S. Census found that the annual amount spent on inmates exceeds that which is spent on students. We are not using our resources effectively. Crime is a result of a lack of education, and yet we put our money into taking care of the prisoners later on in life.

Prisons themselves will not rehabilitate inmates, so we should use them properly. They are punishment for committing a crime and they should be a disincentive to commit crime in the future.

Death with Dignity law shows compassion for terminally ill

Brittany Maynard's public controversy over the right to end her own life has renewed the national debate over euthanasia. Maynard was a 29-year-old newlywed who was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in April. When she realized that her condition was not curable, she and her husband moved from California to Oregon for the Death with Dignity Act. This law allows doctors to prescribe lethal medications to patients who are terminally ill. “I want to die on my own terms,” Maynard said. She chose to end her own life on Saturday Nov. 1, and this has left many questioning her decision.

This issue is polarizing and comes down to the way euthanasia is viewed: is it merciful, or simply assisted suicide? Life becomes bleak when you are trapped in your own body. The main debate is whether or not people have the right to die, and if they do, can their death be justified?

I do not believe that suicide is the right course of action. Life is full of difficulties, but that is no excuse for just giving up when things look grim. But that is not what euthanasia is. Terminal illness, agonizing pain and a period of contemplation are the key ingredients to the formula for whether or not a person has the right to die.

It is debated that if euthanasia were legalized, it could be abused in order to cut costs for palliative care, target specific social groups by giving them lower quality treatment and be used preemptively when the patient does not want it. These are all justified concerns that require strict regulations.

Euthanasia would cut down health care costs, but this is only a positive if it is used correctly. Reduced costs should be a result of the law passing, not an incentive for it. People shouldn’t have the “plug pulled” for the sake of dollars.

Specific people or groups also should not be targeted. There’s a concern that doctors will be more likely to give life-ending drugs to minority groups and low-income patients who are viewed as less important based on social status. In the state of Oregon where euthanasia is legal, however, the largest demographics of those using euthanasia have been college graduates, Asian-Americans and cancer patients. Based on the statistics, social inequality in this sphere is only a theoretical concern.

If patients are not able to make the decision on their own due to a vegetative state or lack of speech capacity, then a living will comes into play. This is a document that states your wishes for end-of-life care if you are incapable of expressing them at a later date and time. Medical patients can also typically assign a proxy to make the decision for them if they cannot. Unfortunately, not everyone takes this action, especially if the condition is sudden. In this case, the idea of a living will becomes null and void.

Maynard has revived an important debate and has served as a springboard for the Death with Dignity movement—other states are considering the issue of euthanasia and hopefully will see the good they can do to end people’s suffering. We all should persevere through life, but only if we are still truly living.

How sensationalizing epidemics harms, not helps public health

Headlines describing bird flu, swine flu and Ebola have been ubiquitous in the media during the last 20 years. The media jumps on a newly emerged disease and inflates the issue to portray it as the next bubonic plague. It uses dramatized headlines and hyperbolic fatality estimates to stir panic among the general public. This is not a new phenomenon and the general public should take history into account.

In 1997, fear spread when word got out about a new strain of the flu known as H5N1, commonly known as avian flu or bird flu. It started in Hong Kong, where 18 people were hospitalized and six of those hospitalized died. In response, people in the United States suggested drastic actions before any cases were even reported in the U.S., including newspaper headlines declaring to “Lock Up All Our Chickens.” Despite this, there have been no reported cases of avian flu in the U.S.

The news creates stories based on precautionary medical statistics—medical headlines analogous to those in movies. The press will stretch the truth in order to tell more appealing stories that ultimately instill unnecessary fear.

This occurred again in 2009 when a new flu virus known as H1N1, or swine flu, started to spread around the world. It reached 74 countries by June with 18,000 cases reported in the U.S. According to FLU.gov, “The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] estimates that 43 million to 89 million people had H1N1 between April 2009 and April 2010. They estimate between 8,870 and 18,300 H1N1 related deaths.”

These numbers sound frightening when they stand alone. For comparison, the seasonal influenza typically has three to five million cases and 250,000 to 500,000 deaths every year. This is significantly more than the H1N1 virus, yet H1N1 was labeled as a pandemic. The death toll is remarkably lower, yet the headlines manage to label it as a catastrophe in the making. The novelty of its name allowed the media to advertise it like the Black Death.

Hollywood joined the H1N1 hysteria bandwagon with the film Contagion, which detailed an epidemic that began with pigs in Asia. This might sound familiar, but the movie portrayed a worst-case scenario. Arguably, this is where the media might actually be helpful; dramatizing the facts of different illnesses garners public attention and encourages them to prepare for the worst.

More often the not, however, the media presents every new outbreak as the next plague to hook the audience—nothing inspires people to follow a story more than fear. “Am I going to be next? What do I do if I get sick, or if my family gets sick?”

The newest phenomenon is Ebola. There have been very few cases in the U.S., but that has not stopped anyone from panicking. Ebola is a deadly problem in developing countries, but our healthcare system is better equipped to handle the issue. The media will always predict doom because terror sells. With this in mind, the public should read headlines with a discerning eye and take precaution without giving into panic.

Columbus Day, Thanksgiving: A time to put politics aside

Who doesn’t love a holiday? It usually means a day off from school or work––that is reason enough to celebrate. Holidays like Columbus Day and Thanksgiving are staples in American life. There has, however, been controversy about what we are truly celebrating and whether or not these holidays should be removed or changed. People view everything with a lens of political correctness in today’s society that makes simple celebrations into an affront against entire races of people. Anything can be offensive if we trace back its history, but societal perceptions change over time. Holidays celebrate the ideal version of events and people in history. When viewed using the idealistic perspective, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving should remain American holidays.

Columbus Day is a double-edged sword. Christopher Columbus did not discover the Americas; he was not the first to arrive, nor was he was the first to settle on the land. Columbus brought Arawaks to Europe as slaves and returned to the Americas with cattle and goods, resulting in the proliferation of smallpox among the Native population. But Columbus also spurred the global economy by introducing the Americas to the trading market. His actions opened up the Americas to various aspects of European culture, both positive and negative. While his treatment of the Natives was inhumane, he did play a role in establishing the country that we have today.

Thanksgiving also has two interpretations. We celebrate it as a day of coming together, in references to the British settlers and the Wampanoag Indians eating together in commemoration of the peace treaty. Unfortunately, the camaraderie found in the original meal was quick to disappear as greed arose and British settlers claimed the Native American’s land as their own.

Do later actions dispel the good faith of the early ones? Isn’t the good will of that first meal what we are truly celebrating? The taint of later actions is affecting the perception of the true goal of the holiday. Thanksgiving is celebrated as a day to come together with loved ones, eat and be grateful for both the food and the company. The goal of both Thanksgiving and Columbus Day is not to honor conquest and imperialism but rather ideas of heritage and family.

Columbus Day is meant to be a celebration of the mingling of cultures and the blending of European and Native American ways of life; a day for European and Native American people to examine how their roles in history helped shape contemporary America. It’s not meant to be viewed with such a negative connotation, but perhaps this is an issue of semantics.

The name could be changed to better represent the true purpose of the holiday and dispel contradictory notions. Some states celebrate Native Americans’ Day or Indigenous People’s Day, but this seems contrary to the celebration of the exchange that occurred. Cultural heritage across ethnicities should be celebrated and the name should reflect that. Thanksgiving, however, does not have this semantic issue since its name is a good representation of what it is: a day to be thankful for what you have and to put aside conflicts in order come together in good faith.

Columbus Day and Thanksgiving should ultimately be viewed with this perspective of idealism. Holidays are meant to highlight the best of who we are as Americans with a history of cultural exchange, and we ought to view them as such.