Condoms Could Save Inmates' Lives

For these people, the likelihood of contracting a deadly disease is 10 times greater than it is for the general population.

The level of indifference about prison rape is inexplicable.

Prison staff often treat rape as "just something that happens," and, for the majority of the public, it exists primarily as a staple in prison drama films.

Despite the efforts of Congress with its 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act and the campaigns of organizations like Just Detention International, the U.S. remains largely unconcerned.

These numbers of rapes and the probability of disease make me wonder why a more coherent effort to manage prison rape isn't being made.

However, there is one simple way America's inmates can be spared an absurdly high risk of contracting deadly illness.

By doing something as simple and affordable as making condoms and lubricant available to the incarcerated, we could greatly slow the spread of diseases like HIV and mitigate undeserved suffering.

Many health facilities make condoms freely available to the public.

The data showing the great degree to which this benefits public health is incontrovertible.

How, then, can we possibly justify refusing to distribute condoms in an environment where the prevalence of HIV is nearly five times greater than it is in the general population?

This proposal may sound radical, but it has actually been instituted in the past.

In 2006, the Philadelphia commissioner of prisons, Leon King, had thousands of condoms distributed to nearly 9,000 inmates.

According to advocates of King's program, taxpayers could buy 1 million condoms for the amount it costs to keep a single AIDS patient treated for life.

The condoms for King's program cost taxpayers only $360, less than the price of a Playstation 3.

Despite the fact that this clearly demonstrates the economic feasibility of condom distribution, few other prisons have considered following the example.

In Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, distribution of condoms to the incarcerated has been specifically legislated against. The justification for this is that inmate-inmate sex is illegal, and condoms might be used to smuggle contraband.

I can't imagine how either of these concerns could possibly outweigh the importance of stemming the spread of HIV.

Though condom usage goes a long way to stopping STD infection, tears in the rectal wall incurred during unlubricated anal sex can raise vulnerability by allowing pathogens direct access to the bloodstream.

Providing lubricant to inmates would be somewhat more expensive, but it would help further protect against diseases, and would ensure a more comfortable experience for both parties.

And, though not as dirt-cheap as condoms, lubricant would probably be a cost-effective health provision when stacked against the cost of caring for the victims of terminal diseases.

K-Y Jelly can be purchased retail for approximately $1.25 an ounce.

A simple and affordable program along these lines could save thosuands of inmates from an unjust death sentence.

That our prisons continue not to institute these programs speaks only of our complacency, prudishness and our refusal to empathize with the incarcerated.