My gut reaction is that prison healthcare is so bad that nobody (including offenders) ought to be subject to it ...

But then, for many folks without insurance, our healthcare "system" is limited to visits to overburdened ERs and clinics, which is not exactly a recipe for quality care either.

Also, given the rates at which incarcerated women are sexually assaulted by guards, I'm wary of giving those people access to children. (My own experiences, doing criminal defense, with corrections officers has only illustrated for me that they should not be entrusted to hold a position of power over everyone, as they are the worst combination of police and DMV clerks.)

So they are sentencing children, who have committed no crimes, to six-year prison terms?

I have a seriously hard time believing that anyone thinks it's a good idea to require babies and young children to be in prisons.

UMM...

Shouldn't the law be that women in prison have the OPTION of caring for their kid or letting relatives adopt the child?

Pro-choice, anyone?

"So they are sentencing children, who have committed no crimes, to six-year prison terms?"

Good point, especially for kids in the older part of the age range.

OTOH, is being in a crib in Grandma's house really that much less imprisoning than being in a crib in Mom's cell for a 5-month-old who isn't able to get out of the crib?

"I have a seriously hard time believing that anyone thinks it's a good idea to require babies and young children to be in prisons."

Sadly, I wouldn't be suprised.

You know how some people out there claim "adoption is bad because children always belong with their mothers" without making an exception for children whose mothers are dead? If they think sitting at Mom's grave can be the best place for a child to live, no doubt they think sitting in Mom's prison cell can be the best place for another child to live.

"Shouldn't the law be that women in prison have the OPTION of caring for their kid or letting relatives adopt the child?

Pro-choice, anyone?"

I think I agree with this. A woman should be able to decide if she can take care of her child in prison, or not. Or take care of her child for a year, then have the child stay with a relative.

I do think prison health care needs to be reconciled with, however. Just because these women are in prison doesn't mean they don't deserve decent medical attention.

Shouldn't the law be that women in prison have the OPTION of caring for their kid or letting relatives adopt the child?

Yes, that certainly seems to make more sense.

I wonder, though (and this is just off-the-cuff) if having it as an "option" would result in a lot of women who WANT their kids to stay with them, losing their ability to take care of the kids. Some 'optional' things in life prove not to be very optional at all.

Not that such a fact would necessarily justify the forced-care model, but it seems worth considering.

I don't know that I see this as hard at all... I don't like the idea that there's something magical about biological motherhood such that it's awful in every case to have the children raised by someone else. In fact, frankly, I think in a LOT of cases there are people who could raise the kids better than their biological moms, especially if the moms are convicted criminals. No one would ever suggest having children live with their imprisoned fathers, and I can't think of a legitimate feminist reason for treating mothers (POST-birth, aside from obvious medical differences) any differently.

And I say this as someone who is FEROCIOUSLY devoted to her mother and could not imagine having been brought up by anyone else. I'm just also aware, from knowing a LOT of people whose relationships with their mothers don't even approach the closeness of my relationship with mine, that having a great mother is, sadly, pretty damn rare. And we have to be realistic: if mom is in prison, the chances she'll be a good mother are pretty fucking slim.

OK this is just extremely messed up. The article touches on how the children might face psychological problems in the future after spending the first 6 years of their life in prison...well DUH! I remember my life pretty well for when I was 6 and I'm pretty sure that if I was raised in a prison, it would have had a huge effect on me.

Funny how the kids have to stay with their mothers in prison though. Is this only for kids raised by only their mothers? Or does it also include the kids raised by both parents? I wonder if there's anything like this for men...probably not.

I also wrote about this today. My mom is in prison and I live with family, but she was arrested when I was 11. I like things much better living in the real world.

"And we have to be realistic: if mom is in prison, the chances she'll be a good mother are pretty fucking slim."

Wouldn't that depend on how she got in prison? Getting caught cooking the books is one thing, getting caught boiling the baby is another...

"Shouldn't the law be that women in prison have the OPTION of caring for their kid or letting relatives adopt the child?" - UCLAbodyimage

Should men have the same right?

"Or does it also include the kids raised by both parents? I wonder if there's anything like this for men...probably not."

That is a VERY good point. Maybe this whole thing is sexist because it puts ONE PARENT (the mother, of course) as the main carer for a child. Isn't that one of the things we fight for? More recognition for fathers as caretakers and mothers as a person?

and yeah, why is it better to have a child in prison with the mother rather than the father? Why do we/I feel so differently about the two?

Well, Mina, granted that the justice system in the US (and likely in Mexico as well) is far from fair, but as a general rule, the fact that someone is in prison is a very strong indicator that she has committed a pretty bad crime (assuming "prison" versus "jail" works the same way there as here -- i.e., longer sentences go to prison). Plus, the fact that she is behind bars just plains means she, at least temporarily, simply does not have the capacity to be a good mother. You can't be a good mother in prison, because, um, you're in PRISON, fair or not. There is NO good way to raise a child in prison. Period.

What if a woman gets arrested for abusing her kids? Then do the little ones still have to stay with her in prison?

Well, Mina, granted that the justice system in the US (and likely in Mexico as well) is far from fair, but as a general rule, the fact that someone is in prison is a very strong indicator that she has committed a pretty bad crime (assuming "prison" versus "jail" works the same way there as here -- i.e., longer sentences go to prison).

LF, what about all of the bullshit three-strike laws? I haven't got the slightest clue whether or not Mexico has anything like that and what kind of crimes will land you sentences in prison there, but I think we're also talking in a more general sense about whether this ever is or could be a good idea.

These comments have been slightly upsetting to me, mostly because they're coming from a lot of people whose opinions I generally respect. I don't like the idea of children incarcerated with their parents for obvious reasons, either. But when a parent is incarcerated, what we've got is a bad situation either way.

Politics aside, I can think of one very good reason why young children should be allowed to stay with their mothers: breast-feeding. As for politics, we can't forget that women of color are incarcerated at much higher rates than white women (again, talking U.S. here). The question is whether or not we think that incarceration means that one has lost their parenting rights. And if we think so, we need to be aware of and held responsible for the fact that those rights will be taken away from particular communities in much higher numbers than in others: and that's poor women and women of color. Two groups, by the way, that have historically had their rights to have and raise children taken from them.

I think that what this truly requires would be prison reform, where we stop considering prisons -- particularly for nonviolent offenders -- as a place for punishing and start considering them a place for rehabilitation. If we worked under that model, I feel like such an arrangement would actually be beneficial to women and children, and make these women much better mothers or much more likely to actually care for their children as mothers when they leave prison.

I know that this kind of system is not what's happening in Mexico, and the idea that children should have to live with their incarcerated mothers is clearly ridiculous. But that means we should be imagining and offering better solutions. I imagine that conversation would be a lot more worthwhile.

"My gut reaction is that prison healthcare is so bad that nobody (including offenders) ought to be subject to it ..."

As a matter of fact, opponents argue that prisoners have better coverage than many Americans on the outside. The corrections system is the first preventative or health maintenance care that many underprivileged inmates receive. Medical, dental, vision, mental health, at state expense, probably the only health coverage they have ever had. In the extreme, one can even have two successive heart transplants (one failed) while in the prison system, at state expense.

This is one reason I would like to become a corrections nurse, and I've been inside to study it. If someone is going to be jailed for years or the rest of their lives, they deserve to be in decent health, as a human rights issue*. And if someone wants inmates to suffer in prison, wouldn't it also be best if they were in the best of health to prolong their lives and make them realize what they are missing outside?

* How do corrections nurses deal with "helping" known wifebeaters, murderers and rapists? Survey of corrections nurses shows they are seen as patients, not inmates. "Inmate" is a guard's word. They are no different from people arriving in the hospital because of their own actions and lifestyles such as substance abuse, drunk driving, or a life of violence. Patients need help, and why is not our business (unless we need to report suspected abuse). Corrections nurses are known for not looking at the charges section of the chart, because it has no relevance to patient care.

I also agree that inmates should be given a choice whether or not to have their small children with them. Less dependent children should really be somewhere else.

"There is NO good way to raise a child in prison. Period."

Depends on the prison and the services they provide. Keeping children in prison instead of handing them over to partners or grandparents is costing the state money, so they must have their reasons.

"I think that what this truly requires would be prison reform, where we stop considering prisons -- particularly for nonviolent offenders -- as a place for punishing and start considering them a place for rehabilitation."

amen to that.

id have to go find the information again, but i remember reading the state of new york allows for certain incarcerated women up to one year with their children to establish and maintain a nursing relationship.

and while i dont know about mexico, we must remember, once you have a child taken from your custody for any reason or any amount of time, it can be hell to get them back, if you ever get them back.

How about it partly depends on how much time the woman has left in her sentence? It doesn't seem fair to the child to have him or her be with their mom for six years and then make them live with someone else. However, if a mom has say, two years or less of a sentence, the child shouldn't remember living in jail and can become attached to its mother as soon as he or she is born instead of at two years old after the child is strongly attached to another adult.

Does a child really have to live with the mother in order to develop a relationship? Can't the government instead order something like mandatory visits or something? I know that the child won't be able to take themselves to the prison, and I also know that routinely taking the child to prison to visit his/her criminal mother won't exactly be the number one priority of the child's foster parents (or relatives...or whoever's taking care of him/her). But seriously...there has GOT to be a better option than forcing a child to grow up in prison. Even if the woman is a good mother...that doesn't say that every woman in there is a good person. Every prisoner is different so obviously, even if the child's mother is not dangerous, the child would still be growing up in a dangerous environment.

UCLA: "Shouldn't the law be that women in prison have the OPTION of caring for their kid or letting relatives adopt the child?"

NONAME: Should men have the same right?"

I think that the default should be that the child stays with the non-imprisoned parent presuming there are no child endangerment issues, and that there are extensive visitation options for the child and imprisoned parent.

I think there also be rooms where the inmate can have bonding time with the child (punishing the offender is one matter - that doesn't need the child needs to be punished).

If there is no mother and the father is imprisoned for non-violent crimes, I would support allowing him to have custody depending on what kind of institution he is in and depending on what other options are available (e.g., grandparents). Same for women.

Speaking from personal experience, I know that they have this to some extent in Illinois. My step-sister-in-law spent most of her last pregnancy incarcerated, and I believe could have kept the kid in jail with her for several months (maybe one year?), and would often have sleepovers with her 3 year old daughter. While this could be good for families, I know in this situation it would have been best that the kids be taken away from my SSIL as she is a terrible parent (to the point that she almost lost custody of her oldest to her parents/the grandparents except for a random state supreme court ruling that came down 3 days before her hearing). Unfortunately, it's often not the best for a child to be with its mother, and I think that's doubly true in jail/prison.

this is a tricky one, as mentioned above the intent of prison is to punish the offender, not the child.

i just dont see that the benefits of being raised to age 6 in a prison outweighing the risks. while the prison may in fact be safer and healthier than the home environments some of the families could provide that cant be the case with every child.

of course this would never be the case for fathers, I wonder if there is a father willing to take care of the child if the mother can still keep it in prison? another reason it wouldn't apply to men is the conditions in mens prisons, as far as I've read and seen, are far far worse than womens prisons and no place for a child unless they were placed in another area.

the intent behind this seems to be good but its just so complicated.

"No one would ever suggest having children live with their imprisoned fathers, and I can't think of a legitimate feminist reason for treating mothers (POST-birth, aside from obvious medical differences) any differently."

Ummmm....like Cara, I can think of one very legitimate reason: breastfeeding. Formula feeding isn't just "not quite as good": it subjects the baby to significantly greater risks to health, development, even death, not to mention a permanent reduction in brainpower and an increased likelihood of lifelong obesity.

And only women can breastfeed a child, which is something really awesome about women.

Alan

Cara, I agree one billion percent that prison reform is badly needed, certainly in our country and I'm sure in most if not all others.

But I think looking at it from that perspective complicates and conflates the issues unnecessarily. None of this changes the fact that we are talking about incarcerating newborn children for crimes their mothers have committed. I mean, if anything, this is horrendously sexist in that it punishes TWO people instead of one for the crimes of WOMEN ONLY.

As to the pro-choice rhetoric, I think it's misplaced here. I am completely pro-choice, but I don't think that includes letting the woman make all choices once the child is no longer part of her body. Once the baby is born, there's another person we have to consider. And I cannot see prison ever being the ideal place to raise a child, no matter how wrongful or unfair the parent's incarceration. Should we be concerned about people wrongfully imprisoned? ABSOLUTELY. Does this have anything to do with a child's welfare? I can't see how, logically, it does. Emotionally, we don't think it's fair to "take" a woman's child from her because she's in prison. But imagine we were talking about male inmates. Would anyone here actually suggest we should involuntarily stick 6-year-olds in prison with their dads?

I'm not trying to say the prison system is anywhere near fair, or perfect, or any of that. It's horrifically unfair and unjust and the people there often have their rights horribly violated, and all of this needs to come to an end. But aren't these all reasons why we *shouldn't* put baby humans there??

As for breast-feeding, while in general this is certainly a woman's choice issue, I don't see it as a women's issue in the prison context. All prisoners of any gender or sex have a whole host of rights taken away from them -- that's the nature of imprisonment. Again, leaving aside the question of whether this is done properly, the fact that a *woman's* rights are taken away, to me, does not automatically make this a feminist issue until we see inequality. So, if a woman is denied visits from her children while a man is not, that's a feminist issue. If men are given a greater number of conjugal visits than women, that's a feminist issue. If women's parental rights are wholly terminated more easily than are men's, that's a feminist issue (note here that when I say the kids shouldn't be in prison with their moms I am decidedly NOT saying she gives up her rights to the child; she just doesn't get to imprison another person along with her). When we say that we're not going to give women special rights to incarcerate their children along with them (again, regardless of whether they've been unfairly imprisoned), that's a step TOWARD, not away from, equality. And then we can focus our attention on much-needed prison reform.

In this country, foster care is a mess, and I can't imagine it would be better in Mexico. With this in mind, a parent in prison (but not a danger to the child) seems a far better option than a group home, especially at a very young age. That age is key to psychological development and without individual attention, that kid can be made into, literally, a sociopath. So I quite understand the emphasis here.

I don't know if prison is a better option, not knowing the state of the alternatives. I see no reason why a child should be REQUIRED to stay with his/her mother, though, that's definitely not in the child's best interest if fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles or some other relative or family friend can take the child.

I do not like seeing my mom in prison. It is loud and hot and she is not the same person I remember. And people are watching all the time. They didn't even let me bring in a hairbrush so she could do my braids. I am better off HERE. Why is it different for little kids?

Nobody answered the question of what happens if the mom is in jail BECAUSE OF child abuse. Then what?

"None of this changes the fact that we are talking about incarcerating newborn children for crimes their mothers have committed. I mean, if anything, this is horrendously sexist in that it punishes TWO people instead of one for the crimes of WOMEN ONLY."

You'd have a point here if you were talking about 5-year-olds. At the same time, being a newborn in the first place limits one's freedom even more than whether one's surrounded by prison walls or home walls. What difference does the lock on the door make when you can't leave the crib and reach the door?

"As to the pro-choice rhetoric, I think it's misplaced here. I am completely pro-choice, but I don't think that includes letting the woman make all choices once the child is no longer part of her body."

Right on.

"Nobody answered the question of what happens if the mom is in jail BECAUSE OF child abuse. Then what?"

Then definitely don't put the child in with her!

The cruelest thing here, to me, is the idea of institutionalizing children as infants and then ripping them away from the only person and environment they know at age six.

Maybe it's better if infants are raised by their mother, assuming the mother wants to do that - but they should be relinquished to a healthier environment long before they reach six years of age.

Meanwhile, what about school?

I mean, I've heard of kids normally starting as late as age 7 in part of Scandinavia, but in many other places they typically start at 5 or 6.

For kids who would start at 5: Would schooling be provided in their mothers' prisons (prison classrooms and homeschool-style lessons both seem possible), would they be given rides to schools outside, or would they be deprived of school altogether for the duration?

Wow. Interesting conversation.

I think the ideal situation would be a halfway house with minimum security for new mothers. Optional, of course, and depending on the severity and type the crime.

I am troubled by the lack of compassion for mothers who are incarcerated. Spending time with your child, especially a newborn, is important in a way I can't express in a comment on here. I don't know about Mexico, but I am assuming it is similar to the United States, where most prisoners are non violent offenders. Being incarcerated in no way means someone would be a terrible mother, and this mother bashing doesn't belong on a feminist board. Moms do not have to be saints. There are few crimes in which ones right to be a mother is taken away, so please don't impose this extra punishment on women.

"I think the ideal situation would be a halfway house with minimum security for new mothers. Optional, of course, and depending on the severity and type the crime."

Good point. If it didn't depend on the severity and type of the crime, then it could punish other convicts for not being new mothers. For example, sentencing someone to a medium-security prison instead of a minimum-security halfway house because she has no kids and isn't even pregnant instead of nursing a newborn.

"Being incarcerated in no way means someone would be a terrible mother, and this mother bashing doesn't belong on a feminist board."

Is it mother bashing or prisoner bashing, though?

In the article it says that they have a nursery school and a kindergarten and three teachers at the prison in Mexico.

Being incarcerated in no way means someone would be a terrible mother, and this mother bashing doesn't belong on a feminist board.

THANK YOU!

I am troubled by the lack of compassion for mothers who are incarcerated. Spending time with your child, especially a newborn, is important in a way I can't express in a comment on here. I don't know about Mexico, but I am assuming it is similar to the United States, where most prisoners are non violent offenders. Being incarcerated in no way means someone would be a terrible mother, and this mother bashing doesn't belong on a feminist board. Moms do not have to be saints. There are few crimes in which ones right to be a mother is taken away, so please don't impose this extra punishment on women.

Hilary, being a feminist doesn't mean you can never be critical of any woman, ever. That someone happens to be a mother definitely does NOT make her immune to criticism. And you'll note that (I believe) no one here is pretending that the criminal justice system is remotely fair in its treatment of people (and, thus, a lot of people are wrongfully imprisoned, etc.) The point is not that these women can never be good mothers. The point is that being in prison severely impairs your ability to raise a child, to the point where I would contend that someone else should be charged, at least temporarily, with the bulk of the child-rearing. This doesn't mean taking away their "right" to be mothers. It means putting the child's interests first, which is what a good mother (or father, for that matter) DOES. Just because a child doesn't live with her mother doesn't mean her mother is no longer her mother! If it did, I know a lot of children of divorce, to say nothing of all of us adult children, who would be quite surprised to learn that they no longer have mothers.

I absolutely agree that compassion for incarcerated mothers (and all incarcerated persons) is well warranted. What does this have to do with what's best for the child?

"It means putting the child's interests first, which is what a good mother (or father, for that matter) DOES. Just because a child doesn't live with her mother doesn't mean her mother is no longer her mother! If it did, I know a lot of children of divorce, to say nothing of all of us adult children, who would be quite surprised to learn that they no longer have mothers."

Likewise, don't forget all the ones who would be quite surprised to learn that they no longer have fathers.

I have an ex-father. I have not seen him in 10 years.

Do they ever arrest MARRIED women? If they do, can't the daddy take care of HIS OWN kids?

A male:
"'Inmate' is a guard's word."

I am getting the impression that you are more adversarial to the officers than you are to the inmates. If this is true then you need to examine your approach to work in a prison. Inmates should not be looked at like just another patient. They are in prison for a reason. I am not saying you have to check what they were convicted of before you check blood pressure, but you do have to be careful.

dananddanica:
"... the conditions in mens prisons, as far as I've read and seen, are far far worse than womens prisons and no place for a child unless they were placed in another area."

That is a popular misconception. I have talked to a number of people that have worked in both men's and women's prisons, including my mother. They have all agreed that the men's prisons are safer.

On the original issue, I think it would be much more harm than good to raise a child in a prison after two years old or even one year old. A child specialist once explained to me that a child starts formulating behavior when they start to remember and repeat words. Children start talking well before the age of six. I think we can all agree that we don't want a child's behavior constructed with the help of a prison atmosphere.

"I am getting the impression that you are more adversarial to the officers than you are to the inmates."

I wouldn't say that. But guards are not patient advocates, and safety, not human rights, are probably their priority, which is how it should be. Guards are not nurses, and nurses are not guards.

"Inmates should not be looked at like just another patient. They are in prison for a reason."

Considering the prevalence of unreported crime such as DV and rape (both sexes) in society, and the rampant use of drugs in my community, quite frankly, it would be a kind of discrimination to assume that someone in jail is much worse than someone outside. Women are raped by anybody. DV can also be committed by anybody, male or female. In the AA, NA (Narcotics Anonymous) and Al-Anon meetings I sometimes attend for study purposes, many members have criminal records (aside from being drug offenders by definition). I see them as nothing more than common blue collar workers I see anywhere in the local service economy.

"I am not saying you have to check what they were convicted of before you check blood pressure, but you do have to be careful."

It is what guards are for. You would be surprised how even criminals behave when respected like human beings. I was sitting close enough to touch knees with a young man in for attempted murder, who was there to tell me his story. He talked. I listened. He felt no need to assert himself beyond violating my personal space (probably unintentionally), and I was not afraid. I also met two women who wanted nothing more than to be with their children again. I believe they were there on drug offenses. They were well aware than any screwups on their special program* six months prior to release date, would mean more time. Mind you, a screwup included not being where they were supposed to be, when they were supposed to be, which was considered an escape, which could add IIRC, two years to their sentence.

* Something that should be noted about the local prison. It has a revolutionary program in place, the only one of its kind in the nation, and National Geographic was there last year to document it. Inmates six months prior to release can be selected to take part in a training program with military like discipline. Program participants live in communal dorm or barrack type housing with NO locked doors and NO guards inside. The women's quarters, also unlocked, are surrounded by the men's quarters. While on the program, they are required to get jobs OUTSIDE the prison. Some inmates are allowed to HAVE CARS, with which they are allowed to drive themselves to and from work. Just last month, a local book drive resulted in the community donating over 3,000 items to the prison. Inmates were overjoyed.

Women in jail living among men, with no locks and no guards? A prison without walls and barbed wire, surrounded by tall brush and mountains, next to a highway, 50 feet from the municipal golf course? Inmates leaving every morning to go to work in the community? Inmates with cars driving to work? Sound insane? I thought so too until I heard the success and safety record of the program. Contrast this to 25 years ago, when my entire 8th grade visited the prison in a scared straight type program, inmates were openly hostile to each other, offenders got thrown in "the hole," a dark room in the ceiling where they got bread and water (there is none now), and man on man rape was a problem. Too freakin' soft on wife beaters and rapists? You wouldn't want to be in there a single day.

Also keep in mind that this does not change my views on crime. I consider it a greater problem that most violent criminals never go in. It's for them I keep a gun.

You are balancing the positive effects of a child growing up with her mother against the negative effects of growing up in a prison. The weighing seems pretty simple to me.

To further complicate matters, IIRC there are lots of studies that say keeping a strong bond with children can reduce the rate of re-offense/reincarceration. So keeping a child with his or her mom may increase the odds that mom won't return to prison again, which is in most cases a net benefit.

The thing the women I saw and met in prison wanted most, was to see their kids again. One was practically crying that she was going to miss out on about five years of her daughter's life. The 11 year old daughter was pretty pissed the mother was in jail.

The thing the women I saw and met in prison wanted most, was to see their kids again. One was practically crying that she was going to miss out on about five years of her daughter's life. The 11 year old daughter was pretty pissed the mother was in jail.

I was 11 when my mom went to jail and I know she cried over missing me. I think she should be in drug treatment or a psych hospital and not jail, but I am glad she is not at my house. Things were pretty messed up around here the last 3 or 4 years before she was arrested.

Hilary wrote:
I am troubled by the lack of compassion for mothers who are incarcerated. Spending time with your child, especially a newborn, is important in a way I can't express in a comment on here. I don't know about Mexico, but I am assuming it is similar to the United States, where most prisoners are non violent offenders. Being incarcerated in no way means someone would be a terrible mother, and this mother bashing doesn't belong on a feminist board. Moms do not have to be saints. There are few crimes in which ones right to be a mother is taken away, so please don't impose this extra punishment on women.

________________________

So are you assuming that non-violent offenders are per se able to parent? Sorry, but a woman on crack is not fit to parent. Period.

Contrary to popular belief, people aren't jailed for no reason. They certainly aren't sent to PRISON, which is reserved only for people convicted of felony offenses.

When you commit a felony, you forfeit your right to breastfeed, bond, etc. with your child. That's the way the world works.

I don't see why the children should be imprisoned for their mothers' crimes. That seems far worse than missing out on the benefits of breastmilk, IMO.

The federal system strikes a balance between some of the competing needs people have identified here. Pregnant inmates go to a separate special facility where they give birth and take care of their newborns for a period of months. Having older children in an institution raises serious safety and developmental concerns. I've visited prisons of differing security levels and even the low security ones are pretty institutional and scary and nowhere you'd want to raise a child.

Maintaining the mother-child bond is very difficult for incarcerated moms in the federal system. Because the Bureau of Prisons stretches across the country, they can be sent anywhere, making visitation impossible in some cases.

It is pretty heartbreaking to see, particularly when they are incarcerated for non-violent offenses like FEMA fraud or immigration.

I thought immigration problems were a misdemeanor. Why are they in prison?

"They certainly aren't sent to PRISON, which is reserved only for people convicted of felony offenses."

You may be surprised how normal people who are addicted to alcohol or illegal drugs are. Try any AA or NA meeting to see. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who are alcoholic or use illegal drugs are never arrested or go to prison, to be judged as having a criminal record. Laura Bush killed a boy while DUI as a student, and the President is rather coy about his life prior to 1983. Laura Bush, at least, was fit to parent.

Also, you may be surprised by what constitutes a felony, such as shoplifting.

"I thought immigration problems were a misdemeanor. Why are they in prison?"

That story is about women in prison in Mexico. According to the story, they run the gamut from drug offenders to murderers. If it were a prison in Minnesota, they could be shoplifters.

Sorry for the OT, but there are many immigration offenses that are felonies, including coming back in the country after you have been deported after you commit a felony, or knowingly giving an illegal alien a ride in your car.

A male is right -- "felony" is not necessarily reserved for particularly serious crimes. For example, in some states, I was surprised to learn that possession of any detectable amount of a drug other than marijuana is a felony. How crimes are punished can be a function of politics rather than public safety.

"Guards are not nurses, and nurses are not guards."

True, but if you work in a prison then you are part of the security effort of the prison.

"You would be surprised how even criminals behave when respected like human beings."

What are you implying by that statement? That I don't treat criminals like human beings? That officers don't treat criminals like human beings?

"I was sitting close enough to touch knees with a young man in for attempted murder, who was there to tell me his story. He talked. I listened. He felt no need to assert himself beyond violating my personal space (probably unintentionally), and I was not afraid. I also met two women who wanted nothing more than to be with their children again."

This is the first stage of a con-game setup. An inmate shares a story with you designed to tug at your heart strings. It's possible that there is nothing more intended, but I am giving you a fair warning here. I don't mean to sound overly preachy, but you have a lot to learn about working in a prison.

"I believe they were there on drug offenses."

You contradicted yourself. You said earlier that nurses are famous for not looking at the charges.

"... quite frankly, it would be a kind of discrimination to assume that someone in jail is much worse than someone outside."

Wrong. I will give you an example. Your chances of being taken hostage are much greater if you are working in a prison compared to an average of all other jobs in America.

if we were to talk about more ideal parent-in-prison situations, for a second, the community prisoner mother program in california, among others, represent situations for mothers to live with their children in lower-security, more family-friendly environments.

bottom line is that prison is not a good place for any person to develop.

penal situations vary, as do crimes, but the current incarceration programs in the us and in mexico are out of control. prison has become an industry and, as numbers on recidivism and funding trends show, reform is not really an objective right now.

while mexico doesn't nearly approach the level of incarceration we have here, that doesn't mean prisoners there are necessarily more dangerous than prisoners here.

of the charges mentioned in the article, only one could roughly be interpreted as murder, though the description sounds more like what we'd call manslaughter here.

further, considering it's mexico, it's important to recognize that 42.6% of inmates are still awaiting trial, ie. not even convicted of anything. (World Prison Brief of the International Centre for Prison Studies).

one of the mothers in the article has been awaiting trial for 3 years, during which she gave birth.

while choice is certainly key, and is keenly lacking in mexico's policy, some of the ideas posited on here suggest that women arrested on charges and/or convicted of crimes should not have that choice.

q,

would you condemn an arrested mother to forfeit her child? in the us, if she were awaiting trial in jail because she could not afford bail, what would the call be? that is the situation for many of the mothers in question.

though i think it's established we're not just talking about accused or convicted felons in this case (no distinction is made in the article), i know felony graffiti convicts here and even petty theft seems a more nefarious than spray paint.

mexico has been going through similar processes as the us, in terms of "tougher-on-crime" initiatives, increasing the penalties for plenty of non-violent crime for short-term political gains.

further, considering that i've known good parents who have been to prison (ie, felons, in the us) and plenty of terrible parents who haven't, and considering that lengthy incarceration, both in mexico and in the us, is undeniably tied to economic factors, i'd say that giving the state the power to seperate young children from any incarcerated mother is not a thought-out position.

oh, and have we forgotten that mexico is a country in the midst of political turmoil and that many people in prison happen to be teachers, activists, farmers and the unlucky?

the council on hemispheric affairs had a report, "the wretched plight of mexico's crippled prison system", which goes more in depth into some of these issues.

children ought to be protected from dangerous situations and dangerous people. however, we ought to be careful when harshly judging folks who've ended up on the wrong side of the law for whatever reason.

"there but for fortune may go you or i"

"I believe they were there on drug offenses."
"You contradicted yourself. You said earlier that nurses are famous for not looking at the charges."

No, they told us what they were there for of their own volition. When sitting in anger management sessions, they also openly spoke of what they were there for, DV or drug issues.

"You would be surprised how even criminals behave when respected like human beings."
"What are you implying by that statement? That I don't treat criminals like human beings? That officers don't treat criminals like human beings?"

The priority of guards is security and safety, and behave accordingly. I am not accusing anyone of abuses, but nurses are not the ones dressed in riot gear or with weapons. It is the nurse who is expected to stand up for the patient's rights, and relies on guards to keep peace if their own authority is not recognized. This is true in prisons, as well as any outside medical facility. In prison, the nurse has the added responsibility of acting without a physician present, or making the decision to have the inmate transferred outside for treatment.

"I am giving you a fair warning here. I don't mean to sound overly preachy, but you have a lot to learn about working in a prison."

This is a small island community of 65,000, sufficiently small for prisoners to truthfully taunt nurses with "I saw you standing outside your house" or "I know where you live." The nurse told us if we couldn't live with things like that, we couldn't make it.

"... quite frankly, it would be a kind of discrimination to assume that someone in jail is much worse than someone outside."
"Wrong. I will give you an example. Your chances of being taken hostage are much greater if you are working in a prison compared to an average of all other jobs in America."

And I live in Hawaii, where prisons are not as seen in "America's Worst Prisons" or "World's Most Dangerous Videos" as seen in say, Brazil. There are facilities with bad reputations statewide, but at the local prison, where prisoners request to be sent, nurses in the clinic usually leave the guard sitting outside for privacy, another right of the patient, and HIPAA for any other facility. As you appear to be a prison guard, you in particular may be surprised (pleasantly or otherwise) by how this unique prison operates. Would you allow prisoners with six months left on their sentence to live in bunkhouses outside along the highway without fences or locks on the doors? Would you allow women to live next door to the men, also without locks? Would you allow your prisoners to drive their own cars to work and expect them to come back on time every day (without contraband and weapons)? The warden of the prison, who instituted his unique and first ever in the nation program, has not been disappointed. Regrettably, I cannot find the National Geographic coverage that was supposed to have come out in spring.

The Law Fairy: "As for breast-feeding, while in general this is certainly a woman's choice issue, I don't see it as a women's issue in the prison context. All prisoners of any gender or sex have a whole host of rights taken away from them -- that's the nature of imprisonment."

But it's not the issue of a woman's right to breastfeed--as you say, she has been (we presume) adjudicated guilty of some crime and can be deprived of some rights. It is the *child's* right to receive breastmilk instead of a dangerously inferiour substance that makes breastfeeding a crucial issue here.

Alan

" . . . there are many immigration offenses that are felonies, including coming back in the country after you have been deported after you commit a felony, or knowingly giving an illegal alien a ride in your car."

Giving an alien a ride is a felony? Crap, I'd do that to save them a walk in the heat if I felt like it.

BTW, speaking of "human treatment" for inmates, there was an interesting incident shortly before I arrived at the psychiatric hospital one day, my first choice of where I'd like to spend the remainder of my career, at least 25 years, particularly if I want to earn retirement. Security was called for a man who was agitated. With the locked gate between them, the guards taunted the man*, escalating the situation. Finally, it was the nurses who confined the man in a "safe room," which is actually the visiting room with telephone. The man proceeded to trash the room during the night, leaving his feces everywhere.

* Nurses were not happy. Violent criminals such as sex offenders are kept here, as well. There are no guards inside, with no locked doors in the wing. But it is where I and a number of young female Filipino nurses (only two men) want to be.

Law Fairy, your later points about not punishing children for the crimes of their mother and the sexism of that are well taken, but:

And we have to be realistic: if mom is in prison, the chances she'll be a good mother are pretty fucking slim.

Well, let's consider that women of color are imprisoned at a very disproportionate rate due to racism in the justice system and our very blatantly racist war-on-drugs laws and three-strikes laws. Many of these women are imprisoned unjustly and are no better or worse mothers than those in the communities they came from.

Your statement strikes me as classist and racist.

Q: Contrary to popular belief, people aren't jailed for no reason.

Right, being of color is one reason people are jailed and imprisoned. And it was noted by scorch that "knowingly giving an illegal alien a ride in your car" is a felony. You can't honestly believe that someone convicted of violating this ridiculous law ("You are not permitted to be kind to a stranger, it's a crime!!!!111one!!!") is automatically unsuited to being a parent.

"And it was noted by scorch that "knowingly giving an illegal alien a ride in your car" is a felony. You can't honestly believe that someone convicted of violating this ridiculous law ("You are not permitted to be kind to a stranger, it's a crime!!!!111one!!!") is automatically unsuited to being a parent."

Particularly in the US, if one's partner is the illegal, which can often be the case. Or someone smokes marijuana, which used to be a way of life for many when I was a child, including elementary school classmates and adult neighbors on three sides of my house, whom my parents suspected of growing marijuana on our land. I also knew people in high school who used cocaine in the 80s, when that was the glamorous drug, including at our graduation party. All serial felons! Oooooo.

"Contrary to popular belief, people aren't jailed for no reason."

To be busted and convicted for drug possession, DUI, stealing, assault, DV or even rape, considering how common they are, may simply be pure luck of the draw. Which is why I consider people who are NOT in prison and unknown to me because of their average appearance, the ones to be worried about.

You know for a feminist site (wanting equal rights) sometimes the bloggers and commentators come off and very anti-feminist (not wanting equal rights but special rights for women). Why in the world would you subject a child to prison life?

"I cringe at the idea of children being taken away from their mothers..." -Jessica

Do you cringe at the idea having a child taken away from a father particuarly who is imprisoned, probably not.

I am sorry but once you commit a crime and wind up in prison you lose your right to parent for whatever time period you are incarcerated.

"It is the *child's* right to receive breastmilk instead of a dangerously inferiour substance that makes breastfeeding a crucial issue here."
-SlackerInc

Plenty of babies are formula fed and turn out just fine and who is to say that a wet nurse cannot be employed or breast milk from a milk bank be received.

I am very glad this is going on in Mexico and not the US because if my tax dollars were funding this I would be pissed. I know it is not the general consensus but I do not value a mothers rights over a fathers rights.

"Do you cringe at the idea having a child taken away from a father particuarly who is imprisoned, probably not."

I do not recall reading that a father figure was present at all, or evidence that other family members or foster care would be better than what I hope would be a state sponsored, nurturing environment, with child care or schools.

My only problem, lacking evidence that children are being raised in traumatizing conditions, is that this program is a Mexico City "mandate," robbing families (including children) of choice.

People who are drug users (and other sorts of non violent offenders) are fit to parent in some cases and are parents, whether or not you see them as "fit", all over the country. Some are addicted to pain killers, some are alcoholics, some are potheads, and some have served jail time or are serving jail time. The foster system is awful in this country. It is really easy to sit in an ivory tower and exclaim that people you don't approve of don't get to be parents, but even child abusers usually have some sort of attempts by the system to keep the families intact with forms of therapy, unless the abuse was severe or sexual. There aren't thousands of squeaky clean childless families and upstanding family members beating down the door to adopt these kids.

And, what if it is a short sentence? A year? Are they suddenly fit again because the mandated sentence has run out? I am all for extensively family services for ALL families, including ones in which a parents is or has been incarcerated, but parents are shitty, violent, and neglectful all over, not just when one parent is convicted of a non violent offense. What is wrong with halfway houses?

"What is wrong with halfway houses?"

Nothing, as long as other prisoners convicted of the same things the mothers were convicted of get the same halfway house option.

For example: If mothers convicted of burglary and childless women, childless men, and fathers convicted of burglary all get to stay in halfway houses, then that's fair.

If mothers convicted of burglary get to stay in halfway houses but childless women, childless men, and fathers have to stay in regular prisons instead then that's giving them additional punishment for not being mothers.

I believe being a parent with a criminal conviction merits consideration in sentencing, in the same way other factors such as severity and circumstances of the crime, character witness testimony, steady and favorable employment history, or prior criminal record, weigh in. (Apparently, even murder is not serious enough to deny a mother her child in Mexico.) For example, six US states allow inmates to have conjugal visits. (Why only six, if at all? That sucks.)

"A conjugal visit is a scheduled extended visit during which an inmate of a prison is permitted to spend several hours or days in private, usually with a legal spouse. While the parties may engage in sexual intercourse, the generally recognized basis for permitting such a visit in modern times is to preserve family bonds and increase the chances of success for a prisoner's eventual return to life outside prison."

"The visit will usually take place in a structure provided for that purpose, such as a trailer or small cabin. Supplies such as soap, condoms, tissues, sheets, pillows, and towels may be provided." (Wikipedia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugal_visit

Extended visits of "several hours or days in private," in a specially designated structure with possible motel amenities, for goodness sake. I suppose guests get fed three times a day using tax dollars, too. Is it added punishment for unmarried, separated, divorced, widowed or single inmates to go without sex or comparable visitation privileges from other partners or family members? (And if so, should these inmates in such facilities be allowed visits by other partners or professional sex workers, or use of resources like matchmaking sites to find them suitable partners for approved forms of sexual release?)

[Note: the federal system does not permit conjugal visits, and Wikipedia recognizes only California as permitting same sex conjugal visits. Are gay inmates receiving additional punishment for being born gay? I have also read of trans people in prison. I guess they should have equal rights here, as well, as has already been recognized in California. It is not their fault for being born.]

Considering parenthood in sentencing is no more or less discriminatory than those other factors such as being legally married or having a steady partner, or having people willing to say nice things (perhaps lies) about you. As I mentioned, it may well be that concern for the well being of their child is added motivation for the parent to serve their time uneventfully or to change their ways. Or not, for others. Take it on a case by case basis, as it is with conjugal visitation rights. (No STDs? That's harsh. What about incurable conditions such as herpes or HIV that are probably not their fault?) Non custodial parents, less skilled or less involved parents/partners, and the childless still have a number of other factors to consider during sentencing. I believe severity of the crime, potential for flight, and potential for recidivism should be among the most important criteria if putting someone in a minimum security or community based facility.

Sorry, I am in med school and don't get to check back in on old conversations all the time.

Mina, programs that help one subgroup are not made on the backs of other subgroups. No oppressed person gains rights by denying rights to others. If it was up to me, most if not all non violent offenders would be able to be in community based programs, and fathers would be encouraged to share some sort of joint custody or active visitation with their children.

But, there is not only one person involved in this conversation. Parenting is a relationship. You need to consider the child and the parent, not just look at this as some sort of intangible reward or perk to the incarcerated parent. I know a strong parenting relationship can reduce recidivism for the parent, I am fairly sure the improved bond would decrease the likelihood the child would end up in prison, also. It should also make the transition back to society and active parenting and custody easier.

No one is arguing that unfit parents should be parents. However, incarceration in and of itself does not make someone an unfit parent. If government social programs are trying to keep families together after addiction and/or abuse, and have determined this to be a worthwhile goal and to society's benefit, these goals should also extend to prisons.