1. I do think terminally ill inmates should be addressed by correctional facilities with programs such as hospice care, especially those prisons who have a significant population of aged offenders; for example, Angola has 85% of its population already aging. Programs that address terminally ill patients, such as the hospice program, do not only benefit the patient, but also the inmate who volunteers and the nurses; it allows for the inmate to stop thinking in selfish ways because he is now caring for another human being and the nurses receive that extra help to bathe, feed, and talk to patients.
According to ethics of care, one should help the offender to become a better person because that is what a caring and committed relationship would entail. This perspective supports punishments only when it is essential to help the offender become a better person. This perspective would apply to improve the volunteer inmate’s behavior through hospice care in order to make him a better person. The offender would practice empathy and compassion toward other inmates that are in delicate conditions. Terminally ill patients do not need an offender who is highly educated or not, they just need someone who is human and that will take care of them. Throughout the volunteers followed in the documentary, we perceive the level of education each have; Justin Granier had some background in medical school, Anthony Middlebrook came from a healthy family, Charles Rogers came form a family of criminal offenders, and Ronald Ratlif is not discussed. However, we see how they are all assigned to the same patients for vigil and they all do the same thing: make sure that the patient is comfortable and dies in peace. 2. Convicted murderers who are terminally ill and who are serving life sentences, should be eligible for care in a volunteer hospice program. Definitely the record of the patient’s behavior throughout their time in prison would serve as a basis of eligibility. Although I would like for prisons to abide by the generalization principle, all decisions should be made assuming that the decision would be applied to everyone else in a similar circumstance. However, another criteria to be included is that inmates who are diagnosed with the terminal illness are the ones who have to dictate how they want to die. Additionally, as the Angola prison does, the inmate who is volunteering to take care of those in hospice care, will not know the offense of the patient he is appointed to. Mercy, compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm. I firmly believe that these offenders deserve mercy under the principle of peacemaking justice, which is an ancient approach to justice that includes the concepts of compassion and care, connectedness and mindfulness. As Bryan Stevenson said, “we are more than the worst thing we have done” and although these criminals have probably killed in cold blood, they are being punished already, they are serving their time, and I think they do retain their right to be treated with “dignity of person”. Under the ethics of care, the concern would rely on helping the offender …show more content…
Several of them mention that they would like for others to do the same for them when they are of age, thus demonstrating the enlightened egoism; it is in the inmate’s long-term best interest to help others in order to receive help in return. However, throughout the documentary the two volunteers who portray the most drastic change are Charles Rodgers “Boston” and Anthony Middlebrook. They both represent the both ends of a pendulum, Charles was raised in a criminal family, whereas Anthony was raised in a wealthy family.
Charles Rodgers demonstrated social maturity throughout the documentary, at the end he was marked with the ability to empathize with others and was willing to compromise the patient’s desires. He demonstrated uncomfortableness with the first contact he had with a chronic ill patient, as well as, when he is asked to prepare a dead body for a funeral. Once he got a terminally ill patient appointed, Walter Chance, he expressed discouragement by Walter’s behavior. However, with time they managed to bond more intimately, which created a noticeable change in Charles’ behavior as noted by his mom when he visited
According to ethics of care, one should help the offender to become a better person because that is what a caring and committed relationship would entail. This perspective supports punishments only when it is essential to help the offender become a better person. This perspective would apply to improve the volunteer inmate’s behavior through hospice care in order to make him a better person. The offender would practice empathy and compassion toward other inmates that are in delicate conditions. Terminally ill patients do not need an offender who is highly educated or not, they just need someone who is human and that will take care of them. Throughout the volunteers followed in the documentary, we perceive the level of education each have; Justin Granier had some background in medical school, Anthony Middlebrook came from a healthy family, Charles Rogers came form a family of criminal offenders, and Ronald Ratlif is not discussed. However, we see how they are all assigned to the same patients for vigil and they all do the same thing: make sure that the patient is comfortable and dies in peace. 2. Convicted murderers who are terminally ill and who are serving life sentences, should be eligible for care in a volunteer hospice program. Definitely the record of the patient’s behavior throughout their time in prison would serve as a basis of eligibility. Although I would like for prisons to abide by the generalization principle, all decisions should be made assuming that the decision would be applied to everyone else in a similar circumstance. However, another criteria to be included is that inmates who are diagnosed with the terminal illness are the ones who have to dictate how they want to die. Additionally, as the Angola prison does, the inmate who is volunteering to take care of those in hospice care, will not know the offense of the patient he is appointed to. Mercy, compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm. I firmly believe that these offenders deserve mercy under the principle of peacemaking justice, which is an ancient approach to justice that includes the concepts of compassion and care, connectedness and mindfulness. As Bryan Stevenson said, “we are more than the worst thing we have done” and although these criminals have probably killed in cold blood, they are being punished already, they are serving their time, and I think they do retain their right to be treated with “dignity of person”. Under the ethics of care, the concern would rely on helping the offender …show more content…
Several of them mention that they would like for others to do the same for them when they are of age, thus demonstrating the enlightened egoism; it is in the inmate’s long-term best interest to help others in order to receive help in return. However, throughout the documentary the two volunteers who portray the most drastic change are Charles Rodgers “Boston” and Anthony Middlebrook. They both represent the both ends of a pendulum, Charles was raised in a criminal family, whereas Anthony was raised in a wealthy family.
Charles Rodgers demonstrated social maturity throughout the documentary, at the end he was marked with the ability to empathize with others and was willing to compromise the patient’s desires. He demonstrated uncomfortableness with the first contact he had with a chronic ill patient, as well as, when he is asked to prepare a dead body for a funeral. Once he got a terminally ill patient appointed, Walter Chance, he expressed discouragement by Walter’s behavior. However, with time they managed to bond more intimately, which created a noticeable change in Charles’ behavior as noted by his mom when he visited