Ashawna Abbott

Moral Agency and Privacy Allocation

When we first think of prison offenders, we can generally presuppose that people
living in prison facilities deserve to be there. Having done some harm to society, we leave
the handling of their rights up to policy makers who control these facilities. In order to
hold conversations about prisoner rights however, we need to be impartial with the
negative connotations surrounding prison inmates and think them as people. In doing so,
we can properly discuss issues inmates face, such as their moral agency and their lack of
privacy. The topic of a prison inmates right to privacy has had little attention in
philosophical and legal literature. One of few philosophical articles written about inmate
privacy is Treating Inmates as Moral Agents: A Defense of the Right to Privacy in
Prison by philosopher William Blow. In this article, Blow defends an inmate's right to
privacy by equating the importance of privacy to respecting inmates as moral agents with
three different arguments. First, he argues that privacy is crucial for moral agency
development. Second, privacy is important for moral agency because it has societal
importance. Lastly he argues that privacy is crucial for individuals to perceive themselves
as trustworthy. He also supports his argument with three theories of punishment:
retributivism, consequentialism and the moral education theory of punishment, which
will be critically analysed later in this paper. I will argue against one of his dispositions.
Prior to my refutation of his position however, it is important that we define privacy,
moral agency and asses Blows argument.

Abbott 1

Moral agency is necessary in the debate of providing privacy to prisoners. We

must first recognize them as moral agents in order to consider allocating them privacy..
Moral agency, as described in Blows article, is difficult to define. In essence, moral
agency is a combination of autonomy and responsiveness that allows someone to make
the right choices in life. There are two aspects of moral agency that Blow uses to
support his argument. First, moral agency involves responsiveness to moral
considerations. (Blow, 3) A moral agent is someone who is moved by and is able to take
moral considerations into account when deliberating about practical matters. Second,
moral agency presupposes that the agent is autonomous and is able to act voluntarily
(Blow, 3). In utilizing these aspects of moral agency, Blow makes the case that moral
agency is necessary for privacy and vice versa.
There are three different forms of punishment that support Blows theory of the
necessity of nurturing moral agency. Although the writer doesnt directly side by these
juxtapositions, each of these justifications for punishment - which is equated to prison
conditions in this case support the importance of recognizing moral agency. These
three forms of punishment are retributivism, consequentialism and the moral education
theory of punishment.
The first theory of justification for punishment that Blow addresses is
retributivism. Retributivism is the idea that punishment is not only meant to restore
justice or make the offender suffer, but is also a way of ascribing blame (Blow, 4). This
common reasoning behind the justification of punishment essentially holds people
accountable for their transgressions and, in doing so, ascribes them as individuals capable

Abbott 2

of moral agency. Blow also points out that because retributivism holds people
accountable for their actions i.e presupposes they are moral agents- the individual must
also remain one while serving their sentence or else punishment is no longer necessary
(Blow, 4). Using retributivism ideology, if the prison inmate isnt seen as a moral agent
then they will no longer be an appropriate subject for punishment, further perpetuating
Blows argument.
The second form of punishment Blow describes is consequentialism.
Consequentialism suggests that the justification of punishment lies in its effects, as the
means towards certain goods (Blow, 4). For this argument, the certain goods resulting
from punishment are crime prevention and other benefits to society. As opposed to
retributivism, consequentialism assumes that punishment reduces crime and generates
other positive consequences versus just serving as a means of negative punishment for
crimes. Consequentialists further embrace the idea that respecting and strengthening
convicted offenders moral agency may promote a sense of civic responsibility in the
convicted offender (Blow, 4). In example, if we give a teenager chores as well as
respect and some privileges, the teen is more prone to develop a sense of responsibility;
which can be paralleled to providing offenders with respect. With this ideology, it is
evident that promoting civic responsibility would increase moral agency, supporting
Blows argument.
The final form of punishment Blow uses to support his claim for the necessity of
moral agency is the moral education theory. Like consequentialism, the moral education
theory is based on the idea that punishment generates good consequences (Blow, 5). For

Abbott 3

this form of punishment however, the good consequence resulting from punishment is
education. Jean Hampton, a political philosopher referenced by Blow, argues from a
moral education theorist perspective that punishment is not meant to condition offenders
to do what society requires them to do, but it is a way of teaching offenders that what
they have done is morally wrong (Blow, 5). By believing that offenders have the
capacity to change, this theory assumes moral agency in them, further supporting
Blows argument. In assuming moral agency, this ideology exacerbates the necessity to
see offenders as accountable, moral agents.
Now that I have outlined the importance of moral agency, I shall now identify
privacy as well as construct its relevance to moral agency. Privacy is a key element in
Blows argument for prisoner privacy, thus, it is important to outline exactly what he
means when he uses the word. In his paper, Blow defines privacy as the right to be able
to control others access to information about oneself, to ones intimacies, to ones
thoughts and beliefs, and to ones body (Blow, 7). Privacys main focus, as inferred
from the definition, is to give a sense of control to those who have it. Furthermore, there
is more than one right to privacy being defended. Offenders should have the right to
privacy from other inmates, privacy from sharing personal information and personal
privacy. Privacy, Blow argues (which is entwined with his societal importance
argument), is a human right we all have, and should be exercised as such (Blow, 7).
If we view offenders as moral agents, the need for their privacy becomes an
important issue. As autonomous beings, they should be able to have some control over
their personal, private and physical privacy. The connection between moral agency and

Abbott 4

privacy is that, privacy serves as a way of increasing moral agency. Because moral
agency is important in becoming full autonomous beings, its essential we give prisoners
this right to moral agency through providing them with privacy. Blow provides three
argument that support the need for privacy for offenders. His three arguments are that
privacy is crucial for moral agency development, privacy has societal importance and
privacy is crucial for individuals to perceive themselves as trustworthy.
The first argument defending the right to privacy for offenders is that privacy is
crucial for moral agency development. Providing offenders with privacy increases their
ability to make decisions, thus effecting their moral agency. Falls-Corbitt, a philosopher
Blow references in his writing, states that an individuals ability to critically assess the
standards of behavior encouraged by those around him or her, and to do what they do
because they believe it is right and good, largely depends on conditions of privacy
(Blow, 8). This statement by Falls-Corbitt highlights the importance of privacy
conditions in relation to moral agency. If we provide offenders with sufficient amounts of
privacy given Falls-Corbitts disposition, they will be able to make sound autonomous
choices which in turn, creates a safer environment and nurtures their moral agency.
The second argument in defense of privacy for offenders is that privacy has
societal importance. In society outside of correctional institutions, individuals are seen as
autonomous and self-determined beings. The lack of that concept being applied to
offenders devalues their moral agency and is essentially dehumanizing. It is not
uncommon for inmates to feel as though they belong to someone else because of the
lack of privacy (Blow, 9). Falls-Corbitt states that an individual can grow into a sense

Abbott 5

of himself as a self-determining being only by participating in a practice that recognizes

him as the proper one to determine when others will have access to him. (Blow, 8).
Essentially, offenders need to have some sense of control over their lives in order to grow
into fully self-determined, autonomous beings. In example, many offenders find that
having their phone calls recorded by administration is unnecessarily invasive because
they have no control over who is listening and may feel pressured to not discuss personal
issues with loved ones. This can hamper their relationships with others as well as
decrease their perceived sense of control. Control, as mentioned before, is a key element
to moral agency, which in this case, is being undermined.
The third argument presented is that privacy is crucial for offenders to see
themselves as trustworthy. Constant surveillance and precautionary measures are taken in
prison facilities to ensure safety, however, they undermine an offenders autonomy and
feeling of trustworthiness. Blow agrees with philosopher Richard Lippkes analysis of
correctional facilities that not being subject to constant surveillance or monitoring
provides convicted offenders with the physical and psychological space in which they
might attempt to behave responsibly (Blow, 9). Constant surveillance is detrimental to
an offenders moral agency. It leaves little room for the offender to be motivated by moral
considerations when rules and scrutiny is forced upon them and communicates a sense of
distrust from the facility to the inmate.
There are many ways that lack of privacy prove detrimental to offenders moral
agency and self-concept. As expressed in Blows few arguments, lack of privacy can
decrease morale, trustworthiness, self-determination and ultimately moral agency.

Abbott 6

Constant surveillance communicates to an inmate that they are not to be trusted (Burlow,
10) and so, they act as agents incapable of self-determination. In society outside of
correctional institutions, individuals act as autonomous beings because they are seen as
such. In providing offenders privacy, we provide them with means to become
autonomous, decision making people which in the long run, could produce great benefits
to society. Nurturing autonomy would in turn, increase safety within inmates, correctional
facilities and society because offenders would being to critically analyze their actions and
make decisions based on moral considerations.
Allocating more privacy to offenders could potentially create a safer environment
inside and outside of correctional facilities (Blow, 14). Focusing on invasive procedures
like strip searches and drug tests, one can infer the dehumanizing experience offenders
face. These invasive procedures engender detrimental feelings in offenders; feelings of
embarrassment, untrustworthiness and humiliation to name a few (Blow, 14). Blow
offers ways to minimize the invasion of privacy in correctional facilities with Principle of
Minimizing Invasion of Privacy (PMIP).
The principle of minimizing invasion of privacy (PMIP) emphasizes the
importance of privacy. PMIP states that Imprisonment should be carried out in such a
way that it is compatible with as much respect for individuals rights to privacy as
possible, without compromising security and safety within the penal institution;
otherwise its conditions are morally wrong. (Blow, 15). This principle addresses the
necessity of security procedures without compromising the need for privacy. It is also a
way of ensuring the balance between privacy and safety, while eliminating invasive

Abbott 7

safety procedures. Blow makes the case that the right to privacy and the right to
security are not exclusive. (Blow, 15). In this, he is acknowledging that we dont have
to give up one to compensate for the other. Privacy and security can come harmoniously
in a correctional facility.
Blow provides a number of examples if the PMIP perspective were to be
implemented in correctional facilities. An example Blow provides from the PMIP
perspective is if instead of invasive strip searches, facilities were to use of strip searches
only when there is strong reason for suspicion. In doing so, offenders morale and
trustworthiness increase, contributing to their moral agency positively all while
maintaining safety of correctional facilities.
Another example of the PMIP perspective at work that Blow provides is if
offenders were provided with their own cells. By providing them with their own rooms,
offenders can have physical and psychological space to critically assess their behavior
without the influence of others. It also instills a sense of trust and responsibility which
aids in the development of moral agency (Blow, 15).
After assessing Blows article, I have come to disagree with one of his
arguments for the necessity of privacy for offenders, as well as his reasoning of PMIP
consideration. I will now address and undermine these propositions Blow has discussed.
The first argument proposed for the reasoning as to why privacy is necessary is
that privacy is crucial for moral agency development. It is true that privacy is necessary
for all individuals, however, I do not agree that it is crucial for moral agency

Abbott 8

development. Blow had used these two elements of moral agency for his argument: 1.
A moral agent is someone who is moved by and is able to take moral considerations into
account when deliberating about practical matters. And 2. Moral agency presupposes
that the agent is autonomous and is able to act voluntarily. These definitions do not
detail how one maintains moral agency, so it shouldnt be assumed that privacy develops
it.
Furthermore, there are other ways offenders can increase their moral agency;
aside from maximizing privacy. Although correctional facilities are portrayed as stark and
unstimulating, there are actually a number of programs and counseling services available
to offenders that can help nurture their moral agency. As an organizer for Prisoners
Express, a program that promotes creativity and literacy in prison, I can attest that
providing stimulating exercises to offenders is a huge way to increase morale, selfconcept and moral agency. There are nearly five thousand active members of the program
that write to us and request books regularly. One prisoner writes My spiritual journey
has led me to believe that I have a purpose to be in here... I am helping people overturn
their convictions with legal matters (Anonymous, 1), referencing his desire to help those
around him by distributing legal books we send his way. By increasing creative programs
and services, we can sustain moral agency without changing or compromising necessary
safety procedures, as shown through Prisoner Express.
In discussing PMIP, Blow suggests that it is the best way to balance privacy and
safety, and provides a few examples as to how. One of his examples was if correctional
facilities were to allocate a single room to each offender (Blow, 5). I believe this idea is

Abbott 9

highly unrealistic. In a society where there are more prisons than colleges and
overcrowding is a forefront issue, there is not enough space or funding to provide such a
luxury to offenders, We could however, reform the stringency of laws to decrease the
amount if people filling these facilities to decrease overcrowding. We have to first fix the
problem of overcrowding before even considering allocating funds towards single
rooming.
In conclusion, I believe that Blow does an exceptional job in defending an
offenders right to privacy. His arguments were all sound and encompassed the
importance of moral agency in respect to privacy. I do however, feel as though Blow
was slightly unrealistic with a few of his arguments. As Blow points out, Inmates right
to privacy in prison has received little attention in the philosophical literature on crime
and punishment. (Blow, 1). It is a neglected topic that should be discussed more and
essentially, changed does need to be made in the prison systems forms of invading
privacy, however, Blows suggestions are unrealistic routes to that reform.

Abbott 10

Work Cited
Blow, William (2014) Treating Inmates as Moral Agents: A Defense of the Right to
Privacy in Prison, Criminal Justice Ethics. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2014.902654
Prisoners Express (2015). Theme Writing Project.

Abbott 11