Rebuttal- lokiofasgard

Posted on November 16, 2021 by lokiofasgard24

There are many doctors and scientists who believe sunscreen is helpful. They have recorded studies on how sunscreen prevents sunburn. In addition, the corporations selling this product will market it as the best form of protection. These can mislead anyone into believing that sunscreen must be used and is the only thing to prevent sunburn. The belief that being completely blocked from the sun is somehow the healthiest form of sun protection is absurd. They are looking at it all wrong. The sun’s rays, harmful and beneficial, should be absorbed in order to reap the benefits and build strong and healthy skin. 

According to Forbes Business Insight, the sunscreen market is worth over $13 billion. These big businesses will continue to market their products to make it seem like the only option to prevent sunburn. They will go through lots of time and money to advertise the effects of their product just like any other company. Also, doctors are not prohibited from giving paid endorsements, via the American Medical Association. Do you think sunscreen companies would pay doctors to promote their products? It’s difficult to trust something anyone says if you know that they are getting paid to do so. 

The common view on sunscreen and why it’s good for you, is that sunscreen will lay on the surface of your skin and block all the sun’s harmful rays. This is illustrated in an article by Yale Scientific, “Sunscreen works by blocking and absorbing UV rays through a combination of physical and chemical particles. Physical particles, such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, are used to reflect UV radiation from the skin.” The chemical absorbers and physical blockers are used in compounds to create a shield to ensure that sun rays do not contact your skin. However, this is just not the way to look at it. You should want to naturally fend off the harmful rays of the sun whilst absorbing the beneficial rays. Not wearing sunscreen or any type of cosmetic skin protection will invoke your skin to adapt to the sun’s rays. This will make your skin stronger and healthier as it uses the immune system’s process of battling foreign entities. 

There seems to be a discrepancy to the belief that sunscreen prevents skin cancer. However, many people today suggest that it does, an article by the Skin Cancer Foundation states, “When used as directed, sunscreen is proven to: Decrease your risk of skin cancers and skin precancers.” To express the discrepancy, you must understand some data in the history of sunscreen and sun cancer. To illustrate the history of sunscreen the New York Time posted an article called, “Sunscreen: A History”, containing a timeline of all the major events that lead to the sunscreen being used today. In the mid 1940s the first form of sunscreen was introduced. It was being developed and refined till 1988, when the Food and Drug Administration had elected to approve the product for use. This is also around the time sunscreen use became popular. At around the same time in 1992, according to the National Cancer institute, the skin cancer rates were at about 14 out of 100,00 people. Since then, the cancer rates have been on a steady upward slope with now in 2019, 23 out of 100,000 persons are diagnosed with skin cancer. How is sunscreen preventing skin cancer when, since it started to be widely used, the rates have only increased? If sunscreen was effective in preventing skin cancer then we would see a decline in skin cancer diagnosis since its beginning of use. 

Some may argue that the cancer rates have increased due to misuse of sunscreen. Which is a fair argument. The Skin Cancer Foundation proves the misuse, “To get the full broad-spectrum protection out of your sunscreen, apply one ounce — about a shot glass full — to your entire body. Most people apply less than half of that amount, translating into reduced protection.” Whilst another post on the same website by, Elizabeth K. Hale, an expert in the field resures, “Most people don’t apply enough sunscreen, which is why undesirable sunburns and tanning can occur despite sunscreen application.” The failure to apply sunscreen correctly is obviously common. Considering that if a majority of people don’t use the amount of sunscreen for the product to be properly effective, that renders the product ineffective. In the British Journal of Dermatology, a reviewed article states, “if the majority of consumers do not use the product in accordance with the recommendation, then this is a technical inadequacy in itself. Low cosmetic acceptance and the high costs of sunscreen products may result in insufficient use.” 

The arguments in favor of sunscreen products effectiveness and protection have multiple underlying problems. The multi-billion dollar sunscreen industry markets their products through paid doctor endorsements and misleading advertising, which should be marked untrustworthy and suspicious. They will continue to refuse to acknowledge the immune system’s process to counteract foreign entities because of course the sales of their product would drop. Allowing your skin to adapt to the sun’s rays will in turn create stronger, healthier skin that will continue to consume the beneficial sun rays. In addition, the belief that sunscreen prevents cancer is odd, knowing that ever since it became widely used skin cancer rates have steadily increased. This is all the while mis use of sunscreen only defines sunscreen as ineffective completely. 

Resources

Sun Care Products Market Size, share & covid-19 impact analysis, by product type (sun-protection, after-sun, and tanning), form (lotion, Spray, Stick, and others), SPF (0-29, 30-50, and >50), distribution channel, and Regional Forecast, 2020-2027. Sun Care Products Market Size, Share | Industry Report, 2020-2027. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/sun-care-products-market-103821

Isguven, S. (2012, May 9). How does sunscreen protect you? cropped-YSM-Wordmark-Only-Black-High-Res.png. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from shorturl.at/bctGR

Sunscreen. The Skin Cancer Foundation. (2021, May 28). Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-prevention/sun-protection/sunscreen/ 

The New York Times. (2010, June 23). Sunscreen: A history. The New York Times. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/fashion/24skinside.html 

Melanoma of the skin – cancer stat facts. SEER. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html

Ask the expert: How much sunscreen should I be using on my face and body? The Skin Cancer Foundation. (2020, December 2). Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-how-much-sunscreen-should-i-be-using-on-my-face-and-body/ 

Posted in Rebuttal Archives | Leave a comment

Not Because – spookyghost

Posted on November 16, 2021 by imaspookyghost

1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.

Revision: Coats was fired for violating workplace policy

2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

Revision: An employer cannot fire a person with anxiety taking proper medication to deal with the issue.

3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.

Revision: Employees don’t get fired for drinking after work, likewise they dont get fired for marijuana, but only in Colorado.

4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

Revision: Coat was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis, and was fired for it.

5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

Revision: It’s not fair to discriminate against somebody trying to ease the pain by using marijuana legally.

6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.

Revision: Coats was smoking on his own time outside of work, but was still fired.

BACKGROUND FOR 7-10: The director of the Secret Service ordered an internal review of its security procedures around the White House after a man armed with a knife who jumped the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Friday night managed to make his way through the front door of President Obama’s home before being stopped, officials said Saturday.

7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

Revision: Omar Gonzales was stopped by Secret Service agents before getting to deep into the white house.

8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it  responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

Revision: The secret service responded well to the breach of the white house, and the conditions n which the breach occurred is under investigation.

9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

Revision: Julia Pierson’s incompetence might cost her her job after her testimony before Congress.

10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

Revision: The intruder was only carrying a knife, so deadly force was not required.

Posted in Not Because | Leave a comment

Text: Nuclear Power, Worth the Risk?

Posted on November 16, 2021 by davidbdale

Catastrophes happen.

No one thought the Interstate 35W bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis would collapse. No one thought the Gulf of Mexico would be fouled to the horrible extent that it was by the BP oil spill. The awful convergence of disasters in Japan — a 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami and a devastating nuclear power emergency — seemed almost unimaginable.

Worst-case scenarios unfold more frequently than we’d like to believe, which leads to two major questions regarding nuclear power that Americans have an obligation to answer.

First, can a disaster comparable to the one in Japan happen here? The answer, of course, is yes — whether caused by an earthquake or some other event or series of events. Nature is unpredictable and human beings are fallible. It could happen.

So the second question is whether it makes sense to follow through on plans to increase our reliance on nuclear power, thus heightening the risk of a terrible problem occurring here in the United States. Is that a risk worth taking?

Concern over global warming has increased the appeal of nuclear power, which does not produce the high levels of greenhouse gases that come from fossil fuels. But there has been a persistent tendency to ignore the toughest questions posed by nuclear power: What should be done with the waste? What are the consequences of a catastrophic accident in a populated area? How safe are the plants, really? Why would taxpayers have to shoulder so much of the financial risk of expanding the nation’s nuclear power capacity, an effort that would be wildly expensive?

A big part of the problem at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power station are the highly radioactive spent fuel rods kept in storage pools at the plant. What to do, ultimately, with such dangerous waste material is the nuclear power question without an answer. Nuclear advocates and public officials don’t talk about it much. Denial is the default position when it comes to nuclear waste.

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said again this week that the 40-year-old Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester County, 35 miles north of New York City, should be closed. Try to imagine the difficulty, in the event of an emergency, of evacuating such an area with its millions of residents. “This plant in this proximity to New York City was never a good risk,” said the governor.

There are, blessedly, very few catastrophic accidents at nuclear power plants. And there have not been many deaths associated with them. The rarity of such accidents provides a comfort zone. We can look at the low probabilities and declare, “It can’t happen here.”

But what if it did happen here? What would the consequences be? If Indian Point blew, how wide an area and how many people would be affected, and what would the cleanup costs be? Rigorously answering such questions is the only way to determine whether the potential risk to life and property is worthwhile.

The 104 commercial nuclear plants in the U.S. are getting old, and many have had serious problems over the years. There have been dozens of instances since 1979, the year of the Three Mile Island accident, in which nuclear reactors have had to be shut down for more than a year for safety reasons.

Building new plants, which the Obama administration favors, can be breathtakingly expensive and requires government loan guarantees. Banks are not lining up to lend money on their own for construction of the newest generation of Indian Points.

In addition to the inherent risks with regard to safety and security, the nuclear industry has long been notorious for sky-high construction costs, feverish cost-overruns and projects that eventually are abandoned. The Union of Concerned Scientists, in a 2009 analysis of the costs associated with nuclear plant construction, said that once a plant came online it usually led to significant rate increases for customers:

“Ratepayers bore well over $200 billion (in today’s dollars) in cost overruns for completed nuclear plants. In the 1990s, legislators and regulators also allowed utilities to recover most ‘stranded costs’ — the difference between utilities’ remaining investments in nuclear plants and the market value of those plants — as states issued billions of dollars in bonds backed by ratepayer charges to pay for utilities’ above-market investments.”

The refrain here is familiar: “The total cost to ratepayers, taxpayers and shareholders stemming from cost overruns, canceled plants and stranded costs exceeded $300 billion in today’s dollars.”

Nuclear power is hardly the pristine, economical, unambiguous answer to the nation’s energy needs and global warming concerns. It offers benefits and big-time shortcomings. Ultimately, the price may be much too high. 

Posted in Rebuttal Practice FA21 | Leave a comment

Redemption Song

Posted on November 16, 2021 by davidbdale

If you don’t cry, I don’t want to know you.

Posted in davidbdale | 1 Comment

Not Because-zzbrd2822

Posted on November 15, 2021 by zzbrd2822

1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.

Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, not for his legal use of the drug marijuana, for which he had a prescription.

2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

A person taking the correct medication to help their anxiety will be exempt from being fired by their employer.

3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.

Employees can go out and have a few beers after work because alcohol and marijuana are legal in Colorado.

4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

Coats should still have his job because he was just treating his daily pain.

5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

Coats should be safe to ease his painful multiple spasms using marijuana.

6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.

Everyone at his job was safe because Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time.

7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

The swift actions of Secret Service agents prevented Omar Gonzalez from going farther into the White House.

8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

The Secret Service is being questioned on how the breach of the White House occurred, not how it was handled.

9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

Secret Service Chief Julia Pierson could be fired due to her incompetence, not because of her testimony before Congress yesterday.

10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

The intruder carried a knife with a 4-inch blade, so Secret Service agents used mild force against the intruder.

Posted in Not Because | Leave a comment

not because- chickennuget444

Posted on November 15, 2021 by chickennugget444

1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.

Revise: At his workplace, Coats used a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription, but was fired for violating workplace policy

2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

Revise: A person with anxiety is allowed to use the correct medication to deal with the issue, and cannot be fired for that. 

3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.

Revise: In Colorado, marijuana is as legal as alcohol. However, employees do not get fired for going out and having a few beers. 

4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

Revise: Coats should be allowed to treat the pain he endures on a daily basis at work. 

5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

Revise: Coats should be able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms at work by using marijuana 

6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.

Revise: Coats smoking marijuana at home is not harmful to anyone at his job. 

7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

Revise: The swift actions of Secret Service agents kept Omar Gonzalez from entering the White House. 

8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it  responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

Revise: The Secret Service is compelled to explain its actions because of how the breach occurred. 

9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

Revise: Julia Pierson’s incompetence might cost her her job despite her testimony before the congress yesterday. 

10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

Revise: Since the intruder was carrying a knife with a 4 inch blade, service agents didn’t use deadly force against him.

Posted in Not Because | Leave a comment

Not Because-toastedflatbread

Posted on November 15, 2021 by toastedflatbread22

1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.

Coats was fired for violating workplace policy, not for his legal use of the drug marijuana, for which he had a prescription. 

2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

People who have anxiety and take the correct medication to deal with it cannot be fired.

3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.

Alcohol is legal, so if employees go out and have a few beers after work, they will keep their jobs. Similarly, in Colorado marijuana is also legal.

4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

Coats was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis, so he should have kept his job.

5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

Using marijuana, he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms and he should have been treated as equally as the other employees.

6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.

Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time, not at work, so he was completely harmless to any of his work peers.

BACKGROUND FOR 7-10: The director of the Secret Service ordered an internal review of its security procedures around the White House after a man armed with a knife who jumped the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Friday night managed to make his way through the front door of President Obama’s home before being stopped, officials said Saturday.

7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

Thanks to the swift actions of Secret Service agents, Omar Gonzales was stopped before he could penetrate deep into the White House.

8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it  responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

Even though the events of the breach of the White House are under question, the Secret Service does not need to explain its actions in response to the breach.

9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

Secret Service chief Julia Pierson testified before Congress yesterday, and may keep her job. On the other hand, her incompetence may cost her her job.

10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

The intruder was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade, so Secret Service agents refrained from using deadly force against him.

Posted in Not Because | Leave a comment

Not Because—kingofcamp

Posted on November 15, 2021 by kingofcamp
  1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.

REVISED: While working, Coats used legal marijuana for a legitimate purpose, being prescribed to him—which was accepted by his workplace. Though, Coats violated the workplace policy, which in hand, was not acceptable, resulting in Coats being fired.

  1. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

REVISED: An employer who takes the right dosage of anxiety medication is excused from being fired regarding an issue relating the employer’s anxiety.

  1. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.

REVISED: In Colorado, both marijuana and alcohol are legal, in result, employees are shielded from losing job status, as long as employees are in safe boundaries.

  1. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

REVISED: Coats was unfairly fired because of pain he endured on a daily basis.

  1. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

REVISED: Coats used marijuana to ease his ongoing pain, resulting in Coats being actively discriminated against.

  1. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.

REVISED: On his own time, Coats smoked marijuana—harming no one at his job.

BACKGROUND FOR 7-10: The director of the Secret Service ordered an internal review of its security procedures around the White House after a man armed with a knife who jumped the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Friday night managed to make his way through the front door of President Obama’s home before being stopped, officials said Saturday.

  1. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

REVISED: Secrete Service agents were able to stop Omar Gonzalez before he was able to penetrate deep into the White House.

  1. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

REVISED: How the breach was executed is currently being questioned, thought the Secret Service is at a lost to begin to explain the actions that caused the breach.

  1. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

REVISED: Julia Pierson, testified before Congress yesterday and the possibility of losing her job is because of her incompetence.

  1. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

REVISED: The intruder carried a knife with a 4-inch blade, saving him from Secret Service agents using deadly force.

Posted in Not Because | Leave a comment

Not Because – LunaDuna

Posted on November 15, 2021 by Lunaduna

1. Coats wasn’t fired because he was using a legal drug, marijuana, for a legitimate purpose for which he had a prescription. He was fired for violating workplace policy.

Coats was fired not for the use of a legal drug, marijuana, but for violating a workplace policy.

2. An employer isn’t able to fire a person who has anxiety because they are taking the correct medication to deal with the issue.

An employer can fire a person, but not for having anxiety and taking the medication to deal with the issue.

3. Employees don’t get fired for going out and having a few beers after work because alcohol is legal, but in Colorado so is marijuana.

Employees have to maintain a healthy lifestyle, or they can be at risk of getting fired.

4. Coats shouldn’t have been fired because he was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis.

Coats was trying to treat the pain he endured on a daily basis, and should not have been fired.

5. It’s not fair to discriminate against him because he was able to ease the pain of his multiple spasms by using marijuana.

He was able to ease the pain of his illness with marijuana, which is not a reason to discriminate against him.

6. Coats wasn’t harming anyone at his job because he was smoking marijuana but he was doing so on his own time and not at work.

Coats was smoking marijuana on his own time, so he could not harm anyone at his job.

BACKGROUND FOR 7-10: The director of the Secret Service ordered an internal review of its security procedures around the White House after a man armed with a knife who jumped the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Friday night managed to make his way through the front door of President Obama’s home before being stopped, officials said Saturday.

7. Omar Gonzalez didn’t penetrate deep into the White House because of the swift actions of Secret Service agents.

The swift actions of the Secret Service Agents were not the reason Omar penetrated the White House.

8. The Secret Service isn’t being compelled to explain its actions because of the way it responded to the breach of the White House, but how the breach occurred is under question.

The Secret Service is under question for how the breach occurred but is not forced to explain how they responded to the breach.

9. Secret Service chief Julia Pierson won’t be fired because of her testimony before Congress yesterday. Her incompetence might cost her her job though.

The secret service chief, Julia Pierson, will most likely be fired for her incompetence, but her testimony for Congress will still stand.

10. Secret Service agents didn’t use deadly force against the intruder because he was carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

There was no need for the Secret Service agents to use deadly force against the intruder because they were only carrying a knife with a 4-inch blade.

Posted in Not Because | Leave a comment

Definition-SunshineGirl

Posted on November 15, 2021 by sunshinegirl457

Prisons, or at least good prisons worth writing about, are constantly looking for ways to improve themselves as establishments. Such ways include, but are not limited to, actively engaging inmates in sports and exercise, improving sanitation, growing food, and even implementing cultural practices. These are all relatively new processes that are still being studied, and the one that sticks out is the use of yoga and meditation. It seems like such a bizarre practice for people who are viewed as barbarians to the public- could a person leading a violent life of crime really convert to inner peace and spirituality? To evaluate this, one must look closely at how yoga affects the prisoners’ lives in and out of the penitentiary. It’s not enough to ease their minds and stress levels, but to really make a difference within them so that they are never imprisoned again. The recent studies on this topic have done a great job of this, which is why one can conclude that using yoga as a diversionary practice in penitentiaries will lower the overall rate of recidivism.

To begin, it’s important to understand that recidivism is the “tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend” (Oxford Languages). That said, to establish a sense that prisons have improved over the last decades and that these programs do in fact make a difference, it’s necessary to explain records from the US Department Of Justice on rates of recidivism from the years 1970, 1978, and 1980. “The random samples of releases, limited to inmates whose sentences were longer than 1 year and 1 day… were respectively 51.4 percent for 1970 , 43.9 percent for 1978, and 38 percent for 1780” (Gaes, 1986). Most of these special programs were established in the 1970s in sort of a hippie/bring-peace-to-everyone act, so it’s easy to see the correlation, but the studies done today specifically show the causation. 

In the 2020 article “A Systematic Review of Literature: Alternative Offender Rehabilitation—Prison Yoga, Mindfulness, and Meditation”, author Dragana Derlic establishes the facts that loneliness, trauma, and absence of freedom are all factors that contribute to a prisoner’s mental and emotional deterioration, sometimes resulting in anxiety and depression as they become filled with anger and hatred at the world (Derlic, 2020). While referencing Elizabeth Duncombe, she goes on to state that there are “eight environmental concerns that impact an inmate’s behavior and adjustment to jail and prison life: privacy, safety, structure, support, emotional feedback, social stimulation, activity, and freedom” (Duncombe, 2005). 

Yoga, a practice performed by the ancient Indians since 3000 B.C., has the ability to meet all eight of these requirements its own way, even in a stressful jail setting. The poses and stretches provide great physical stimulation, but the part that gives inmates the most clarity and relaxation is the spirituality of it all. Yoga has a property that soothes and heals the mind of any stress or negativity. According to Derlic, researchers Doctor Sfendla and colleagues incorporated voluntary yoga into the daily routine of a random sample of prisoners and found that there was a significant decrease in “paranoia, suspicion, and fearful thoughts and had a positive effect on obsessive-compulsive disorder”, as well as a “significant improvement in both positive and negative psychotic symptoms in participants with schizophrenia” (Sfendla, 2018). This undeniably supports the idea that yoga is a benefactor in mental health disorders, which attributes to a big percentage of those incarcerated today in prisons rather than mental institutions because they do not receive the proper testing or treatment. It was said that the main goal of the program was to “ help inmates adjust to the environment around them and to provide inmates with the skills necessary to be successful upon release” (Derlic, 2020). This measure of success is how they live their lives after the fact and whether or not they resort to their old ways, getting tied back up into a life of ongoing crime. 

This holds true for inmates with severe mood issues like mental health illnesses, however, the argument that yoga in prisons will lower the rates of recidivism might not hold true when dealing with mentally stable prisoners who were simply born into the wrong circumstances and were forced to use crime as a crutch. Again, recidivism is the “tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend” (Oxford Languages), and a specific study documented by authors Shaked Kovalsky, Badi Hasisi, Noam Haviv, and Ety Elisha demonstrates this without focusing on the mental statuses and spiritual transcendence of the prisoners, but simply the recidivism rates. The article, “Can Yoga Overcome Criminality? The Impact of Yoga on Recidivism in Israeli Prisons”, shows the exact findings and conclusions of an experiment between released prisoners who voluntarily participated in yoga classes during incarceration compared to a control group of released prisoners who had no yoga experience during their time in jail. The credibility of this experiment was ensured by creating a “propensity-score matching system” (Kovalsky, 2020)  and a statistical follow up of over five years. The study found that after the first year the control group had a reincarceration rate of 15.91% while the group that practiced yoga had a rate of only 5.67%. Additionally, for the results two years later, the control group had a rate of 26.57% as compared to the yoga group of 4.77%. For the third year, the results were 31.30% and 4.42% and for the fourth year it was 37.10% versus 4.42%.Amazingly, logged over five years post-release, 40.72% of the control group was incarcerated while only 4.66% of the group that practiced yoga was (Kovalsky, 2020). 

This is groundbreaking data that supports the idea that yoga leads to recidivism, and not just immediately but over extended periods of time. Mood and stress levels are things that fluctuate constantly and if yoga solely helped to ease these factors, it would not have an effect on an inmate’s mood five years after being released from jail because it obviously would have changed. This study also goes to show that yoga doesn’t only affect the mentally ill, because it had significant results on the population that was not a random sample; The participants were specifically picked out to be studied based on a propensity-score matching scale to eliminate any bias or sources of error. The definition of pure recidivism is foggy and misused often, but this research demonstrates that using yoga in prisons does more than rehabilitate the inmates, it diverts them away from violence and crime altogether in physical, mental, and spiritual ways.

References

“Oxford Languages and Google-English” Oxford Languages. (n.d). Web 2 November 2021.

“Recidivism Among Federal Offenders” US Department of Justice. G G Gaes, 1986. Web 2 November 2021.

“A Systematic Review of Literature: Alternative Offender Rehabilitation—Prison Yoga, Mindfulness, and Meditation” Sage Journals. Dragana Derlic, 15 September 2020. Web 25 October 2021

“Free Inside: A Program to Help Inmates Cope with Life in Prison at Maui Community Correctional Center” ResearchGate. Elizabeth Duncombe, Dawna Komorsky, Evaon Wong-Kim, and Winston M Turner, December 2005. Web 2 November 2021.

“Yoga Practice Reduces the Psychological Distress Levels of Prison Inmates” NCBI. Anis Sfendla, Petter Malmström, Sara Torstensson, and Nóra Kerekes, 3 September 2018. Web 2 November 2021

“Can Yoga Overcome Criminality? The Impact of Yoga on Recidivism in Israeli Prisons” PubMed. Shaked Kovalsky, Badi Hasisi, Noam Haviv, and Ety Elisha, 14 April 2020. Web 25 October 2021.

Posted in Definition | Leave a comment