Because these programs have plenty of merits alongside their drawbacks, the issue has sparked a huge debate about the ethics of raising a child in prison. Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator for Canada, supports programs like the one at Decatur because he believes they are in the absolute best interest of the child. He explains that children of incarcerated mothers who suffer long separations from their mothers tend to be the most at risk of developing a criminal lifestyle later on. Grant Wilson, president of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, has a different opinion on the matter, arguing that the child's father or other family members would be a better option for raising the child while the mother is incarcerated. He says that the women who are incarcerated are severely disadvantaged when it comes to being a good parent simply because they are criminals (though many of them committed very minor and non-violent crimes). Both Sapers and Wilson acknowledge that the best place for a baby to be is with its mother, so why is Wilson's take on this issue so much harsher than Sapers'? 

The problem with Wilson's argument is that he is exceptionally unforgiving in the way he places judgement on the women involved in these programs. He believes he has the right to say that a woman is unfit as a parent/guardian because she is behind bars, regardless of the nature of her crime or her level of interest in rehabilitation. This is an incredibly limiting view of both criminals and human nature; not everyone who makes a mistake that lands them behind bars is necessarily a bad person or a bad parent. In a way, his argument seems to say that criminals are too far gone and not worth saving, which highlights a problem of perspective that has plagued humanity since the very beginning of time: there is a tendency to further marginalize the already-marginalized. We see this attitude towards the mentally ill, the homeless, and the criminal; it is an attitude that essentially says "you're already broken, and it's too expensive and too difficult to fix you, so I won't bother." Instead of focusing the argument around why we shouldn't help these young "broken" mothers, the discussion should be about why we should help them so that they have the opportunity to give their children and themselves the best lives possible. 

What do you think about prison programs that let mothers keep their babies with them in low-security facilities? Do you feel that it is crucial for a child's well-being to be present with its mother during the first few years of life? Imagine for a moment that you were arrested for a minor crime while pregnant, could you fathom willingly parting with your baby after birth if you knew you could otherwise keep that child with you in a safe, comfortable environment? Where do you draw the line and say that a mother should no longer be able to raise her own child? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.