Removal of Performers Such as Musicians and Actors' Works From Public Access When They Are Convicted of Crimes

Introduction

The question of whether prison is supposed to be a rehabilitation facility or a facility used for punishing people who have committed crimes is important in understanding the extent of punishment. For instance, when actors and musicians among other performers are convicted of crimes, should their work be removed from public access? Convicts are usually guilty as the judges assess the pieces of evidence presented and find them to meet the threshold for declaring that the accused is actually guilty of the crimes. It may not matter much whether the crimes are intentional or if they are accidental, what is of importance is whether they should still be allowed to produce their works and share with the members of the public (Ferguson, 2016, pp. 11). Being imprisoned does not mean the end of a person's life. Hence it is important that they are allowed to continue with their lives as they rehabilitate to become better people. Some of the reasons why performers should be allowed to share their works with the members of the public even when they are convicted are because it can help them rehabilitate effectively, they can make money, and art is more about the fans than it is about the artists.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

First, allowing performers to share their works with the members of the public after they are convicted makes it easier for them to rehabilitate as they remain important people in society. Removing the works of performers from public access is tantamount to attacking, not only the artists but also their works. When such works are allowed for public access, they continue to entertain people, even influence the works of others. It is important to differentiate the works from the artists as a way of promoting talents. When people's talents are disregarded just because they committed crimes that are not related to such talents, then they may feel excommunicated, hence do not have a reason to rehabilitate and become better people in the society (Ferguson, 2016, pp. 9). When one sees people enjoy their works as they remain in prison, they feel great and even have time to talk to the other inmates on the importance of maintaining morals and doing things in the right way. It is therefore important that performers' works are allowed to circulate among the members of the public.

Secondly, prisoners can use their works to raise money to support their families back at home. Since prisons are supposed to be nonprofit organizations, the money prisoners make when they are in prison can go to their families and other important sections of the society in the form of charity. Besides being an alternative to incarceration, promoting the works of artists by the prison management is a way of helping them build a financial base so that they have something to fall back to when they get out of the prison. In some cases, prisoners get a presidential pardon and leave the prison despite the gravity of their crimes. When such people go back home, they need to continue living and be of use to the people who depend on them. That could be possible if they were given the chance of benefitting from the works they produced when they were in prison (Ferguson, 2016, pp. 11). In other cases, the convicts may even continue with their works in a prison and sell them. Some prisoners have become very popular and rich just because they were allowed to practice their passion while serving their sentence. It is therefore important to support talents by allowing prisoners to earn from their passion and talents.

Lastly, it is important to appreciate the fact that art is about the fans, and sometimes, not necessarily the artists. In some instances, people's works have been used for preaching peace among other good societal attributes without caring about the artists. Offering such performers the freedom to produce their work helps them in getting the best of their talents since most of them are very innovative and would take such opportunities to impress their fans more than before. The great Italian artist known as Leonardo da Vinci who drew the first scientific inventions sets a good example (Reyburn, 2015, pp. 4). The inventions of ancient artists, some from prison included important technologies such as the image of the airplane. This was at a time when not many people could imagine that human beings could fly. Many people believe that these performers were actually ahead of time. From their work, they imagined the world far ahead from the current generation. When restrictive laws are used on such artists, they will not be able to offer to the society the gifts and talents that they were blessed with (Ferguson, 2016, pp. 17). Again, performers are treated as the voices of the society since they can talk for the people who are not being heard, especially through their work. When such attributes are attached to the artists, their works are considered more important to society than they are.

On the other hand, it is not advisable to allow performers such as musicians and actors to share their items with the members of the public as it can lead to other people engaging in criminal activities. Punishing criminals should be in every possible aspect so that people treat crime with as much contempt as possible. When artists realize that when they are convicted, they can become more appealing to their fans due to pity, then they may not appreciate the need to keep away from crimes. On the other hand, if artists realize that being convicted means the end to their career, then they can keep away from criminal activities as much as they can. It is also important to note that allowing criminals to influence the characters of members of the public is tantamount to supporting crime (Pangburn, 2017, pp. 8). People who are convicted of crimes such as murder should be excommunicated and separated from other people with good morals as much as possible. However, no one is beyond rehabilitation and giving people a second chance is important in making them change from their criminal ways into good and productive people, for that reason, performers should be allowed to continue benefiting from their works when in prison.

Conclusion

In summary, some of the performers are innovative and show their talents through their work. Restricting or removing the works of such people from the public access does affect not only them but also the audience who sometimes do not believe in them but on the work that they produce. Despite the fact that convicts may be guilty of the crimes they are convicted of, they are supposed to be allowed to make money, rehabilitate effectively and remain relevant in the society. This can be achieved by allowing them to share their contents with the members of the public as they serve their sentence.

References

Ferguson, Z. (2016). Indigenous prisoners allowed to sell art while in jail. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-09/indigenous-prisoners-sell-artworks-incarcerated/7151872

Pangburn, D. (2017). A Popup LA Art Space is Exclusively Showing Works by Convict and Ex-Convict Artists. Retrieved from https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/4x9g79/think-tank-la-diy-show-convict-ex-convict-artists

Reyburn, S. (2015). An Art World Mystery Worthy of Leonardo. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/arts/international/an-art-world-mystery-worthy-of-leonardo.html