When Performers Are Convicted of Crimes, Should Their Work Be Removed From Public Access?

Introduction

The question of whether prison is supposed to be a rehabilitation facility or a facility used for punishing people who have committed gravies crimes such as killing can help in understanding if the works of performers such as musicians and actors should be allowed to share their works with the members of the public. 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 actually killed the deceased. It may not matter much if the killing was intentional or if it was accidental (Ferguson, 2016). What is of importance is whether they should still be allowed to produce their works and share with the members of the public. Being imprisoned does not mean the end of a person's life. Hence it is important that they are allowed to continue with their life 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, the prisoners 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). 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 no 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 in case they get out of the prison. In some cases, people get a 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 not in prison (Ferguson, 2016). 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. For instance, in some instances, people's works have been used for preaching peace among other good societal attributes without people caring about the artists. Offering such performers, space to produce their work helps them in getting the best work from them since most of them are very innovative. The great Italian artist known as Leonardo da Vinci who drew the first scientific inventions sets a good example (Pangburn, 2017). The inventions included the image of the airplane at the time when not anybody could imagine that human beings could fly. Many people believe that these performers are actually ahead of time. From their work, they imagine the world far ahead from the current generation. When harsh laws and rules are convicted on to them then, they will not be able to offer to the society the gifts and talents that they were blessed with (Ferguson, 2016). Again, performers are treated as the voices of the society since they can talk for the people who are not being heard and finally through their work, they create noble things through their experiences and blend them with their imagination. Such attributes may not be attached to the artists. Hence their works are considered more important to society than themselves.

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, then they can become more appealing to their fans due to pity, then they may not see the need to keep away from crimes. On the other hand, if artists' realizer 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 having criminals influence the characters of members of the public is tantamount to supporting crime (Pangburn, 2017). People who are convicted of grievous 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. Hence performers should be allowed to continue benefiting from their works when in prison.

Conclusion

In summary, some of the performers are innovative and shows the work of art through their work. Restricting them or removing their works from the public access does not only does affects 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