NCJ Number
147567
Journal
American Journal of Criminal Law Volume: 21 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1994) Pages: 241-272
Date Published
1994
Length
32 pages
Annotation
In looking at the effect of incarceration on the personal rights and freedoms of prisoners, this article discusses relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing first amendment rights in the prison context and the rights of Jewish prisoners with respect to kosher food, skullcaps, and beards.
Abstract
Courts have consistently ruled that effective prison management requires a great deal of flexibility so that wardens and other correctional personnel can deal with problems as they arise. Many courts, however, have stressed that deference to prison officials must be balanced with the need to protect the constitutional rights of inmates. To enhance this balancing process, courts have suggested that the restriction of inmate rights must be carefully justified. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly supported the deferential approach, thereby diminishing the first amendment rights of inmates. In essence, the Supreme Court has merely required that prison officials show their regulations are reasonable. Supreme Court decisions have often disregarded the analysis of lower courts and have evoked vigorous dissent by some justices. Due to the Supreme Court decisions, lower courts have expanded prison management restrictions they consider constitutional. Jewish prisoners in particular have been faced with an increasingly difficult struggle to secure their religious rights. While the current trend followed by courts is to grant Jewish prisoners the right to a kosher diet, the struggle continues in many courts for Jewish inmates who seek to observe religious practices involving beards and yarmulkes. The author contends courts should have the ability and willingness to carefully examine the significance of these practices and practical considerations involved in guaranteeing their observance. He also believes that courts should acknowledge Jewish religious practices as part of the prisoner's first amendment rights. 291 footnotes