Religion in Prison Overview and Analysis Research Paper

Introduction

Independence of religion is the right to reverence of a supreme being by professing a preferred religion (Schultz, West & MacLean 1999). The right of religion for inmates has always been a controversial issue with different court decrees that either favor or act against inmates. However, many courts decrees enhance independence of religious expression, this may not be so in case a religion poses safety threats. Though prisoners are accorded the opportunity to worship, the extent of worship is regulated and monitored.

Limitations on religious expression

In as much as prisoners are free to worship, the validity of the religion must be questioned. Before permission to profess any religion is granted to a prisoner, validity of the religion must be tested and should satisfy certain stipulated conditions. Genuineness and nature of religion are two key concepts that are tested by courts to determine the legitimacy of a religion (Schultz, West & MacLean 1999). The nature of religion is examined using skewed and objective tests while genuineness is tested by examining a prisoner’s belief. In the vent that these tests fail prisoner’s ability to worship is compromised.

The practice of religion in prison is limited due to the safety threats it may pose. It is noteworthy that certain religion is discouraged in prison especially when it poses safety concerns. In fact, many states do not allow prisoners to attend religious occurrences because of security matters. A prisoner’s punishments cannot be compromised on religious grounds. This explains how religion is secondary to punishment procedures in prisons.

Court decisions on inmate religious expressions

Religion has always been a debatable issue in the US leading to filing of suits either for clarification or to solve religious dispute. In a case (Niemczynski vs. Arpaio), a petitioner filed a case in court claiming that his devout privileges were infringed (Friedman, 2010). He argued that by the fact that a prison warden ordered for Christmas music to play for over ten hours during Christmas period, his religious rights were violated. On May 24^th year 2010 after the successive hearings remedy, the case was dismissed (Friedman, 2010).

Another religious case is best illustrated by Wallace vs. miller. It entails a sanction suit filed by a Jewish detainee on the basis that his privileges with regards to worship were infringed. He was offended on reason that he was denied a chance to carry out stipulated religious practices. After completion of the hearing on 31^st march 2010 the court ruled against the petitioner arguing that he never suffered severe damages thus no injunction granted (Friedman, 2010). This pointed out the fact that before any court rules out in favor of a plaintiff prisoner on matters of religion, he/she must have suffered physically. In fact, the damage should be irreparable to warrant an injunction.

In another religious occurrence between Johnson and McCann, a dreadlocked prisoner filed law suit to petition that his religious privileges were distorted following the order to shave his dreadlocks (Friedman, 2010). He argued that the dreadlocks were part of his religious profession and removing them would mean a violation of his practices. In 21 may 2010, the case was heard and the court ruled against the plaintiff with a dismissal of the case (Friedman, 2010).

A religious dispute was filed in a court petition with Russell and Philadelphia being persons at dispute (Friedman, 2010). The prisoner raised complains that he was denied the chance to engage in some of his religious actions. He recorded infringement because he was denied the chance to possess a bible, listen in on biblical events on radio and participate in religious unions. The case was finalized by 19^th may 2010, with a discharge of the suit on argument that the plaintiff failed to convince the court on how his religious beliefs were offended (Friedman, 2010).

My opinion on inmates’ religious freedom

The constitution and judges are always responsive to matters of inmate’s religious independence creating disagreements. In my view, it is best for the law enforcing institution to take a stand on religious liberty especially when the practices are associated to safety threats. In fact, it is to the benefit of inmates and the community as a whole. However, I still insist that the courts should be reasonable enough not to deprive prisoners’ privileges to religion while exercising their duties.

I further agree with the legal structure in justifying religious practices of prisoners given that religion has recently taken different directions (Sullivan, 2008). In fact, even though the measures that legitimize a religion are in practice, I still recommend for strict measures on this matter. This is because some inmates may come up with unethical religious practices that may put prisoners and the entire community at risk of being victims of unscrupulous activities. I further recommend that the principles guiding the tests should be strictly supervised with severe punishment to persons who does not comply with the stipulated procedures. However, the strictness should not surpass liberty of worship.

My disagreement comes in handy when a scheduled punishment coincides with the freedom of religion as far as time is concerned. In my perspective this is a failure of the prison administration not creating good schedules that can accommodate the right of inmates. It is not fair for prisoners to suffer as a consequent of administration failure.

Conclusion

Even though prisoners are entitled to freedom of worship, sometimes this right is denied due to unavoidable circumstances such safety threats. Legal entities play crucial roles in regulation and restricting inmates’ freedom for security and other sensitive reasons (Sullivan, 2008). Though to some extent religious rights are compromised, the decision is always for the best thus enhancing societal well being. In my view, the legal system has played a great role in restricting the freedom of inmates, though it is always for their well being and the entire community.

References

Friedman, H. (2010), religion clause. Friedman Howard, Web.

Schultz, J. West, J. & MacLean, I. (1999), Encyclopedia of religion in American politics. Arizona: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Sullivan, W. F., (2008), prison religion: faith based reforms and constitution. Princeton university press. Web.