Virginia’s Department of Corrections grooming policy was challenged last week by a minimum security prisoner, William Couch. Couch, who is a Sunni Muslim, is claiming that the policy goes against his religious rights because it does not allow him to grow a 1/8-inch beard. His attorney, Jeffrey Fogel, argued that a beard of that length should be allowed since it would not greatly change an inmate’s appearance or allow an inmate to hide anything in it.
This policy was once challenged by a group of Rastafarian and Muslim inmates in 1999, but the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals chose to uphold the policy. After the ruling, inmates who did not shave were segregated and put into a separate living area from prisoners were did follow the policy. To sway the men into properly grooming themselves, the challenging inmates were given privileges such as more recreation time and personal property.
The department’s spokesman, Larry Traylor, has stated that many inmates follow the grooming policy despite their religious beliefs, including about 300 Rastafarian inmates and 3,800 inmates who attend Muslim services.
Only about a dozen states regulate the length of inmates’ beards and hair and many of those states have rules that try to accommodate different religious beliefs. Federal prisons do not have any polices concerning hair. In the past, Congress passed a law that says that prisons can limit religious freedoms for serious reasons, such as to maintain security. This law does state, however, that such policies must be the least restricting possible.
Personally, I do not see how a 1/8-inch beard can do anyone any harm. 1/8-inch is equal to 3.175 millimeters, aka tiny. If he feels religiously inclined, I think an inmate should be allowed to grow such a beard as long he keeps it to that length. I do not think that inmates should be able to greatly change their appearance since that would make it hard to find them if they were to escape, but I seriously doubt that a 1/8-inch beard will make a man unrecognizable. However, I do see how changing the policy may make things sticky. If Virginia’s Department of Corrections does decide to let the inmates grow beards, such a change may force the department to change their policy completely. For example, if the policy were to allow a religious man to have a beard, then an inmate of Native American decent may argue that the policy’s rules behind long hair should also be changed since many tribes have beliefs against cutting ones hair. One change may end up leading to many changes, and this could be exactly what Virginia is trying to avoid.
Maybe Virginia holds such a policy because they do not want to pay for beard trimmers? If you think about it, one beard trimmer is probably cheaper than buying a large amount of razors and lather and over time… I’m just saying.
What are your thoughts on religious freedoms within prisons? Would you challenge the policy if you were an inmate?
14 comments:
Very intriguing. Although it may be true that Virginia wishes to avoid having numerous policy changes, that argument is not really applicable to this situation. Each situation ought to be examined on its own according to the law without regards to unrelated and superficial consequences. After all, the law must be upheld for it to be legitimate.
I believe that this situation demonstrates the weakness of Congress. Honestly, we have thousands of laws, many of them obscure and strange, and I highly doubt that all of them are enforced. Really, if the enforcement of the law relies on the people's initiative when the government should have taken care of it already, something is wrong.
I think Charlie is right that each situation needs to be examined on its own. In this case I'm kind of suspicious of a man who has been following the rule since it was put into effect and then suddenly decides that it goes against his religion. There are alternative options available for men who refuse to shave their beards. Although it does seem a bit extreme to me that they of separated from the rest of the prison population and don't get as much recreation as a normal prisoner. Personally that are times when I could see how a 1/8" beard could disguise someones identity from immediate recognition.
As for this demonstrating the weakness of Congress, I think the law the Congress passed saying that "prisons can restrict religious liberties only for compelling reasons such as security, but that such policies must be the least restrictive possible" I think its a reasonable law. The prison is within their power to restrict beards because it could cause security problems.
Also because the case was heard in the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, I don't think this is a case where courts doesn't want this case to have domino effect. Questions would the prison have to supply the beard trimmers/ razors and lather? I would think that the inmate was responsible for paying for that. If it is the prison who has to pay for it, I think that it ridiculous. Beard trimmers might also be more of a security risk than razors. I imagine beard trimmers would need to be replaced now and again.
How many times does it have to come to this and be said? If you are in prison for a crime, you relinquish all of your rights to the law and you are now subject to the consequences of the law. In that state, the only right you have is to your life, unless you have committed murder, and all other rights are suspended. It does not matter what religion or belief or right you think you may have, all arguments become moot and rationalization behind prison policy is none of the inmates business or up for a vote.
p.s. I had a funny captcha, "whboogra." LOL
According to the 8th edition of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, " While in prison, you have the right to observe and practice the religion of your choice. The United States
Constitution as well as federal and state laws protect this right." And, "Under the Free Exercise Clause, prison officials can only impose restrictions on your exercise of religion “reasonably related” to legitimate prison goals."
This reminds me of the level of scrutiny that are used to determine the legitimacy of laws in court. And, the "reasonably related" requirement could be likened to the rational basis level, which is the least intense of the levels of scrutiny. If prisoners are not going to be allowed to practice an aspect of their religion, the reason must be "reasonably related" to the prison goals of "preventing crime, rehabilitating prisoners, and ensuring security." Should a beard at a certain length cause a prisoner to be unrecognizable or allow the prisoner to hide a potentially dangerous object, the state policy would be legitimate because it is "reasonably related" to the prison goal of security. However, as Sandy said, a short beard does not present these dangers. And, the policy is therefore an unreasonable barrier to the prisoners' freedom to exercise that aspect of their religion. Although the prisoners have committed a crime, are subject to the consequences of the law, and must forgo certain rights, the restriction to growing a short beard for religious reasons does not reasonably relate to the prison goal of security, and should not stand.
And my source: http://www3.law.columbia.edu/hrlr/JLM/Chapter_27.pdf
In my opinion, if religious freedoms in prisons allow worshipers of certain religions to practice animal or human sacrifice, then that is when authority should step in and prevent such practices from happening. But a beard? The prison is being a bit too paranoid. Even if a prisoner were to escape, the 1/8 inch of hair does not do much to deter their identification by the public or law enforcement. I'm not saying that the prison was violating the rights of their prisoners by refusing them to grow these beards. I think it is okay for the prison to regulate the appearances of their inmates to some degree. In prison everyone wears an orange jumpsuit. There's no individuality, but that's one of the prices you'll have to pay for committing a crime. However, I think that the way the prison approached this issue goes a bit beyond what they actually are allowed to control. The decision of the court will still continued to be controversial due to the subjectivity of what a prison can consider as a hazard to their security.
To end on a less serious note, if Virginia's Department of Corrections is really that concerned about inmates hiding weapons in their minuscule patches of facial hair, they should probably start worrying about the other bodily areas where prisoners can actually hide things they could potentially use to plot an escape, one example being mobile phones. And I'm not pulling your leg; there have actually been quite a number of instances where something like this has happened.
I think they should let the man grow he beard. I mean come on. They should set a standard, and let him grow it out to the regulated length. You cant hide anything in a beard, and immates get throughly evaluated each day. If I were that prison inmate and it my my religious befeifs I would fight to get grow mt beard. I think it is a ridiculous rule, and should be overturned my all prisons.
i dont know if its just me but i think this is such a petty problem. i guess this guy has to feel really strongly about the issue for him to actually hire an attorney to push the issue. In my opinion, i think the ruling of no beards should be kept b/c allowing an 1/8" beard will just create more unnecessary work since the regulators will have to "regulate" the length. and will the 1/8" really make that much difference on religion? i dont know, i guess im just not religious so i dont know but i still think this is just too much of a petty issue
The more and more I learn about the system and all these rules and junk, I find it to be more and more ridiculous. Some rules are of course obvious, but for cutting your hair? To me, that's just not right. I understand that you could hide things in your beard or hair, but then again you can hide things in your pants, in your "private areas", in your mouth, and you don't see prisoners walking around naked am I right or am I right? I also get a sense of discrimination here. Making someone cut their hair because that's their religion or race?... Not right. That also goes for juveniles in their jail system also. If you go to camp or jail for a while, if your a male, they make you cut your hair. I have no idea why, but I think it's sad. Also, I know people who have gang orders and if they cut their hair that even LOOKS gang-member-ish, you get a violation and most likely end up in jail. All these regulations about hair, are pretty extreme to me. Let a person have their hair! Jeeze.
I do agree with what Timothy said about when you go to prison, most of your right that you would have if you weren't in prison are taken away. But I do not think that a little beard would really do much harm. But then I also agree with this post when it said thaty this could lead to someone else saying they need to grow out their hair for religious purposes, it may have some other problems in future cases. But overral i think that if they set up regulations, it should be fine.
I think that if you are being condemned to death, you should be given some freedoms. But realistically you don't want inmates to have really long beards where they can hide crap in it like glass shards... I don't know. It reminds me of these weird Victorian laws that India used to have like public indecency laws, like women can't wear things that expose more than 5 inches of their legs or some crap like that.
Like others have said, once you step foot in a prison, your rights vanish. I feel that if there is a policy regarding how one must groom them self in prison, then so be it. These people are convicted felons, why should we give them the upper hand when deciding regulations? Honestly,we know inmates can be sneaky and very dangerous, so who knows what they are capable of doing with a slightly longer beard. Why take the risk of something bad happening? Prison is meant to be a living hell for criminals, lets not make their day better by allowing them to win over with this grooming issue.
Post a Comment