Tuesday, December 12, 2006

STATE & FEDERAL PROGRAMS FORCING CHRISTIAN RIGHT ON PRISONERS

NY TIMES - Life was different in Unit E at the state prison outside Newton, Iowa. The toilets and sinks white porcelain ones, like at home were in a separate bathroom with partitions for privacy. In many Iowa prisons, metal toilet-and-sink combinations squat beside the bunks, to be used without privacy, a few feet from cellmates.

The cells in Unit E had real wooden doors and doorknobs, with locks. More books and computers were available, and inmates were kept busy with classes, chores, music practice and discussions. There were occasional movies and events with live bands and real-world food, like pizza or sandwiches from Subway. Best of all, there were opportunities to see loved ones in an environment quieter and more intimate than the typical visiting rooms.

But the only way an inmate could qualify for this kinder mutation of prison life was to enter an intensely religious rehabilitation program and satisfy the evangelical Christians running it that he was making acceptable spiritual progress. The program which grew from a project started in 1997 at a Texas prison with the support of George W. Bush, who was governor at the time says on its Web site that it seeks to cure prisoners by identifying sin as the root of their problems and showing inmates how God can heal them permanently, if they turn from their sinful past. . .

For Robert W. Pratt, chief judge of the federal courts in the Southern District of Iowa, this all added up to an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money for religious indoctrination, as he ruled in June in a lawsuit challenging the arrangement.

The Iowa prison program is not unique. Since 2000, courts have cited more than a dozen programs for having unconstitutionally used taxpayer money to pay for religious activities or evangelism aimed at prisoners, recovering addicts, job seekers, teenagers and children.

Nevertheless, the programs are proliferating. For example, the Corrections Corporation of America, the nation s largest prison management company, with 65 facilities and 71,000 inmates under its control, is substantially expanding its religion-based curriculum and now has 22 institutions offering residential programs similar to the one in Iowa. And the federal Bureau of Prisons, which runs at least five multi-faith programs at its facilities, is preparing to seek bids for a single-faith prison program as well.

Government agencies have been repeatedly cited by judges and government auditors for not doing enough to guard against taxpayer-financed evangelism. But some constitutional lawyers say new federal rules may bar the government from imposing any special requirements for how faith-based programs are audited.

New York Times Article (requires registration)

1 comment:

  1. Open Letter To: "STATE & FEDERAL PROGRAMS FORCING CHRISTIAN RIGHT ON PRISONERS"

    U.S. Constitution, Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

    We are sure it is no secrete to our FedCURE members, supporters and friends that we are strongly in favor of faith-based programs in prisons. Regardless of how they are funded.

    First, let us prefix that this opinion is based on our combined, seventy-five years of federal prison experience--behind the fence. Secondly, in any discussion on this subject it is important to consider that over the last decade and a half Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budgets have been drastically hacked and slashed in every corner. Even BOP employees have taken hits with the elimination of positions and overtime. There has been no mercy in eliminating funding for inmate services and programs. And for what few programs that do remain there is a one or more year wait list. No funding for the BOP to administer and or to implement inmate programs for example, rendered recent attempts to enact The Literacy, Education, and Rehabilitation Act (LERA) hollow and meaningless. LERA would have allowed inmates to gain early release by completing inmate rehabilitation programs. The Superior Programming Achievement provisions of H.R. 3072 - the proposed Parole Bill, allowing for extra good time credits to gain earlier release, would also suffer if inmates do not have programs to complete to earn extra good time days. The use of extra good time awards is a valuable management tool for the BOP and provides important incentives for inmates to maintain clear conduct and in some cases to become better people.

    What is worse, however, is that in 1984 Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. This Act, inter alia, ushered in The Sentencing Reform Act--eliminating parole and establishing the famous sentencing guidelines, which the Supreme Court recently ruled were unconstitutional. Largely unnoticed by many, the Act abandoned the practice of rehabilitation of inmates during their imprisonment. In lieu thereof, Congress adopted a practice of incapacitation. This has been the model since 1984. And it has been a disaster. Recidivism rates have never been higher. However, public opinion has strongly opposed this model and its ill effects and the pendulum is changing back towards a rehabilitation model. For example, H.R. 1704 - The Second Chance Act had bi partisan support in the 109th Congress and would have passed this past week, but not for one lone hold out legislator. Senator Tom Coburn, Republican - Oklahoma.

    In our opinion, contra to the ACLU, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other organizations arguments opposing faith-based prison programs, is that the Constitution is not offended in any manner by the governments funding of faith-based programs in the context of a prison setting. The funding of faith-based programs for prisoners does not violate the "establishment" clause. On the contrary, having no faith-based programs in prisons does, in our view, run a foul of the "free exercise thereof" clause. Without the BOP offering faith-based programs inmates do not have the right of choice to participate--the right to "free exercise thereof." This is fundamentally unfair in that just because the prison gates have slammed behind them, inmates do not leave their Constitutional rights outside the gates, e.g., freedom to exercise religion. In our opinion, the BOP has been in violation of the Constitution by not offering faith-based programs to inmates during their incarceration. Having no program from which to chose prohibits the exercise of religion. This new direction towards rehabilitation by the BOP, albeit, via faith-based inmate programs is heartening.

    Ninety-eight percent of people in prison will be released. Over 45,000 federal inmates are released each year. Regardless of your faith-based beliefs, statistics prove that the many benefits of faith-based programs, in a prison setting, enormeneously out weigh any other type of inmate programming. Especially no programs at all. Inmate assault rates are drastically reduced. Recidivism rates are drastically reduced. A more kinder, gentler person develops of those inmates whom participate. The bottom line is that the faith-based inmate programs work. And because all inmates have a choice to opt in or out of these programs, the rights of each and every inmate is protected.

    On last note. We are big fans of the ACLU's work in the area of prisoner rights. And it is with heavy heart that we express serious concerns over their move to destabilize the Federal Bureau of Prisons efforts to return to inmate rehabilitation by implementing faith-based inmate programs. What is more perplexing is their failure to recognize that the BOP has been violating the Constitution by not offering faith-based programs to inmates during their incarceration.

    In conclusion, we fear that the ACLU, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the other organizations who oppose faith-based prison programs are misguided in their efforts. Their argument must fail because in the end the results would be absurd and truly disheartening to the majority of Americans. It is said that a picture says a thousand words. Therefore, and to drive home our point, we close with a picture to illustrate how their story ends. Please imagine, if you will, in the photo below, a court ordering the removal of every cross, paid for with federal funds, on federally owned land!

    src="mhtml:mid://00000687/!http://www.fedcure.org/image/VAcemetary.jpg"


    The Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) National Cemetery Administration

    maintains 124 national cemeteries in 39 states (and Puerto Rico) as well as 33 soldier’s lots and monument sites.

    Headstones and Markers



    Sincerely,

    FedCURE
    P.O. Box 15667
    Plantation, Florida 33318-5667
    USA

    Web Site: http://www.FedCURE.org
    E-mail: FedCURE@FedCURE.org

    E-fax: (408) 549-8935

    "Using Technology to Bring About Federal Criminal Justice Reform" tm
    WWW.FEDCURE.ORG 2002-2006. All rights reserved.

    Please Donate and Join Now: http://www.fedcure.org/join.shtml

    Subscribe to our free discussion group e-mail: FedCURE-org-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    WWW.FEDCURE.ORG. All rights reserved (2006)

    ReplyDelete