Monday, March 12, 2012
A Forced Prison Haircut Brings Up Questions About Freedom Of Religion
Omar Grayson, a prisoner at Big Muddy Correctional Center, was forced to cut his dreadlocks by an officer at the Correctional Center. Grayson is a member of the African Hebrew group. African Hebrew Israelites believe they cannot cut their hair. In Illinois, the location of the Correctional Center, inmates are allowed to have “’any length of hair’ as long as long as it ‘does not create a security risk’”. The officer claimed Grayson’s hair to be a security risk, but he did not explain why. Grayson complained about the situation; the chaplain of the center commented about the situation and “claimed that only Rastafarian inmates were entitled to wear dreadlocks on religious grounds”. Grayson appealed his situation to the Internal Prison Court and was denied his appeal based on the chaplain’s comments.
The case was heard by the United States Court of Appeals. The ruling was in favor of Omar Grayson. The court found that the prison was threatening religious freedom. They believed the chaplain’s comment about Rastafarian inmates was discriminatory towards other inmates. Big Muddy Correctional Center “lets Rastafarians wear dreadlocks and did not justify why Mr. Grayson posed a security risk the Rastafarians did not”. In an effort to award Grayson and other inmates religious freedom, the court ruled in favor of Grayson.
How did this ruling award religious freedom? The case at its heart was an issue of discrimination among religions. When the United States Court of Appeals ruled that Grayson’s forced haircut was religious discrimination, it forbid the forced cutting of hair unless it was a security threat. An officer or anyone in power over the inmates cannot force an inmate to cut their hair if they claim religious belief for hair length. They have no right to tell the religious inmate their views are wrong. However, if the person in power over the inmate has a legitimate reason for the inmate to cut their hair because of security purposes, they must be able to explain why.
Grayson’s case could have been denied if there was a compelling argument on the officer’s side about a security threat. I think the chaplain’s comment hurt the case. It makes me wonder how the case would have favored if the chaplain had not commented in this way.
This case reminds me of the Reynoldscase. The courts ruled in a similar fashion to the Omar Grayson case. Polygamy and all religious practices were allowed and could not be deemed incorrect by the law. Religion and its beliefs are/were not allowed to be dissected by the law and determined wrong. However, law could be enforced and ultimately stop the practice if there was a threat of security. Unlike the case, the court ruled in favor of Grayson and his religious beliefs because they were not a threat to security at the center. The Mormons were not granted as much favor. Due the prospective of threat on security because of polygamy, polygamy was banned and outlawed.
Tags:
0 Responses to “A Forced Prison Haircut Brings Up Questions About Freedom Of Religion”
Post a Comment