Stephan Espalin was a prisoner in a Colorado jail. He was charged for stealing a car and an attempted escape. While at this prison, Espalin ate regular food and claimed that he was Catholic. Later, he requested to be tried for his crimes in Idaho, which was where one of his alleged crimes occurred. Upon receiving word that he would be tried in Idaho, Espalin told officials that he would need kosher food because he was Jewish.
Officials at the Idaho jail refused Espalin’s request for kosher food. They stated that “he has failed to provide information to prove he is Jewish.” It’s the job of the chair of the Jewish Prisoner Services International, Gary Friedman to find out the “truth” of the prisoner’s claims. He believed the recent change in religion to be rather suspicious and even stated that he believed that “people can’t self-convert to Judaism.”
Friedman pointed out several reasons that prisoners may suddenly claim to be Jewish. Some of the reasoning included cleaner, healthier, and a larger variety of foods served in prison. He also pointed out that prisoners have a choice in the type of meal they eat, which can be chosen monthly.
This was a really interesting situation. On one hand, you have a prisoner who claims that he went from being Catholic to Jewish. Therefore, his religion states that he needs to eat a kosher diet. On the other hand, you have officials who are questioning the sincerity, integrity, and truth of the prisoner’s religious affiliations.
I honestly think it’s a little suspicious that the prisoner changed religions and wanted a kosher diet at the new jail. However, I don’t think that it is the government’s place to question one’s religious beliefs or judge whether or not someone is being sincere about their religion. To not allow the inmate to have the kosher food would be religious discrimination.
In this case, I don’t think that the government is really concerned about the religious affiliation of the inmate. In my mind this case comes down to the cost of the special diet. I’m sure that a special meal costs more money to the system than a regular meal because of the quantity and extra time used to prepare the kosher food. The government may also worry about how many people may start claiming that their religion requires kosher foods. Nonetheless, I don’t think that the mass amounts of prisoners will claim that they need this special food because it is just prison food. It will be nothing fancy, and will fulfill the basic requirements that the body needs to live.
I think that it is important for government not to be allowed to judge the sincerity of anyone’s religion; no matter what the financial cost. So if the food cost a little more, so be it because it’s the inmate’s religious and constitutional right to do so. Ultimately, denying the inmate’s right to kosher food would be to deny the freedom of religion itself.
Article may be viewed online at <http://www.ktvb.com/news/nearyou/nidaho/ktvbn-jun2708-kosher_food.440a0166.html>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I agree that, when the government gets into the business of determining sincerity, there is the potential for abuse of power and infringement of Constitutional rights. On the other side of that, however, is the potential for abuse of First Amendment protections. What is the practical solution?
Last semester, my constitutional law professor cited probably the most bizarre and interesting case I had ever heard of: a prostitute, picked up on the street by police, argued that she practiced an ancient Egyptian religion in which it was a sacrament to have sex with the "high priestess," then give a donation to the church. The woman had prior prostitution convictions, but also had evidence that such a religion had existed. On the one hand, maybe she did find a religious calling; on the other hand, if allowed by the court, what would stop every prostitute in the country from “converting” to the religion? Here there is clearly a question of sincerity, but it is also evident that the government has a “compelling interest” in preventing the proliferation of prostitution.
In United States v. Ballard (1944), the court rejected that questions of sincerity be introduced to the jury to decide whether a man was justified in using the mail system to solicit donations based on religious claims the defendant did not personally believe. However, in United States v. Seeger (1956), the Court expanded protection for conscientious objectors to the military draft who have a “sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those” who follow the moral code of a supreme being. This essentially allowed the Court to determine whether stated beliefs are truly held at the highest moral level; in other words, sincerity.
But even if there is sincerity, a compelling government interest can take precedent. In Goldman v. Weinberger (1986), the Court ruled that a rabbi chaplain in the military could not wear his yarmulke because it was inconsistent with the government’s compelling interest in maintaining uniform military dress. In the Idaho kosher food case, the interest in practicality doesn’t make sincerity irrelevant, but it highlights the potential for abuse. With over 2 million Americans now incarcerated, penitentiary budgets are strained, and diversifying food options may be prohibitively expensive. Perhaps a more important argument, however, is that inmates are inmates, and the accommodation of every religious claim, sincere or not, sacrifices the necessary control the prison system has over the inmates’ rehabilitation (or at least incarceration).
It is unfortunate when genuine religious beliefs cannot be accommodated. However, imprisonment is a denial of freedom in itself; should we not even HAVE a judicial system because it takes away individual autonomy? That is an impractical argument. Perhaps the government does unjustly have the capacity to take away our liberties in the name of a “compelling interest” – look at the Patriot Act’s purpose of “national security.” However, prisoners have no expectation of many Constitutional rights, and it has always been that way; for example, privacy and even voting in some states. Why should religion be any different? This is a cost of committing crime (probably an act condemned by the individual’s religion), and criminals are cognizant of that on some level when they disobey the law. That society should bear the price—“no matter what the cost”—of giving inmates fundamentally more autonomy, on the possibility that requests may be sincere, is simply impractical and irresponsible.
I feel that the government should not be allowed to decide if someone's faith is sincere or not, but inmates do have rights restricted. With this said, I do believe that the sincerity of an inmate's religion can be questioned if there are blatant misrepresentations. This man obviously did want the preferential treatment. Converting from Catholism to Judaism is a huge commitment. If the man actually underwent the change in religion and fulfilled the requirements to become Jewish I believe he should get to have the special diet. Converting to Judaism is a huge deal whether he is doing because he want the preferential treatment in prison or because he truly believes in the Jewish faith, he should get the treatment.
Post a Comment