Religion In Prisons

9 Pages 2230 Words

Religion in Prisons
Introduction
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This amendment is called the Free Exercise Clause. The Constitution of the United States is the highest authority concerning the rights of the people it governs and was written to apply to every person living in the United States. There can be limitations to these freedoms, especially religious ones, however. This paper discusses the limitations on religious freedoms dealing with prisoners in the correctional system.
In many instances, people seem to view religion by prisoners as taboo or fake. Prison staff can testify that a large number of prisoners “find” religion when they become incarcerated. The American public do not like special treatment to be given to these individuals. But what about those inmates that truly have religious beliefs? The Supreme Court and Appeal courts have had trouble with sorting these concerns out. There have been two different approaches the courts have used to perceive how or if religion should be accommodated in prisons. The first approach is called the “strict scrutiny” standard. “This standard required the government to prove a compelling government interest to justify the burden (Chiu 2004), affirmed that prisoners at the right to the Free Exercise Clause. The second approach is called the “rational-relationship" standard. This standard “reinterpreted the requirements of the Free Exercise Clause to provide little, if any, constitutional protection for religious exercise burdened by [*1004] neutral, generally applicable laws” (Chiu 2004).
Religious Policy (1963-1990)
Strict Scrutin...