Related
Translate
Get RNB via RSS
|
|
RNB's RSS feed What is this? |
Get RNB via Email
![]() |
![]() Subscribe by Email What is this? |
Follow: Twitter
Most Popular
This Week:
- Polygamist Sect Leader Convicted of Sexual Assault
- Jury takes 14 minutes to convict self-proclaimed pot pastor
- Supreme Court upholds cult AUM Shinrikyo members’ death sentences
- Newspaper continues series of exposés of Scientology cult
- Epic Mohammad movie in pipeline
- Coptic Christian Blogger in Egypt Pressured to Convert to Islam in Prison
- Italian judge convicts 23 in CIA kidnapping of Muslim cleric
- Cult leader Warren Jeffs’ attorneys argue sect leader faced wrong charge
- Texas judge limits some records in FLDS trial over polygamy references
- Photos show birthing center at sect’s Texas ranch
Court rules against prison hair policy
A California prison rule requiring male inmates to keep their hair short violated the constitutional rights of an American Indian prisoner, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, citing a recent Supreme Court decision on religious freedom in prison.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected prison officials’ claims that a three-inch limit on hair length was a valid security measure in the minimum-security prison in San Bernardino County, where Billy Warsoldier was held for 13 months on a gun conviction.
Warsoldier, a Cahuilla Indian, says members of his religion believe that they would be unable to join their ancestors in the afterlife if they cut their hair, except after the death of a close relative. He was disciplined for his refusal and had his release date briefly postponed, but he was paroled in May 2004 after the court first intervened in his case.
The court said Friday that the state’s arguments — that limiting hair length made identification easier and prevented inmates from hiding weapons or contraband — were upheld in the past but are no longer valid, at least in Warsoldier’s case, because of a new federal law strengthening the religious rights of inmates. The Supreme Court upheld the law in May.
Noting that the law requires the state to show a strong necessity for the rule and no reasonable alternatives, the court said the state’s rationales were undermined by the fact that no such restriction applies to female prisoners; that federal prisons and some states either allow long hair or exempt religious believers, and that security needs are less stringent in a minimum-security prison.
What You Can Do From Here
|
Read More Articles On These Topics
Share, Blog About, Bookmark, or Email This Article
Subscribe
Read Another Article
Find Related Information
Find Related Books
|
Share This Article
To share this page simply copy and paste one of these URL's:





