Related
Translate
Advertisements *
Elsewhere
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:
- Guyana’s Jonestown suicide site gets plaque
- Gaddafi preaches Islam to Rome beauties
- Scientology practices ‘putting people at risk’
- Recession: Muslim schools in UK under threat of closure
- Australian senator tells Parliament of widespread criminal conduct within the Church of Scientology
- When a child dies, faith is no defense
- Techie Holy water and geeky bishops
- Muslim terrorists smuggle fatwas promoting Jihad out of secure UK prisons
- Israel Charges Extremist With Attempted Murder Of Messianic Family
- Scientology’s feet held to the fire in Australia: Struggle between a church and the state
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made identification easier and prevented inmates from hiding weapons or contraband — were upheld in the past but are no longer valid, at least in Warsoldier’s case, because of a new federal law strengthening the religious rights of inmates.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:





