Should prison inmates be allowed to read whatever they choose?

"Werewolf erotica"? A history of race relations? The Bible? What should prisoners be reading – and does society have the right to decide for them?

'Slavery By Another Name,' writer Douglas A. Blackmon's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, was deemed inappropriate for an Alabama prisoner.

How much freedom should inmates have to read?

That’s the question on some minds as a string of incidents has exposed the unlikely challenges faced by prison libraries – making strange bedfellows of the books and law enforcement communities along the way.

The latest is a decision by the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, which recently overturned a previous ruling barring an inmate of a state prison from receiving a book he requested deemed problematic by prison officials. The book in question was “The Silver Crown,” by Mathilde Madden, which has widely become known as “werewolf erotica,” and was considered too sexual by corrections officers.

“Prison authorities had a legitimate penological interest in prohibiting inmates from possessing sexually explicit materials,” Justice James Richman wrote, but in this case, they overstepped their powers and engaged in an “arbitrary and capricious application of the regulation,” Richman said, as reported by Salon.com.

That decision follows news of an Alabama prison that barred one of its inmates from reading the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans From the Civil War to World War II” by Douglas Blackmon. A 2011 suit by the American Civil Liberties Union charged a South Carolina prison with denying its inmates all reading material other than the Bible.

(Meanwhile, a prison library at Guantanamo Bay has some 18,000 books, along with periodicals, DVDs, and video games, from which detainees can choose two each week for a loan period of 30 days, as reported in a recent fascinating article by the New York Times exploring the books and prisoner preferences at Gitmo. Besides religious books in Arabic, popular fare there includes Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s “News of a Kidnapping,” Danielle Steel’s “The Kiss,” and adventuring magazines, which allow detainees rare glimpses of nature.)

While some in the books world have decried the book confiscations, maintaining order and security is paramount at corrections institutions. As such, the controversial incidents raise some complex questions about prisoners’ rights when it comes to reading as well as corrections officers’ rights when it comes to preventive and punitive measures to maintain order and security. For, while inmates surely have some First Amendment rights such as freedom of speech, they also surrender some of their First Amendment rights upon incarceration.

As the website FindLaw explains, “Inmates retain only those First Amendment rights... which are not inconsistent with their status as inmates and which are in keeping with the legitimate objectives of the penal corrections system, such as preservation of order, discipline, and security.”

It is for this reason prison officials can screen and open mail directed to inmates, for example. 

But the strictures governing inmate rights with regard to reading leave many questions. Who decides which books are inconsistent with the “preservation of order, discipline, and security” and why? What makes one book problematic, one innocuous, and one potentially remedial or rehabilitative? In short, how much freedom should inmates have to read?

Let us know what you think.

Husna Haq is a Monitor correspondent.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Should prison inmates be allowed to read whatever they choose?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2013/0613/Should-prison-inmates-be-allowed-to-read-whatever-they-choose
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe