posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:11 PM
Setting aside the freedom of religion aspects of this episode, and even the "cruel and unusual punishment" component to a degree, I wonder about the
legalities involved with administrators who are allowed to create rules, and severe punishment regimes.
How is it that prison officials can create a rule (in this case about hair length), and then impose an open-ended, never-ending punishment for
disobeying that rule? In particular, how can the violation of an administrative decision be allowed to result in a 10-year (and counting) punishment
that will result in the likely permanent disability of the rule-breaker?
As previous posters have mentioned, this inmate is now almost certainly suffering from mental disorders...from which he may not now be able to
Because he refuses to get a haircut? How is this reasonable - or more importantly, how can this be permitted under the law?
Administrative rulings (like Company policies) are not laws. And the consequences decided for breaking rules must have reasonable bounds.
Surely there must (or should be) some kind of maximum time a person can be subjected to solitary confinement punishment before the matter is taken in
front of a judge, or some other review body, to determine what alternative measures can be taken.
Speaking for myself, I would have cut my hair pretty early in this game...religious beliefs or not (which probably means I would not make a very good
zealot of any kind).
But at what point does society (represented in this instance by the penal system), say...ok, that's not working as a deterrent...what do we do
now...'cause we really can't torture this guy ad infinitum over the length of his hair...
Strange, strange situation.
[edit on 5-6-2010 by mobiusmale]