John:

You seem to be discarding the possibility of redemption. That's a rather stern position.

Further, how would our society be advanced by brutalizing prisoners ? They certainly give up SOME rights, but not their fundamental ones. Why not allow them as much dignity as they are capable of displaying ?

How is society advanced by officially brutalizing any human bring?

Michael:

Redemption doesn't require kosher food. (good BBQ maybe . . . . but that’s another discussion)

Inalienable rights, including a right to freely express one’s religion, do not infer an obligation on others. Nor do these rights exist in a vacuum – they carry a correlative responsibility. In Mr. Cotton’s case, even if he HAD been demanding kosher food in his first prison term for murder (which he oddly was not) before he was “rehabilitated” and subsequently failed to execute the responsibilities of his parole, he still would not be entitled to burden the State with his so-called free exercise of religion. One of the many troubles with singling out and extending such “rights” to un-free men, or those who have usurped responsibility entirely, is that it’s a very short slippery slope to finding the same obligation with FREE people. After all, if it is good for the State to provide kosher food for a criminal, then certainly law abiding citizens should also be rewarded with such a “right”.

See, I told you ground carp was good>
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/008662.html

John:

You wouldn't deny him the scriptures of his faith, would you?

Sure, there are limits (robes and instruments for Hare Krishna prisoners?), but why is allowing prisoners to respect and practice well-established faiths offensive? Surely it is not hard to find kosher food in Florida.

This issue has always troubled me. Conservatives tend to hold freedom as the highest good, and life without it unbearable, yet we tend to be sulky and dissastisfied by the denial of freedom alone. Once the guy is in prison, we start resenting the care provided, say silly things about "country club living" and turn a blind eye to prison rape and the general reign of terror inside. Why do we want prison life to be a form of daily torture? (some truly horrific crimes provide the answer, but we don't distinguish much, do we.)

And Michael's point is a very good one.

What's the fuss? Wouldn't it be simpler to wire his jaws open and force feed him cholent....

Oddly enough, if kosher food is not available, it is no sin to eat non-kosher food. (You are not, that is, expected (or allowed) to starve yourself to death or even go hungry because you are prevented from keeping kosher.)

In other words, it is only our willingness to provide kosher food that obliges him to eat kosher food and if we were not willing to do so, he would not be sinning and thus his exercise of religion would not be burdened. This is technical, of course, but then the laws of kashrut are technical and are understood to be so by practicing Jews. Thus, elevators in Jewish hospitals are (or can be) programmed to stop automatically at every floor on the sabbath because it is the pressing of the button that is forbidden, not the ride. But if a Jewish doctor is in a non-Jewish hospital on the sabbath and needs to treat a patient on another floor, it is no sin for him to use the elevator if he must.

Finally, leaving the issue of "Kosher" food to one side -- and that label is a misnomer -- I cannot believe that Cotton will actually be keeping kosher. Will they seperate meat and dairy in the prison kitchen and not serve them at the same meal? Will they provide him a seperate set of dishes and silverware for milk and meat? Will they stop cooking pork in the kitchen where his meal is prepared? Will they ritually cleanse the kitchen of leavened products during Passover? If they won't do these things, will they allow him to eat seperately from the rest of the population at every meal for the rest of his sentence? If not, then he won't be keeping kosher, regardless of whether his food contains pork products or his beef comes from ritually slaughtered cows.

OK, David, from now on I stick to worrying about Christmas trees. :)

Peter -

I think your question is a good one. I think that part of the answer is that conservatives simply don't spend much time thinking about prison conditions. But, to the extent we do think about it, here in no particular order are the arguments I think counterbalance our concern for the inherent dignity of man:

Taxes are bad and should not be spent frivolously.

"Outlaws" have, by their actions, removed themselves from the protection of community and thus their dignity is, by their very choice, of lesser concern.

Revenge is a dish best served early and often.

Crime can be deterred by harsh punishment.

Not executing murderers is, in itself, sufficient tolerance for a lifetime.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (i.e., if we can't have a creche, how come a prisoner gets gefilte fish?)

Prison is a new-fangled innovation and should be treated skeptically.

In sum, to the extent that government is necessary, it's actions should be strictly prioritized and lots of things come before spending to ameliorate the harshness of prison, which ought, in any event, be as harsh as possible.

David: Thanks for the technical analysis.

Peter: Surely Mr. Cotton’s reasonable request for the "scripture of his faith" has already been granted. And, to the extent he truly IS a devout follower of the Jewish, (a point I am not willing to cede based on the facts here) he would know King David’s thoughts on the matter: “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” Psalm 119:11kjv.

My point is not about the absence or presence of Kosher food in Florida nor the State’s ability to spend whatever means great or small to obtain it. The State’s estimated cost difference between Mr. Cotton’s daily meals and that of the rest of the Gentiles it feeds is only about 600% - hardly worth noting for one individual, wouldn’t you say? Careful though . . . you don’t want to run the numbers on what the State could be obligated to pay by this same reasoning for a larger sample of prisoners, not to mention non-criminals.

Your other questions are straw men, right? The absence of certain types of food and/or food preparation at State Correctional institutions does not lead to “the reign of terror” and “…daily torture. Perhaps the presence of basic wickedness would provide a more tangible correlation than the absence of diet?

Lastly, the God that Mr. Cotton purports to obey and serve looks upon his heart. To wit, the laws he’s using to argue his case expressly provide for such a circumstance (see David’s points above). As such, if this WERE truly about Mr. Cotton’s faith – his own demand for kosher food is simply a legal joyride.

David:

Good points generally, but I'm not sure about the one on not-executing prisoners. That's a political choice made (or legally imposed) and shouldn't be connected to how we treat prisoners. Does it follow that states or countries without capital punishment are freer to make life more miserable than those with?

Also, revenge, like mercy, is best administered and measured with respect to individuals, not general populations who are in prison for a lot of different reasons.

John:

How dare you insult me by accusing me of using straw men! Can't you be polite and just tell me it was an egregious non-sequitor?

David, our prison rabbi, has convinced me. Let him eat cheeseburgers! And I suspect you are right that we have some prison lawyering going on here. But I'm still uncomfortable about the general issue of acting as if crime absolves us of being responsible for human dignity. That famous Arizona warden gave me the chills. There are some things about modern prison life that simply can't be justified without dehumanizing the convicts. We take away their freedom, not their membership in the human race.

Peter:

I happened to live in New Mexico when the inmates of a maximum security prison took over the place for a few days.

After the uprising was over, the news started reporting what had gone on inside.

The evidence was clear: they had long since dehumanized themselves.

Jeff:

Sadly, I don't doubt it a bit. It's more the dehumanizing of ourselves I was thinking about.
But I realize I might be a little wet here in my nice safe world. You are quite right to slap me before I descend into pschyo-leftist drivel or start whining about how even Bubba and Sonny have mothers.

John:

Your thoughts on BBQ carry the ring of truth.

I'm not objecting to the possibility of this man being denied Kosher food, but to your blanket statement that prisoners' "rights should be forfeited".
Society has SOME obligation to feed prisoners acceptable food, and to accommodate their desires and requests. As the US is still a fabulously rich nation, I see no harm in feeding some a vegetarian meal, or giving prisoners ice cream once in a while.

Non-prisoners don't have the same claim, because by and large, society doesn't provide un-incarcerated people with meals. We do, however, provide assistence for food purchase, and individuals receiving that benefit are free to buy kosher foods.

Peter B:

If you're talking about the Sheriff of Maricopa County, I first read about him in the newspapers in '91, while living in a tent in the Arabian desert. While I did eat much better than the Arizona prisoners, I didn't have hot showers or recreational facilities, and so, at least as described by the papers, my living conditions and theirs were equivilent.
My feeling is, if it's good enough for a US Army Infantryman, it's good enough for a criminal.

Michael:

Geez, man, you're the one that got me going on this with your first post. Now that I am being skewered left and right, you jump ship. Thanks a lot.