Should prison inmates have the prerogative to be picky about their food?

I think maintaining the basic diet you had outside of prison is not “being picky.” It’s not like prisoners are demanding caviar and mineral water. Having the option to not eat something they never ate outside of prison is not a bad thing. I’m a vegetarian, does that mean if I get arrested, I should just suck it up and start eating meat again? No. Also, where do you draw the line? There are some food allergies that are not deadly, but make a person very uncomfortable without a lot of medication. Should those people have to just eat the foods that cause them a lot of physical discomfort just because the state puts that food in front of them? Absolutely not.

I also find it interesting that your username is “saint” and you used Muslim prisoners as an example. Should Catholic prisoners not be given the option to give up something for Lent? Sure, prisoners broke the law, but their rights shouldn’t be violated just because you want them to “suck it up.”

I don’t understand the impulse so many seem to have to dehumanize people in prison. Where do folks think that will lead? Prison should be a place where people are reconnected to their humanity, not stripped of what remains of it.

A prison is not a five-star restaurant.

Men and women are there, because they were convicted of a criminal act.

The best food our inmates receive are bologna sandwiches.

Prison is not a country club.

If you’re convicted, then NO!

But I think those who are accused and waiting trial (technically innocent until proven guilty) deserve a higher “grade” of incarceration than convicted criminals.

While those accused (but not yet convicted) of dangerous or horrific crimes, and awaiting trial, still need to be locked up to protect society, their accommodations should be fairly comfortable and private, have full and unlimited access to communication with the outside world (telephone, internet, TV, fax, TV, etc.), and be able to take their meals cafeteria style. At least unless they prove themselves too dangerous or difficult to be afforded such luxury whilst awaiting trial.

First, the article notes that the basis of the lawsuit was discrimination: Jewish prisoners are allowed kosher meals while Muslim prisoners are denied halal meals. Second, the article also notes that the lawsuit in question did not actually request the removal of pork products from the prison menu. That decision was made by the prison for no discernible reason.

Regardless, one does not lose freedom of religion in prison. Freedom is the foundation of the United States of America, and it is a testament to our dedication to that ideal that even prisoners retain as many freedoms as they can be allowed without undermining society’s need to keep them isolated from the rest of us for a period of time.

There is a difference between getting to choose what you eat and getting to choose what you don’t eat. As @KatawaGrey said: they aren’t demanding caviar and mineral water. And in fact, they weren’t even demanding that pork be removed from the menu. They were asking to be treated the same as other prisoners—no better, no worse. This does not seem unreasonable, and it is not inconsistent with the fact that they are prisoners to treat them the way that other prisoners are treated.

I also think that if you spend time in jail and are acquitted, you should be paid fairly generously for the time you spent in jail (like around $1000 per day).

Likewise if you’re convicted and then later acquitted through appeal (especially in a case where they clearly convicted the wrong person…it’s happened).

No.

If you’ve been convicted of crimes against the rest of society then you don’t get to dictate our resources that support you. As far as I’m concerned, if an inmate is so fixated on their religion and it’s details then they should prioritize that and not jeopardize themselves by screwing up in the first place.

@Neizvestnaya Many people covert after landing themselves in prison. It’s part of their reformation process. Why screw it up right at the beginning by not letting them conform to various basic tenets of their newfound religion? It’s these ritualized elements that help cement the rest of it, hopefully changing their characters as part of it. A halal meal is a small price to pay for a drop in recidivism.

To imagine that making a mistake or committing a crime means you can no longer be considered human is a very weak notion of what being human is.

I was thinking the same @john65pennington . They do have rights but before these rights they need to remember they are not there for a visit. They should not be able to be picky. If they want to be picky they should stay away from prison and obey the laws.

@SavoirFaire: The rates of recidivism are high, I can’t imagine halal meals have much impact. So far in my life, I’ve know and visited two different types of criminal in prisons and from what they told me, prison is a school to learn to be a better criminal. I can’t imagine a halal meal is going to deter much from that.

@thorninmud Prison should be a place where people are reconnected to their humanity
I always wondered what they were doing there. Sounds pretty cool-sign me up. I could use a little reconnection with my humanity now and then.

Has no one in America seen Porridge?

So long as they do their porridge, I have no reason for complaint ;¬}
Ahh, I see a reference to this has already been made…...oh bugger!!

They would be so lucky to get more than bread and water….

I think that all of the meals should be well balanced. If an incarcerated individual is served a meal that contains food that goes against their religious beliefs or causes them discomfort to eat they have the choice not to eat it. There are consequences to committing a crime and not being coddled is one of them. If they were that concerned about their dietary needs then they should have stayed home.

Only for religious beliefs. Personal food choices, no. You don’t get to be picky in jail. I’m sorry if you don’t like spinach or hotdogs or whatever; as my mom would say, “like it or lump it.” Don’t eat it if you’re that determined.

As for stripping them of their humanity… honestly? They are getting hot (sometimes), free, prepared meals. That is more than a lot of honest, law-abiding people in this world get.

@Neizvestnaya It’s not the meals themselves. The dietary rules, now that they have outlived their evolutionary function, are primarily part of the ritualization process by which one is inducted into a religion. As a great deal of psychological research shows, rituals latch onto something fundamental in the brain. They are the best way to begin changing how a person thinks (for better or for worse—this is why cults are so ritualized).

Learning to follow these simple, but highly rigid rules regarding diet is practice for learning how to follow more complicated rules (e.g., the rules of morality). Diverting criminals to religion is one way you prevent them from using prison as a way of becoming a better criminal. So if you want them to become better criminals, by all means don’t give them any other options. But if you’d like to reduce recidivism even a little bit, we need to provide opportunities for change. Education and religious reform are both ways of doing so.

I’m not asking anyone to feel sorry for prisoners, and it is not my view that the purpose of prison is to heal the soul or any of that. Nor do I think the proper use of prisons is to punish anyone. The purpose of prison is to keep people who cannot be trusted to act appropriately away from the rest of civil society. With luck, they’ll have disliked the experience enough to never want to risk going back once released. It shouldn’t be a pleasant experience, but it shouldn’t be dehumanizing either. Criminals, terrorists, and dictators dehumanize. We’re better than that—or at least I’d like us to be.

@Supacase And if a lot of people had their way, everyone in the country would be guaranteed basic food and shelter if they could not afford their own. Are you on their side?

Human rights are human rights and you can’t really force people to consume something that they believe effects their mortality in a spiritual sense. Even prisioners are human beings.

I think they should be allowed to observe their God and their laws because hopefully that might be the only thing that get’s through to them.

They are already criminals take away the God in certain cases where people are born to believe… and you have Jeffrey Dahmer.

Although that being said in many cases Religion actually creates the mindset of the criminal so… But they should be allowed to eat what they need to or not have to eat what they can’t for their own belief in salvation.

But not many more privlidges than that a clean place to sleep, toilet facilities and food is all a prisoner should get.

@saint “I always wondered what they were doing there. Sounds pretty cool-sign me up. I could use a little reconnection with my humanity now and then.”

Well, no, that’s not what they’re doing there. What they’re doing in most of our prisons is learning how to be better criminals, learning to see themselves as castoffs from mainstream society, learning to live like animals.

You seem like an educated person. Surely you’ve heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment. It famously demonstrated what a classic prison environment does to even someone without a criminal background.

If someone in prison wants to undertake a discipline that gives structure to their lives, connects them to a moral code, and elevates their thinking above the reptilian level, why on earth would we not want to support that?

This is not a matter of indulging whims and taste preferences.

This isn’t an issue of catering to “picky eaters” in the prison system, it’s about the practice of religion in the prison system. And what the Ohio prisons are doing in the article you link to doesn’t make sense. The suit wasn’t even about pork, it was the about the way non-pork meats are slaughtered, in keeping with Islamic Law. They have so far responded by removing pork from the menu? Why? And, if the prison system provides Kosher meals for it’s Jewish inmates, then it should also provide meals that are in keeping with Islamic dietary restrictions for it’s Muslim inmates. The system should at least be fair.

Religion is a valid reason to ask for specific dietary exclusions. Prisoners do not give up their rights to follow their religious restrictions.

At the very least, food in prisons should be reasonably healthy, and a prisoner’s personal health, such as allergies or likewise physical intolerances concerning food should be considered. Maybe it is though, not entirely sure. I’d hope so.
As far as beliefs and stuff like that goes, well I denno. I rather like @thorninmud‘s answer about that. It’s not because they’re criminals that they should be treated like they’re not human. Might seem silly to a non believer such as I, but faiths are very important to a lot of people.

OK, I’m going to ask what should be a fairly obvious question here. According to Muslim practice in all circumstances other than prison, (meaning the entire rest of the world) Kosher is considered an acceptable substitute wherever and whenever Halal is not available since the basic slaughtering practices are the same.

As a matter of fact Kosher is STRICTER in standards than Halal (with the notable exception of alcohol. But I can’t see that as being a factor for those in prison).

But in terms of the actual slaughtering procedures, Kosher is by far the MOST restrictive. For example, Halal allows the entire animal while Kosher permits only the forequarters.

Kosher limits the actual slaughter to be carried out ONLY by Rabbis specifically trained. Halal is not as restrictive in who does the slaughter.

The other notable difference is WHO says the prayers. But since Muslims claim the same Abrahamic lineage, it’s the same God. And since the animal is being slaughtered and blood drained according to the dictates of said God, why should it matter who is saying those prayers? Of course its nice to have one’s particular religious authority of preference but there are many cases where that is just not posdible for a variety of reasons When Halal meat is unavailable to Muslims in the rest of the world, they eat Kosher. That is commonly done. It’s simply not that unusual at all.

The glaringly obvious question is: Why can’t the Muslims in prison just eat the Kosher meals already made available for Jewish prisoners. They do it in all the rest of the world so what makes prisoners so exceptional that they can’t do what other Muslims routinely do when they travel or move to areas where no Halal is available?

They don’t have to do without. Why not just eat Kosher ?

There is a solution at hand and yet they prefer a lawsuit. IMHO that is the “picky” part of the equation. What makes these prisoners so superior (or ultra-pious or whatever) that they’re above doing what Muslims commonly do in lots of other circumstances all over the world without filing a lawsuit ?

Hmmmm…...

@Buttonstc The problem is that the prisons won’t serve the kosher meals to Muslim prisoners. Their guidelines only allow them to be served to Jewish prisoners. Thus the discrimination aspect of the lawsuit: the guidelines make specific allowances for Jews, but not for Muslims.

I didn’t see any mention of that in that article. And is this true of all prisons?

So, you’re saying that the prisons are the entities willing to be sued rather than allow Muslim prisoners to request Kosher meals? That seems pretty foolish to me.

Do you have a source for that point?

@Buttonstc It’s not in the article referenced in the OP. I had to look at several other articles regarding the issue and parts of the lawsuit itself to be sure of what the exact issue was, but I didn’t want to base my opinions on just one presentation of the story. And no, this is not true of all prisons. Many prisons serve halal meals to Muslims, but it varies from state to state.

This article notes that Ohio guidelines specifically say Jewish inmates are to be accommodated with kosher meals, whereas Muslim inmates are to be accommodated only with vegetarian or pork-free meals. Ohio claims to pay much more for it’s kosher meals than its non-kosher meals, which is why it does not want to serve the former to Muslim inmates. Other states, however, seem to have found ways of bringing the relative costs of kosher and non-kosher meals much closer.

Oh how I wish that prison officials in Ohio prisons would learn to read and educate themselves better on religious practices. And get a better grip on Math or more efficient sourcing for food suppliers.

California can do it with “negligible difference” in cost but it seems to elude those in Ohio? Good grief.

@Buttonstc Agreed. It’s amazing how easily this could have been avoided.

@SavoirFaire That is quite a leap. Nothing about my post suggests that.

Wanting to practice your religion is being “picky” now? Are Christians who request bibles in jail just being “picky” about the books, or are they exercising their right to practice their religion?

While I think that Halal and Kosher slaughter are inhumane, I do think that Muslims and Jews in prison have the right to request meals that follow their religious guidelines. This isn’t a matter of Muslims just not liking pork, it’s a matter of them being forced to violate their religious commandments if they are made to eat foods with traces of pork.

@Soupy

You state that both Halal and Kosher slaughter are inhumane. As oposed to all the other slaughter all over the world?

If one wants to go down that route (requiring strict adherence to being completely vegetarian) the plain fact is that ALL slaughter is regarded as inhumane by those who are vegetarians for reasons of ethics rather than just health reasons. They don’t single out Kosher or Halal. It’s ALL considered equally inhumane.

At least Kosher certified Rabbis have very strict guidelines requiring the sharpening of their instruments to insure the quickest result possible so as not to prolong the suffering of the animal. That’s a step above the sometimes sloppy practices documented at regular facilities.

As a vegetarian for ethical reasons myself, I do feel that all slaughter is inhumane, however Halal and Kosher are worse. My reasoning for this is that the vast majority of Halal and Kosher slaughter is done without stunning the animal first. Not all slaughter is considered equally inhumane by the vegetarian and vegan community.

While Kosher and Halal slaughter do have strict guidelines, the vast majority of the slaughter is not overseen by religious authority. The practices there are often equally sloppy when compared with regular slaughter, with the added bonus of the animals not being stunned prior to the killing.

I’m certainly not an expert on Kosher but this I do know. In order to qualify as Kosher there MUST BE Rabbinical supervision consistently.

(I’m not that versed in Halal except that their requirements for who can slaughter are not as rigorous as Kosher.)

And if you are under the impression that stunning is the be all and end all of highest practice standards, I’ll refer you to an expert on the subject. Temple Grandin is a recognized authority in humane slaughterhouse design
It’s just as important that the animal is not in a state of panic prior to the stun.

Her books on the subject are very enlightening. I highly recommend them.

But I think we both agree that ALL slaughter is inhumane simply by definition. People make their own comfort with that in any way they can whether religious or otherwise.

That’s something I didn’t know. I only have my experiences with local Halal and Kosher slaughterhouses, and with footage from other places. Maybe the place near me is doing it wrong. I know that their meats are sold as Halal and Kosher, and I know that the religious supervisor is not present there for every slaughter.

I do believe that proper stunning is incredibly important, and any slaughter done while the animal is conscious can only be considered cruel. I do agree though that it’s perhaps more important for the animal not to be stressed prior to the stunning/slaughter. This is rarely the case with any slaughter.

I do believe that no slaughter is humane, however I still consider Halal and Kosher slaughter to be worse than what goes on regularly, based on my experience with special slaughterhouses set up for Kosher and Halal meats.

@Supacase I asked a question. How could that possibly be a leap? Regardless, the fact that some people are in worse shape doesn’t mean that other people aren’t in bad shape. The fact that there are law-abiding people who don’t have adequate food, shelter, or clothing, then, doesn’t mean that criminals shouldn’t have adequate food, shelter, or clothing.