Iowa's Tax-Payer Funded Faith-based Prison Wing
AU contends that taxpayer funds are unconstitutionally being used to support a sectarian religious program that is both discriminatory and proselytizing. Staffing the program only with evangelical Christians discriminates in hiring. Ejecting persons from the program who express disagreement with the program's religious teachings discriminates both against persons of other Christian convictions and against those of other faiths. Particularly odious to some inmates are the program's insistence on Biblical literalism, male supremecism, the necessity that wives submit to the rule of their husbands, hostility toward homosexuals, criticism of Catholicism and judgments about other faiths. Participants in the program felt pressured to convert to an evangelical form of Christianity. AU also suggests that the special privileges extended to prisoners who enter the program constitute a subtle form of proselytization. Participants have keys to their cells, separate public bathrooms, greater mobility within their wing of the prison, more visits with family, access to special rooms with computers and music, guaranteed prison jobs, payment for being in the program, and access to activities that give them a better chance of obtaining parole than other inmates. Prison Fellowship asserts that no public money is being applied to the religious aspects of its program. They say the public money is being used for education and life skills training for the inmates. They also contend that there is no religious test to participate in the program. Participants enter the program voluntarily and people of all faiths and no faith are welcome. Program administrators, however, do not deny that faith is the central component of the program. The program is described as "Christ-centered" and the teachings of the Bible are integrated throughout the curriculum. Prospective participants are required to complete a 30-day orientation and, while in prison, are free to withdraw at will. When released from prison, however, they are paired with a mentor and local church and are required to stay employed, perform community service, attend church regularly, and remain in contact with their mentor. The aftercare component of the program has been credited with boosting the rate of successful rehabilitations. InnerChange claims a recidivism rate of 8-11% for graduates of its program while the average recidivism rate for other inmates is over 50% after three years. Advocates for InnerChange think the program's effectiveness enables the state to affirm purely secular purposes for funding it with public dollars - to reduce crime by rehabilitating criminals and to save the public money by reducing the number of recidivist offenders that require institutionalization. Critics assert that the program's claims for successful rehabilitation are "statistically invalid." Excluded from InnerChange's statistics are participants who failed to complete the program. In addition, AU claims to have evidence that statistics were skewed by the expulsion of likely recidivists from the program before they could graduate. They also cite a study by UCLA professor Mark Kleiman revealing that, when both graduates and non-graduates of the program are considered, InnerChange's recidivism rate was actually higher than that of a control group.
Whatever the District Court decides, this case will certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court. That final decision will have profound implications for the constitutionality of many of the current administration's federally funded faith-based initiatives.
Iowa's Tax-Payer Funded Faith-based Prison Wing | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
Iowa's Tax-Payer Funded Faith-based Prison Wing | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
|
||||||||||||
|