The Virginian Pilot has a story on an inmate at the Portsmouth city jail whose dreadlocks were forcibly cut. The inmate, Bernard Montoria Garris, is a “Rastafarian who wore long dreadlocks as a symbol of his religion” and had grown the waist-length locks for 13 years. Sheriff Bill Watson has a policy that inmates cannot have long hair because of the possibility of contraband.
None of the other local jails have such a policy and neither do federal prisons. Virginia state prisons do have such a policy and that policy is being challenged:
Federal law prohibits jails that receive federal money from regulating how inmates practice their religion, except when there is a compelling interest for restrictions, said Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia.
So what do you think? Should prisoners be compelled to cut their hair because of the possibility of concealing contraband or should the freedom to practice their religion trump that?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
On one hand, it strikes me as VERY easy to hide a shiv in tied up dreadlocks, but the fact that not even federal prisons (wasn’t clear if those were also just local ???) don’t ban long hair weakens the case. There are a lot of things that could easily be hidden in a well kept thick dred. Still, I want the data on this kind of thing happening.
It bothers me when prisons prohibit religious activity for obvious reasons but when it is violent by nature, they’ve got to do what they’ve got to do. But they should also know bounderies and only go as far as is neccasary. Long hair isn’t violent by nature, and I don’t see why they can’t simply search peoples’ hair when they have had the opertunity to bring in contraband. If it becomes a problem with an inmate, then as a last resort I could see them cutting his hair as he has obviously been warned and forfited his right to it over the safty of other inmates.
Speaking of Rastafarian religious rights, isn’t marijuana a sacrament for them? I ask because if so, it might make a good addition to The Daily Whackjob conversation on drug use and a great challenge to what I posted on my blog about legalizing it.
They lost their rights when they were convicted of violating other’s rights, which is why they are in jail.
No, Mrs. Mouse. They go to prison if they’re convicted. They go to jail if they’re arrested and awaiting trial, at which point they’re still innocent until proven guilty. Due process: ain’t it a bitch?
added: In Garis’ case, I’ve read, he actually was serving a short term in the local jail. Regardless, the same holding facility is also used for housing inmates awaiting trial, which means that generally speaking, this policy is not aimed only at convicts.
I lost my comment! Well, it was probably too long, anyway. Although an incarcerated person still has rights, they are now offset by the important state interest in safety, order, and sanitation/cleanliness in the jail. If this is an important interest, it does seem curious that there is no similar requirement in other prisons. The test is, if the agency can prove it’s interest, and if it requires hair to be short and clean of all those in the jail and not just targets those with important traditions related to hair, this is probably okay. However, as was pointed out above, the interest might not be as imporant if there are easy alternatives.
The inmate does not lose all rights by having been convicted and sentenced to jail. The inmate DOES lose some rights. The key question is whether the jail has a legitimate interest that is furthered by the restriction, and whether there is another way to further that interest that is compatible with the inmate’s religious preferences.
For example, a rule that prohibited an inmate from praying — without any justification — would violate his First Amendment rights. Let’s say the inmate is a Native American who belongs to the tribe that includes consumption of mescaline in its rites; that consumption of mescaline is permitted on the outside, but a jail or prison may forbid consumption of mescaline in a religious service for any of a number of reasons — security, not wanting to have to deal with an inmate who has a bad trip, etc.
There is another lawsuit going on right now that is sort of interesting — Leonard Peltier is a Sioux who is serving a life sentence for his part in the uprising at Wounded Knee in 1973 or so. He is complaining that he is not permitted to take part in a “sweat lodge” service that is integral to the practice of his religion. The prison complains that the “sweat lodge” takes many hours and involves collective activity with very little supervision on the part of inmates who have been convicted of serious and dangerous crimes (and who therefore pose security risks). So far, the prison is winning.
My guess on the hair is that he would lose a lawsuit, because the need to be able to search an inmate readily — particularly one with his history of drugs — is an important state interest.