https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47613885
In Texas, three Native American inmates have successfully sued the state’s prison system for the right to grow long hair. They stated that growing long hair expresses their religious beliefs and connects them to their creators. However, the state argued that it could harbor lice, represent gang affiliation, and increase the chance of inmates overheating. The three men have been imprisoned for decades, serving time for heinous crimes such as sexual assault and murder. The ruling US District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in Corpus Christi issued last month applies only to the prisoners in the McConnell Unit located near Beeville.
Do you agree with the ruling?
Should religious beliefs be prioritized over health?
I agree with the ruling of US District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos. Considering that the Bill Of Rights ensures US citizens' right to freedom of religion, the Native American inmates' argument for the right to grow long hair should be applicable on the basis that it expresses their religious beliefs. Then again, the state's argument of the potential dangers of long hair are also logical, especially if there are not enough funds if these potential dangers do appear. Because of the mostly rational arguments on the both sides, the ruling makes sense for it to only apply to the prisoners in the McConnell Unit. However, if such potential dangers such as overheating could be fixed through funding that the state is simply unwilling to uphold, the ruling should be enlarged to apply to more than that unit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the ruling of U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos. Even though long hair can, in some cases, present a health threat, since it is an important religious symbol for Native Americans, they should be able to keep their long hair. In this case, I think that religious beliefs should be prioritized rather than health. Unless it becomes a recurring theme for prisoners to die due to health issues caused by long hair, we should prioritize and preserve people’s religious beliefs before considering any health threats, especially since the Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of religion for all citizens.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the ruling, all Americans are guaranteed their rights to faith, and this ruling preserves that, security concerns notwithstanding. Religious beliefs have a tricky relationship with public health and safety. This is more of a case-by case issue, as some expressions of faith would go to far by endangering the wider population significantly. There isn't a clear answer as to whether one should be clearly prioritized over the other, but in most situations, I do believe that the default should be preserving religion over health, barring exceptions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the ruling because I believe that people deserve a right to express themselves in a way that is consistent with their religious beliefs. I don't think that you should try to change someone's way of life too much unless it poses a real threat to their health or safety. It doesn't seem like having long hair poses that much of a threat. I can see that there might be some problems with it but I don't feel like they're major issues. For example, lice is a real problem. I also think that other inmates could see this as favoritism and it could create a shaky environment at the prison. I also think that having long hair could pose a safety threat if there were ever fights in the prison. However, I don't think that these are big enough hazards to the point that we need to prevent Native Americans from wearing long hair.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling is fair considering inmates are given most religious freedoms while incarcerated such as having a place of worship and having access to religious texts. Having long hair doesn't appear to be an immediate health risk and taking away an inmates sense of self identity is unnecessarily cruel. I think if such inmates have had no incidents and have no problems with their hair, there should be no reason to require them to cut or shave it. If there are instances of lice or other issues surrounding fights, then inmates can be dealt with on an individual basis, but denying the entire population a certain freedom seems unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to the case of unvaccinated children in public schools. Allowing Native Americans to grow out their hair for religious beliefs should not be prioritized over health because it puts other inmates at the jail at risk for developing health issues that they would not be vulnerable to if the Native Americans hadn't grown out their hair. I understand that this can be considered as a violation of religious rights and the freedom to practice religion, yet it put the health of the entire jail at risk.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the ruling because even though long hair might pose a small health threat, it is a right to express religion. I think both sides to the argument are valid however the situation that is concerning is the overheating and that has the potential to be fixed with funding for air systems. Overall, since long hair is a valid religious freedom for their culture, I believe they should be given the right to express it.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with this ruling at all because it limits the freedom expression and the right to believe whichever profession of faith one wants to. Therefore, I disagree with the ruling by District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos because it seemingly goes against the Constitution and the rights endowed by the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, I believe that even though the inmates may have long hair to demonstrate something other than religion, it does not matter as they are in prison and cannot access the other affiliations without being monitored by the prison. Thus, it seems extensive to make this ruling. Moreover, long hair can be covered with a hat or some sort of covering to prevent overheating, so once again, the ruling by District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos seems excessive in limiting the right to grow long hair. Nevertheless, if the hair poses problems to overheating and lice, then I believe that it should be the choice of the Native Americans in cutting their hair rather than mandated by the prison and the ruling by District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos. Thus this would enable the prisoners to debate for themselves whether or not their health should take precedent over their religion.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, in this case, religious beliefs should not be prioritized over health. Respecting religious beliefs is definitely needed, but I believe, like Mikayla said, the wellbeing of other inmates is more important. Three inmates is a minority in the prison, and putting the majority of inmates at risk to respect the rights of three inmates is doing more good than harm. The state of Texas also brings up legitimate arguments of lice and the possibility of overheating, which puts not only the health of other inmates at risk but also serves as a detriment to the health of the three inmates as well. However, the choice of growing long hair is up to the three Native American inmates; in the end, though, I don't think it's right to put the majority at risk for the minority.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the First Amendment grants all US citizens the right to exercise their religion and that the long hair represents a form of religious expression for these three inmates, I support Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos' decision. After all, regardless of their crimes, theses inmates are still human and deserve equal protection under the law. However, given that their long hair may affect the health and welfare of other inmates, I think it's only fair for these 3 Native Americans to take responsibility over their actions and be subject to more strict hair washing regiments or other procedures that ensures the health of the greater prison community. It's not fair for other inmates to bear the consequences of these inmates' choices, so it's only right for these inmates to bear the consequences of their decision.
ReplyDelete