Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Should ‘Inmate Bill of Rights’ Be Modified?

A 52-word “inmate bill of rights” in the California Penal Code has come under attack by politicians and others who claim it allows state prison inmates undeserved privileges such as access to hard-core pornography, conjugal visits, marriage and the right to wear their hair any length.

The measure, passed in 1968 and expanded in 1975, states that inmates have the same rights as other residents and any narrowing of those rights must be directly related to the security of a prison. Two bills to repeal the measure, by state Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside) and Assemblyman Dean Andal (R-Stockton), have passed their respective legislative houses and are awaiting further action.

What changes, if any, should be made to the state’s “inmate bill of rights” and why?

Richard Katz, Democratic state assemblyman, 39th District.

“I think a combination of symbolism and substantive (aspects need to be eliminated). The substantive includes things like weekend visitation that the inmates enjoy while in prison, combined with the symbolism of the fact that prison is not supposed to be easy or fun. It’s punishment for crimes against society. There is a sense that the rights of the inmate or the rights of the accused take greater precedence than the rights of the victim or of society.”

Bruce Hill, a private attorney in Woodland Hills who has represented 17 defendants facing the death penalty.

“I think I’d answer the question (as to changes) in the negative, except for provisions I’m not completely familiar with, such as making periodicals available to inmates. “I think the political response has been somewhat naive, but it has been well accepted given the public’s attitude. Giving these rights to inmates is, number one, humanitarian. I don’t think the public wants a system where people are chained to walls. Second, people in control of the facilities will tell you these rights are vital in creating a (tolerant) attitude in institutions, not only among inmates, but for those responsible for guarding them. To limit these rights can do nothing but increase violence among these inmates.”

John Ratelle, warden of the California State Prison in Lancaster, which houses 3,977 inmates.

“The biggest issue . . . is inmates can get magazines and articles that are just atrocious and nasty. A rapist can get it, a child molester can get it. . . . Sen. Presley’s bill has the same rights that are under the civil constitution, but can limit (publications received), and that’s what we currently support.

“Restricting the right to marry (is appropriate). The way it is now, male inmates can meet women through correspondence, or a female inmate can meet a male, and marry them while in prison. All they do is use the person. I think there should be some restrictions. . . . If they met before the person went in prison, that’s OK.”

John Spillane, head of the Antelope Valley branch of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.

“The public perception is that we ‘coddle’ prisoners and, although that is not the case, they are given certain privileges such as television, magazines and conjugal visits that many people feel, depending on the circumstances of the crime committed, the inmates do not deserve. I can see where some of the Department of Corrections officials feel we need these privileges as inducements to good behavior . . . (but) rather than giving them to everyone, I would like to see them given to prisoners right before they go out. The last year of their incarceration, perhaps, or as a reward for good behavior.”