Should Prison Rules Be Banned if They Inhibit Religious Practice?

 Jan Gawlik, 56, is serving a 60 year prison sentence for murdering and dismembering his 90 year old father, Jozef Gawlik, in New Britain in 2011. Gawlik says he was possessed by Satan at the time of the murder, in addition to being on cocaine, but has repented, and seeks to change his life. He says he is now studying to be a Roman Catholic priest, stating he wants to give the rest of his life to serving God. However, Gawlik has faced some roadblocks in this quest, as he recently lost a legal fight against state prison officials. He accused these officials of violating his first amendment constitutional rights by blocking his orders of religious materials he needed to practice priesthood, which mainly consisted of used religious books. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Gawlik’s appeal of this ruling, which stated that the blocking of this order did not violate his rights that are protected under the first amendment. The main issue at hand is whether or not Gawlik should be allowed to put in these orders of used books and materials, as Connecticut prisons have a rule that bans prison inmates from acquiring used books. The reasoning behind this law is that this decreases the chance of the smuggling of any contraband, or any hidden messages. This is especially easy to do with worn books. The prison officials testified that the law did not directly hinder Gawlik’s right to practice religion, as he could simply put in the orders for new materials and books. However, Gawlik sought to end this ban of used books, as some of his desired books are no longer in print from a certain publisher, and are nearly impossible to find new, while they can easily be acquired used. In response to this, the prison officials stated that he could still find other books to study that could be ordered new, and that the ban did not ban these materials because of their religious use, but simply because of the used book ban that applies to all people of all religions. Because of the neutrality of this ban, Gawlik was unsuccessful in obtaining these unique used books. This issue relates to our previous discussions of the free exercise clause when applied to circumstances regarding prison rules, and generally neutral laws that happen to restrict one's practices. In regards to people who feel that their religious rights are violated while in prison, it is important to understand that prisoners are expected to follow many rules and bans that are put in place not only to protect the citizens of the state from the prisoners, but the prisoners from each other. This ban was clearly found to decrease the probability of an inmate being able to smuggle in contraband, and is solely in place for that reason. This is a neutral ban, and although in this circumstance it inhibits a prisoners ability to study a certain religious text, it is important to realize that when one is incarcerated they are subject to certain rules. As long as these rules do not directly infringe upon one's first amendment rights by design, they should be followed, and it is up to the inmate to adapt to the situation that they have put themselves in. There are a few implications for this legal debate, depending on if this ruling stands or is reversed in the near future. One bad implication that could come into fruition of this ruling staying as it is is that just because prisoners have made mistakes, that they are not entitled to equal constitutional rights. The only reason a rule should infringe upon one's constitutional rights is if it is neutral at its base. A reversal of this ruling, however, would bring forth the implication that one can cite their religious views as being anything, and get their way simply because it is their “religious right.” It is important that we understand this slippery slope, and when a rule, ban, or law is generally for the better, and when it is an outright infringement disfavoring a minority. This is a very important issue, and I feel that it was handled correctly. I truly believe this ban was neutral, and that there are ways this inmate can still learn to become a priest and practice his religion, possibly with different, new books.