Blank










Role of alcohol and religion in Wisconsin penal system
by Liz Sanger and Joelle Parks:

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/11/17/taking_on_alcohol_r.php

Last week, the Wisconsin state Senate passed a bill
with a vote of 76-15 in an attempt to become the first
state to allow prison inmates to consume wine during
mass. Gov. Doyle has not said whether or not he will
sign the bill. During the service, the inmates would be
offered no more than two ounces of wine. The amount
of wine offered to the inmates is such a miniscule
amount that it would not have an effect on inmates,
not even those with moderate alcoholic histories.

State Rep. Joe Parisi, D-Madison, is opposed to this
amendment to state law and claimed that, “If this bill
passes and is signed into law, Wisconsin will allow
prisoners who are alcoholics to consume alcohol in
prison,” and concluded by saying, “This is not a First
Amendment issue; this is a mental health issue.” The
bill clashes with state law that make it a crime to provide
inmates with liquor, therefore trying to amend this law
reflects matters of religion, which will always be
controversial.

In times of peril, many people rely on their religion for assistance and comfort to
recognize their mistakes and repent. Christian services allow inmates to forget about
where they are and just be with God. With so many changes in their lives, it is
comforting to know that religion is one of their rights that will not be infringed
upon. Many Christian religions also recognize the host and wine as the consecrated
body and blood of Christ. Not allowing them to participate in such a critical part of
the sacrament is unacceptable.

Alcohol affects different people in different ways due to various factors. Age,
gender, physical characteristics, amount of food consumed and certain medications can
cause different reactions, depending on the person. According to the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, one drink of wine is defined as five ounces. The
average American man is 5-feet, 9-and-a-half inches and weighs 191 pounds and the
average American woman is 5-foot-4 inches and weighs 164.3 pounds, regarding those
between the ages of 20 and 74. The blood alcohol level after consuming one glass of
wine for men is .02 and .03 for woman.

The inmates would not be consuming the entire five ounces; they would be consuming no
more than two ounces, therefore not affecting their bodies in any damaging way. In
most states, adults over 21 can drive with a blood alcohol level of .08 or below. It
is one thing for prison inmates to receive wine at communion and completely different
for those suffering from severe alcoholism, that which requires treatment involving
hospitalization and drug rehab, to receive it. Appropriate judgment calls are
necessary.

There should not be limitations placed on religion unless a person is affecting
another in a negative manner. Unfortunately, this is not the case as religion is
almost extinct in the public sphere. The only place that religion is allowed without
controversy is in places of worship and during services. Limiting this right to
prison inmates is not a right that anyone should be able to restrict.

“When you have that as part of the fundamental part of your religion and you are
prohibited from using wine in the sacrament, you are impinging upon religious
freedom,” said Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee. Prison is supposed reform inmates, not
prevent them from one of the few things that still remain uniform in their life. To
make someone suffer spiritually is a form of torture that no one has the right to
endorse — not even the government.

Joelle Parks (jparks@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore intending to major in
journalism.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Should you give alcohol to a recovering alcoholic? The answer to this question, no
matter what the circumstances, is no. Alcoholics experience powerful cravings for
alcohol that inhibit their ability to control the amount they consume. Cravings can’t
just be subdued by extra-strong will power.

Alcoholics aren’t to blame; it’s simply out of their control. The National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism explains that “cutting down” on alcohol intake doesn’t
work on the road to recovery. Completely cutting alcohol out is necessary for a
successful recovery.

Seven out of 10 inmates in Wisconsin’s prison population have substance abuse
problems. Many are alcoholics. Why, then, are members of the Wisconsin state
Legislature advocating for prisoners to have access to alcohol? Our correctional
systems are supposed to be a place of rehabilitation and preparation for reentry into
the outside world. Teaching alcoholics that it’s OK to have “a little” alcohol is not
acceptable rehabilitation.

The Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association’s lobbyist is registered
against Senate Bill 174, which would allow prison inmates access to alcohol during a
religious service. I can understand why — this bill creates more potential security
threats for law enforcement officers both inside and outside of our state prisons.
Corrections officials have expressed their concern that allowing inmates to consume
alcohol will defeat their efforts to curb alcohol abuse.

Many offenders are in jail because of alcohol-related crimes; when these people
return to society, where the amount of alcohol they consume isn’t monitored, what
will stop them from relapsing into their old destructive behavior? If this bill
becomes law it certainly won’t be anything they learned in prison, where the message
is “a little alcohol doesn’t hurt.”

Contrary to what Senate Bill 174’s supporters would have you believe, refusing to
allow inmates access to alcohol is not a violation of First Amendment rights. I take
First Amendment rights very seriously, and value them immensely. In a prison system,
however, these rights don’t mean the same thing. Every reasonable effort to afford
prison inmates their individual rights should be made.

Any supporter of Senate Bill 174 who argues that refusing to allow inmates access to
alcohol is a violation of First Amendment rights isn’t telling you the whole story.
There is plenty of precedent in place that should guide lawmakers from even
considering reckless laws like this one. Perhaps most notably, in 1987 the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in Turner v. Safley that “when a prison regulation impinges on
inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related
to legitimate penological interests” [emphasis added].

Would anyone consider granting prisoners their Second Amendment right to bear arms?
No, because penological interests would be threatened. Should inmates who are
struggling with alcoholism be allowed to consume alcohol in the name of the First
Amendment? No, because penological interests would be threatened.

The argument that religion can help some people back on the path of recovery is a
valid one. Religious counseling and study can be crucial in the rehabilitation
process for some people. Prisoners shouldn’t be prevented from exercising any
religious practices that don’t threaten penological interests. And that doesn’t just
apply to Christians (who seem to be the only religious group Senate Bill 174’s
authors are concerned with). The Turner decision should be used to guarantee exercise
of religion rights to inmates whenever possible. But once you allow members of one
religion to exercise freely, be prepared to allow the same freedom to members of
every religion.

Beyond this, though, what the bill’s supporters failed to consult in this instance
was common sense and the need for safety and security in our state’s correctional
systems. The order we impose within our prisons is a necessary component of the
rehabilitation process, which should above all teach inmates how to make reasonable,
safe decisions once they return to society. Senate Bill 174 undoubtedly impedes this
success.
Liz Sanger (ejsanger@wisc.edu)

--
_____________________________________________________

I intend to last long enough to put out of business all *****-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________