« The safety valve solution to mandatory minimums | Main | Follow-up on today's House hearing on mandatories »

June 26, 2007

Porn hits 4 prisoners in Sweden

Yesterday, as detailed here, the US Supreme Court ruled that American students did not have a right at a school function to unfurl a banner saying "Bong hits 4 Jesus."  But, thanks to How Appealing, I see from this AP article that the "Supreme Administrative Court in Stockholm last week ruled that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service had no right to deny a rape convict access to his porn magazines."   Here are more details:

Prison officials had argued that reading porn would interfere with the man's rehabilitation program. They also said the magazines posed a security problem for staff and other inmates because they could increase the risk of the man relapsing into criminal behavior. But the court, whose ruling cannot be appealed, said the prison service failed to prove that the magazines could "jeopardize the security of the institution."

Perhaps Sweden ought to be the country primarily in charge of trying to spread freedom around the world.

June 26, 2007 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e008cd21a78834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Porn hits 4 prisoners in Sweden:

» They Do Things Different in Sweden from Sex Crimes
And I'm not sure what else I can say about this:Convicted sex offenders in Sweden are free to read pornography in their cells following a court ruling that has angered the prison service. The Supreme Administrative Court in Stockholm last [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 27, 2007 11:10:46 PM

Comments

There was similar nonsense in the US, back before PLRA . . . .

a warden in Arizona was fined for revoking convict's access to porn because he didn't clear it with the precious federal judge . . . .

Posted by: federalist | Jun 26, 2007 1:38:41 PM

Federalist,
You use "precious federal judge" in a mocking sort of way. Perhaps in this case the mockery is deserving of respect, but the PLRA applies equally to cases in which inmates lives or health are place in serious jeopardy, and their fate remains in the hands of a non-neutral prison board until all their appeals are exhausted. If you or a close relative were stuck in a situation such as that one, perhaps you would think the rights to enforce the federal guuarantee that states observe due process, held to include the right to prison conditions that don;t jeopardize one's health or safety, to be precious indeed.

Posted by: Poirot | Jun 26, 2007 2:16:51 PM

I am not sure what it is “nonsense.” Some have argued that there are therapeutic reasons to possess pr0n. Likewise, its possession is protected by the 1st.

Now, I am not saying that a given prison warden doesn’t have a valid interest in preventing pr0n. Honestly, I have not weighed the different interests.

Anyway, the PLRA, in most cases, only sets up the procedures for dealing with these issues. It does not deal somehow abridge the substance of an inmate’s 1st, 5th, 8th, or 14th amendment rights. Nor could it.

Finally, state and federal judges are sworn to decide the issues that are validly before them and to treat people equally even if they are poor (who I hate) or prisoners (whom you hate) and to weight the merits of their arguments. So, there is nothing odd or improper about taking an argument seriously.

Posted by: S.cotus | Jun 26, 2007 4:27:44 PM

If you or a close relative were stuck in a situation such as that one, perhaps you would think the rights to enforce the federal guuarantee that states observe due process, held to include the right to prison conditions that don't jeopardize one's health or safety, to be precious indeed.

I don't purport to speak for "federalist," but if I had a relative who was a convicted rapist, I would be very unsympathetic to his complaints that he couldn't look at porn in prison. I suspect that most people feel the same way.

Posted by: anonymous | Jun 27, 2007 6:30:09 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB