Connecticut Department of Corrections Commissioner Leo Arnone has been hailed by those interested in criminal justice reform as a beacon of hope. With the blessing of CT Governor Dannell Malloy, Arnone has been instituting badly needed changes in the state’s criminal justice system. Arnone has a unique knowledge of the prison system, having started as a correctional officer decades ago, and working his way up to Corrections Commissioner.
Arnone was praised by prisoners and reformers alike for bringing back a form of “god time” credit, in this case, it is called earned-credit. Inmates who participate in educational or other programs, and who maintain good conduct can earn time off of their sentences. Arnone also called for the closing of prisons as a cost saving measure. Individuals with minor crimes housed at a minimum security facility could be paroled and prisons shuttered. Yes, Arnone was a man whom the prisoners believed “got it.”
Or at least most felt that way until July11, when Arnone announced that pornographic material will be considered contraband after June 30, 2012, and anyone found in possession of it will be punished by sanctions such as loss of earned credit, phone privileges or visits. Banning pornography in prison isn’t a new idea, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has done it since the 1990’s, and other states have done it. New Jersey and other states have made up their own rules.
Arnone claims that possession of pornography causes a “hostile working environment,” especially for female officers. Although Connecticut inmates may not openly display pornographic images, apparently female officers are offended by it when they do “shake downs” of prisoners lockers, and come across it. Another reason for the ban is the view that those convicted of a sexual crime should not have access to sexually explicit material. But who will define what is pornographic and what isn’t? Even Justice Potter Stewart couldn’t give a clear definition, saying only “I know it when I see it.”
But pornography may be in the eye of the beholder, and therein lies the problem. Under the rule, wardens in each prison will decide what is deemed to be pornographic. A warden at Prison A, for example, might not lat an book on art history into his institution because it contains a photo of Giambolongna’s marble statue The Rape of the Sabine Women.A warden at Prison B, however, might view the same photo as an example of exquisite stone carving and let the book in. Where is the line drawn between art and pornography? Sometimes a nude is just a nude. A case in point is when a new grandmother serving time at the Federal Prison Camp in Danbury had a photo of her newborn grandchild confiscated because the just-arrived-in-the-world baby wasn’t clothed.
To many people pornography is degrading to women and objectifies them. To others, pornography is a harmless way to pass the time, and in prison there is a lot of idle time. Will the new rule stop prison violence? Will female officers feel safer and less offended? Probably not. Will an inmate file a lawsuit his Constitutional rights have been violated? More than likely.
Years ago it was rumored that Connecticut prison officials put saltpeter in inmates’ food to diminish their sex drive. While this rumor was never proven, and there is evidence that saltpeter isn’t an anaphrodisiac, the fact remains that a prisoner’s libido isn’t checked in at the prison door, along with his clothes and other valuable items. Taking away sexually explicit material may make prison officials feel that they are doing something positive. But some feel the new rule might just create other ones, such as a black-market for titillating photos, or a sense of sexual frustration among a group of individuals already frustrated in many other ways.
|
|
|
|
