Jimmy Harcourt Case
The facts of this case will be presented in court. Mr. Jimmy Harcourt is a Native American who is of Cherokee ancestry. Mr. Jimmy Harcourt is serving a life sentence in a state prison. Mr. Harcourt rank is a medium-security prisoner. Mr. Jimmy Harcourt is starting to have a major health issue. He is losing feeling in his feet due to neuropathy resulting from diabetes. The prison guards started to notice that around the beginning of 2015 Mr. Jimmy Harcourt started performing his Cherokee religious practice in prison.
One of the religious practices Mr. Harcourt must perform is not cutting his hair and maintaining it in a certain way. Mr. Jimmy Harcourt has to make sure that he maintains a kouplock, which is having a two by two-inch square section …show more content…
We came to a conclusion that allowing a prisoner to perform his or her religious exercise will not overburden the state run prison laws. The state prison can include guidelines that can teach the prison guards of how to search prisoners with long hair and they must have taken two photos of an inmate with short and long hair. RLUIPA helps to ensure that the prisoners have the right to religious exercise despite being in a prison. The court decides that Mr. Jimmy Harcourt will have the right to perform his religious exercise in the state prison. Reviewing back to the Cutter case the judges decided that “Unless inmate requests for religious accommodations become excessive and jeopardize the effective functioning of an institution, the facility would be free to resist the imposition.” (Cutter,5). It is important to have safety for the inmates and the staff in the prison, but if the religious exercise that is perform by the prisoners doesn’t harm anyone then it pointless to burden their religious …show more content…
The Department of corrections want to ensure the safety of the inmates, the staff who is working in the prions and public safety. It’s important to understand there is a major risk because allowing an inmate to perform religious practices it might comprise prison security.
I
When looking at this case it’s important to ensure that prisoners do not get an opportunity to avoid prison rules. It may be true that RLUIPA allows inmates to perform religious exercise who are in prison, but that may be a wrong decision to allow inmates given the opportunity to perform all of their religious practices in a state prison. When giving an individual especially a prisoner to perform religious practices it will cause a lot of issues. The warden and state’s prison want to ensure that people and inmates are safe. If there is religious accommodation in a prison it will cause a lot of major issues. The First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The “first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state.” (Cutter,3). There should be no religious practices that can happen in a state prison, which is run by the government. The government should have a strong control of the prison
One of the religious practices Mr. Harcourt must perform is not cutting his hair and maintaining it in a certain way. Mr. Jimmy Harcourt has to make sure that he maintains a kouplock, which is having a two by two-inch square section …show more content…
We came to a conclusion that allowing a prisoner to perform his or her religious exercise will not overburden the state run prison laws. The state prison can include guidelines that can teach the prison guards of how to search prisoners with long hair and they must have taken two photos of an inmate with short and long hair. RLUIPA helps to ensure that the prisoners have the right to religious exercise despite being in a prison. The court decides that Mr. Jimmy Harcourt will have the right to perform his religious exercise in the state prison. Reviewing back to the Cutter case the judges decided that “Unless inmate requests for religious accommodations become excessive and jeopardize the effective functioning of an institution, the facility would be free to resist the imposition.” (Cutter,5). It is important to have safety for the inmates and the staff in the prison, but if the religious exercise that is perform by the prisoners doesn’t harm anyone then it pointless to burden their religious …show more content…
The Department of corrections want to ensure the safety of the inmates, the staff who is working in the prions and public safety. It’s important to understand there is a major risk because allowing an inmate to perform religious practices it might comprise prison security.
I
When looking at this case it’s important to ensure that prisoners do not get an opportunity to avoid prison rules. It may be true that RLUIPA allows inmates to perform religious exercise who are in prison, but that may be a wrong decision to allow inmates given the opportunity to perform all of their religious practices in a state prison. When giving an individual especially a prisoner to perform religious practices it will cause a lot of issues. The warden and state’s prison want to ensure that people and inmates are safe. If there is religious accommodation in a prison it will cause a lot of major issues. The First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The “first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state.” (Cutter,3). There should be no religious practices that can happen in a state prison, which is run by the government. The government should have a strong control of the prison