Should Muslim Prisoners Be Permitted to Sue Over Meals?

At what point should prison officials reach when catering to the dietary needs of prisoners? Most prisons across the country offer a variety of meals for different religious, medical, and personal belief-led needs. On average, special meals cost over double the price of a regular meal. In some prisons in some states, special meals can be as high as almost $4.00 a meal instead of almost $1.50 for a regular meal. So how far should the prisons be forced to go in order cater to all prisoners needs?

In a recent case, Kenneth E. Fletcher is a 20-year-old man serving a 14-year prison sentence at the Ross Correctional Institution. The reason he is behind bars is because he was convicted of 14 felonies in both Licking and Muskingum counties in Ohio. Fletcher's list of convictions include: theft, aggravated robbery, aggravated vehicular assault, and firearms violations.

Fletcher is not only a convict but he is also a Muslim. Why is his religious preference of importance? Because Fletcher has file a federal lawsuit against Sheriff Robert Stephenson and nine of his employees, to the sum of a 2 million dollar payout for damages. The reason behind his lawsuit deals directly with his religious beliefs and the treatment he states he has received from the aforementioned Ross Correctional Institute employees.

Mr. Fletcher states that he was "subjected to cruel and unusual punishment" when he was given meals at the jail that contained pork. Fletcher decided to complain about the pork meals since he stated that the Quran forbids Muslims to eat the meat of pigs. Allegedly he was placed in solitary confinement as the outcome of his complaints about the meals he had been issued. The incident in question took place in 2006 when Fletcher had been returned to the prison after his sentencing.

According to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, the prisons do offer special meals to numerous prisoners. Some of the meals they offer are non-pork meals to Muslims, Kosher meals for Jews, and even Vegetarian meals for all prisoners if so requested. It is unclear why Fletcher would have been given a regular meal containing pork since the prisons do offer special meals to fit his religious needs.

Fletcher also decided to state that he never received any sort of medical treatment after he developed a staph infection due to puncture wounds from Taser darts. The lawsuit filed by Fletcher with the U.S District Court focuses mainly on his treatment for being Muslim. The lawsuit states that the deputies interfered with Fletcher's rights to observe his religious beliefs as a Muslim.

Fletcher's complaints resemble that of another recent story that came out of Westchester County Jail in New York. A group of over ten inmates at this prison filed a lawsuit a year ago stating that they should be entitled to meat that is "halal" (prepared according to Islamic law) since diet is a very important part of their faith. Just as in the case of Fletcher, the prison where these men are being detained also offers a variety of meals depending on their needs and religious affiliation.

Over all, most courts tend to side with the prisoners. Prisoners are seen as having "legitimate concerns" and so the courts want to try to adhere to a religious code of conduct. Not all courts side this way, however. In two other cases Muslim prisoners in New Jersey were denied meals with halal meat in 2007 and in 1997 a New York court dismissed a case of alleged discrimination over meals.

This seems to be happening in the larger correctional facilities across the country, where special meals are on hand and where regular meals are actually edible. For prisoners that happen to land in a smaller prison, meal options and quality are not always as good. Plus with the rising cost of maintaining the prisons versus the budget given, several prisons are forced to make cuts which sometimes begin with the food available. In 2005 the state of Indiana cut the food budget by hiring a private company to run the food service at their prisons. The cuts took a meal that normally cost $1.41 and knocked it down to around 99-cents. Overall this one cut saved the state almost $12-million every year.

Each prison seems to be different on the type of meals they offer as well as the cost they pay to make the meals, and this can differ in the same state. But the real question is should inmates be allowed to be so adamant about the way the meals are prepared, especially if they have a viable alternative already in place? Some critics may even point out that with other meal alternatives in place that can suit the religious needs of the aforementioned Muslims, why on earth should they be allowed to go as far as filing a lawsuit? Mr. Fletcher, from Ohio, may have a somewhat different case if they do in fact prove that he was given a pork riddled meal just for spite. But was he "damaged" to the point of being awarded the possible sum of $2-million?

At what point will we actually begin to say no to various groups in this country? I fully understand the need for certain religious groups to have specific meals and so forth, however, if there are alternatives already in place how can they expect even more? If prisons begin to give into demands such as these or courts begin to award money to inmates for being served the wrong meat, whether intentional or not, the debt of the states in this country will continue to spiral out of control. Who will pay for the added costs and the lawsuit awards in the end but us as the tax-paying citizen? It's time for our country to stop catering to everyone's needs and begin to think about the outcome that is being handed down to others. It is definitely something that we need to work toward as a nation, starting with smaller issues such as prison food.