*** Scroll down for updates ***
Isn’t this…unconstitutional?
I mean, separating prisoners by race? Doesn’t that violate a clause about treating people equally without regard to race, or some such?
In cotton-comes-to-Harlem fashion, the California-style black-hispanic race war isn’t confined to California. It’s occurring wherever there are significant enough numbers of blacks and hispanics fighting over scraps, which, incidentally, neither group even owns.
The Washington Post found out about an internal memo at the Prince George’s County Detention Center calling for segregation of blacks and hispanics during recreation. (Play nicely, boys!) There’s also an “unofficial” policy of assigning prisoners to cells based on race.
Referring to the practice as “jailhouse law,” a supervisor at the prison said, “It’s nothing written, but you try to keep the calm.” (The article states that blacks and hispanics in the PG prison “found themselves in conflict over relatively minor issues.” That’s PC euphemism for “fighting over stupid sh**.” )
If you recall, the government once mandated separation of black and white prisoners. That, as well as separating black and white children in government schools, was declared unconstitutional. Should prison safety override the Constitution and ignore decades of blood, sweat, and tears spilled to dismantle government-mandated racial segregation? If black and hispanic prisoners are at each others throats and segregating them during recreation time eases some of the tension, what’s the harm?
Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court sees the harm. In Johnson v. California (2005), the court said such a practice is suspect and requires strict scrutiny by the courts. Courts apply different levels of review when deciding cases involving federal law: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Where skin color is involved, courts review the matter at the highest level of scrutiny.
California has (had?) an unwritten policy of separating prisoners by race for the first 60 days, a temporary “reception” period during which new prisoners are evaluated before being placed in permanent cells. Officials do this to determine whether the new thug is a gang member, etc.
A black man named Garrison Johnson brought suit against the state, alleging that the practice was unconstitutional. A murderous thug serving a 36-year sentence, Johnson said each time he was sent to a new prison, he was housed with another black thug.
(As an aside, isn’t it comical, in a perverse way, that blacks are always complaining about being segregated with other blacks? Can you imagine a white prisoner suing because he’s always housed with a white inmate, even if the state had unlawfully assigned him to a white cell mate? What’s Johnson got against black people? Why is it so awful to share a cell with a black man? It’s prison, for crying out loud. How pleasant does it have to be? If Johnson were assigned to a cell with a white man every time he was transferred, would he stop whining? Would he have complained in the first place? Bingo.)
The lower court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit both found in favor of California, with the higher court ruling that the policy of racially segregating for the first 60 days was constitutional, based on a standard less than strict scrutiny. In other words, temporarily segregating prisoners by race was OK if it prevented violence.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that strict scrutiny was the proper standard, and sent the case back to the state. Under a strict scrutiny test, it’s doubtful the policy will survive.
Since I don’t have a thug in this fight, I don’t care one way or another. 
You?
Update: Commenter Radish makes a good point: “If they’re assigning EVERY prisoner who gets processed into a racial group, isn’t that treating them all equally? Or do they let the whites and Asians mix (as if there aren’t white or Asian gangs…).”
…as does commenter Shade: “Don’t you forfeit many of your civil rights by committing crimes? I mean, the Constitution protects you from unwarranted searches and seizures, yet prisoners can be and are searched routinely. People with criminal records don’t have the right that the rest of us have to vote…So I can’t see why laws against racial segregation should apply to prisons.”
Perhaps the state’s lawyers made those arguments. If some inquisitive reader wants to do the research and find out, let us know the results.
Update II (11:31 a.m.): My site host has been having server issues for the past hour. This blog may be inaccessible at times throughout the day.
Related posts:
- Selective Outrage Over Black Crime Victims
- Black and Hispanic ‘Hate’ in LA County
- Hispanics v. Blacks: The Battle For ‘Preferred Minority’ Status
- Crime Time: Annual FBI Thug Report
