Judge Upholds Ban
No R Rated Movies in Prison
By Daniel Muniz

U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris reaffirmed that inmates incarcerated in the state of Massachusetts will not be able to watch R, NC-17, X, or XXX rated movies. This ban imposed by the state’s Department of Corrections was challenged as being unconstitutional and an infringement of prisoner rights.

But what most of the public finds so bothersome from the hug-a-thug advocacy groups that enjoys coddling violent criminals is the notion that inmates shouldn’t be subjected to any kind of restrictions of their personal freedoms while they are locked up. For these activists, they seem to think that it should be an inalienable constitutional right for a prisoner to be using his jail cell as if it was his own living room with all the creature comforts of home. Therefore, an inmate is entitled to watch any kind of movie he desires at his leisure, including porn.

However, being incarcerated is already an abdication of many rights and privileges because that’s what prison is. With the loss of that personal freedom, an inmate is not entitled to anything beyond the bare necessities of life.

And if such a premise sounds harsh or even downright brutal, then so be it.

Jail is not supposed to be a fun place for anyone to live in. In all reality, a prison is designed to be an awful destination that is Spartan and austere with none of the delights that can be found at home. In fact, jail is supposed to be so unpleasant that it might actually become a big enough deterrent for some of its residents to seriously consider not doing something stupid that brings them back. After all, if they didn’t like prison the first time around, then they certainly won’t like it again if they ever get sentenced for another crime after their release.

Hug-a-thug advocates are quick to point out the statistic that severely harsh environments in correctional institutions do very little to stem the tide of recidivism because so many inmates are inherently habitual offenders. They simply go ahead and commit another crime even though they already know exactly what incarceration is like. So in other words, it is pointless to make a prisoner’s stay in jail as miserable and cheerless as possible because he ultimately doesn’t care if he does wind up returning for another long sentence.

Even so, that still doesn’t diminish the kind of anger and disbelief that the public has when an inmate is able to watch a porn flick or a violent movie even though he is locked up.

As for such a ban being inhumane, is watching a movie or television really a basic necessity of life?

Perhaps there are plenty of people who will be emotionally devastated if they cannot watch their favorite television shows or movies because that kind of entertainment is so ingrained in our culture. But then again, part of being incarcerated in prison is being deprived of a lot of leisure activities.

In addition to Massachusetts, there are many other states and federal facilities that have already enacted such bans.

These correctional institutions claim that a violent movie or ones with intense graphic sex can incite inmates to commit violence. And it easy to understand the concern because some of these prisoners are lowlife degenerates who have the proclivities to make bad decisions and use poor judgment (which is how they got into prison in the first place). Such graphic entertainment can influence more bad behavior.

Overall, jail is already a dangerous place and violent movies don’t need to glamorize it. And porn movies shouldn’t be encouraging Big Bubba to start calling his cell mate Susan.

But in all truthfulness, I disagree with that rationale.

It is not that I object to the assertion that such entertainment can cause problems in correctional institutions. Some of the hoodlums who are locked up have bad attitudes and they definitely don’t need it to be made worse because of the content of violent movies. In addition, these guys aren’t going to be able to have sex in years or in decades so they don’t need adult movies to get them excited about what they can’t have.

Those are all valid concerns that prison officials have.

My beef is that inmates ought to have very few privileges when they are incarcerated. I don’t advocate eliminating all of them because a correctional institution needs to be able to reward the prisoners who don’t cause trouble. So in other words, these privileges have to be earned instead of automatically given as a right.

And when they are given, they should be doled out as meagerly as possible. Movies are a good example. The restrictions should also include ratings of PG-13 and PG so that inmates are only allowed to enjoy G rated movies.

If that sounds extreme, then so be it. The benefits of being incarcerated ought to be very few and it needs to always be that way so that there is absolutely no misconception whatsoever that such privileges are actually a constitutional right as in the situation in Massachusetts and in other states.

It’s great that federal judges are upholding state policies against frivolous lawsuits and our judicial branch needs to prevent the kind of entitlement mentality that the hug-a-thug advocates have about incarceration.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.