A Prison Food Discussion

[adrober]

Apparently, eGullet is home to many lawyers. I am in my third year at Emory Law School in Atlanta, Georgia and this semester I took a class called "Americans Behind Bars." We watched many documentaries, read many cases, and even visited several prisons in order to familiarize ourselves with the system.

For our final paper, we were able to choose our topic. In an effort to prove my devotion to all things culinary, I chose to write about food. My paper title is "Eating Behind Bars: Prison's Cruel and Unusual Cuisine."

Despite its size and mind-numbing legalness, I'll paste it below for those with time on their hands. For everyone else: here are some topical issues that might be worth discussing...

- Do you think prisoners should be fed bad food as punishment?

- Do you think good food might have an effect on a prisoner's state of mind? Do you think that might work towards rehabilitation?

- Should we keep prison food bad so as not to induce recidivism?

- The "loaf" is a ground up version of a normal prison meal, baked in the oven, wrapped in plastic and served without utensils. It is used for disciplining inmates. Does that amount to cruel and unusual punishment?

- Should Jewish and Muslim prisoners have their special diet needs met? To what degree should we honor them?

- Should prisoners be able to sue for unsanitary conditions: mice and maggots in the food?

- Is 2500 calories a day (the Texas standard) too low? What calorie amount would be just?

Of course, there are many other issues here, but these are the biggies. And for the brave souls who like a 20-page challenge, here you are! (Otherwise, I suggest skimming).

Eating Behind Bars:

Prison’s Cruel and Unusual Cuisine

Adam David Roberts

Americans Behind Bars

Final Exam

Fall 2003

Introduction:

Dignity and Dining

“The world may or may not need another cookbook, but it needs all the lovers—amateurs—it can get. It is a gorgeous old place, full of clownish graces and beautiful drolleries, and it has enough textures, tastes, and smells to keep us intrigued for more time than we have. Unfortunately, however, our response to its loveliness is not always delight: It is, far more often than it should be, boredom. And that is not only odd, it is tragic; for boredom is not neutral—it is the fertilizing principle of unloveliness.”

- Father Robert Farrar Capon, The Supper of The Lamb

Food, as it relates to prison, is almost always thought of in terms of survival. The motif of “bread and water” is as vital to our public perception of prisons as is the image of bars. We expect prison life to be a life of basic needs fulfilled: nothing more, maybe less. Certainly, the provision of food should be limited to its lowest utilitarian function: food as sustenance.

Yet, one cannot easily deny the intimate relationship that exists between food and the spirit. We are a culture that savors the home-cooked meal, that ritualistically feasts several times a year. We are a nation of eaters: our landscape is peppered with billboards, road signs and advertisements that celebrate and encourage the consumption of food. The sheer size of the American food industry suggests that there is certainly more to eating than simple survival. For the large majority of Americans, eating is a spiritual act: one that warms the soul as much as it nourishes the body.

Thus, when dealing with the food that we feed our prisoners, there is more to account for than simple nutrition. Notions of retribution and rehabilitation take on new meaning when explored in the context of food. Should prison food be so tasteless and vile as to terrorize prisoners into reforming their ways? Or should prison food warm the spirit, restoring some semblance of dignity to men and women who otherwise have been made to feel worthless?

The Supreme Court offers little guidance in this regard. The main cases concerning prisoner’s rights—Rhodes v. Chapman, Wilson v. Seiter—barely touch on the issue of prison food. The Rhodes court finds that food must simply be adequate and not offend evolving standards of decency. The court chooses to limit claims to deprivations that deny “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Such a vague standard allows for food that is, at best, merely edible—if even that.

The Wilson court requires deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s rights and conditions. Thus, petitioner’s claim of “unsanitary dining facilities and food preparation” (in addition to many other charges) requires intent from the prison officials in order to succeed. In his concurrence, Justice White writes: “[the majority’s intent requirement] will prove impossible to apply in many cases. Inhumane prison conditions often are the result of cumulative actions and inactions by numerous officials inside and outside a prison, sometimes over a long period of time.” So, therefore, a prisoner’s right to protest inedible, deplorable food might easily go unanswered. As we will see later on, this often proves to be the case.

The issue of restorative prison food versus retributive prison food, then, yields a disturbing number of cases in the latter camp. This paper will explore the many ways that food in prison encompasses an entire spectrum of indignities and deprivations. The familiar adage “you are what you eat” suggests that what we feed our prisoners reflects how we feel about our prisoners. As this paper will show, prison food implicates a system that regards its prisoners with severe disgust and unbridled disdain.

First Course:

Food As Punishment

“Oliver Twist and his companions suffered the tortures of slow starvation for three months: at last they got so voracious and wild with hunger, that one boy, who was tall for his age, and hadn’t been used to that sort of thing (for his father had kept a small cookshop), hinted darkly to his companions, that unless he had another basin of gruel per diem, he was afraid he might some night happen to eat the boy who slept next him, who happened to be a weakly youth of tender age.”

- Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

Institutionalization is the process by which one becomes deeply conditioned to one’s environment. Prison—much like school or the army—achieves this through structure: days are programmed with extreme precision. Work, exercise and sleep are each balanced to such a degree as to induce reliance by the prisoner. One of the few comforts of prison is, perhaps, institutional predictability.

Along these lines, food enjoys a secure place in prison life. Regardless of the day, week or season, prisoners can rely on the fact that they will be fed. Never mind what they are being fed, there will always be food and this fact proves incredibly comforting for most prisoners. Surely, it is a guarantee that rarely exists in the real world.

Yet, because of food’s sacred status, prison officials are in the unique position of using food as a tool for punishment. Stripped of most everything else, there are few things in prison life one can remove or alter more meaningfully than food in order to sanction bad behavior. Weights and television are removable luxuries; their absence fosters boredom, but little else. Food, on the other hand, is a bodily depravation: pangs of hunger or nausea can torture more readily than the cruelest torture device.

Because of this, many cases have emerged concerning the distribution and retention of food in prison. These cases involve prisoners who, for one reason or another, are denied their daily meals, or served food that is inedible or cruelly unappetizing. In most of these cases, courts are loathe to correct the injustice: the deprivation falling just shy of “cruel and unusual.”

In the case of Cunningham v. Jones, the district court makes just such a finding. The case involves a prisoner who, after an attempted jail break and stabbing of a guard is placed in solitary confinement. Once there, he is denied food for four straight days after which he is given only one sparse meal day for 16 days in a row. These meals consist of either a small portion of watery soup or boiled potatoes. The court finds that it is “unable to say that the furnishing of one meal a day for a short period of 15 days constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, although the Court certainly does not approve of the practice….”

On appeal, however, the 6th circuit remands the case for further proceedings. The court likens the case to that of deprived medical care or the use of a leather strap and quotes Justice Blackman in Jackson v. Bishop: “the strap’s use, irrespective of any precautionary conditions which may be imposed, offends contemporary concepts of decency and human dignity and precepts of civilization which we profess to possess.” Thus the court remands the case and puts the burden on the state to defend its actions by demonstrating that the prisoner was fed the requisite calorie count of 2000. If it is demonstrated that the plaintiff was fed at least 2000 calories on the days in question, the case is to be dismissed.

The case of Summitt v. Cezano finds a similar (and similarly unusual) result for the plaintiff. Here, after the plaintiff refuses to sit on his bed while the food is placed in the receptacle, he is denied most meals for a 21-day period. The court finds this unacceptable and concludes “presented with this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that prison officials starved Summitt with deliberate indifference and that Summitt was injured as a result.”

Otherwise, courts almost uniformly find against plaintiffs in food deprivation cases. In the case of Kendrick v. Foti, the plaintiff claims that he was forced to choose between eating spoiled food or not eating at all. The court responds that “at most, plaintiff has alleged a single instance of food poisoning, which, undoubtedly unpleasant, does not arise to the level of a violation of his civil rights.” In the case of Gardner v. Beale, plaintiff complains that on weekends (Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays) the prison reduced meals from three to two: providing only brunch and dinner. Consequently, there was an eighteen hour interval between dinner and brunch that left the plaintiff “starving” causing alleged “mental anguish.” The court is unsympathetic stating that “Gardner’s contention that he was starving and suffered mental anguish is simply not enough….”

In addition to punishment by food deprivation, there is the matter of punishment by food contamination. These cases, unlike the previous ones, are matters of covert acts by prison personnel and not acts of prison policy. In the case of Wilson v. Denton, a Muslim inmate contends that prison food managers purposely served him (and other Muslim as well as Jewish prisoners) pork products, representing that the food was non-pork. The court denies relief since the plaintiff does not allege “irreparable consequences.” On the other hand, the court in Fort v. Palmateer is slightly more generous. Here, the plaintiff alleges that while housed in segregation the prison staff contaminated his food with saliva and other bodily excretions. The court simply declares that summary judgment by the district court was inappropriate because there was a dispute of material fact as to whether the food was contaminated. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.

Interestingly, the case of Fuller v. Rich involves a homosexual prisoner who is removed from his position in food services because the inmates suspect that he is HIV positive. The removal, according to the inmate, is a violation of his Constitutional rights under the eighth amendment. The court, however, finds that “in light of Fuller’s status as a prisoner and the level of constitutional protection afforded homosexuals, it appears that Fuller’s claim cannot survive a rational basis review.” Thus, actual contamination (ie: the pork example above) warrants little concern, while imagined contamination (based on the homophobic assumption that all gay men are HIV positive) warrants judicial validation.

Most prevalent under the umbrella of “food as punishment” is the use of a ground up prison meal that is baked in the oven, wrapped in plastic, and served without a tray or utensils known as the loaf. More often than not, the loaf consists of “whole wheat bread, imitation cheese, carrots, spinach, raisins, Great Northern Beans, vegetable oil, tomato paste, powdered milk, and potato flakes.” Served separately, these ingredients may indeed prove edible if not quite enjoyable. Together, though, the assembled product achieves its desired effect: disgust and revulsion. The loaf becomes an effective tool of punishment, one that inspires several loaf-friendly court decisions.

Perhaps the most carefully explored loaf decision is that of United States of America vs. State of Michigan. Here, U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen explores the Constitutionality of the loaf under both the cruel and unusual punishment standard as well as the due process clause. He finds that while the loaf is most certainly a punishment, it fails to reach the categorization of “cruel and unusual.” He writes: “While it is certainly not as appealing as a meal made up of separate food items, and while it may be unappetizing, it is not so deficient that it poses a risk to the health of the prisoners receiving it.” Therefore, he concludes, the food loaf does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s probation against cruel and unusual punishment.

As for due process, Enslen points out that “given the severe restrictions already placed upon these prisoners, from restricted access to out-of-cell activities to restrictions up on the possession of personal property, it is also obvious that the food served to these prisoners takes on a significance for them that it might not have for prisoners in other settings.” However, he finds that even though the private interest at stake is great, there is no need for a prior hearing before the imposition of the food loaf. Instead, he criticizes the policy that allows a hearing officer to continue food loaf punishment despite a finding that misconduct charges are unwarranted. Setting this aside, he ultimately rules that the use of the food loaf is Constitutionally permissible.

Similarly, courts today find the loaf an acceptable form of punishment. In Doucett v. Warden, the court finds that “While special management meals are ‘by no means a culinary delight,’ in the absence of any adverse health effects they are not a significant and atypical hardship.” The court in Griffis v. Gundy echoes this sentiment. The court writes: “A diet of food loaf does not violate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment , because it has been shown that these loaves meet nutritional and caloric requirements for humans.” Thus the loaf remains an acceptable form of punishment in America’s prison system.

That the loaf sparks such concern from courts (if not the empathy that would render the loaf unconstitutional) is a testament to the breadth of meaning food elicits in the context of prison. The loaf issue acknowledges that there is more to food than just calories and nutrition. For the loaf is an effective punishment because of the ineffable qualities that make food a vital component of our prison system. In the way the loaf serves to punish, we begin to understand the ways that quality food serves to heal.

Second Course:

Sanctity vs. Survival

“For my first meal in the New World I bought a three-cent wedge of coarse rye bread off a huge round loaf, on a stand on Essex Street. I was too strict in my religious observances to eat it without first performing ablutions and offering a brief prayer. So I approached a bewigged old woman who stood in the doorway of a small grocery-store to let me wash my hands and eat my meal in her place. She looked old-fashioned enough, yet when she heard my request she said, with a laugh:

“You’re a green one, I see.’

‘Suppose I am,’ I resented. ‘Do the yellow ones or black ones all eat without washing? Can’t a fellow be a good Jew in America?’

‘Yes, of course he can, but—well, wait till you see for yourself.’”

- Abraham Cahan, The Rise of David Levinsky

(as quoted in Joan Nathan’s Jewish Cooking in America)

The implicit relationship between food and spirituality in prison is made explicit in the matter of special religious diets. The religious laws and precepts that govern the intake of food quite often conflict with the policies and procedures for serving food in prison. Surprisingly, many prisons go out of their way to accommodate their religious prisoners. Even so, the strictly devout often find problems with what seem like the most generous of efforts.

The two major religious groups with special dietary needs in prison are those of either the Jewish or Muslim faith. In both cases, pork is a forbidden product and any pan or plate that makes contact with pork becomes contaminated. Additionally, there are special restrictions in each case—certain laws and mandatory procedures—that make accommodating everyone close to impossible. Yet, the free exercise clause of the Constitution promises the free exercise of religion for all Americans. Does confinement limit this constitutional guarantee to such a degree as to force the violation of major religious dietary laws?

In the case of Schlesinger v. Carlson, prison officials go above and beyond the call of duty for the plaintiff’s religious needs. In preparation for Passover, an ultra orthodox Satmar Hassidic prisoner, Schlesinger, demands that the Seder food be completely kosher in accordance with the Kashruth division of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. The prison accordingly allows a 21-hour kashering process that involves the steam cleaning of all movable equipment, heated bricks for cleansing, the dismantling and hand scrubbing of the cooking range with kosher oven cleanser, the scraping and steaming of all pots and pans, the purchase of new skillets, dishes, bowls and silverware, and the sanding of the walk-in refrigerator. Additionally, the stainless steel sink was filled with boiling water, heated by metal grates placed to encourage boiling over. This was done twice because the first boiling over failed to satisfy Schlessinger.

After the completion of this difficult process, a vote is taken by the prison’s Jewish population as to whether the kitchen is now kosher for Passover. The resulting vote is 39 to 1: Schlesinger is the lone dissenter. Thus, at the ensuing Seder meal, Schlesinger refuses to eat. His problem is that the open partition in the kitchen allows chometz (“any food containing leavening agents, certain entire groups of food, and in general any food which is not prepared in a manner which assures that no forbidden matter is introduced into the food” ) to enter as well as leaving the kitchen open to gentiles.

Surprisingly, the court empathizes with Schlesinger. While the court finds that a prisoner does not share the same Constitutional rights as a free person, he is entitled to a balance between his rights and legitimate penological objectives as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union. Hence, the court declares itself convinced that “if Schlesinger is not afforded relief, he will not eat non-kosher food until he is in danger of death….It is the Court’s view that the nature of the injury which will be suffered by Schlesinger if relief is not granted far outweighs any harm which might befall the respondents-defendants or the public if Schlesinger is granted interlocutory relief.” The court, then, orders that Schlesinger be provided with an unused personal heating element, two sets of utensils, Empire chickens, Alle Processing Co. meats, fresh fruits, vegetables and potatoes.

This shocking result may seem inconsistent with our notions of prison as punishment. Yet, it attests to the profound importance of food in preserving the dignity and, as in this case, identity of prisoners. The court clearly goes out of its way to ensure this. Similarly, the court in Prushinowski v. Hambrick finds that an Ultra Orthodox Satmar Hasidic prisoner is entitled to his special diet, ordering that “respondents make available CRC-certified foodstuffs on behalf of Prushinowski and other inmates similarly situated.”

Yet, other courts find such demands unreasonable. The court in Ben-Avraham v. Moses invokes the 4-part Turner test from the Supreme Court case of Turner v. Safley. Created to determine whether prohibiting facial hair violated a prisoner’s free exercise rights, the test looks at (1) whether the regulation has a logical connection to the legitimate government interests, (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the rights that remain open to inmates, (3) the impact that accommodation will have on other inmates, guards and prison resources, and (4) the presence or absence of ready alternatives. Applying these factors, the court finds that an Orthodox Jewish inmate is not entitled to special kosher meals beyond what the prison already offers.

Muslim prisoners fare just as poorly under Turner. In the case of Kahey v. Jones , a Muslim prisoner in a women’s facility requests a special diet to accommodate her practice of Islam. The prison responds by providing protein alternatives to pork and shellfish and offering dishes, like beans, both with and without pork. The plaintiff is not satisfied. The court invokes Turner and declares, “the [prison’s] reluctance to supply an individualized kosher diet and preparation for Kahey fully accords with the result and reasoning of Turner.” Consequently, summary judgment for the prison is affirmed.

In Denson v. Marshall, a Muslim prisoner is placed in the Department Disciplinary Unit for raping a female therapist. In order to observe three religious fast days per month, he requests that the prison replace his regular meals with “the caloric equivalent of cereal, milk, bread, peanut butter and jelly that he can eat before and after daylight hours.” The prison refuses and Denson sues. Applying Turner, the court finds that the government interest is legitimate (disruption, expense), alternative means of worship are present (a month-long Ramadan celebration, non-perishable provisions), and that the impact of the requested accommodation would be great (creating logistical and economic problems). Therefore, the court denies Denson’s motion for summary judgment.

It is difficult to reconcile the court’s generosity in Schlesinger with the court’s reluctance in Kahey and Denson. Perhaps the presence of “imminent danger” in the kosher cases—with their starving, undernourished plaintiffs—pushed the court in a liberal direction. Otherwise, the Muslim requests seem minimal compared to the lavish commands of Schlesinger.

As an example of religious dietary demands taken to an extreme, Scatena v. Rowland concerns a member of the World Church of the Creator. This questionable religion revels in anti-Semitism and requires that its members consume only “nonrabbinical food and liquid staples that are free of the Jewish religious kosher food symbols known as ‘(U)’ and ‘(K)’.” The court, while dubious of Plaintiff’s religion, takes the issue more seriously than might be expected. Finding inconsistencies in plaintiff’s stance, the court questions plaintiff’s unwillingness to eat anything with a kosher label and willingness to eat fruits and vegetables that are also kosher but without a label. In a rather tongue-in-cheek conclusion, the court finds: “that to require the plaintiff to eat such labeled foods is a violation of his religious principles. The remedy for the plaintiff is simply, ‘don’t eat or drink such foods.’”

Religion aside, there is also the matter of special dietary needs for prisoners with health issues. Prisoners with illnesses as far ranging as AIDS, diabetes, and hypoglycemia must have their needs dealt with more carefully than that of the average prisoner. Yet, the interpretability of illness and variety in treatment makes this task quite difficult.

In Williams v. Coughlin, plaintiff suffers from hypoglycemia and “dumping syndrome” due to a duodenal ulcer that required two-thirds of his stomach to be removed. As a result, plaintiff is to maintain a restricted diet of bland, high protein foods. At his former prison, the medical director instructed that he was to have six small feedings a day. At his new prison, Green Haven, the medical director allows only three feedings a day that are supplemented with cheese, milk and eggs.

The court defers to the current medical director and sees no evidence that three meals a day is hazardous to plaintiff’s health. The court writes: “While a difference in medical opinion may be presented by this case, such circumstance does not constitute a callous indifference to a serious illness that gives rise to a 1983 claim.” Thus, the court denies plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

Similarly, the court in Whitsett v. Newcombe finds that a diabetic fails to state a claim for an instance where he was denied a meal. Plaintiff claims that he had just taken medication that lowered his blood sugar and his lack of a meal made him incredibly sick. The court is unmoved, stating “the brief discomfort alleged is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”

Surely, then, the interpretability of special dietary needs for prisoners—whether religious or medical—allows courts a great deal of leeway in controlling the prison experience. That so many prisoners’ needs go unmet speaks volumes about judicial perceptions of justice.

Third Course:

You Are What You Eat

“I now took little interest in anything except my daily plate of soup and my crust of stale bread. Bread, soup—these were my whole life. I was a body. Perhaps less than that even: a starved stomach. The stomach alone was aware of the passage of time.”

- ElieWiesel, Night

We now come to the matter of what the well behaved, non-religious, healthy prisoners eat. Prison is, first and foremost, a business: decisions regarding food, like decisions regarding any other aspect of prison life, are based on economics. What is cheapest, what is up to nutritional standards, and what is least likely to upset prisoners is what is most likely to be served. Taste, quality and freshness are as peripheral to prison menu planning as Feng Shui is to prison room design.

For the most part, though, prisoners eat well. While the gourmet prisoner may show disgust at the undercooked tater tot, the majority of prisoners are grateful for a hot meal three times a day. The phrase “three hots and a cot”—used by prisoners to refer to the perks of prison life—nicely captures prison’s culinary guarantee. As we will see in this section, however, occasionally the guarantee fails to fulfill its promise.

In the case of Waring v. Meachum, prisoners file a class action lawsuit to challenge many harrowing aspects of prison life. In addition to charges of sexual assault, lack of showers, and denial of routine medical care, the prisoners challenge the temperature and quantity of food. Specifically, prisoners complain of a “lockdown” that left them eating donuts for breakfast and cheese or cold cut sandwiches for lunch and dinner. The court responds coolly, citing many similar cases, and concluding that “plaintiffs did not suffer a sufficiently serious deprivation of their rights because there are no allegations that they did not receive nutritionally adequate meals during the lockdown.”

Shrader v. White has prisoners asserting that unsanitary food conditions exist at the Virginia State Penitentiary. The prison, on the other hand, presents “evidence of a Four-Star restaurant with excellent management procedures.” Because the evidence conflicts so greatly, the court finally turns to the health of the prisoners. The lack of mass food poisoning, diarrhea, or other diseases, or any common factor making any two individuals sick, leads the court to dismiss the claim. The court quotes Rhodes: “The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, and prisons of SOCF’s [southern Ohio Correctional Facility’s] type, which houses persons convicted of serious crimes, cannot be free of discomfort.”

In terms of individual prison food complaints, there are two notable cases. In Miles v. Konvalenka, a prisoner sues after (1) another inmate finds a dead mouse in his food, and (2) he (the plaintiff) is refused coffee with breakfast while in segregation. As for the first complaint, the court notes that the prison reacted immediately: paramedics treated all exposed prisoners and an alternate meal was delivered two hours later. Therefore, the court dismisses plaintiff’s claim for lack of deliberate indifference. Additionally, plaintiff failed to prove any damage from the incident since there was no mouse in his food. As for the coffee, the court explains that there are significant penalogical interests for not giving segregated inmates coffee. Even so, the court points out that “to suggest that denying some convicted felons coffee constitutes cruel and unusual punishment ignores that millions of persons in our society, in and out of jails, freely prefer not to drink coffee for a variety of reasons. Plaintiff’s argument would fare no better discussing the absence of tea or whiskey. A complaint asserting a deprivation of water, on the other hand, would easily pass muster.”

Maggots infest the case of Islam v. Jackson . After being served a dinner of elbow macaroni with meat contaminated with maggots, prisoners refused to eat any more meals prepared by the prison kitchen. Immediately after, then, the Sheriff instructed jailors to go to the supermarket and buy baloney for the prisoners. In making the sandwiches, prison workers worked in a substandard kitchen without gloves or medical examinations or certifications to work with food. Despite all this, plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on the grounds that the deprivations were not sufficiently serious and lacked deliberate indifference.

Finally we come to the matter of poisoning. As is the case with the preceding cases, courts are unimpressed by single instances of institutional lapse, no matter how egregious. Thus, in the case of Seymour/Jones v. Oldt, the court fails to honor the claim of a plaintiff who was served “poison hot dogs” at dinner. All the prisoners felt ill after eating the hot dogs on March 1, 1990, and the next morning plaintiff found, in the kitchen, a sign in red letters reading: “Hold. Do not Ship. 124 beef franks. Awaiting lab analysis.” The court shrugs its shoulders and explains: “At most, plaintiff has alleged a single unintentional instance of food poisoning, which, though undoubtedly unpleasant, does not rise to the level of a violation of his civil rights.”

Similar results await the plaintiffs of both George v. King and LaFontaine v. Johnson. Each case involves a single instance of food poisoning and each case results in a dismissal. The George court worries over Federal courts controlling all details of prison food service management and procedures. The LaFontaine court states that “the mere failure of prison authorities to follow prison rules and regulations does not, without more, give rise to a constitutional violation.” In both cases, the courts show little to no regard for prisoners who suffer from food poisoning in prison. It seems to be par for the course.

Ultimately, then, prisoners—while fed consistently—are constantly at risk for violations that may leave them sick or emotionally bruised with little recourse. Again, we see that food in prison plays many roles. Here food becomes a way of showing prisoners that what they are being fed—be it maggot, mouse, or poison—is a reflection of what they are in the eyes of the law.

Conclusion:

Just Desserts

“If you can eat sawdust without butter, you can be a success in the law.”

- Oliver Wendell Holmes

As the above quote suggests, the law is often a dry, tasteless business. The practical, mundane aspects of government can be stultifying to the point of numbness. And it is that numbness that we, in our enforcement of the law, casually force on to our prisoners. This is dangerous, it seems, because as this paper’s opening quote tells us: “boredom is not neutral—it is the fertilizing principle of unloveliness.”

The few opportunities that we have in prison to snap people out of complacency are limited by the complacency of those who would undertake them. And while food provides a source of comfort in and of itself, it also serves as a reflection of how the system views its tenants. This paper does not call for radical change in prison food: no four-star chefs, no foie gras, no palate-cleansing courses. Instead, this paper simply calls for the restoration of humanity and dignity to our prisoners by improving the standards by which we feed them.

Several steps have been taken recently in the opposite direction. Legislatures have lowered the mandatory calorie count for prisoners in several states. Texas, for example, lowered the acceptable calorie count from 2700 to 2500 a day. This is a bare minimum standard and leaves many prisoners and prisoner rights activists upset. Also, the use of the “loaf” as a disciplinary measure is increasing. Popular sentiments, however, remain indifferent. A recent 20/20 episode left the unimpressed John Stossel concluding: “The loaf is cruel and unusual? Give me a break.”

Such indifference echoes a larger issue, one that gets at the heart of the prison problem: is prison a place of rehabilitation or a place of retribution? To those in the retribution camp, prison food reform must seem like a ridiculous conceit. In fact, retributionists might revel in images of mice and maggots in prisoners’ food.

But those who believe in rehabilitation would do well to consider food as a starting point. A popular expression goes: “The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach.” If we are out to reform our prisoners, we must reform their hearts. Tactics such as therapy and education explore the psychological and intellectual roots of criminality. These are all important, but perhaps the best answer is the simplest. Perhaps the best answer is a good, satisfying meal.

[Pan]

adrober, you thought that paper was mind-numbingly legal? Nope. Great paper!

I hope some people who have been in prison, like the lately free and formerly imprisoned chef whose great dispatches from the federal penitentiary (?) ran on The Daily Gullet, chime in with their opinions.

Alright, I'll try some of your questions:

- Do you think prisoners should be fed bad food as punishment?

I don't think that bad food should be served to prisoners generally, but the question is what can be done to punish people who misbehave while in prison. Solitary confinement ("the hole") is sometimes used, but that can result in psychological damage. I really don't know what the answer is, and I think it's a tough problem. But no, I don't see any good reason to deliberately make prison food bad.

- Do you think good food might have an effect on a prisoner's state of mind? Do you think that might work towards rehabilitation?

I think that treating prisoners with dignity is a good thing - until and unless they act up, in which case, some kind of punishment is necessary to get them back in line, I would think.

- Should we keep prison food bad so as not to induce recidivism?

No. However, if prison food becomes too good, I would imagine that it could be possible for some people - especially homeless people - to commit crimes in order to go to prison. I remember reading about a prison in Louisiana that served really good food, and I'm not sure whether they were or weren't kidding when they said that there were people who really didn't want to leave when they were released.

- The "loaf" is a ground up version of a normal prison meal, baked in the oven, wrapped in plastic and served without utensils. It is used for disciplining inmates. Does that amount to cruel and unusual punishment?

It's not unusual, and considering that this is a country in which execution - with some evidence that the methods used are very painful, even if not botched - is legal, it's hard to know what else could qualify as unconstitutionally cruel.

- Should Jewish and Muslim prisoners have their special diet needs met? To what degree should we honor them?

Anyone who can establish a bona fide religious need for dietary restrictions should never be forced to violate them. [edit: replace "it" with "them"]

- Should prisoners be able to sue for unsanitary conditions: mice and maggots in the food?

Yes. It's disgusting to hold jails to a lower minimum standard than any other food-service establishment.

- Is 2500 calories a day (the Texas standard) too low? What calorie amount would be just?

This I wouldn't know, but to punish prisoners in general by setting a low caloric intake is sadistic.

I don't think that anything anyone does is likely to make jail a joyous place to be, and jail arguably should be unpleasant, but I don't see any good reason to make it any more unpleasant than it needs to be. By the same token, though, it's questionable whether any special measures need to be taken to make life good for prisoners.

When we consider these things, however, we should never lose sight of the fact (? or so I've heard) that a majority of inmates are people who haven't been found guilty of anything and are in jail only because they are poor and bail was set too high for them to afford a bond. Many of these hapless people are ultimately released through acquittal or because the charges are dropped for lack of evidence. And I think their presence in the jail system truly is cruel though all-too-usual punishment. It's my belief that some poor person whose bail has been set too high to avoid prison, spends 2 years in prison, and is then acquitted, should be able to sue the government for unjustified imprisonment and collect major money. How does that person get that time back?

Edited December 20, 2003 by Pan (log)

[fresco]

Some years ago, I toured a bunch of prisons in Georgia, including some that raised most of their own food.

The group I was with had lunch at one prison farm and it was good enough that I remember it today--chicken that tasted like chicken, fresh greens, etc. The sort of thing that people would flock to eat in many restaurants.

I don't recall a single thing that we observed being implemented in Ontario jails, mostly because one law or rule or another wouldn't permit it.

[ExtraMSG]

All prison food should be fried to remind prisoners what might happen to them if they step over the line....

Really, I think prison food should first be cheap. People in prison are being punished. It should be of a certain level to keep them from rioting, but mainly it should be as little a burden on society as possible. If they grow it themselves, fine, who cares.

I do think it would be an effective tool in managing prisoners. Give prisoners better food who act better. Maybe this would be a logistical problem, though, and the best you could do would be to give perks here and there.

Otherwise I generally agree with Pan except the comment about who makes up the majority of prisoners. But that's off-topic.

[Pan]

ExtraMSG, what I wrote is something I've read before with statistics, but it was a number of years ago, and I don't remember the source. It may not have a bearing on food, but it does have a bearing on whether lousy treatment is merited. If you have evidence to bear in the matter and feel that it's off-topic enough to risk derailing the food angle of the thread, please feel free to PM or email a link to me. I don't have any personal stake in whether it's true or not.

[fresco]

This cuts both ways. A lot of the prison riots and protests seem to be sparked or fueled by unhappiness about the food, and often justified. Logical, when you think about it, because food would loom large in a world where you are confined and denied most perks. I'd be against using food for behavior mod, personally, because it would probably wind up causing a lot of trouble.

[Pan]

Maybe so, Fresco, but what punishments would be most appropriate when prisoners act up for no good reason?

I hope there are some correctional officers, current or former, who will make some remarks in this thread.

[fresco]

Prisons may well put inmates who are being punished on a diet that is different from the general population--I don't know. What I think is a bad idea is offering food "perks" for good behavior. Bound to cause resentment.

[Pan]

Wouldn't any perks be bound to cause resentment?

[fresco]

Preferred work assignments generally don't. But hey, I'm no expert.

[Mayhaw Man]

I remember reading about a prison in Louisiana that served really good food, and I'm not sure whether they were or weren't kidding when they said that there were people who really didn't want to leave when they were released.

What did you expect? Bad Food?

Actually, it probably has more to do with the number of former state and local officials we have locked up. I am sure, even in their incarcerated state, that they have enough pull to get a decent meal shipped in.

[Jinmyo]

adrober, thanks for posting this.

[foodie52]

Really, I think prison food should first be cheap. People in prison are being punished.

I thought that most people who end up in prison are used to eating cheap food anyway. Besides, cheap doesn't necessarily equate with "bad".

What's wrong with a feeling of well-being after a decent meal? I mean, isn't it punishment enough to be incarcerated? How can we expect people to decide to change their lives if we don't give them a glimpse of what is good out here? Granted, there are some real scumbags in jail ( my husband is an ex-trial lawyer) but for the most part, does the bulk of the prison population really need to be reminded 24 hours a day how terrible they are?

On an ironic note, what's up with the "last meal" concept? Is that schizophrenic or what?

[claire797]

Thanks for posting! I'm having a good time discussing this with my friends.

[Mayhaw Man]

I made light in the above comment about prison food in Louisiana, but perhaps I should not have.

The prison that is referred to as often having good food is Angola State Penetentiary. A very large prison located on an old cane and cotton plantation in a very inaccesible are in Louisiana. There is one road in and out. 70% of the prisoners who go in are not coming out. Ever. The population is made up of a majority of lifers (big stripes in Angola Parlance) who are there until they die.

The deal with the food is that the prison is a GIANT working farm. Everything grown at Angola is consumed there. Vegetables, cattle, pigs, etc. The food is obviously supplemented with food service type food, but the availability of prison grown does add quite a bit of quality to the meals.

I have eaten in the main dining cafeteria a couple of times (as a visitor on official business, thank you very much) and can attest that the food I had was acceptable as decent and would probably put to shame some of the places in this country claiming to be soul food places. This is not to say that it is good, or anything that foodies should arrange to try to eat as an odd gourmet treat in an exotic locale.

Angola is not a good place (in fact it is a very bad place) and they could have Austin Leslie and Charlie Trotter working the line side by side and it still would not be worth one night in that place.

I believe that prisoners deserve a decent diet that is inexpensive to produce and not mind numbingly repetitive. I think that it should also reflect the local food that the average prisoner is used to seeing. Religious dietary requirements should be tolerated to the point where it begins to cause problems with other inmates (whatever that is?) I do not believe that they deserve anything beyond that. Sure, there are people who do not belong there, but most do and they got there by their own devices. I cannot see that serving delightful meals is going to help much in their rehabilitation, as part of the idea of prison-beyond rehabilitation- is a form of punishment that makes the prisoner not want to return.

A couple of visits, even knowing I was driving out at the end of the day, were all I needed to know I didn't want to spend the night.

A brief History of Angola

[Mayhaw Man]

I just sent an email to Burl Cain, warden at Angola, asking if he would like to participate in this discussion. Who knows? He is a pretty gregarious guy. He might do it.

[beans]

Having worked both civil and criminal litigation areas of law, in a not very long ago previous life, and making a few buddies along the way within the judicial system, I've come to learn bits and pieces of knowledge about incarceration.

Maybe so, Fresco, but what punishments would be most appropriate when prisoners act up for no good reason?

I suppose there are many. All involve a loss of yet another freedom, but not of any sort of food related issues. Human rights activists would blow a gasket causing much headache for warden and any and all involved legislative types responsible for overseeing correctional facilities. One quick collect phone call to a the defense lawyer could stir up many administrative inquiries as to humane treatment of prisoners.

The administration of a loss of freedom ("priviledges") would be matters such as:

• "Lock down" wherein that prisoner is not permitted to leave their cell into the common areas for a predetermined amount of time.
  
• Loss of recreational activities (I suppose time in the gynasium shooting hoops?)
  

As far as religious dietary restrictions, I highly doubt those are respected. Perhaps the sole exception to the standard fare would have to qualify by some medically documented physical condition? Incarceration is all about decisions and choices made. That individual chose to commit a crime for which they are now punished, so they will eat what is provided. Of course I suppose that individual can opt not to eat portions of what is served or trade/swap with another for a second helping of an accompanying side dish of the meal (think of grade school cafeteria scenarios).

Regarding food quality, or a lack thereof, that all goes to budget (within my fair municipality, county and/or possibly state of residence). Commercial food purveyors/operations bid for the award of "contractor." Of these contractors, I am sure some solely exist that are in the biz for institutional food -- whether that is for educational, health care or correctional facilities.

[Fat Guy]

A few points, in no particular order:

- It's worth noting that there are different kinds of prisons. Not that the right people always get sent to the right ones, but in theory at least there is some level of segregation between, say, a drunk who gets 30 days for disorderly conduct, an embezzler, and a rapist. It would not necessarily seem appropriate to me to serve the same food in every prison environment.

- Further to that point, using food (quality and quantity) as a means of control when dealing with exceptionally violent and odious criminals seems entirely reasonable to me to the extent the criminals' own behavior necessitates such steps; whereas doing so with minimum security prisoners seems gratuitously cruel.

- One needs to look at prisons in light of other government funded food service operations. For example, if there are priorities within the system -- such as feeding the poor and feeding schoolchildren -- prisoners should come last.

- An unfortunate upshot of our litigious society is that if standards are established for prison food -- for example, that it has to taste good -- there will almost immediately be thousands of lawsuits filed by prisoners who feel their food doesn't meet that standard.

- The goals of incarceration are far from clear, and are certainly mixed: deterrence (both specific and general), retribution, rehabilitation . . . each of these may very well be served by a different approach to feeding prisoners. Without a clear mission for the penal system, it seems impossible to sort out the food issues.

[AzRaeL]

they do the crime, why should tax payers pay for their enjoyment of delicious cruisine?

let them eat cake!

[Chris Cognac]

When I was a new Officer in the 1992 I remember that our jail served really good food...Chili dogs, burritto's cheesbugers etc...But then we got audited/sued by a bunch of libral lawyers that wanted us to provide for nutritional needs ....caloric, fat intake etc...Now the poor prisoners eat a TV dinner type meal that tastes like crap but meets all the guidlines set out for the meal......The ruined a good thing for the prisoners, butting in where they did not have too!

[fifi]

It seems to me that the prison kitchen setting is an enormous opportunity for developing skills that can be used "outside". I remember seeing a program on FTVN about a restaurant run by ex-cons, San Francisco maybe? In Texas, we have had our "pea farms" where the local town drunk was sent to till the fields. It seems that those are falling by the wayside. But, it seems to me that a prison system that keeps the inmates involved in producing their own food and seeing to it that it is cooked and served well could be a win-win situation. Of course, you would have to be really careful about picking the kitchen staff. I mean, you don't want to give the violent types access to a chef's knife.

[jmcgrath]

Let me chime in from a different perspective. I have spent extended periods of confinement in a submarine and mealtime was always the highpoint of our day. The food budget for submariners is higher than for any other military group. A submarine in many ways is at least as confining as a prison, an all male population; no daylight or fresh air for 60 day intervals; no radio or TV; very limited communications from family or friends. The meals were the only thing that kept us sane. That and practical jokes. One day the XO got into a snit because we stole the door to his stateroom and he secured the soda machine. That almost caused a mutiny. A crew member secured the water supply to his state room, he ended the nightly movie, his mattress disappeared. He gave up.

In close confinement of any sort, food is one of the few aspects of humanity that remains.

Jim

[Fat Guy]

Interesting stuff, jmcgrath. Again, it seems to me that goals are the fundamental issue here. It may very well be that decent-tasting food is a good investment in maintaining peace in prisons. We could find out, I'm sure. The nice thing about prisons (to the extent there can be anything nice about prisons) is that it's easy to conduct studies about prisons because all the study participants are locked up. So we could probably learn if good food, or more food, or less food, or a food-reward system provides the greatest amount of peace in prison. At the same time, maintaining the peace needs to be balanced against our conception of basic human rights in prisons. Prisoners have given up many of their rights, but no matter what they've done they are human beings in the custody of the state and we're therefore responsible for their well being. We could easily maintain peace in prisons if we just killed all the prisoners, but of course we don't do that. So somewhere along the line a peacekeeping measure becomes inhumane, as starvation would be. Likewise, we could probably maintain peace in prisons by giving all prisoners access to all kinds of luxury and comfort, but that would be a form of reward -- something we also don't want to do.

[Holly Moore]

Most state deparments of correction should be able to farm most of their needs and prepare and share it between facilities. At Angola all prisoners are required to work. They start of in the fields, farming. They earn their keep.

It's amazing that most facilities are not like Angola. Every state prison system should be self sustaining, at least in terms of food. The rural prisons can grow and raise food for the entire state system. But more often than not, that isn't the case. Rather than building a work ethic and some self respect in the inmates by letting them put in a good day's work, the work opportunities are few and the waiting lists long. And the food, rather than being fresh off the farm is frozen, canned and dried. And costly.

For security and capital cost reasons, many state governments aren't willing to make the investment to make their correctional system self sustaining. There are also political reasons. A lot of people make a lot of money selling food to prisons. And there is the political position that forcing inmates to work is akin to slavery and the gulags.

--

I have no problem with "prison loaf" - those tasteless loaves of pureed-together food served as part of isolation/punishment. Also served to inmates who throw their food. They meet nutritional requirements. It's behavior modificaion.

In a like manner prisons could use food as an incentive, just like visits and access to television. As an inmate earns his way to lower levels of security, the food gets better. But that's not going to happen when politicians score points by cutting prison budgets.

--

One of the problems with prison food service is that many facilities are locked down twenty three hours a day. Meals are brought to the inmates in their cells. That takes time. Often an hour or more from when it was dished out. Even when the container is insulated, good food loses much of its appeal, when it's served luke-warm to cool.

--

All that said, in the course of one of my businesses I've toured a number of jails and prisons. What I've seen served doesn't look all that bad. Brought back memories of the high school cafeteria.

[hillvalley]

Take whatever grows on prison farms and send it to the children of the inmates.

The inmates can have whatever is leftover.