Don't chain the books, torch the policy!

In Connecticut, there is talk of creating a policy that censors specific books and magazines in prison libraries. Republican Sen. John Kissel is firmly advocating the removal of violent and questionable books from prison libraries, only allowing inmates to read books approved by a committee and that follow policy guidelines. Kissel claims that sadistic novels and fiction will promote brutal behaviors and thoughts among inmates; this idea is a reaction to a recent Connecticut court decision.

According to the Americans Libraries Magazine, promotion of this policy was put into motion “after jurors returned a guilty verdict for the first of two defendants in the murder of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters Hayley and Michaela in their Chesire, Connecticut, home, and the brutal beating of their husband and father William Petit.” The article continues to say that this suspect read books of a violent nature, while serving a sentence for a prior conviction.

Books like In Cold Blood by Truman Capote have the possibility to provide ideas as how to kill people and evade capture. But, not every inmate wants to continue murdering people or has thoughts of murder. True, there are some criminally insane and cruel people in prisons, but not every individual is a cold-blooded killer. Kissel is defining the future all prison inmates’ intellectual freedom based upon the actions of one man, which I think itself is cruel and unusual punishment.

In a recent podcast by NPR, prison librarian Avi Steinberg gave an interview about what books prisoners at Suffolk County House of Correction read. One man read all classics during his sentence, claiming he finally obtained the education he never had. His teachers were authors like Machiavelli and Homer. Female book clubs were popular, and another inmate wanted to read books about how to start his own business. The prison library also provided creative-writing classes and GED courses.

The Suffolk County House of Correction library provided a place where inmates received information and read book of their own choosing. Though a prison library, this library advocated circulation of materials and education.

If this current policy is passed in Connecticut, it’s another library that has bitten the dust to censorship. Who is this senator to say that prison inmates do not deserve the chance for education and ability to read any books he or she wants?

If approved, this will become an issue for the American Library Association and librarians who believe in intellectual freedom. According to the Prisoners Right to Read, it is most likely that they will uphold this strong argument if compelled to provide a defense: “When the prison gates slam behind an inmate, he does not lose his human quality; his mind does not become closed to ideas; his intellect does not cease to feed on a free and open interchange of opinions; his yearning for self-respect does not end; nor is his quest for self-realization concluded. If anything, the needs for identity and self-respect are more compelling in the dehumanizing prison environment.”