10 ms·

>There was no concern for his vegan diet I can't be the only one that thinks it's ridiculous for a prison to accommodate voluntary diets like this.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
How about his Tuesday lunch with his mother? And his yoga lesson? Prison sucks.
- jevinskie 12y ago
  Lunch with family (in the prison) sounds like a great way to improve recidivism rates. I'd bet that yoga or another form of meditation would also be beneficial.
- UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
  Prisoners are actually practicing yoga. http://prisonyoga.com/why/ http://prisonyoga.com/why/ >The Prison Yoga Project was founded in the belief that yoga, taught specifically as a mindfulness practice, is very effective in releasing deeply held, unresolved trauma, allowing us to address the resultant behavioral issues >Our objective is to provide prisoners with a mindfulness tool to draw on their yoga practice when they’re not doing yoga. If they’re tangled in a confrontation on the yard, or upon release, or tempted to go back to using, they can draw on what they have learned from yoga for practical solutions. They can do it without actually having to do a yoga pose to get the value. That’s the transformational, rehabilitative value of yoga. Video - http://youtu.be/cmiAtV5zAmw http://youtu.be/cmiAtV5zAmw
ohyesyodo 12y ago
I'm sure you are not the only one, but why wouldn't the prison do that?
- Goronmon 12y ago
  Why should a prison accommodate a prisoner who is a vegan any more than one who wants to eat filet mignon for every meal?
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    Probably because filet mignon is more expensive than a vegan meal.
    - baddox 12y ago
      In the scheme of things, the cost of losing economies of scale by providing many custom diets is probably the dominant cost factor to consider.
  - pcthrowaway 12y ago
    Why should a prison accommodate people who don't eat certain things based on religious guidelines? People are rarely vegan because they associate a vegan diet with one of luxury. They choose not to eat animal products because they have an ethical objection to them.
  - bdcravens 12y ago
    Vegan doesn't mean higher quality. It can mean a large serving of beans and broccoli.
    - VLM 12y ago
      Which makes the whole discussion rather bizarre. So you don't want meat slop on beans and rice, fine, take two scoops of rice and beans instead without the slop. Don't want pancakes and bacon, fine, take an extra pancake instead. If the servers won't cooperate, trade a slice of bacon to your neighbor in exchange for a pancake. I suppose you could intentionally sabotage someone by putting bacon in with the beans, so just avoid mixing expensive bacon in with the cheap beans and I think everyone will be happy? My guess is dietary sabotage is intentional, even if it takes more money and more effort, as a kind of psychological torture. "The guards will beat you if you don't put bacon bits on your salad because they know you're a vegan" type of thing. (edited to explain, I ate years of institutional food in school lunches, then the Army, and then at University, pretty much my first quarter century of life, and I assumed its "about the same" in prison. Which is very interestingly, apparently, completely wrong. Prison is apparently more like every inmate gets "the" TV dinner today and there's no sharing/trading allowed.)
chunkstuntman 12y ago
Well if (I assume) you're coming from the mindset of how US prisons treat their inmates, expecting prisoners to be treated with any kind of humanity at all would certainly seem rediculous.
- sejje 12y ago
  Well if (I assume) you're talking about the prisons that aren't max-security, it's not very ridiculous at all. Most of the inmates in our prison system are treated "with humanity."
  - jsmthrowaway 12y ago
    As a former minimum security inmate, you couldn't be more wrong. Security status has nothing to do with treatment. Just from your comment, I know that you've never so much as been detained. Prison is a lot better than county detention; in prison, there is a loose respect structure between COs and inmates (you live there, they don't). In county, inmates are dehumanized beyond nothing as a form of control and a mechanism to encourage plea bargains. It happened to me when I spent four months in county: "just accept this plea deal and you can go home," and when I refused I got "lost" in the system on the way back to jail. For 48 hours or more (I lost track). With no food or bathroom facilities. Twice. All pretrial detention comes with a deadline, for the most part (beyond which you must be sentenced or released), and another tactic they use is to get you to "waive" that time so they can "better investigate your case," they say. One dumb individual I spent time with accepted this offer and had spent nine years in county jail without a sentence. I'm not making this up. I became a much more cynical person during that experience and hate when I see people defending that system in any way. Whatever you think you know about our detention system, you don't. Whatever you think you know about minimum, you don't, too, and I have several scars to show you if you don't believe me.
    - sejje 12y ago
      I appreciate your reply. You are not incorrect, and most of my "knowledge" came from one person, who was incarcerated for ripping off a casino--not via my own experience. He did 17 years in a really lax place. Pool tables and ping pong and TV and community rooms, stuff like that. A bit of a knee-jerk response on my part.
r00fus 12y ago
> I can't be the only one that thinks it's ridiculous for a prison to accommodate voluntary diets like this. Well, it all depends on whether you think a prison is meant primarily for rehabilitation or punishment.
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  on HN, it depends. a greedy corporate fat cat that cheated people? punishment. Drug or copyright infringement related crimes? rehab.
  - angersock 12y ago
    It would help all of us, I imagine, were we to actually use separate institutions for those purposes.
    - crazypyro 12y ago
      Are you implying that the distinction the grandparent poster made is correct? (I'm almost positive it was sarcastic) All prisons should be about rehabilitation. Anything else is simply a multiplier to an already existent drain on society.
  - jackvalentine 12y ago
    And why so you think that is? (I'm withholding my opinion/explanation until I feel I understand yours and can provide a more valuable response)
    - ChuckMcM 12y ago
      I don't know paul, and his comment reads like a counter-troll, but the implicit statement that the audience of the statement incorporates their own perspective on the morality of the crime into their perception of the remedy is valid. The question about diets for prisoners that accommodate the needs of the prisoner is generally a 20th century concept[1]. And generally case after case has sided with the prisoners[2]. [1] I've yet to find a case prior to the treatment of prisoners of war in WW 1 that discussed diet but I haven't looked particularly hard so I offer this opinion with confidence but not certainty :-) [2] Recent example -- https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/may/19/florida-prison-system-ordered-provide-kosher-meals/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/may/19/florida-pri...
scoofy 12y ago
Because there is little or no downside to providing it, and to do otherwise is basically cruel.
adnam 12y ago
You're possibly not alone, but yourryou're certainly not right.
mikeyouse 12y ago
Is it really much different than Jews keeping Kosher or Muslims keeping Halal? Prisons are for punishment for crimes that we consider significant enough to jail people, they don't have to dehumanize the prisoners. The cost of 'specialty' food for a few tiny percent of prisoners is a minuscule figure in the total cost of imprisonment, and could easily be accommodated within the wider food offerings. If every meal had Kosher / Halal / Vegan offerings as a subset of the total meal, we could both imprison people and treat their ethics and morals with respect. Seems like a win-win.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  It's still unelegant and inconsistent. If I claim my diet requires high-quality food determined by me daily, that gets ignored. I understand Kosher for commercial enterprises like airlines: with a minimum of effort, they can satisfy many customers. But governments should have consistent treatment of citizens.
  - rudolf0 12y ago
    Even if a diet choice is voluntary, if the choice is grounded in religious or ethical reasons then it is an infringement of personal freedom to deny that. Yes, prison itself is an infringement of freedom, but some believe that certain freedoms should remain permanent.
    - zanny 12y ago
      Well obviously the prisons disagree, and since they are fundamentally rooted in the denial of freedom then I don't think anyone involved in the prison industrial complex (even in Sweden) is going to care to hear arguments about how they should be nicer to prisoners.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        http://www.prisonersabroad.org.uk/uploads/documents/prisoners/Food_and_diets.pdf http://www.prisonersabroad.org.uk/uploads/documents/prisoner... There are plenty of people workig on makig prisons nicer for prisoners. This includes respecting their religion (as guided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
ddod 12y ago
This sort of thing is pretty off-topic, but at least in the US, some states (like Florida) have laws requiring prisons offer kosher meals. Considering both diets are voluntary, it does seem unfortunate that certain ideologies are state sanctioned while others are not.
a3_nm 12y ago
I agree with the fact that it is problematic to say that prisons should accommodate any kind of voluntary diets (vegetarian, vegan, halal, kosher, etc.). I do not say this because prisons should "punish" inmates, but because it would require to draw a line between "common" or "reasonable" voluntary diets, and other diets. (Of course, this does not apply to special diets required for medical reasons.) In fact, I have the same problems with voluntary diets being honored in other State-run facilities such as school canteens. However, I do not see why, as a general principle, prisoners should not be allowed to buy food and have it shipped to them, using their own money.
- DanBC 12y ago
  The lines are pretty clear: Vegan; vegetarian; Halal; Kosher; medical; none of the above. These rules cover most religions and most lifestyle diets; these do exclude wishy-washy bullshit. Not providing foods guided by a person's religion is probably a violation of article 5 and is a violation of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. You can ask that the prisonor provides evidence of adherance to the restricted diet in their lofe before they became a prisoner. For example, a prisoner who claims to be vegetarian could show that they had been a member of the vegetarian society in their life outside prison.
  - a3_nm 12y ago
    > These rules cover most religions and most lifestyle diets; these do exclude wishy-washy bullshit. What about people who only want to eat free-range eggs (and not any products derived from eggs from caged hens?); or do not want to eat fish from non-sustainable fishing? Sure, they can stick to the vegan diet, but isn't it discriminatory that their specific preferences are not taken into account, and that they are mixed with a larger group? (In the same way that, I guess, you would not find it acceptable if people who want to eat halal or kosher were directed to eat vegan food; although note that kosher can be more restrictive than vegan due to requirements on checking for possible insect infestation of certain vegetables.) What about people who refuse to eat GM food? People who refuse to eat food that wasn't produced locally, because they want to cut down on pollution? What about fruitarians? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism) Jain vegetarians? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism ; note that it excludes onions so vegan diet is not OK). Sarbloh bibek for Sikhs? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Sikhism#Sarbloh_Bibek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Sikhism#Sarbloh_Bibek) Who is to make a decision about which practices are "bullshit" and which ones are "serious"? or whether one was "sufficiently" committed to a practice in the past? If you specifically accommodate some of these practices but not others, you are discriminating against people following practices which are too rare or not sufficiently established. In this spirit I think your original list would be discriminatory relative to the other practices I have listed above. My claim is that a prison has to manage the practical life of the inmates and feed them (with a default option; I do not object them buying different food items from external suppliers), and when you have to do this you cannot satisfy all preferences. Then, it is discriminatory to satisfy some preferences and disregard others because they are more common, or they have an established name ("vegetarianism" vs "not eating pineapples shipped by air freight"), or they are motivated by religious reasons. As long as the diet cannot be justified by a medical necessity, you are accommodating a personal preference, no matter the underlying reason; and it is discriminatory to favor some at the expense of others, and impossible to rate whether preferences are "valid" or "serious" (except by a doctor, for the medical cases). It is probably a good idea to offer diverse food options to increase the odds that people find something that suits them, but as soon as you go out of your way to satisfy a specific observance, I think it has the potential to be discriminatory. > Not providing foods guided by a person's religion is probably a violation of article 5 and is a violation of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. If you interpret the "right to observance" as implying that the State, when detaining you, must accommodate your beliefs, then as I have argued it is practically impossible to do this in a non-discriminatory fashion. (To give more background about my opinions: I am quite influenced by French laïcité https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9 whose current interpretation is often that, to avoid discriminating against any religious creed, as you cannot recognize them all, you should endorse none.)
vacri 12y ago
Religion is voluntary, reading books is voluntary, using exercise equipment is voluntary, using a phone or room to talk to your family is voluntary. A prisoner doesn't have to do any of those things, and plenty of prisoners get by without doing each one of those. Do you have a problem with these voluntary activities as well?
geofft 12y ago
My vegetarian friends say that they literally can't eat meat any more, in the sense that their stomach physiology (acids? bacteria? not sure) isn't capable of digesting it. Yes, it was voluntary at some point, but it's not clear that you can still apply that label. As someone with food allergies, I could understand (and be unhappy) if a captor decided to feed me allergens as intentional punishment, but I'd be pretty upset and feel pretty dehumanized if a captor just did so because it was the cheapest way to prepare a meal.
- Carrok 12y ago
  I don't believe your friends. They may notice the meat in their stomachs and feel more 'full' than usual, even feel bad. But 'incapable of digesting it'? Not likely. What, the toilet has whole hotdog pieces in it?
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    I stopped eating meat as a regular part of my diet nearly four years ago, and now eating more than a little tiny bit will make me physically ill with severe stomach distress. I would certainly count that as 'not capable of digesting', and to say otherwise is pure pedantry. And if you're putting whole hotdog pieces in your stomach you might want to consider chewing a little more carefully, that way leads to choking.
    - Blaaguuu 12y ago
      I think the point is that 'not capable of digesting' is an inaccurate description of the issue. Most likely it would just take some time to integrate meat back into their diet... I've made much smaller changes to my diet which caused discomfort, but it lasted a week or two, and my body was fine with it. Likely this friend's transition would be more uncomfortable, and lengthy, but I can't imagine that if for some reason they HAD to eat meat again, their body would completely reject all meat indefinitely.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      To counter your anecdote: I was vegetarian for 26 years (and had been vegan for 5 of those years) and I had no problems eating beef, mutton, lamb, or pork. Anecdotal evidence is stupid and pointless (includng my anecdotal evidence) and it's weird to see it so often on HN.
chrisbennet 12y ago
I had a US jail as a client for my long ago RFID business and they had 4 types of meals: 2 kosher (jewish and islamic), "normal" and medical/special as I recall. I used to tell people our app tracked inventory that was trying to escape.
fleitz 12y ago
No you're certainly not alone, however the vast majority of prison systems have very high recidivism rates. You have to ask yourself whether you want prisons to punish people or to get them to not commit crimes in the future, if your goal is to punish people, then sure, feed them the opposite of their preferred diet. If your goal is to change their behaviour then the breaking of bread can be instrumental in creating change. By showing respect for their culture you can begin to bridge the gap and help them respect yours.
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
So what happened to the votes here, BTW? Earlier today, this and quite a few other comments descended from it were downvoted to invisibility. A few hours later, I checked in and they're all back in black. Are the Million Moms Against Vegetarians running a sockpuppet campaign, or what exactly?
boomlinde 12y ago
What is ridiculous about it? One of the primary goals of prisons, at least here, is to rehabilitate the inmates. Whether that works in practice or not, it's recognized that if you can't practice your most basic beliefs, whether those are religiously founded or otherwise, your mental health and general well being is going to suffer.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

How about his Tuesday lunch with his mother? And his yoga lesson? Prison sucks.

jevinskie 12y ago
Lunch with family (in the prison) sounds like a great way to improve recidivism rates. I'd bet that yoga or another form of meditation would also be beneficial.
UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
Prisoners are actually practicing yoga. http://prisonyoga.com/why/ http://prisonyoga.com/why/ >The Prison Yoga Project was founded in the belief that yoga, taught specifically as a mindfulness practice, is very effective in releasing deeply held, unresolved trauma, allowing us to address the resultant behavioral issues >Our objective is to provide prisoners with a mindfulness tool to draw on their yoga practice when they’re not doing yoga. If they’re tangled in a confrontation on the yard, or upon release, or tempted to go back to using, they can draw on what they have learned from yoga for practical solutions. They can do it without actually having to do a yoga pose to get the value. That’s the transformational, rehabilitative value of yoga. Video - http://youtu.be/cmiAtV5zAmw http://youtu.be/cmiAtV5zAmw

ohyesyodo 12y ago

I'm sure you are not the only one, but why wouldn't the prison do that?

Goronmon 12y ago
Why should a prison accommodate a prisoner who is a vegan any more than one who wants to eat filet mignon for every meal?
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  Probably because filet mignon is more expensive than a vegan meal.
  - baddox 12y ago
    In the scheme of things, the cost of losing economies of scale by providing many custom diets is probably the dominant cost factor to consider.
- pcthrowaway 12y ago
  Why should a prison accommodate people who don't eat certain things based on religious guidelines? People are rarely vegan because they associate a vegan diet with one of luxury. They choose not to eat animal products because they have an ethical objection to them.
- bdcravens 12y ago
  Vegan doesn't mean higher quality. It can mean a large serving of beans and broccoli.
  - VLM 12y ago
    Which makes the whole discussion rather bizarre. So you don't want meat slop on beans and rice, fine, take two scoops of rice and beans instead without the slop. Don't want pancakes and bacon, fine, take an extra pancake instead. If the servers won't cooperate, trade a slice of bacon to your neighbor in exchange for a pancake. I suppose you could intentionally sabotage someone by putting bacon in with the beans, so just avoid mixing expensive bacon in with the cheap beans and I think everyone will be happy? My guess is dietary sabotage is intentional, even if it takes more money and more effort, as a kind of psychological torture. "The guards will beat you if you don't put bacon bits on your salad because they know you're a vegan" type of thing. (edited to explain, I ate years of institutional food in school lunches, then the Army, and then at University, pretty much my first quarter century of life, and I assumed its "about the same" in prison. Which is very interestingly, apparently, completely wrong. Prison is apparently more like every inmate gets "the" TV dinner today and there's no sharing/trading allowed.)

chunkstuntman 12y ago

Well if (I assume) you're coming from the mindset of how US prisons treat their inmates, expecting prisoners to be treated with any kind of humanity at all would certainly seem rediculous.

sejje 12y ago
Well if (I assume) you're talking about the prisons that aren't max-security, it's not very ridiculous at all. Most of the inmates in our prison system are treated "with humanity."
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  As a former minimum security inmate, you couldn't be more wrong. Security status has nothing to do with treatment. Just from your comment, I know that you've never so much as been detained. Prison is a lot better than county detention; in prison, there is a loose respect structure between COs and inmates (you live there, they don't). In county, inmates are dehumanized beyond nothing as a form of control and a mechanism to encourage plea bargains. It happened to me when I spent four months in county: "just accept this plea deal and you can go home," and when I refused I got "lost" in the system on the way back to jail. For 48 hours or more (I lost track). With no food or bathroom facilities. Twice. All pretrial detention comes with a deadline, for the most part (beyond which you must be sentenced or released), and another tactic they use is to get you to "waive" that time so they can "better investigate your case," they say. One dumb individual I spent time with accepted this offer and had spent nine years in county jail without a sentence. I'm not making this up. I became a much more cynical person during that experience and hate when I see people defending that system in any way. Whatever you think you know about our detention system, you don't. Whatever you think you know about minimum, you don't, too, and I have several scars to show you if you don't believe me.
  - sejje 12y ago
    I appreciate your reply. You are not incorrect, and most of my "knowledge" came from one person, who was incarcerated for ripping off a casino--not via my own experience. He did 17 years in a really lax place. Pool tables and ping pong and TV and community rooms, stuff like that. A bit of a knee-jerk response on my part.

r00fus 12y ago

> I can't be the only one that thinks it's ridiculous for a prison to accommodate voluntary diets like this. Well, it all depends on whether you think a prison is meant primarily for rehabilitation or punishment.

paulhauggis 12y ago
on HN, it depends. a greedy corporate fat cat that cheated people? punishment. Drug or copyright infringement related crimes? rehab.
- angersock 12y ago
  It would help all of us, I imagine, were we to actually use separate institutions for those purposes.
  - crazypyro 12y ago
    Are you implying that the distinction the grandparent poster made is correct? (I'm almost positive it was sarcastic) All prisons should be about rehabilitation. Anything else is simply a multiplier to an already existent drain on society.
- jackvalentine 12y ago
  And why so you think that is? (I'm withholding my opinion/explanation until I feel I understand yours and can provide a more valuable response)
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    I don't know paul, and his comment reads like a counter-troll, but the implicit statement that the audience of the statement incorporates their own perspective on the morality of the crime into their perception of the remedy is valid. The question about diets for prisoners that accommodate the needs of the prisoner is generally a 20th century concept[1]. And generally case after case has sided with the prisoners[2]. [1] I've yet to find a case prior to the treatment of prisoners of war in WW 1 that discussed diet but I haven't looked particularly hard so I offer this opinion with confidence but not certainty :-) [2] Recent example -- https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/may/19/florida-prison-system-ordered-provide-kosher-meals/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/may/19/florida-pri...

scoofy 12y ago

Because there is little or no downside to providing it, and to do otherwise is basically cruel.

adnam 12y ago

You're possibly not alone, but yourryou're certainly not right.

mikeyouse 12y ago

Is it really much different than Jews keeping Kosher or Muslims keeping Halal? Prisons are for punishment for crimes that we consider significant enough to jail people, they don't have to dehumanize the prisoners. The cost of 'specialty' food for a few tiny percent of prisoners is a minuscule figure in the total cost of imprisonment, and could easily be accommodated within the wider food offerings. If every meal had Kosher / Halal / Vegan offerings as a subset of the total meal, we could both imprison people and treat their ethics and morals with respect. Seems like a win-win.

MichaelGG 12y ago
It's still unelegant and inconsistent. If I claim my diet requires high-quality food determined by me daily, that gets ignored. I understand Kosher for commercial enterprises like airlines: with a minimum of effort, they can satisfy many customers. But governments should have consistent treatment of citizens.
- rudolf0 12y ago
  Even if a diet choice is voluntary, if the choice is grounded in religious or ethical reasons then it is an infringement of personal freedom to deny that. Yes, prison itself is an infringement of freedom, but some believe that certain freedoms should remain permanent.
  - zanny 12y ago
    Well obviously the prisons disagree, and since they are fundamentally rooted in the denial of freedom then I don't think anyone involved in the prison industrial complex (even in Sweden) is going to care to hear arguments about how they should be nicer to prisoners.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      http://www.prisonersabroad.org.uk/uploads/documents/prisoners/Food_and_diets.pdf http://www.prisonersabroad.org.uk/uploads/documents/prisoner... There are plenty of people workig on makig prisons nicer for prisoners. This includes respecting their religion (as guided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

ddod 12y ago

This sort of thing is pretty off-topic, but at least in the US, some states (like Florida) have laws requiring prisons offer kosher meals. Considering both diets are voluntary, it does seem unfortunate that certain ideologies are state sanctioned while others are not.

a3_nm 12y ago

I agree with the fact that it is problematic to say that prisons should accommodate any kind of voluntary diets (vegetarian, vegan, halal, kosher, etc.). I do not say this because prisons should "punish" inmates, but because it would require to draw a line between "common" or "reasonable" voluntary diets, and other diets. (Of course, this does not apply to special diets required for medical reasons.) In fact, I have the same problems with voluntary diets being honored in other State-run facilities such as school canteens. However, I do not see why, as a general principle, prisoners should not be allowed to buy food and have it shipped to them, using their own money.

DanBC 12y ago
The lines are pretty clear: Vegan; vegetarian; Halal; Kosher; medical; none of the above. These rules cover most religions and most lifestyle diets; these do exclude wishy-washy bullshit. Not providing foods guided by a person's religion is probably a violation of article 5 and is a violation of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. You can ask that the prisonor provides evidence of adherance to the restricted diet in their lofe before they became a prisoner. For example, a prisoner who claims to be vegetarian could show that they had been a member of the vegetarian society in their life outside prison.
- a3_nm 12y ago
  > These rules cover most religions and most lifestyle diets; these do exclude wishy-washy bullshit. What about people who only want to eat free-range eggs (and not any products derived from eggs from caged hens?); or do not want to eat fish from non-sustainable fishing? Sure, they can stick to the vegan diet, but isn't it discriminatory that their specific preferences are not taken into account, and that they are mixed with a larger group? (In the same way that, I guess, you would not find it acceptable if people who want to eat halal or kosher were directed to eat vegan food; although note that kosher can be more restrictive than vegan due to requirements on checking for possible insect infestation of certain vegetables.) What about people who refuse to eat GM food? People who refuse to eat food that wasn't produced locally, because they want to cut down on pollution? What about fruitarians? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism) Jain vegetarians? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism ; note that it excludes onions so vegan diet is not OK). Sarbloh bibek for Sikhs? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Sikhism#Sarbloh_Bibek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_in_Sikhism#Sarbloh_Bibek) Who is to make a decision about which practices are "bullshit" and which ones are "serious"? or whether one was "sufficiently" committed to a practice in the past? If you specifically accommodate some of these practices but not others, you are discriminating against people following practices which are too rare or not sufficiently established. In this spirit I think your original list would be discriminatory relative to the other practices I have listed above. My claim is that a prison has to manage the practical life of the inmates and feed them (with a default option; I do not object them buying different food items from external suppliers), and when you have to do this you cannot satisfy all preferences. Then, it is discriminatory to satisfy some preferences and disregard others because they are more common, or they have an established name ("vegetarianism" vs "not eating pineapples shipped by air freight"), or they are motivated by religious reasons. As long as the diet cannot be justified by a medical necessity, you are accommodating a personal preference, no matter the underlying reason; and it is discriminatory to favor some at the expense of others, and impossible to rate whether preferences are "valid" or "serious" (except by a doctor, for the medical cases). It is probably a good idea to offer diverse food options to increase the odds that people find something that suits them, but as soon as you go out of your way to satisfy a specific observance, I think it has the potential to be discriminatory. > Not providing foods guided by a person's religion is probably a violation of article 5 and is a violation of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. If you interpret the "right to observance" as implying that the State, when detaining you, must accommodate your beliefs, then as I have argued it is practically impossible to do this in a non-discriminatory fashion. (To give more background about my opinions: I am quite influenced by French laïcité https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9 whose current interpretation is often that, to avoid discriminating against any religious creed, as you cannot recognize them all, you should endorse none.)

vacri 12y ago

Religion is voluntary, reading books is voluntary, using exercise equipment is voluntary, using a phone or room to talk to your family is voluntary. A prisoner doesn't have to do any of those things, and plenty of prisoners get by without doing each one of those. Do you have a problem with these voluntary activities as well?

geofft 12y ago

My vegetarian friends say that they literally can't eat meat any more, in the sense that their stomach physiology (acids? bacteria? not sure) isn't capable of digesting it. Yes, it was voluntary at some point, but it's not clear that you can still apply that label. As someone with food allergies, I could understand (and be unhappy) if a captor decided to feed me allergens as intentional punishment, but I'd be pretty upset and feel pretty dehumanized if a captor just did so because it was the cheapest way to prepare a meal.

Carrok 12y ago
I don't believe your friends. They may notice the meat in their stomachs and feel more 'full' than usual, even feel bad. But 'incapable of digesting it'? Not likely. What, the toilet has whole hotdog pieces in it?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  I stopped eating meat as a regular part of my diet nearly four years ago, and now eating more than a little tiny bit will make me physically ill with severe stomach distress. I would certainly count that as 'not capable of digesting', and to say otherwise is pure pedantry. And if you're putting whole hotdog pieces in your stomach you might want to consider chewing a little more carefully, that way leads to choking.
  - Blaaguuu 12y ago
    I think the point is that 'not capable of digesting' is an inaccurate description of the issue. Most likely it would just take some time to integrate meat back into their diet... I've made much smaller changes to my diet which caused discomfort, but it lasted a week or two, and my body was fine with it. Likely this friend's transition would be more uncomfortable, and lengthy, but I can't imagine that if for some reason they HAD to eat meat again, their body would completely reject all meat indefinitely.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    To counter your anecdote: I was vegetarian for 26 years (and had been vegan for 5 of those years) and I had no problems eating beef, mutton, lamb, or pork. Anecdotal evidence is stupid and pointless (includng my anecdotal evidence) and it's weird to see it so often on HN.

chrisbennet 12y ago

I had a US jail as a client for my long ago RFID business and they had 4 types of meals: 2 kosher (jewish and islamic), "normal" and medical/special as I recall. I used to tell people our app tracked inventory that was trying to escape.

fleitz 12y ago

No you're certainly not alone, however the vast majority of prison systems have very high recidivism rates. You have to ask yourself whether you want prisons to punish people or to get them to not commit crimes in the future, if your goal is to punish people, then sure, feed them the opposite of their preferred diet. If your goal is to change their behaviour then the breaking of bread can be instrumental in creating change. By showing respect for their culture you can begin to bridge the gap and help them respect yours.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

So what happened to the votes here, BTW? Earlier today, this and quite a few other comments descended from it were downvoted to invisibility. A few hours later, I checked in and they're all back in black. Are the Million Moms Against Vegetarians running a sockpuppet campaign, or what exactly?

boomlinde 12y ago

What is ridiculous about it? One of the primary goals of prisons, at least here, is to rehabilitate the inmates. Whether that works in practice or not, it's recognized that if you can't practice your most basic beliefs, whether those are religiously founded or otherwise, your mental health and general well being is going to suffer.