In Johnson v. California, the Court held that it would apply strict scrutiny to racial classifications within prisons. I'm troubled by this.
Racial equality is one of our highest goals. Indeed, I'm indignant when my friends not of the Anglo persuasion are treated differently - in my own sight - than I am. But when it comes to prisons, pragmatism must prevail.
In prison, constitutional values should be subordinated to:
* Protecting guards from prisoners
* Protecting prisoners from guards
* Protecting prisonsers from rape and murder.
Everything else is gravy. It's more important that a guard not get shanked, or that a prisoner not get raped, than it is for the Constitution to flourish within prison walls. Some might consider me cruel. I say -- What value does the Equal Protection Clause or First Amendment have to someone being gang-raped or stabbed?
Prisons are cruel places, where gangs trade human beings for cigarettes and drugs. Most people have even odds that they'll escape prison rape. If state officials rationally conclude that segregation will prevent these abonimable practices, then I say, listen to the states.
Justice Jackson famously said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I say that the Constitution is not an enabling charter for prison rapists.
We should make it our first priority to provide prisoners the base of Maslow's pyramid - safety first, then constitutional rights. Until we stop prisoner abuse, all but the Fourteenth Amendment's affirmative duty requirement should be stayed inside prison walls.
