Thursday, November 14, 1996

Nightline: When To Believe A Child's Word

When To Believe A Child's Word
Nightline - November 14, 1996

The following film clips (Part 1 and 2) are from a Nightline episode which aired on November 14, 1996.  

This particular newscast was about the backlash against survivors of child sexual abuse coming forward and speaking out.  

A group of people who claimed their children falsely accused them of incest banned together creating the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF).  What this group basically did was take research out of context to prove that therapist were implanting false memories into their clients that their parents molested them.  The reason for the backlash, was the fact that adult survivors of child sexual abuse started to file civil suits against their offenders -- who often were their parents.

Due to the number of frivolous law suits filed, many therapists quit working with anyone who disclosed child sexual abuse histories.  This all changed in 2002, when the cases of clergy sexual abuse broke in Boston and also cases within Jewish communities, boy scouts and from within every religion.


Below is the historic exposé, in which Nightline, with Ted Koppel, exposed the False Memory people for what they really were and an article that appeared in the New York Times regarding this show.


___________________________________________________________________________________

When To Believe A Child's Word - Part 1
ABC-Nightline - November 14, 1996



When To Believe A Child's Word - Part 2

ABC-Nightline - November 14, 1996


___________________________________________________________________________________

TURNING POINT:  When Children Accuse - Who To Believe
Byline: Ted Koppel and Erin Haynes 

ABC-Nightline - November 14, 1996
Code: U961114 01

 

WHEN CHILDREN ACCUSE: WHO TO BELIEVE Child sex abuse is a very serious problem. 

In 1994 alone 140,000 new cases were investigated and found to be real. But are innocent people being sentenced for crimes they never committed because of the testimony of the young?
 
Doubt over the testimony of children in sexual abuse cases has made it harder to try accused child molesters, sometimes with deadly consequences, but authorities say children do tell the truth in most cases.

TED KOPPEL: [voice-over] This week, another tragedy.

1st RESPONDENT: I don't understand this. They- they knew. Why did they let him come into this neighborhood? Or in any other neighborhood?

TED KOPPEL: [voice-over] A convicted child molester avoids prison because there is doubt over the testimony of a child.

STEPHEN CECI, Psychologist, Cornell University: We're never going to have - never going to have - a Pinocchio test. There will never be a test where the child's nose is growing longer when she gets it wrong.

TED KOPPEL: [voice-over] But when the convicted molester is sent home, he kills two children.

2nd RESPONDENT: When they do something like that, don't let them out. Just don't let them out at all.

TED KOPPEL: [voice-over] Tonight, the country faces a growing dilemma, knowing when to believe a child's word.

ANNOUNCER: This is ABC News Nightline. Reporting from Washington, Ted Koppel.

TED KOPPEL: This is a subject that is so controversial, about which people on both sides of the issue feel so passionately, that you should know how, in this particular instance, it was brought to our attention. Cydnea Tamarkin [sp?] has been a journalist for many years. She has devoted a great deal of attention to the subject of the sexual abuse of children by adults. Ms. Tamarkin has come to believe that, in recent years, a great many children who claim to have been sexually abused are not believed, or at least that suspects are not prosecuted because of some high-profile cases in which the testimony of children was found in court to be not credible. At one point, Ms. Tamarkin served on the advisory board of an organization called Believe the Children. She insists, however, that she remains neutral on the subject, and we have found her to be a useful, objective and reliable resource.@PGPH I'm telling you all of this because some people are under the impression, and have communicated this to us, that Ms. Tamarkin produced the reports you are about to see. That is not true. Correspondent Erin Hayes and producer Jim Hill have been especially sensitive to the suggestion that their work might be seen as anything less than objective reporting, and so have we. We are satisfied that their story is important and that Erin's report has been compiled as fairly and cleanly as possible.

ERIN HAYES, ABC News: [voice-over] Robert Jambois, a Kenosha, Wisconsin prosecutor, and his staff are preparing a case against a man accused of sexually molesting a little boy.

ROBERT JAMBOIS, Prosecutor, Kenosha, WI: He's been waking up in the middle of the night, you know, screaming, "Daddy, don't do it again."

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] As in most child sex abuse cases, there is no physical evidence.

ROBERT JAMBOIS: Basically, it's the child's word against the word of the adult.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] The case will hinge on the testimony of the boy. It will not be easy.

ROBERT JAMBOIS: He's going to be called a liar, and he's going to be told that, you know, going to say that he just- he made this whole thing up, or that somebody else made it all up.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] Jambois says it will be doubly difficult because many potential jurors walk into court already dubious about the testimony of children.

ROBERT JAMBOIS: One of the questions that we often ask jurors, I mean, "Are you prepared to convict this defendant just based on the testimony- or based exclusively on the testimony of an eyewitness?" And many of them will say, "Yeah, yeah." And, "Well, what about- what if this eyewitness is five years old, and you believe this five-year-old, and you don't believe the defendant, are you still prepared to convict, based exclusively on the testimony of this five-year-old eyewitness?" "Oh, no," they're not really inclined to do that.

ERIN HAYES: And prosecutors from more than a dozen major cities told Nightline it is a disturbing trend. In the past five years, they say, it has become much more difficult to prosecute child sex abuse because the credibility of children's testimony has come under attack.

J. TOM MORGAN, Prosecutor, Dekalb County, Georgia: The courtroom has gotten very mean. It's gotten mean for children, and it's gotten mean for the people who advocate for children.

ROBERT JAMBOIS: If I have a credible child who's able to give a credible account of what occurred, why shouldn't that be enough? Why- why shouldn't the jury believe that a child will- is telling the truth about these matters?

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] Because, a group of critics argues, in many cases, by the time children get to the witness stand, there has been too much opportunity for investigators to pressure children into describing abuse where there may be none. Attorney Steven Komen [sp?] has defended dozens of people charged with child sex abuse.

STEVEN KOMEN: My experience is, is that a qualified lawyer, or a psychiatrist, social worker, or psychologist, can get a child to say just about anything they want while they're talking to them.

RICHARD GARDNER, Psychiatrist: It has all the- all the criteria of a witchhunt, and the- the similarities between Salem and what we have now are uncanny.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] There is a history behind those charges, a spate of high-profile sex-abuse cases gone awry.

1st TV CORRESPONDENT: The community of Jordan, Minnesota has been jolted by allegations of a ring of child sexual abusers.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] Cases in the 1980s, charges that defied belief.

2nd TV CORRESPONDENT: Coerced into staying silent by the brandishing of guns and the mutilating of animals.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] But police and prosecutors had little, if any, experience with these unusual cases. Some took children's stories at face value or, worse, relentlessly interviewed some children until they finally came forward with stories of abuse.

ATTORNEY [?]: The children were never allowed to say, in their own words, what happened to them.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] In the years since, many of those cases have unraveled. Many of those accused had charges against them dropped, were acquitted, or had their convictions overturned.

PAUL STERN, Deputy Prosecutor, Kenosha, WI: Clearly, in the last two years there have been mistakes made in prosecution. There has been overcharging, there has been overreaching, there's been overzealous statements made by- by prosecutors, by investigators, by therapists.

ERIN HAYES: Those mistakes, prosecutors say, prompted them to change the system. Safeguards are being put in place, and interviewers are being trained not to lead children on in questioning.

PAUL STERN: This system works. This system works more effectively and more efficiently, with better results and better decisionmaking now than it did 10 years ago.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] But prosecutors say convincing juries of that has been extraordinarily difficult in the face of a counterattack they say is planting widespread doubt about the believability of children's testimony.@PGPH [on camera] And prosecutors say that counterattack is succeeding on the basis of unproven theories and misapplied science that they say should have no place in the courtroom.

IP[Commercial break]

TED KOPPEL: At the heart of many cases involving the sexual abuse of children is a debate over science in the courtroom. Erin Hayes continues her report.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] This is what is at the center of the debate, the statements of children, like this one, who told prosecutor Jambois that her father sexually molested her.

1st CHILD: He took a pen and stuck it in her- in my body.

INTERVIEWER: He did?

1st CHILD: Yeah.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] If you are a juror, listening to this child, should you have strong doubts? Is there reason to believe a child would make up something like that, or could be led to make it up? Many who defend the accused point to a body of research they say shows children can and do make up stories of sexual abuse. Some of they research they cite most frequently is that of Cornell University psychologist Stephen Ceci. Professor Ceci's staff has found they can elicit elaborate stories from young children, stories that are absolutely untrue, like this one.

2nd CHILD: The monkey escaped from the zoo. A man [unintelligible] he asked if- if I could help him find it, and I- and I found it.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] The studies have been widely cited in the media as evidence for questioning children's accounts of sex abuse. USA Today suggested questions can induce kids to falsely claim abuse. The Boston Herald said interviewers' techniques can often convince non-abused children they were truly molested, and more of Ceci's work has been cited in the courtroom as evidence of "...a high degree of suggestibility among young children...," that it's "...quite easy to distort a child's memory..." and "A child who was not abused may come to believe they were...@PGPH But Ceci says in many cases his work has been misused and misunderstood.

STEPHEN CECI, Psychologist, Cornell University: Not only do I believe children can be reliable in sexual abuse cases, I believe the vast majority of them are reliable in those cases.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] But Ceci says what is missing from many accounts of his work is that it is fairly difficult to convince children to make up even the most harmless stories.

STEPHEN CECI: Because in our studies we work at it very hard.

INTERVIEWER: And guess what, they found the monkey and gave it back to the lady. Did anything like that ever happen to you?

3rd CHILD: No.

INTERVIEWER: Did you ever help a stranger in a park to find a monkey that ran away from a zoo? You didn't?

STEPHEN CECI: We pursued kids repeatedly over long periods of time.

INTERVIEWER: Did anything like that ever happen to you?

4th CHILD: No.

STEPHEN CECI: I'm not talking about a single interview, where you sit down and you use a single leading question, and all of a sudden the child's giving you some highly elaborate narrative about something that never happened. That isn't how we grow a narrative. We do it over long periods of time, with repeated false suggestions by an interviewer.

ERIN HAYES: That doesn't seem to- to bear most child sexual abuse cases.

STEPHEN CECI: No. I would- I would agree.

ERIN HAYES: In fact, in his studies, most of the children ultimately do not give in to interviewers' suggestions, and while many of the interviews are about more serious subjects, medical exams, for example, they are not about sex abuse, and many in the child protection field are troubled that Ceci's research is being applied to sex abuse cases.

CHARLES WILSON, National Children's Advocacy Center: Because a child can be convinced of some event within their- within their realm of experience, such as seeing a clumsy clown at a- at a party, doesn't translate into that they can be made to believe that their grandfather had sex with them every Friday night for the last three years. It doesn't tell them about what the taste of semen is like. It doesn't tell them about the pain.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] Professor Ceci says he sees his research as a first step toward understanding cases where children have made false allegations of abuse.

STEPHEN CECI: It in no way denies the true instance of child sexual abuse, to say that some percentage of those claims may be falsehoods because of the way the adults have pursued the kids' memories.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] But those cases, he says, are not the norm.

STEPHEN CECI: Maybe 1 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent. I suspect it's nowhere near the majority. My hunch is the majority of interviews done with kids by front-line workers, child protective service, law enforcement, therapists, pediatricians, are well-done.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] But prosecutors say that is not the message being heard. Many jurors walk into court, they say, already doubting children, especially young children. [on camera] In fact, prosecutors in several states told Nightline that in many cases of sex abuse involving children under the age of six, they are not prosecuting, even when they are sure the child would be a credible witness. [voice-over] Rob Parrish, an assistant attorney general in Utah, is concerned that the cases are proving too tough for many prosecutors.

ROB PARRISH, Utah Assistant Attorney General: What I often say to prosecutors is that when we go in to a case like this, we have an extra burden. It's not just proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. We've got to prove it pretty much beyond any doubt.

TED KOPPEL: In a moment, two of the men who have raised doubts about the reliability of children's testimony, when Erin Hayes's report continues.

[Commercial break]

RALPH UNDERWAGER, Psychologist: [videotape] The best thing to do, the thing that would, in fact, protect the largest number of children from being harmed is to do away with all this bullshit of child protection.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] Ralph Underwager, a Minnesota psychologist-

Dr. RICHARD GARDNER: [videotape] And we are witnessing the greatest wave of hysteria in the history of the country.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] -and Dr. Richard Gardner, a New Jersey psychiatrist, are two of the most outspoken critics of child sex abuse investigators in this country. On a past Nightline, Dr. Gardner criticized what he called "the child abuse establishment."

Dr. RICHARD GARDNER: ["Nightline," March 4, 1994] It is a fact that- a- a- a lot of incompetent zealots- zealous people, overzealous, who see sex abuse everywhere.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] Gardner's and Underwager's research and theories raising doubts about the validity of many children's accusations of sex abuse have been widely cited in the media, and both have been highly sought, highly paid witnesses for people defending themselves against child sex abuse charges.

RALPH UNDERWAGER: I believe the great majority of the questioning of children that is done in this country is highly coercive, highly suggestive, leading, and produces inaccurate information.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] Underwager has done research that he says backs him up. He evaluated taped interviews of children, children who claimed they were sexually abused. Too many of the interviewers, Underwager concluded, used leading or repeated questions, which he says cast serious doubts on the children's accusations.

RALPH UNDERWAGER: It is the case that repeated questioning is the most powerful and the- the most effective way to produce a false accusation.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] But his critics point out Underwager uses his own standards for determining what is repeated and leading. For instance, he has said that interviewers' questions like this one, "Okay ... I don't want you to say anything you can't remember for sure," could be considered leading. And most of the tapes he reviews come to him from defense attorneys, for whom he consults. When he testifies for them, he says, he is paid $2,500 a day. Underwager admits he has no way to known if the children's accounts of abuse in the cases he reviews are actually false.@PGPH [interviewing] How do you know, in each of these cases, that the abuse did not happen?

RALPH UNDERWAGER: I don't. That's not my function. That's the function of the justice system.

ROB PARRISH: If that's the case, then there's no reason for him to be expressing an opinion in the justice system, any more than any of the rest of us. I mean, you could call anybody in that circumstance to say, "I've viewed the tape and I think it's a bad interview, so therefore I think this child's probably not telling the truth."

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] At least 10 courts have disallowed Underwager's testimony. One ruled he "...did not have bone fide qualifications..." as a researcher. Another said his work "...was not scientifically reliable..."@PGPH Underwager does continue to testify, which concerns many of his critics, who say is expertise is colored by what they see as a sympathetic view toward pedophiles. In a Dutch publication [Paidika] three years ago, Underwager said, "Paedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that paedophilia is an acceptable expression of God's will for love and will among human beings."@PGPH Underwager says he has always believed sex between adults and children is harmful, but says to help treat pedophiles, they must first be encouraged to openly proclaim their sexuality.

RALPH UNDERWAGER: That's what they need to do for themselves, and that's what we need to have them do, so that we can deal with it.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] In the same controversial article, he said "Male sex may make women jealous," and that can "...hold true for pedophile sex too."@PGPH [interviewing] To say that a woman would be jealous of pedophile sex, what do you mean by that? Why would you say something like that?"

RALPH UNDERWAGER: What's so difficult to understand about that?

ERIN HAYES: It's almost impossible for me to understand.

RALPH UNDERWAGER: In what way?

ERIN HAYES: Why would a woman, in your estimation, be jealous of sex between a pedophile and a child?

RALPH UNDERWAGER: If it interfered with whatever the woman had as her purposes, or her intents, or whatever her relationships were, that's what could occur.

MARK ELLIS, National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse: His methods and theories are not accepted by others in his field, and have been subject to a great deal of criticism by others in his field.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] Prosecutors are also critical of Dr. Gardner, who not only testifies, but publishes and markets his own books on child sex abuse, books often quoted in court cases.

ATTORNEY: [law firm videotape] Now, I want to talk to you about the most common cause of false accusations.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] In this videotape produced by a law firm, an attorney cites from Dr. Gardner's research Gardner's conclusion that false allegations of child sex abuse are commonplace in custody disputes.

ATTORNEY: [law firm videotape] This phenomena [sic] has been examined in research and it's now been given the name "parental alienation syndrome."

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] That disorder, however, cannot be found in the standard manual of psychiatric diagnoses. It is a term Dr. Gardner coined himself, based mainly on his own experience as a psychiatrist.@PGPH But the largest study done on the subject to date found that false allegations of child sexual abuse rarely surface in custody disputes ["...less than 2% of cases involved an allegation of sexual abuse." Dr. Gardner declined a videotaped interview for this report, but he sells tapes of his own, as well, in which he describes his criteria to help determine whether a child's allegation of sexual abuse is true or false. Among his criteria?

Dr. RICHARD GARDNER: [videotape] If it sounds incredible, it's probably not true.@PGPH In extreme cases, children who are sexually abused become like little street-smart sluts. I believe that children who are false accusers are going to have a higher incidence of reading mystery stories.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] Dr. Gardner concedes no one has scientifically tested his criteria, not even he.

ROB PARRISH: Those tests are not based on scientific reality. They're not verified, they're not validated in any way.

ERIN HAYES: [voice-over] But, prosecutors say, such work is having a real effect in the courtroom.

ROBERT JAMBOIS: It has promoted a level of cynicism among a significant percentage of the population, and when you're dealing in an area where you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously among the jury, a little bit of cynicism can do a great deal of damage.

IPTED KOPPEL: Balancing the rights of the accused and the abused- some final thoughts from correspondent Erin Hayes, in a moment.

[Commercial break]

TED KOPPEL: Joining us now from our Chicago bureau, ABC's Erin Hayes.@PGPH Erin, I get the sense that- that there really has been no conclusion to this story. I mean, your report ends, but it doesn't end with a conclusion. I take it that's because there isn't any.

ERIN HAYES: There really is no conclusion. There's a consensus among those I've spoken to, and that is that the pendulum just needs to swing back to the middle, that there was in the 1980s a tendency to immediately believe children's accounts of sex abuse, now there's a tendency to doubt children right away, and neither, they say, is reasonable.

TED KOPPEL: And what do the experts say can be done to bring about that happy medium?

ERIN HAYES: Well, they're trying now to remove reasons for doubt, to build more credible cases. There's a great deal of training going on now of police and prosecutors, therapists, even judges, about the best way to interview children to get the most accurate information from them. But having said that, they also say there will never be a crystal ball, an easy test, a simple way to know if an account of abuse is true or false. Each case, they say, has to be determined the old-fashioned way, on its merits, examining all the facts.

TED KOPPEL: Unfortunately, we're talking about fear on both sides, fear, on the one hand, of not believing children who deserve to be believed, fear, on the other hand, of convicting innocent people because of an easily suggestible child.

ERIN HAYES: Well, those I've spoken to say there are two things to remember. The first is that you have to remember that the accused is innocent and has to be presumed innocent until they're proven guilty. But they also say it's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not, prosecutors say, beyond an irrational doubt. And what they're asking jurors to do is to walk into court with an open mind and a willingness to listen.

TED KOPPEL: And on that note, Erin Hayes, let me thank you. I appreciate it very much.@PGPH That's our report for tonight. Tomorrow, on Good Morning America, Sarah Ferguson, and Evander Holyfield. Then, on the Nightline Friday Night Special, an unprecedented town meeting in the Watts section of Los Angeles with the director of Central Intelligence. He'll be answering questions about the lingering controversy over the CIA's alleged role in the crack cocaine epidemic during the 1980s.@PGPH I'm Ted Koppel in Washington. For all of us here at ABC News, good night.


The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.

Friday, November 08, 1996

Case of Jerry L. Harmon

Case of Jerry L. Harmon
(AKA: Jerry Harmon)





Inmate - Joseph Harp Correctional Center, Lexington, OK


Convicted on charges of lewd molestation, attempted rape in the second degree and forcible sodomy. 

There are several people who go by the name of Jerry Harmon. The individual discussed on this page was born on July 30, 1954.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents:  

2004
  1. Oklahoma Department of Corrections (2004)
  2. Inmates take fight for food to federal court (07/10/2004) 
  3. Oklahoma inmates push prisons for kosher meals (07/13/2004) 
  4. Oklahoma Prisoners Sue for Kosher Food  (07/13/2004) 
  5. Ruling Gives Several Oklahoma Prison Inmates Right To Have Kosher Food  (08/27/2004) 
  6. Judge rules 3 Oklahoma inmates have right to kosher food (08/27/2004) 
  7. Federal court orders kosher food for prisoners (12/16/2004)

2012
  1. Oklahoma Department of Corrections (05/10/2012)

Also See:
  1. Case of Jon Andrew Cottriel
  2. Case of Jerry Harmon 
  3. Case of Dennis Earl Fulbright 
_________________________________________________________________________________

Oklahoma Department of Corrections
2004

Name: JERRY L HARMON - ODOC# 249662
Alias: No data available
IDs

ODOC#: 249662

FBI#: 384083JA3

OSBI#: 144413

Birth Date: 07/30/1954

Appearance: White Male; 5 ft. 8 in. tall; 127 pounds; Brown hair; Hazel eyes;

Body Marks: No data available

Sentence
CRF#      County     Offense           Conviction     Term     Term Code   Start       End
96-114    OSAG        Lewd Molestation     11/08/1996       10Y 0M 0D    INC          07/06/2004  07/05/2014
96-114    OSAG        Lewd Molestation     11/08/1996       10Y 0M 0D    INC          07/04/2024  07/03/2034
96-114     OSAG        Attempted Rape       11/08/1996       7Y 6M 0D     INC          11/14/1996  08/06/2000
                             Second Degree
96-114      OSAG         Forcible Sodomy      11/08/1996      10Y 0M 0D    INC          08/06/2000  07/06/2004
96-114      OSAG        Forcible Sodomy       11/08/1996       10Y 0M 0D   INC           07/05/2014  07/04/2024

Facility:
Current Facility                       Phone#          Reception             Date Discharge     ParoleHearing Date
Joseph Harp Correctional Center     (405) 527-5593  11/14/1996 10/2004                       09/2007
Address              City           State            Zip Contact
Box 548            Lexington      OK                73051-0548           Mike Addison, Warden
_________________________________________________________________________________

Inmates take fight for food to federal court
By Michael Baker
The Oklahoman - July 10, 2004

Three Oklahoma inmates are waging a battle over prison cuisine with federal lawsuits demanding corrections officials pay for them to eat kosher. Kosher diet

Box Insert: There are 613 basic laws of Orthodox Judaism, and 60 to 70 of those pertain to eating kosher. Jews following strict interpretation of kosher laws cannot eat pork or mix meat and dairy, including cooking the items in the same pot, pan or stove, or with the same utensils; and beef must be properly slaughtered and drained of all blood.

Source: Rabbi Ovadia Goldman of Oklahoma City

The inmates, all convicted sex offenders, claim the state Corrections Department is violating the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment by not allowing them to practice their chosen religion, Orthodox Judaism.

Lawyers representing prison officials responded that serving the kosher meals would cost millions of dollars, might violate the First Amendment's establishment-of-religion clause and could even cause riots.

Similar arguments failed two years ago when Colorado lost a court case with prisoners demanding free kosher meals.

The arguments in the Oklahoma case unfolded this week in an Oklahoma City federal courtroom with testimony from the Jewish inmates, a rabbi and a top state prison official.

The inmates Jon Andrew Cottriel, 44; Jerry Harmon, 49; and Dennis Earl Fulbright, 36 all said they practiced Orthodox Judaism while incarcerated at Joseph Harp Correctional Center near Lexington.

The inmates said they are forced to pay for kosher meals without any real assurance the food is, indeed, kosher. In most instances, the men said they are forced to eat just fruits and vegetables.

The inmates' attorney, Rand Eddy, called Rabbi Ovadia Goldman of the Chabad Jewish Center of Oklahoma City to testify about the importance of eating kosher to those practicing Orthodox Judaism.

"Every law that God gave us is an opportunity and a chance to strengthen our relationship with him," Goldman said. "If there's a possibility to eat kosher food, then not eating kosher food weakens our relationship with God."

Goldman said that in a restrictive setting, the best way to ensure meals are properly prepared is to serve pre-packaged kosher meals.

Bobby Boone, deputy director of the Corrections Department's eastern region, said to provide such meals would cost Oklahoma's prison system about $3.8 million extra a year.

Once kosher meals are served, then other religions will demand other special diets, Boone said under questioning from Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General Stefan Doughty.

Of the 96 religions represented in the state's prison population, 20 could make a claim to having a special dietary need, Boone estimated, saying about 6 percent of the prison population could make such a claim.

The prison system now spends about $2.50 a day for each inmate to eat. Kosher meals would cost about $10 a day, Boone said.

To provide kosher meals, the Corrections Department would have to cut staff, Boone said.
"We're not operating at full staff anywhere in the state of Oklahoma," Boone said. "It would increase the risk" inside and outside the prison.

Inside the prison, Boone said, providing kosher meals for Jews could upset other groups that see it as preferential treatment.

In 2002, Colorado lost similar arguments when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled the state must serve kosher foods to Jewish prisoners at no charge. The court ruled Colorado had violated the prisoners' freedom-of-religion rights, an argument three Oklahoma inmates are making.

But while arguing the case Thursday for the Corrections Department, Doughty added a twist not considered in the Colorado case.

Serving kosher meals at taxpayers' expense would violate the U.S. Constitution, providing for the establishment of religion by government, Doughty said.

After Thursday's hearing, Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell said he would consider all the arguments before issuing a report and recommendation. The case will then go to a district judge, who could follow Purcell's recommended ruling, ask for more evidence or reject Purcell's recommendation.

Weeks or months could pass before Purcell issues a report, attorneys said.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Oklahoma inmates push prisons for kosher meals
The Associated Press - July 13, 2004

OKLAHOMA CITY — Three prison inmates who practice Orthodox Judaism want the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to pay for them to eat kosher meals.

The inmates, all convicted sex offenders, allege that the DOC is violating the First Amendment by not allowing them to practice their chosen religion.

In federal court last week, DOC attorneys argued that serving the kosher meals would cost millions of dollars, might violate the First Amendment's establishment clause and could even cause riots.

The inmates — Jon Andrew Cottriel, 44; Jerry Harmon, 49; and Dennis Earl Fulbright, 36 — are incarcerated at Joseph Harp Correctional Center near Lexington.

The trio said they are forced to pay for kosher meals without any real assurance the food is kosher, which is defined as ritually fit by Jewish law. The men allege they are forced to eat just fruits and vegetables in most instances.

Rabbi Ovadia Goldman of the Chabad Jewish Center of Oklahoma City testified about the importance of eating kosher to those practicing Orthodox Judaism.

"Every law that God gave us is an opportunity and a chance to strengthen our relationship with him," Goldman said. "If there's a possibility to eat kosher food, then not eating kosher food weakens our relationship with God."

In a restrictive setting, the best way to ensure meals are properly prepared is to serve prepackaged kosher meals, he said.

Bobby Boone, deputy director of the Corrections Department's eastern region, said to provide such meals would cost Oklahoma's prison system about $3.8 million more annually.

Once kosher meals are served, then other religions will demand other special diets, Boone said under questioning from Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General Stefan Doughty.

Of the 96 religions represented in the state's prison population, 20 could claim to have special dietary needs, Boone estimated. That represents 6% of the inmate population.
The prison system now spends about $2.50 a day for each inmate to eat. Kosher meals would cost about $10 a day, Boone said.

He argued that providing kosher meals would force the Corrections Department to cut staff and would appear as though the agency were providing preferential treatment.

"We're not operating at full staff anywhere in the state of Oklahoma," Boone said. "It would increase the risk — inside and outside the prison."

In 2002, Colorado lost similar arguments when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled the state must serve kosher foods to Jewish prisoners at no charge. The court ruled Colorado had violated the prisoners' freedom-of-religion rights.

After the July 8 hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell said he would consider all the arguments before issuing a report and recommendation.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Oklahoma Prisoners Sue for Kosher Food
Kosher News - Tuesday 13 July, 2004

Lexington, Oklahoma (www.koshertoday.com) Three prison inmates want the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to pay for their kosher meals. T he inmates say DOC is violating the First Amendment by not letting them practice their chosen religion. In federal court this week, DOC attorneys argued that serving the kosher meals would cost millions of dollars, might violate the First Amendment's establishment-of-religion clause and could even cause riots. The inmates are incarcerated at Joseph Harp Correctional Center near Lexington. Jon Andrew Cottriel, Jerry Harmon, and Dennis Earl Fulbright. They say they're forced to pay for kosher meals without knowing for sure if it's kosher.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Ruling Gives Several Oklahoma Prison Inmates Right To Have Kosher Food
Associated Press (KOTV, OK) - August 27, 2004 

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) _ A federal magistrate rules three Oklahoma inmates have a right to eat kosher food paid for by the state Department of Corrections.

Attorneys for the state say they plan to object to the ruling by U-S District Magistrate Judge Gary Purcell.

Purcell ruled this week that the inmates' right to freely express their Orthodox Jewish religion outweighs state expenses.

Inmates Jon Cottriel, Jerry Harmon and Dennis Fulbright filed their petition while incarcerated at Joseph Harp Correctional Center in Lexington. All three are convicted sex offenders.

State attorneys say they will file an objection to the ruling before a September 14th deadline. Until a U-S district judge makes a final decision, no kosher meals will be served.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Judge rules 3 Oklahoma inmates have right to kosher food
By Michael Baker Staff Writer
NewsOK.com - August 27, 2004

A federal magistrate concluded three Oklahoma inmates have a First Amendment right to eat kosher food paid for by the state Corrections Department.

State lawyers will lodge a written objection in hopes an Oklahoma City federal judge will reject the finding, an assistant attorney general said Thursday.

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell said this week that the inmates' right to freely exercise their Orthodox Jewish religion outweighs state expenses.

Although Purcell's ruling only applies to the three inmates, the magistrate noted that the right is likely to be extended to all Orthodox Jewish inmates after additional court proceedings.

Inmates Jon Andrew Cottriel, 44; Jerry Harmon, 50; and Dennis Earl Fulbright, 36 -- all convicted sex offenders -- filed their petition while incarcerated at Joseph Harp Correctional Center near Lexington.

Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General Stefan K. Doughty said he would file an objection to Purcell's ruling by the court-imposed Sept. 14 deadline.

The objection and the inmates' responses will be considered by U.S. District Judge Lee R. West. West could approve or reject Purcell's ruling, or ask for more evidence.

The kosher meals will be served only if West approves, said the inmates' attorney, Rand Eddy. If that happens, it will set the stage for all Orthodox Jews in state prisons to receive kosher meals, Eddy said.

Cost argument rejected
During a hearing last month, a corrections official testified that serving the kosher meals to everybody who would want them would cost more than $3 million a year and cause disruptions with inmates.

Purcell rejected the arguments.
"There is no persuasive evidence presented by (the state) that the cost of providing kosher meals to the plaintiffs and other Orthodox Jewish inmates would entail more than a minimal increase in the Oklahoma DOC's annual food budget," he wrote.

Purcell also noted that Oklahoma prisons already serve pork-free meals to those of the Muslim faith.

Doughty said his objections to Purcell's opinion will argue that providing kosher meals could violate others' rights.

Serving kosher meals at taxpayer expense would violate the U.S. Constitution by providing funding for the establishment of religion by the government, Doughty said.

_____________________________________________________________

Kosher diet
Orthodox Jews following strict interpretation of kosher laws:
  • Cannot eat pork.
  • Cannot mix meat and dairy foods, including cooking the items in the same pan, or using the same utensils.
  • May only eat beef from cattle that have been properly slaughtered and drained of blood.
  • Source: Rabbi Ovadia Goldman of Oklahoma City


_________________________________________________________________________________

Federal court orders kosher food for prisoners
Kosher Gift Baskets - Thursday 16 December, 2004


OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (www.koshertoday.com) A federal magistrate ruled in late August that three Oklahoma inmates have a right to eat kosher food paid for by the state Department of Corrections. The ruling is consistent with similar opinions by other state and federal courts. Attorneys for the state say they plan to object to the ruling by U.S. District Magistrate Judge Gary Purcell. The judge ruled that the inmates right to freely express their Orthodox Jewish religion outweighs the concern over state expenses. The inmates, convicted sex offenders, filed their petition while incarcerated at Joseph Harp Correctional Center in Lexington, Okla. Until a U.S. district judge makes a final decision, no kosher meals will be served.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Oklahoma Department of Corrections
May 10, 2012




_________________________________________________________________________________



FAIR USE NOTICE


Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
_________________________________________________________________________________

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." –– Margaret Mead
_________________________________________________________________________________