Prisoner lawsuit: It's Greek to us

Sometimes it’s hard to remember just who is running the asylum, isn’t it?

The latest example of that dictum comes from Montana State Prison, where William Diaz-Wassmer, a 26-year-old Guatemalan who is serving a 160-year sentence for robbing, raping and murdering a Livingston woman, has set a new low in high-minded impudence.

Diaz-Wassmer has sued several corrections officials over a new policy that allows the prison to withhold letters to or from prisoners if they are written in a language not understood by the prison official charged with monitoring them. 

But remember, state policy already allows prison officials to read non-privileged correspondence by inmates, and to take action if inappropriate material is being delivered. Obviously, if the prison officials can’t read the letters, they also can’t protect themselves, other inmates, or civilians from possible criminal schemes except by withholding the correspondence. The same strict standard applies to letters written in code.

But Diaz-Wassmer insists on dragging the state’s representatives into court and trying to win the right to do things HIS way, regardless of safety or common sense.

His argument, being handled by the Montana Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, is that forcing him or his friends and family to correspond in English violates his constitutional rights of free speech and equal protection.

This is absurd on so many levels that we feel sorry for the judge having to keep a straight face while listening to the arguments that will no doubt be presented.

First of all, Diaz-Wassmer’s right of free speech is not abridged one bit by asking him to use English for his correspondence. Let’s not even consider the fact that Diaz-Wassmer is entirely fluent in English, having moved to this country in 1985 while an infant. That’s not the issue. Let’s suppose instead that Diaz-Wassmer was unable to write at all due to illiteracy. Would his right of free speech be abridged?

Only if the patients are running the asylum.

Diaz-Wassmer or any other inmate has ample opportunity to obtain help from many resources in order to put together a letter in English that would meet the requirements of the policy.

And what about the equal protection argument? Presumably this is an effort to convince a judge that people who speak Spanish should be treated the same way as people who speak English. But that’s not the purpose of equal protection. That constitutional provision is intended to ensure that laws apply equally to all people, not just to some. And this law certainly meets that test. English speakers who use code will have their correspondence withheld as well. It’s a matter of transparency, not bigotry.

Moreover, if a judge were to find that the prison had some obligation to provide translators for Spanish-speaking prisoners, or to hire staff members who could read Spanish correspondence, then “equal protection” would mean that the same rights would accrue to people who speak and write any language at all. It would turn the Montana penitentiary into a veritable Tower of Babel.

To make matters worse, the prison didn’t deprive Diaz-Wassmer of his correspondence in a wanton manner at all. They told him that the prison’s Spanish interpreter was no longer employed at the prison, and when a new one was hired, letters would once again be allowed in Spanish.

Need we remind the prisoner that he put himself in this situation by raping and killing a woman? If he has to suffer through a few months of inconvenience, so be it. He should never have the power to dictate policy to the state of Montana or anyone else ever again.