William Bryan Sorens is a convicted rapist.
As far as I’m concerned, convicted rapists should never see the light of day again. I am in favor of the death penalty for rape. Please do not interpret what I am about to say as favoring leniency for Sorens with regard to his crimes.
Recently, William Bryan Sorens was given another year in prison – not because of his original crime and not because of another crime he has committed. This time, his sentence was extended because he wrote some articles that were published outside of prison.
Now, if our prisons want to ban all outside writing by inmates, I have no problem with that. If the decision is made, across the board, to prohibit inmates from selling their work, then Sorens would not have a beef.
But, many inmates are selling their writing. Some are authoring books. Some are even profiting from the very crimes they committed. That’s not the case with Sorens. He’s not writing about rape. He’s not writing about his victims. He’s not profiting in any way from his crimes.
On March 18, he was found guilty of operating a business from his cell in Texas. As a result, Sorens, who was eligible for release December 2005 won’t be considered for release until December 2006. In addition, he won’t be doing light duty in the prison kitchen any more. Instead, he will be doing hard work in the prison’s factories – making license plates and mattresses.
I’m no bleeding heart. I am not an advocate of light duty and light sentences for heavy crimes. But I am an advocate of equal treatment under the law.
There’s a cop killer in Pennsylvania by the name of Mumia Abu-Jamal. He writes articles for pay. And the courts have upheld his right to do so. I wouldn’t mind if the courts decided he had no First Amendment rights in prison. That wouldn’t bother me at all – especially if such a ruling applied to all prisoners convicted of serious crimes.
But that’s not the case. Abu-Jamal is directly benefiting from his crime by writing about the supposed injustice of it all. Yet, that’s OK.
Jorge Antonio Renaud, another Texas prisoner, behind bars for robbing a bank, has written for many newspapers and even authored a book published by the University of North Texas Press. He says he has never been threatened with disciplinary action for his writing.
Why the double standard?
Could it be someone in the prison system doesn’t like the content of Sorens’ writing?
Sorens’ most recent work is indeed controversial. He has been writing and researching the subject of recruitment for possible terrorism activity by radical Muslims inside Texas prisons.
According to Sorens, since his stories on this subject began appearing after Sept. 11, two imams have been barred from the premises. His work, he says, is based on investigation, eavesdropping and insider information he has picked up at what happens at Muslim services and teaching sessions inside the prison system.
“As I see it, I was doing Homeland Security a favor, and now I’ve [paid] for it with another year in prison,” Sorens says.
The American Civil Liberties Union is picking up Sorens’ case, as it should.
Maybe you don’t care about this convict. Maybe you wonder why we should pay any attention to his plight. Maybe you wonder why I am taking up his cause.
I’m not. In fact, if Sorens was sentenced to life in prison for the crime of rape, I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep over it. In fact, I’d probably cheer. But when I see anyone in America – even a con – being punished with imprisonment for writing, I get angry.
This is not the American way.
