House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King has announced more Muslim radicalization hearings for next week on "The Threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in U.S. Prisons.” These hearings at least have a more specific focus than his last attempt at examining the subject, but he's still barking up the wrong tree, since there isn't a lot of evidence of terrorism stemming from radicalization in U.S. prisons.
The Congressional Research Service determined last year that only a single example of homegrown terrorism stemmed from an individual who was radicalized in prison:
The Federal Bureau of Prisons acknowledges the possibility of inmate radicalization
but “do[es] not believe that there is widespread terrorist-inspired radicalization or recruiting in
federal prisons,” where between 5% and 6% of prisoners identify as Muslims. Based on CRS analysis of the 43 violent jihadist plots and attacks since 9/11, only one involved radicalization in prison. A study of 117 homegrown jihadist terrorists from the United States and United Kingdom found only seven cases in which prison had a significant impact on an individual's radicalization process.
It's hard to see given these numbers why prison radicalization itself would be a larger priority than say, DHS reducing the number of resources devoted to examining the threat of non-Muslim domestic terrorism. There are really also more pressing issues related to Islamic extremist violence that King could have chosen.
The focus on prison radicalization may stem from conservatives' difficult in differentiating between different varieties of Islam. Yes, many prisoners convert in prison, but joining the Nation of Islam is not really the same thing as becoming well versed in the works of Sayyid Qutb. Conservatives' anti-Islam culture war treats more people becoming Muslims as a kind of threat on par with actual violence, which is a really misguided conclusion.
