I know very little about the prison system, but surely the suspension of phone privileged cannot prevent an inmate from contacting his legal representation, right?
Probably not legally. Prisoners are required to be allowed "reasonable" access to their counsel. They might be able to suspend your ability to call your lawyer, as long as they don't stop you from writing them letters and meeting in person, for example. I'm not read on the case law so I don't know specifics, but they can't totally prevent you from meeting your lawyer without serious constitutional issues.
Presumably by saying something like "I understand my phone privileged have been revoked, but I need to contact my lawyer", at which point the authority in question would recognize that this constitutes an exception to said revocation.
> I think you misunderstand the nature of authority by thinking that they would recognize this as an exception.
This is not the exception, this is the rule.
> and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Prisoners are constitutionally required to have "reasonable" access to counsel. I'm sure there's heaps of case law on what exactly is "reasonable", and there's always a risk that the guards won't allow it. If they don't, and you can prove it, you have a very good constitutional case. Kansas had to release like 70 inmates because it was discovered guards were recording inmate phone calls with counsel and releasing the tapes to prosecutors.
>Whats obvious here is that an incarcerated person only has the options that the carceral state permits to them.
Yes, thank you for the tautology. You'll note that this was exactly my question: does the state make such exceptions?
If you don't know, that's perfectly fine, but respectfully, your apparent mistrust of authority is hardly interesting to internet strangers. We're more interested in any factual elements you might have. Please, if you have any information specific to this case that we've overlooked, feel free to share. If not, hopefully someone else does!
Rather than the parent's comment coming across as mistrustful, yours comes across as apologetic for authority.
The idea that someone in authority, on being reminded that they're wrong, will turn around and do what's being asked by their subject is contrary to virtually every study on authority and, indeed, daily experience.
This entire discussion is in response to an article highlighting the prison system's refusal to update a system to provide inmates with their guaranteed rights.
Of course the state, in principle, makes such exceptions. The question is whether those exceptions are respected. And especially in light of the context in which we're debating (the article), yours and not the parent's seems the extraordinary claim.
> Yes, thank you for the tautology. You'll note that this was exactly my question: does the state make such exceptions?
Why would they?
> I'm a bit perplexed by your responses -- it seems like you either have information you aren't sharing, or like this subject make you impassioned.
I’m sorry if I come across negatively. I am impassioned about this. People who are locked up have no recognized rights. They are at the mercy of the guards. Not the legislature, not the prison system, the guards.
Prisons are a clusterfuck, just like healthcare, education and so many big organized multi-level regulated and semi-privately provided services.
You would think heating prisons so inmates don't shiver even in all the clothes they can pile on would be obvious. Yet every year the reports are the same. Some prisons can't manage to do it plus they willfully tolerate it and force inmates to be in their cell/room.
Nor do regulators care much, nor does the public.
Look at all the documeted law enforcement abuses. Prison guards are also enforcing laws. But inmates rarely have protests well documted by journalists. Think about that for a second. All the incentives are set up in the most fucked up way too. If an inmate reports a problem with the guards and it doesn't get solved (or even if it gets solved) they are still stuck with the guards. Who can and will make their life even more miserable. If they do if after release? Nobody cares, why didn't they speak up when it happened, blabla. So the system is pretty resistant to change (improvements).
If somebody is objecting to this comment based on it being wrong, I'd love to hear any corrections. Perhaps unfairly, I suspect it's more of an objection to the setup being described.
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. You did offer a reasonable answer. I think other people are reacting emotionally, the same way I did, because they are morally outraged at the perceived situation.
