Prisoner not allowed to play D&D

[cignus_pfaccari]

And here's an interesting post at Slashdot from the perspective of a prison guard. He basically points out that a lot of game table chatter among inmates can sound pretty threatening to a guard's ears.

Man, my group would be locked up in solitary for weeks if we were in jail and a guard heard our table chatter.

Brad

 

[Voadam]

You don't know there was no policy on RPGs. All you know is that RPG materials weren't banned.

Right, all we know is they were not banned, the regulations against them were new after being tipped off about this "gang".

I'm not sure what nonbanned policy you are suggesting Muraski plausibly had before hand. Perhaps to secretly observe and keep tabs on any roleplaying groups? Perhaps he had regulated before where RPGs could meet and Singer had flouted these regulations? But this was never mentioned in the cited testimony or the court's recitation of facts so I think that possibility is remote. Something else?

Apparently, the staff responsible for gang activity monitoring weren't aware of the game for those two years. They didn't become aware of it until the players started recruiting additional inmates into the game with flyers.

I expect not. It looks like the letter was Muraski's first run in with RPGs in prison.

Singer was able to order lots of D&D books and have them delivered openly to his cell. Despite being a convicted murderer with a life sentence and presumably having his incoming stuff searched.

He didn't recruit through flyers though.

Neither the court decision nor the story talk about flyers, the anonymous letter mentions:

The letter expressed concern
that Singer and three other inmates were forming a D&D
gang and were trying to recruit others to join by passing
around their D&D publications and touting the “rush” they
got from playing the game.

He decided to confiscate the material and ban any further RPG activity after examining not only the gaming material, but also the recruitment flyer and a document created by the players, the contents of which we know nothing about. It would not surprise me if the staff interviewed other inmates about the group's activities as well.

We do know a little about the document, it was his 96 page home brew campaign setting.

His enthusiasm for D&D is such
that he has handwritten a ninety-six page manuscript
outlining the specific details of a “campaign setting” he
developed for use in D&D gameplay.1

1 A typical D&D game is made up of an “adventure,” or single
story that players develop as a group. A related series of games
and adventures becomes a “campaign.” The fictional locations
in which the adventures and campaigns take place—ranging
in size and complexity from cities to entire universes—are called
“campaign settings.” For more information about D&D
and D&D gameplay, see Wizards of the Coast, What is
D&D?, What Is D&D?
(last visited Jan. 20, 2010).

And again, no flyer.

Perhaps he only concluded the threat was worthy of an outright ban after he investigated the situation. It's also possible that RPGs had never been an issue in that particular facility before, but other games or activies of a similar nature had caused problems in the past and those experiences shaped the policy on RPGs.

I assume that the prison official has experience with inmates playing games in prison because I find it impossible to believe that he was involved in security at a prison for 20 years and never encountered inmates engaging in recreational games. I also assume that, even if he has never encountered inmates playing RPGs before, he is capable of extrapolating his previous experience in a way that allows him to assess the implications of RPGs in a prison setting and make informed judgements about the security risks they might pose. I also assume that his investigation into the specifics of this groups activities informed his policy decisions.

As for the rest, I don't assume any of it, so I feel no need to defend it.

His testimony was not that anything Singer's group was doing was different than any other D&D group or that they actually posed a threat. He said D&D in general promotes X which can lead to problems. His testimony was not that there was a new problem posed by Singer's gang, it was that RPGs are a threat issue in prison, period.

If so and RPGs had never been an issue before then wouldn't it be because he hadn't dealt with them before?

This is a good reason IMO to assume he didn't have direct experience with them before the incident.

If there was something from this particular group and the search and potential interviews that was relevant to support the ban which was being constitutionally challenged in court I would expect him to testify about that and the court to comment on the issue.

Since there was no such cited testimony I expect there was none.

It looks like all they found was D&D books and guys playing D&D.

This leads me to believe this was Murkaski's first dealing with RPGs in prison.

This leads me back to wondering the basis for his conclusion.

Extrapolating from other somewhat analogous things prisoners do that he has had experience with (reading fantasy, theatre/improv, video games(?), board games, chess, competitive sports, gambling, writing fantasy, movies, TV, anything with a referee, judge, or leader, etc.)?

His gut evaluation based on his background in security through the lens of years of focusing on and dealing with gangs and cults?

His gut view of RPGs?

Information on RPGs from other groups?

Actual studies?

Standards and practices at other prisons?

Something personal with Singer?

 

[Stoat]

I'm a lawyer, and I have some experience litigating cases about prison/jail regulations.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the inmate has the burden of proving that the regulation is unconstitutional. Under the law, this is a very heavy burden. The opinion sets out the specifics, but basically the inmate has to show that there is no rational relationship between the regulation and a legitimate penological interest. Basically, all the prison has to do is show that playing D&D might interfere with security, and it wins.

The basis for Singer's opinion about the impact of D&D on prison security is essentially irrelevant as long as it isn't irrational. It could be based on first hand experience, an extrapolation from similar experience, something he heard at a training seminar, or whatever.

As I read the opinion, the Court found Singer's testimony (which I assume was by way of an affidavit) to be uncontroverted. Singer said, "D&D might cause security problems!" The plaintiff needed to find someone to say "nuh uh!" to create a question of fact and move the case to a jury. He rounded up a bunch of inmates and maybe some gaming professionals, but the court declined to give credence to them. This is unusual, at summary judgment the court shouldn't be weighing the credibility of the witnesses. We can't really tell what happened without access to the relevant affidavits/deposition transcripts, but it looks like the plaintiff's witnesses either didn't speak to the security issue OR the court declined to consider their testimony because they were speaking "from the wrong side of the prison bars."

The takeaway is this: any prisoner's rights may be very strictly circumscribed. The prisoner generally has little recourse. Courts tend to believe prison officials/law enforcement more than they do prisoners.

 

[Paul_Klein]

I think the best this guy can hope for is to transfer to a different prison. I'm assuming most prisons don't have an anti-D&D stance (yet).

 

[haakon1]

they will figure out a way to play without books.

I was thinking the same. Our simple method of substituting for dice on a road trip once was I pick a number in my head, you tell me your number, I add, and subtract 20 if it adds to over 20.

And AD&D was simple enough that we pretty much had the rules memorized, to the extent we needed rules.

 

[Jhaelen]

They just based their decision on the fact that disallowing him to play a game for recreation is just an acceptable part of his punishment.

Yep, that's why I think the decision is perfectly fine.

Now, the way D&D was described is obviously not particularly accurate but I don't think the decision would have been different had it been described more accurate.

 

[jaerdaph]

I'm a lawyer, and I have some experience litigating cases about prison/jail regulations.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the inmate has the burden of proving that the regulation is unconstitutional. Under the law, this is a very heavy burden. The opinion sets out the specifics, but basically the inmate has to show that there is no rational relationship between the regulation and a legitimate penological interest. Basically, all the prison has to do is show that playing D&D might interfere with security, and it wins.

The basis for Singer's opinion about the impact of D&D on prison security is essentially irrelevant as long as it isn't irrational. It could be based on first hand experience, an extrapolation from similar experience, something he heard at a training seminar, or whatever.

As I read the opinion, the Court found Singer's testimony (which I assume was by way of an affidavit) to be uncontroverted. Singer said, "D&D might cause security problems!" The plaintiff needed to find someone to say "nuh uh!" to create a question of fact and move the case to a jury. He rounded up a bunch of inmates and maybe some gaming professionals, but the court declined to give credence to them. This is unusual, at summary judgment the court shouldn't be weighing the credibility of the witnesses. We can't really tell what happened without access to the relevant affidavits/deposition transcripts, but it looks like the plaintiff's witnesses either didn't speak to the security issue OR the court declined to consider their testimony because they were speaking "from the wrong side of the prison bars."

The takeaway is this: any prisoner's rights may be very strictly circumscribed. The prisoner generally has little recourse. Courts tend to believe prison officials/law enforcement more than they do prisoners.

Thanks, Stoat- that was very informative.

Actually, Kevin T. Singer was the inmate plaintiff. The testimony from the expert witness came from Captain Bruce Muraski.

And I'd like to dedicate the following performance to Captain Bruce Muraski:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq28qCklEHc[/ame]

 

[Umbran]

And AD&D was simple enough that we pretty much had the rules memorized, to the extent we needed rules.

Yes, but I note that on road trips you were probably not too concerned about someone stabbing you in the back with a sharpened spoon. If you think people get hot about rules disagreements on EN World...

I can hardly wait until I hear about the first Supermax Edition War Riot.

 

[Stoat]

Thanks, Stoat- that was very informative.

Actually, Kevin T. Singer was the inmate plaintiff. The testimony from the expert witness came from Captain Bruce Muraski.

D'oh! That's what I get for posting late at night, after my weekly game, two bourbons down.

Taking a closer look at the case, it seems like the court found for the prison because the inmate's witnesses could not say that D&D wasn't a potential security risk. The issue wasn't whether or not D&D had caused problems before. The issue was whether or not D&D might cause problems in the future. If its reasonable for the prison to think that D&D might possible cause some problem, then it's ok to ban D&D in prison.

IMO, this is an impossible standard for the plaintiff to overcome. It's fairly easy to imagine problems that D&D might cause -- dispute between players, the strain on guards trying to figure out what's going on when prisoners talk about "stabbing the orc in the face", the risk of canny gangmembers using the game as an excuse to meet and plan mischief. The risk might be remote, but they aren't necessarily irrational or unreasonable.

That said, Muraski doesn't come off very well in the opinion. It sounds to me like he's talking through his hat.

 

[Voadam]

As I read the opinion, the Court found Singer's testimony (which I assume was by way of an affidavit) to be uncontroverted. Singer said, "D&D might cause security problems!" The plaintiff needed to find someone to say "nuh uh!" to create a question of fact and move the case to a jury. He rounded up a bunch of inmates and maybe some gaming professionals, but the court declined to give credence to them. This is unusual, at summary judgment the court shouldn't be weighing the credibility of the witnesses. We can't really tell what happened without access to the relevant affidavits/deposition transcripts, but it looks like the plaintiff's witnesses either didn't speak to the security issue OR the court declined to consider their testimony because they were speaking "from the wrong side of the prison bars."

According to the court it seems to be both. The relevant question was whether it was possible for D&D to cause gang and fantasy escapism possible problems in prison.

The court found that all of them might be knowledgeable about D&D and its rehabilitative effects, but were not experts in prison security and so lacked the expertise to counter an assertion by a prison security expert.

In other words, none of them
is sufficiently versed in prison security concerns to raise
a genuine issue of material fact about their relationship
to D&D. (Of course, many of Singer’s affiants are
present or former inmates, but their experiential “expertise”
in prison security is from the wrong side of the bars
and fails to match Muraski’s perspective.) The expertise
critical here is that relating to prisons, their security, and
the prevention of prison gang activity. Singer’s affiants
conspicuously lack such expertise.

Singer's affiants were fellow inmates who, according to the court, testified they had never heard of D&D motivating anyone to join a gang or incite violence.

They fail to respond directly—
or even obliquely—to Muraski’s concern about
D&D players looking to Dungeon Masters, rather than
to the prison’s own carefully constructed hierarchy of
authority, for guidance and dispute resolution. Instead,
Singer’s affiants simply assert that D&D has not to their
knowledge incited prison violence or motivated devotees
to form a stereotypical street or prison gang.

Similarly for D&D promoting escapism leading to problems with rehabilitation

Again, he
proffers purportedly compelling testimony, this time
supporting the notion that D&D has a positive rehabilitative
effect on prisoners. Singer’s affiants are more knowledgeable
on this issue. For instance, he offers testimony
from Paul Cardwell, chair and archivist of the Committee
for the Advancement of Role-Playing Games, an “international
network of researchers into all aspects of
role-playing games.” Comm. for the Advancement of Role-
Playing Games, CAR-PGa: Welcome! (last visited
Jan. 20, 2010). Cardwell testified that there are numerous
scholarly works establishing that role-playing games
can have positive rehabilitative effects on prisoners.

Singer’s evidence again misses the mark, however. While
Cardwell and his other affiants, including a literacy tutor
and a role-playing game analyst, testified to a positive
relationship between D&D and rehabilitation, none
disputed or even acknowledged the prison officials’
assertions that there are valid reasons to fear a relationship
running in the opposite direction.

The court found they both lacked relevant expertise and did not directly counter Muraski's assertions.