Prisoner not allowed to play D&D

[Voadam]

If prisoners are playing D&D, they are exercising their hobby for free on the taxpayer's dime.

We as taxpayers didn't pay for his hobby playing there, it has no financial impact on us one way or the other if prisoners are allowed to play D&D or not.

 

[Mournblade94]

We as taxpayers didn't pay for his hobby playing there, it has no financial impact on us one way or the other if prisoners are allowed to play D&D or not.

I realize that. However games in the prison library are bought by taxpayers. Hobby material made available is bought by taxpayers. His D&D material was not, but he no longer has freedom either. Prisoners already have a dry roof, heat, mattress, hot water, and a library. That alone is evidence prisoners are treated well. If a gamer in prison cannot play D&D, he can use that time to ponder why he got there in the first place.

In addition they get good gym facilities. I'd advocate getting rid of those as well. Breaking rocks would eliminate the need for gyms.

 

[Mark Chance]

Well, if nothing else, this molehill posing as a mountain at least gives avid gamers a reason not to commit homicide.

 

[Nifft]

Well, if nothing else, this molehill posing as a mountain at least gives avid gamers a reason not to commit homicide.

Well, damn. There go my plans for this weekend.

"... but I'm still taking their stuff!", -- N

 

[arscott]

(IANAL)

And the fact of the matter is this- the man is in prison, and its up to him to prove his chosen activity is not disruptive to the prison society. He failed.

Well, no, it's not actually up to him just yet. This is a summary judgement--At this stage, he's not trying to prove his case. Instead, during summary judgment the burden of proof is on the party requesting summary judgment (in this case, the guards) to prove that there is no way a jury could reasonably find in the other party's (here, the prisoner's) favor.

Reading the opinion, It really doesn't seem like the guards met their standard of proof. The judge basically says "I believe the prison guard over the prisoners", but that's not the sort of decision you're supposed to make in summary judgement--a judge or jury is only supposed to decide who's more believable after the witnesses have testified in court, where the opposing council has an opportunity to examine their testimony and poke holes in it.

(And I suspect there are a lot of holes in Muraski's testimony. According to the opinion "Muraski also has extensive training in [...] small occult groups..." and when it comes to law enforcement, that's usually equivalent to "Has read Dark Dungeons and watched Mazes and Monsters")

 

[Voadam]

(IANAL)
Well, no, it's not actually up to him just yet. This is a summary judgement--At this stage, he's not trying to prove his case. Instead, during summary judgment the burden of proof is on the party requesting summary judgment (in this case, the guards) to prove that there is no way a jury could reasonably find in the other party's (here, the prisoner's) favor.

Reading the opinion, It really doesn't seem like the guards met their standard of proof. The judge basically says "I believe the prison guard over the prisoners", but that's not the sort of decision you're supposed to make in summary judgement--a judge or jury is only supposed to decide who's more believable after the witnesses have testified in court, where the opposing council has an opportunity to examine their testimony and poke holes in it.

(And I suspect there are a lot of holes in Muraski's testimony. According to the opinion "Muraski also has extensive training in [...] small occult groups..." and when it comes to law enforcement, that's usually equivalent to "Has read Dark Dungeons and watched Mazes and Monsters")

Read the decision again.

The government won the case on summary judgment. Muraski's testimony provided a rational basis for the ban and Singer did not provide any testimony that controverted his rational basis.

Singer had to prove Muraski's conclusion on prison security could not be rational.

Singer did not provide testimony from a prison sercurity specialist, just inmates and RPG experts, not prison security specialists.

 

[arscott]

There's no legal requirement that the testimony of prison security specialists must be countered by the testimony of other prison security specialists. The fact that inmates counter Muraski's testimony should be enough to merit a full trial. Deciding whose testimony is worth more is the job of a judge or jury that has actually seen the witnesses testify on the stand. Until then, there's a question of fact, and summary judgment is inappropriate.

The judge's argument that the affidavits of the prisoners don't adequately address the hypothetical nature of Muraski's concerts strikes me as tenuous at best--the cynic in me recognizes it as the sort of argument one comes up with when one has already made their decision and is searching for some justification.

At the very least, this unlikely hypothetical should run afoul of the exaggerated response prohibition, but the judge doesn't even address whether the D&D ban is an exaggerated response given the complete absence of prior D&D related problems and the shakiness of the connection muraski posits. Instead, the judge takes a D&D ban as a given and then determines that this particular ban isn't an exaggerated method of prohibiting D&D. (Though in this area, I'm willing to accept that the fault lies in a weak argument by Singer's lawyer instead of weak reasoning by the judge).

 

[frankthedm]

the sort of argument one comes up with when one has already made their decision and is searching for some justification.

That is the situation. Judge made the correct call there were no grounds for a trial. A judge has the power and responsibility to make sure a case has legal merit before a jury ever has a chance to see it.

 

[Mark Chance]

There's no legal requirement that the testimony of prison security specialists must be countered by the testimony of other prison security specialists.

The burden of proof in the case was with the murderer, not the prison officials. The murderer failed to make the case that he has a right to play D&D that trumps the prison official's expertise in prison security.

Guess is sucks to be a convicted killer. Who knew?

 

[billd91]

The problem I have is that prison is a place for punishment. I think it fails as a rehabilitation entity. Our prisons need to tighten the noose not loosen it.

If prisoners are playing D&D, they are exercising their hobby for free on the taxpayer's dime. I do not think any hobby material should be allowed in prison. The prisoners are there for a reason.

Most prisoners eventually get out of prison. How they are treated when they are inside has a significant effect on whether they come out better suited to live with life's expectations or worse. Frankly, the safety of the people around the released prisoners may depend on it.