If a prisoner knows he's past his release date, can't he contact his lawyer?
My immediate reaction is that either (1) it is possible, and the story is therefore more nuanced that might appear at first glance, or (2) it is not possible, and this is an even more egregious problem.
You know ... the obvious way.
I think you misunderstand the nature of authority by thinking that they would recognize this as an exception.
> You know ... the obvious way.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
That's just my assumption. Remeber prisoners tend to be from less privileged backgrounds and some may be very ignorant of how the law works or even functionally illiterate. So things that seem "obvious" to educated engineers may not be obvious to them.
More commonly though the people wouldn't even know to contact their lawyer, because they are credited for time served pre-conviction.