Prison Messaging System JPay Withdraws Copyright Claims

Florida-based JPay has a specialized business model and an audience that is at least in part a (literally) captive one: the company specializes in logistics and communications services involving prisons and prisoners, ranging from payment services to logistics to electronic communications with prisoners. Now, via Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing comes a report from the EFF that the company has back-pedaled on a particularly strange aspect of the terms under which the company provided messaging services for prisoners: namely, JPay's terms of service made exhaustive copyright claims on messages sent by prisoners, claiming rights to "all content, whether it be text, images, or video" send via the service. That language has now been excised, but not in time to prevent at least one bad outcome; from the EFF's description: [Valerie] Buford has been running a social media campaign to overturn her [brother, Leon Benson's] murder conviction. However, after Buford published a videogram that her brother recorded via JPay to Facebook, prison administrators cut off her access to the JPay system, sent Benson to solitary confinement, and stripped away some of his earned "good time." To justify the discipline, prison officials said they were enforcing JPay's intellectual property rights and terms of service.

Comments

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is a "videogram"?!? Back in my day, the only electronic communication we prisoners had with the outside world involved two telephones separated by a thick sheet of wired glass. Damn kids.

Re:Huh?

[blueshift_1]

This is simply a modern day letter. Even prisons progress with the times.

Re:Huh?

[Half-pint HAL]

That would be legal jargon. Check the statute books.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of them do. Get locked up in a Georgia state prison, and all you get is a "blue phone" through a nobody telco that charges you exorbitant fees to make 15-minute phone calls. You can't call a cell phone, and land lines have to be pre-approved before you can call them.

And people wonder why guards sell contraband cell phones in these prisons?

Re: Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your prisons aren't prisons. They are money making slave holes. Yet another reason why your country simply stinks.

Re:Huh?

[stephanruby]

However, after Buford published a videogram that her brother recorded via JPay to Facebook, prison administrators cut off her access to the JPay system, sent Benson to solitary confinement, and stripped away some of his earned "good time." To justify the discipline, prison officials said they were enforcing JPay's intellectual property rights and terms of service.

How does this make any sense?

Are we in third world country where the brother is punished for what his sister allegedly did?

Re:Huh?

[X0563511]

No. We are in a first world country where assholes in charge lie about what they are doing.

Re: Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're one of those people who:

1. Had nothing to do with setting up your own prison system, yet feels superior about it.
2. Your general attitude is such that you'd probably be defending Georgia state prisons if you happened to be born in the United States.
3. Likely lives in some random European, possibly Scandinavian country about the size of a medium US state and with 80%+ white people.

There are people in the US who are trying to improve our prison system but face issues that you can't wrap your cozy parochial mindset around. So, by all means, show your gratitude for having won the lottery of living in a place with easy solutions by shutting your fucking mouth about things you don't understand.

Re: Huh?

[Sam36]

+++++plus

Re: Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our prisons aren't prisons. They are money making slave holes. Yet another reason why our country simply stinks.

There. I'm FROM here and I said it.

YOU NEED TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THE WORDS AND NOT JUST REFLEXIVELY SNIPE AT THE POSTER.

THINK.

Re: Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true. Under the 13th amendment prisoners in the U.S. ARE slaves. Legally and legitimately.
With more prisoner's per capita than any nation in the world the U.S. is the slave nation of the world, and the abuses are perverse.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289

Re:Huh?

[Runaway1956]

You need to get off the grass, AC. There were no telephones in jails when I was young. The prisoner was searched before being led into a room, and sat down on one side of a table. His visitors were already seated on the other side of the table. No materials were to be handed across the table. Photos, letters, and court documents could be laid on the table, and viewed, but nothing could cross the line painted down the middle of the table. If it did, the guard at the end of the table would declare that the visit was over, and the prisoner would be escorted out of the room, then the guests would leave. At no time would the exit door be opened while the prisoner was in the room. And, of course, the prisoner would be searched again after he left the visiting room.

I heard that the state prison permitted physical contact, so that a prisoner might have a hug and a kiss from wife and children, but I never had the opportunity to verify that.

No, I wasn't the prisoner, I was a visitor. I spent most of my time staring at the guard at the end of the table - he was a mean looking sumbitch!

Re: Huh?

[Runaway1956]

I live right here, in the US. And, I agree with AC's post. There is no justifiable reason that the prison system should charge as much as $75 for a short conversation with a prisoner. None. That "service" only helps to justify the statement that the prison systems are run for profit.

The United States cannot justify it's huge prison population. The US cannot justify privatized prisons. The US cannot justify locking people away for decades for crimes in which no person was hurt. ESPECIALLY since murderers often walk free after 5 to 10 years.

Face it - our system is fucked. Money making slave holes sums it up nicely.

Re: Huh?

[CaptainDork]

This is spot on, and we cannot and will not change it because, money.

Re:Huh?

[ultranova]

Are we in third world country where the brother is punished for what his sister allegedly did?

Most third world countries are developing, not declining. But otherwise yes.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

May Pagan's light shine upon you all.

Re: Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 informative for a racist comment? What the fuck?

Re: Huh?

[Barsteward]

" and with 80%+ white people." sounds like you're about to make a statement that all your problems are non-white

Re: Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live right here, in the US. And, I agree with AC's post. There is no justifiable reason that the prison system should charge as much as $75 for a short conversation with a prisoner. None. That "service" only helps to justify the statement that the prison systems are run for profit.

:You haven't dealt with prisoners much have you.

If communication was cheap, it would be used to perpetuate scams, harass people, and organize crimes outside the prison. Having the expense on top allows the communication that should happen occur, while keeping the signal to noise ratio very high.

Don't let your feels acting up about the family change the fact that the guy was put in a cage because he wouldn't play by the rules. In most cases, their families are much better off without them.

Re: Huh?

[Runaway1956]

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Communications can be controlled, regardless of the pricing. The phone call can be totally free, and be monitored. Or, it can cost ten thousand dollars, and be monitored as well.

A dangerous person who is incarcerated should be strictly controlled. No access to telephones, or limited and closely monitored access is fine with me. Charging exorbitant prices is NOT alright. Someone is exploiting the prisoners and their families for profit, and THAT is exactly what I am talking about. The whole prison industry is exploiting the prisoners and their families.

Prisoners have less voice than any other group in America. No senator gives a damn about them, no congressman, no governor. Those prisoners with any voice at all are beholden to lawyers or to activists. They have few legal means of communication, and they are charged fees that are outrageous when they use them.

Your concerns about scams would be better addressed by getting control of all the cell phones smuggled into the prisons, oftentimes smuggled by the guards who are supposed to enforce the prison rules.

It would be virtually impossible for me to sneak a telephone into a prison, without being detected. But, I can offer a guard a hundred dollars to openly carry that telephone in to work with him, and he will readily give it to the individual I've specified. Some guards may hold out for more than a hundred dollars, some will simply refuse. Some few of them might go to the law, and report that I've attempted to bribe them. But, by and large, the guards are the major suppliers of cell phones within the prisons. And, THAT is where most of the scams come from.

In some cases, trustees may compromise the prison's own telephone system, but as nearly as I can tell, that is usually discovered in relatively short order, and corrected.

And, none of that justifies the flagrant exploitation of the people who are put in the care of the prison system.

Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are in there to be "reformed", why do you punish them even more, just because of some stupid ass App.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's cute that you think prison is for "reform". Prison is for no such thing.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in 'murica would you think prisons are NOT for rehabilitation and reform.

In fact progressive countries who do not treat prisoners like inhuman scum (unlike the US) the rate of prisoners returning to jail is much lower.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Half-pint HAL]

That's cute that you think prison is for "reform". Prison is for no such thing.

Ah, but the Department of Corrections sounds soooo much more civilised than "the Department of Brutal Vengeance".

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

And only Americans will complain about a 'rape culture' in one breath, and then wish prison rape on someone in the next.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly...right up there with The Ministry of Truth.....

Re:Um.. Why?

[Livius]

Um, punishment is part of it too.

Prison can do more than one thing. Or at least it's supposed to

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you chose to quote my previous AC comment. Having, shall we say first hand, experience of the American Penal System, being sent to prison isn't for "reform and rehabilitation", but as a means of "branding" you as an unacceptable member of society, a means of keeping one in "one's place, or station".

Re:Um.. Why?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

That's cute that you think prison is for "reform". Prison is for no such thing.

Ah, but the Department of Corrections sounds soooo much more civilised than "the Department of Brutal Vengeance".

Prisons -should- have 3 main purposes (with all of them equally important):

• Correction of the prisoner (if that is possible), so he can return to society as a free men.
• Protection of society from the criminal.
• Vengeance to the criminal from society on behalf of the victim or his family so he/they not revenge him, as it's their right but may do it excessively.

Many problems are created when only some (instead of all) of the above are served.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if that's true of American's exclusively, but I agree it's despicable.

America is unique for it's per capita incarceration rate which suggests a higher percentage of prison employees/guards. Job specific gallows humor entering the general vernacular may be a case of a meme hitting it's necessary critical mass.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Half-pint HAL]

I completely understand this, although thankfully not from first-hand experience. It is a tragedy that so many parts of our society see vindictive punishment as a valid goal, rather than attempting to reform offenders. It's all part of the wider societal love of trying to categorise people into goodies and baddies, like in the old westerns. Problem is, the cowboys we were brought up to think were the goodies were actually a bunch of evil c...s and the "nasty" injuns were just trying to survive.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Vengeance to the criminal from society on behalf of the victim or his family so he/they not revenge him, as it's their right but may do it excessively.

Vengeance is no-one's "right".

"Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Aighearach]

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=4...

This explains it all, with pictures. Rehabilitation is a thing, but it is mostly a TV thing.

Re:Um.. Why?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Vengeance to the criminal from society on behalf of the victim or his family so he/they not revenge him, as it's their right but may do it excessively.

Vengeance is no-one's "right".

"Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19.

I agree - you are right. But when i wrote that it's their right i meant it's their "civil right" and must provided to anyone choosing to exercise it (now it is done from society on behalf of the victim - more civilized i think) - someone may choose not to exercise his civil right to vengeance (and he will receive the blessings promised). Society collectively is far away from the Lord's path (yet), so it takes vengeance to the criminal - each person on it's own can choose the right path you just presented to us brother.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a psychopath would seek vengeance.
Compensation or protection, yes. But not vengeance. That's just medieval thinking.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post raises some interesting observations. I'm not quite sure how to address them in a singular comprehensive manner, so I shall do my best to address them individually.

I completely understand this, although thankfully not from first-hand experience. It is a tragedy that so many parts of our society see vindictive punishment as a valid goal, rather than attempting to reform offenders.

There are indeed many members of American society who feel that "justice" should consist of swift and harsh punishments, that some sort of violent retribution should be induced. I find this to be a rather sad irony: these members of society who are so willing to inflict state supported violence(and state supported murder(and let's face it, capital punishment is state supported murder)) as some sort of justice fail to see that they themselves harbor tendencies just as violent as those whom they wish such atrocities upon. And that said transgressors should be made to "pay for the rest of their lives" by being denied any chance of holding gainful and meaningful employment. I have paid my debt to society. And, well over twenty years later, I'm still paying for it. Everyday. Perhaps "once a convict, always a convict" wouldn't be such a "self-fulfilling prophecy" if American society didn't feel the need to extend punishment beyond the bars, concrete, and razor wire fences.

It's all part of the wider societal love of trying to categorise people into goodies and baddies, like in the old westerns. Problem is, the cowboys we were brought up to think were the goodies were actually a bunch of evil c...s and the "nasty" injuns were just trying to survive.

I think you've touched upon the biggest part of the problem right there. Society at large feels that actions can be fit into two polarized categories: Good and Evil. But it isn't quite that "black and white" of an issue, as that completely ignores all the shades and tints of grey that fall in between. For instance, a man is out of work, he has lost his home. He and his family are living on the streets. He has been turned down for job after job(he has no residence, often a big part of trying to gain employment). His children are hungry. Out of desperation, and out of options, he steals food to feed his wife and children, only to get caught and end up another piece of fodder for the sociopathic machine known as the Judicial System. Now, I ask you: is this man a bad person? Is he evil? Would he be a good person if he let his children and his wife starve to death as opposed to resorting to stealing so he may feed his family? Is he now a martyr for upholding society's laws while his wife and children are victims of hunger? On the contrary, society will demonise him just as much. And, even worse, once he is released from prison, he'll be no better off than he was before because he now has a conviction "branding" him as a bad person and affording him no opportunity to become a productive member of society and raising himself and his family out of abject poverty.

And society wonders why some people end up being repeat offenders? Society only need look in the mirror to find the answer.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think an AI would have to rule us, just change little things like that.

If every message containing the words "department of corrections" was man in the middle attacked to say "the Department of Brutal Vengeance" the problem would get solved much more quickly.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are indeed many members of American society who feel that "justice" should consist of swift and harsh punishments, that some sort of violent retribution should be induced. I find this to be a rather sad irony: these members of society who are so willing to inflict state supported violence(and state supported murder(and let's face it, capital punishment is state supported murder)) as some sort of justice fail to see that they themselves harbor tendencies just as violent as those whom they wish such atrocities upon.

Not only in America. But there is no "sad irony". What you cannot see, is that prisoners are bad because they murder/brutalize innocent people, and that is why they're sent to prison. We who like death penalties as well as cruel/brutal punishment, we want to murder these guilty people. That is a rather big difference, which removes your "irony", once you are capable of understanding.

We may very well be just as brutal as a serial killer, when we want "an eye for an eye". But we only want violence to violent criminals - not violence applied to anyone who happened to be "in the wrong place & looking like they had some money". It is not the same at all.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree:

The stage is not there for a tit for tat, eye for an eye entity. The criminal justice "system" is there for crime -prevention- first and foremost.

From Criminal Justice 101: There are three purposes for prisons:

Rehabilitation.
Protection from society.
Punishment.

You toss a shoplifter or drunk driver in the can for a few days, and usually they don't like being locked up, so tend to not come back. This is the punishment aspect... being sent to jail/prison -as- punishment, not -for- punishment.

A rapist or killer gets jailed to protect society from them.

And then, there is the often forgotten about... rehabilitation aspect. Someone stealing because they have no job skills might be able to pick up a legit trade, so that they are employable once out... and the result is that they don't come back to the justice system. Done right, this is how things should function.

This is where the US justice "system" is so fucked up. You get -arrested- for any reason, and you lose access to many, many jobs. Not convicted... arrested. If a candidate's name shows up on NCIC or state/local databases, their resume gets shitcanned, and the reason is because they can buy their way out of a conviction... but if a police officer decides to pull out the handcuffs and write the paperwork... they are guilty and are considered as criminals for life.

The US justice "system" is designed around private profit. It isn't designed to prevent crime... in fact, it is designed to ensure people have to keep committing it. The reason why crime is so relatively low is because US citizens have the ability to defend themselves. If guns were taken away, life in the US would be like 1980s NYC or Washington DC in the 1990s, since unlike present-day NYC (which put large amounts of resources in broken window policing in the 1990s), not many cities have the resources to do that.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Half-pint HAL]

What you cannot see, is that prisoners are bad because they murder/brutalize innocent people,

You have erroneously conflated "prisoners" with "violent offenders". The vast majority of people convicted to custodial sentences are convicted of non-violent crimes, such as possession of illicit substances or petty theft. Even car-jacking is usually carried out in the absence of the owner and with no threat of physical harm.

It is not only the violent criminals that are alienated and disenfranchised by the "ex-con" label, but anyone serving a custodial sentence.

And even violent offenders may be victims of circumstance. Drug addiction doesn't come without the addict choosing to take drugs, but the consequences of drug addiction can include violent tendencies that are cured if the addict cleans up. But what's the point coming off your escape from reality when reality is that no-one will give you a second chance?

Re:Um.. Why?

[nashv]

More concerning is why the US Prison system is worried about a private corporation's intellectual rights and safeguarding them? Prisons are supposed to listen only to the courts. Did JPay have a judge-signed court order to send this person to solitary?

You Americans should be very disturbed.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

By murdering someone through state-supported action, does it bring back the dead said person murdered? Does it satiate your lust for blood? Not in the least. It only serves to feed the hunger you have for more violence and murder. Violence only begets more violence. Don't you think there should be a point where it should stop? Don't you think there should be a point where we should treat the underlying causes instead of treating the symptoms?

Re:Um.. Why?

[bzipitidoo]

I am very disturbed. There's a lot of corruption, and sheer stupidity. I really think we need to spell out, in writing, a whole bunch of things that the powerful aren't allowed to do. No EULAs, copyrights, or other claims of legal rights that aren't actually true. For instance, the National Football League claims ownership of everything about every broadcast of every football game, including things that are clearly not theirs to claim. They assert so at the end of the game.

I have an anecdote to share. I got a letter from the city claiming that my grass was too high, and was therefore a Nuisance. It was a bullying, insulting, and insincere letter that they should be ashamed they ever composed. The letter informed me that they could fine me $2000 per day that the property was in violation. That's an absolutely absurd amount to fine someone over grass that was a few inches over their arbitrary height. I do not agree that high grass is a nuisance. Nor do I agree that my grass was high, not when the city's grass in the nearby median was even higher. That's the bullying part. I don't believe they have the power to collect such a huge fine, and they may know that, and are just trying to scare me. Then the letter lectured me on how clean neighborhoods reduce crime and increase property values, as if I had never heard that sort of thing before. Finally, the letter concluded with a helpful list of lawn care services I could employ, with a disclaimer that they don't endorse any of them. I thought that list highly improper. I wonder how many officials have shady connections with those lawn care services, maybe get a little kickback? They don't care about neat neighbors nearly as much as they care about revenue, and the letter seemed to me to be more about that, about abusing the law to wring money from compliant and fearful citizens. Outrageous. But this is everywhere. What is to be done?

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

More concerning is why the US Prison system is worried about a private corporation's intellectual rights and safeguarding them? Prisons are supposed to listen only to the courts. Did JPay have a judge-signed court order to send this person to solitary?

You Americans should be very disturbed.

A lot of prisons in the US are private "for profit" prisons. They will do anything they can, use any excuse, to keep prisoners imprisoned so they can keep getting paid.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Runaway1956]

You obviously didn't address me, but I'd like to answer your questions.

First - I believe that punishment for certain crimes should be swift and harsh. Truly heinous crimes should be met with harsh punishment, up to and including capital punishment. I'm talking about murder, kidnapping, brutal rape, maiming and disfigurement, slavery, sex traffiking minors - truly heinous crimes.

We should NOT be punishing people for petty bullshit. Caught smoking a joint, you go to jail for a year, or maybe even prison for five years? That is preposterous.

Stealing food because you're hungry? Again - that's preposterous. No civilized nation can justify that. In a civilized nation, no one is hungry. And, if someone is truly hungry, a civilized nation won't punish anyone for taking basic survival needs.

Second - punishment after getting out of the system. By now, you realize that NO ONE "gets out" of the system. You have become a statistic and a suspect, and you will remain both a statistic and a suspect for all of your life. End of story, here in America.

Let us suppose that I were caught shoplifting candy as a youth. And, let us suppose that some local neighborhood cop caught me shoplifting. That cop would give me a stern talking to, put the Fear of God into me, take me home to talk to my parents, and go his merry way. End of story. No judge, no jury, no YDC, no nothing. I don't shoplift anymore, and the problem is solved.

That doesn't happen anymore. Even children who commit such minor crimes are arrested, taken to a detention center, parents informed, lawyers appointed, and legal processes started. And, the kid has a record which never goes away completely. Sure, his COURT RECORDS might be expunged, but his POLICE RECORD remains forever. Police never expunge their arrest records, so a six year old arrested for running away from home because Mommy was unreasonable about some sweets will have a record until he dies at age 106.

That crap is all so wrong.

Oh - the cop who caught me shoplifting? He was a beat cop. That is, he actually walked a beat, on the south side of town, mostly up and down Long Avenue, through the business section. He LIVED there. He was known to all the kids, known to all the criminals, known to all the business owners. He was a neighbor. He CARED about the neighborhood. His kid went to a different elementary school than I did, but we went to the same Junior High and High school later. That is something that we have lost in the US - we don't have neighborhood cops anymore. No skin off a cop's nose to lock up some kid he has never met before, and will probably never see again.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even car-jacking is usually carried out in the absence of the owner and with no threat of physical harm.

What? No it's not car-jacking is never carried out without threat of physical harm, thats the definition of car-jacking.

Re: Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right about the first two.

The third is wrong though. It should be deterrence: to reduce the amount of other crimes committed by scaring people away from committing the crime in the future.

Re: Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually he would have been a good person if he'd used the free and generous food stamp program to buy food. Since that wasn't an option he must be a bad person who spent them elsewhere.

Re:Um.. Why?

[linuxrocks123]

Nowhere in our legal system is there a civil right for "vengeance".

I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you've dug up something from England in 1200 or something. If so, I assure that precedent is no longer applicable.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What sort of religion claims to have a just, merciful, loving god who claims to be the only one who can deal out vengeance?
Justice i can understand, but vengeance?

Hypocrisy, thy name is religion.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

>will have a record until he dies at age 106.

Unless there is a violent revolution that brings this matriarchy / feminist police state to the grave where it belongs.

It's time.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only a psychopath male would find young girls attractive. Old women, other men, yes. But not young girls. That is just medieval thinking"

Re:Um.. Why?

[Barsteward]

did you get that quote from the same book that says "an eye for eye, tooth for a tooth ", supports genocide, promotes the stoning of people for working on a sunday or children showing a lack of respect for their parents and so on....

Re:Um.. Why?

[Barsteward]

"Society collectively is far away from the Lord's path (yet), so it takes vengeance to the criminal -" the further its away from the Lords path, the more civilised society will become. The lords path is to stone people to death, initiate genocide, perform child abuse etc

Re:Um.. Why?

[someone1234]

The "Lord" didn't say such a thing. Some human wrote it after a delirious dream.
All deed must earn their reward, and short of a "Lord", society is the next best guess that could mete out this reward.

Re: Um.. Why?

[Barsteward]

it is a deterrent to the majority of people who are socially well adjusted to do good because its the right thing to do. to the repeat offenders, its an occupational hazard. The death penalty, in theory, should deter serious crimes but it doesn't.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Half-pint HAL]

Sorry -- I get confused about US terminology, what with not being there and all. Read that as "car theft" then.

Re:Um.. Why?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Nowhere in our legal system is there a civil right for "vengeance".

I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you've dug up something from England in 1200 or something. If so, I assure that precedent is no longer applicable.

Of cource your (and ours, Greek) legal system provides the civil right for "vengeance" - but as i wrote, now society exercise it on behalf of the victim (or victim's family), as a more civilized way.

Re:Um.. Why?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

""Society collectively is far away from the Lord's path (yet), so it takes vengeance to the criminal -"

" the further its away from the Lords path, the more civilised society will become. The lords path is to stone people to death, initiate genocide, perform child abuse etc

The Lord's path is written as a good summary in the New Testament as "love each other" - do not accuse the Lord for what the people do, and don't accuse those on the Lord's path for what those not on His path do.

Re:Um.. Why?

[jopsen]

More concerning is why the US Prison system is worried about a private corporation's intellectual rights and safeguarding them?

Yeah, that's what blows my mind too... :)

Did JPay have a judge-signed court order to send this person to solitary?

Also isn't copyright violations normally a civil matter, and resolved through damages, as in money. So effectively this is solitary confinement as a form of debtors' prison...
Wow, that's a lot of disturbing things.. :)

Re:Um.. Why?

[Dog-Cow]

Funny. I am a practicing Jew, and I have never heard of a book that promoted all of those things.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Zontar The Mindless]

What, you object to a Buddhist who can quote the Christian scriptures? When in Rome... ;)

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vengeance to the criminal from society on behalf of the victim or his family so he/they not revenge him, as it's their right but may do it excessively.

Vengeance is no-one's "right".

"Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19.

I am acting on God's will. Stand aside, I will remove his hands so that he may not steal or strike. I will remove his ears and nose that he may not hide, and his tongue so that he may not tell more lies.

And I'll do all that with a grin on my face, because I am doing the will of God.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Holi]

Yeah the stoning was for people working on Saturday.

Re: Um.. Why?

[Holi]

But it does not work as a deterrent, hence the high recidivism. Rehabilitation is the method that has been proven time and time again. Instead what we have now is a system that turns minor offenders into habitual offenders.

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that like it is hypocritical. It is not. Why is it not? Because if it were hypocritical, then it would also be hypocritical to throw kidnappers in jail.

Now whether the punishment of being raped in jail is justified... that is something else entirely.

Re:Um.. Why?

[linuxrocks123]

This is not correct. Crimes are considered injuries to the state, not to the individual victim (if any) of the crime. Victims can sometimes sue the offender to recover damages, but that's not criminal law.

The state isn't acting on behalf of the victim, either. Crimes can be prosecuted even if the victim doesn't want them to be prosecuted, and, if a prosecutor decides not to go after a particular suspected offender, the victim has no recourse.

Re:Um.. Why?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Crimes are considered injuries to the state even if they concern an individual victim because they are injuries to the society also (note that society suffers from the criminal because even if an individual victim forgives, the criminal may continue to commit crimes), plus because by that way any crime can be prosecuted even if the victim doesn't want them to be prosecuted (either because the individual victim forgives the criminal -but can not forgive on behalf of the society for the criminal's injury to the state- or because is not able because: a) is dead b) is afraid to ask the criminal's prosecution). One other reason for that is because in a civilized society it is better to have the state exercise the individual victim's "civil right" to vengeance/punishment against the criminal, since else this vengeance/punishment may be excessive in comparison to the crime. But vengeance/punishment remains one of the (at least) 3 purposes of imprisonment: a) Correction of the prisoner (if that is possible), b) Protection of society from the criminal. c) Vengeance/Punishment.

Re:Um.. Why?

[linuxrocks123]

No.

Our justice system is historically based on the theory of retributive justice. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance. Retributive justice theory says that the punishment must "fit" the crime, based on its severity. This theory says it's also impersonal; society is not supposed to get pleasure from the act of delivering this type of justice.

Of course, this makes no sense. How does inflicting more harm do anything to "solve" the fact that harm has already been inflicted? This is the logic of a 5-year-old. So utilitarian justifications are tacked on when people grow up and try to figure out what the fuck is going on. These include deterrence, rehabilitation, etc. Eventually, as society grows up, this tail will wag the retributive dog more and more until we come to a better system. This will take ages to happen everywhere, though it's already happened in some Nordic countries.

Retributive justice is probably a self-unaware sublimation of a desire for vengeance. But that's a psychological argument, not a legal one.

Again, our legal system recognizes no criminal right of a victim against those who harm him. The victim's recourse is a civil lawsuit, where the principle, incidentally, is that the victim has a right to force the one who harmed him to cure the injury. You don't fulfill a contract, you pay a penalty for my inconvenience. You hit me with your car, you pay for my medical bills and compensate me for the pain I suffered. And so on. It goes all the way to, "if you kill me, you pay my estate the amount of money my life was worth". You may notice this actually makes a lot more sense than retributive "justice", although it's obviously not perfect because no amount of money will bring me back to life; the harm just can't be undone in that case. But that's neither here nor there.

So there's nothing anywhere saying you have a civil right, or would have a civil right if not for criminal law, or have a civil right that the government is exercising for you. Someone hurts you, you go to court and get compensated for your injury. That's YOUR right. The state has an ENTIRELY SEPARATE right to punish people who do bad things, because Kindergartner-logic + utilitarian handwaving (NOT REVENGE), and you have no interest in that whatsoever.

Re:Um.. Why?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Very interesting comment. I must warn you that if you are "political-correct" you should not read my reply.

Our justice system is historically based on the theory of retributive justice. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance. Retributive justice theory says that the punishment must "fit" the crime, based on its severity. This theory says it's also impersonal; society is not supposed to get pleasure from the act of delivering this type of justice.

We may have a terminology mis-undertanding (most probably my fault - see my sig!), since Vengeance=Revenge, and "revenge" in Greek has an extra meaning inside the compound word "ek-diki-si", of trial-justice, so it is not so negative as it may be in English. Also, as i wrote, one reason that it is only the society (i.e., not the victim itself) that can exercises the victim's right for revenge, is for the reason you wrote: punishment must "fit" the crime - the victim may punish the criminal more severely (or less... also bad for society!).

Of course, this makes no sense. How does inflicting more harm do anything to "solve" the fact that harm has already been inflicted?

And this is where our "ideologic" difference start. If YOU harm MY tooth I want to harm YOUR eye - and it is not any of your business why i want that... i just want it! But i will tell you: because I feel that way for YOU (i am angry), AND/OR I want to help YOU!

This is the logic of a 5-year-old. So utilitarian justifications are tacked on when people grow up and try to figure out what the fuck is going on.

Hmmm... you understand son that i can write to you the same!

These include deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.

And revenge... don't forget that you harmed my tooth boy!

Eventually, as society grows up, this tail will wag the retributive dog more and more until we come to a better system. This will take ages to happen everywhere, though it's already happened in some Nordic countries.

Ha! "Nordic countries"!!! O.K., i accept that, but what about (please don't get upset by the word) cultural "niggers"? Do you think that there is a difference on how a society can handle its criminals based on the CRIMINAL'S culture/personality, or you think every culture/personality is the same?

Retributive justice is probably a self-unaware sublimation of a desire for vengeance. But that's a psychological argument, not a legal one.

We have a mis-undertanding (both to be blamed for this - you because you missed my "spirit" in the other comments -even those not addresses to you-, or did not read them carefully): i base my comments more on psychological arguments (as in a criminology scientific field) and less on legal - you do the opposite.

Again, our legal system recognizes no criminal right of a victim against those who harm him. The victim's recourse is a civil lawsuit, where the principle, incidentally, is that the victim has a right to force the one who harmed him to cure the injury. You don't fulfill a contract, you pay a penalty for my inconvenience. You hit me with your car, you pay for my medical bills and compensate me for the pain I suffered. And so on. It goes all the way to, "if you kill me, you pay my estate the amount of money my life was worth". You may notice this actually makes a lot more sense than retributive "justice", although it's obviously not perfect because no amount of money will bring me back to life; the harm just can't be undone in that case. But that's neither here nor there.

Even if we examine this issue from different point of views, this legal points are interesting.

So there's nothing anywhere saying you have a civil right, or would have a civil right if not for criminal law, or have a civil right that the government is exercising for you. Someone hurts you, you go to court and get comp

Re:Um.. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't live here but feel the need to comment about shit you have no idea about. Typical /. carry on!

Re:Um.. Why?

[Barsteward]

"The Lord's path is written as a good summary in the New Testament as "love each other" - do not accuse the Lord for what the people do, and don't accuse those on the Lord's path for what those not on His path do."

thats the usual, when its good, praise the lord and when its bad blame the people. Try reading the Old Testament as well which was never renounced by the new testament bods or current religious supporters

Re:Um.. Why?

[Barsteward]

you've never read the Torah? the old testament shares books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy with the Torah, well the catholics appropriated them into their old testament

Re:Um.. Why?

[antiperimetaparalogo]

"The Lord's path is written as a good summary in the New Testament as "love each other" - do not accuse the Lord for what the people do, and don't accuse those on the Lord's path for what those not on His path do." thats the usual, when its good, praise the lord and when its bad blame the people. Try reading the Old Testament as well which was never renounced by the new testament bods or current religious supporters

The New Testament (writen in Koine -i.e., "common"- Greek, called "Kaine" meaning New AND Upgraded) is what the vast majority of Christians (e.g., Orthodox like me, Catholics, most Protestants) think as their Book - the Old Testament (i.e., the Jew's Book, in Jewish - with the "Greek" as the most common ORIGINAL translation used in the world) is a Book of great wisdom (i read it), very misunderstood (e.g., the bad human nature stories are mistakenly considered by many as God's acts), that the vast majority of Christians don't read in their churches.

In any organization (e.g., military, religious), any older order is cease to exist if it conflicts with newer orders.

Bummer!

[nospam007]

So the Godfather Tony in Prison doesn't have the copyright on the kill orders he sends from prison?

Re:Bummer!

[PPH]

And does Godfather Tony relinquish liability for those orders as well? If Eddie the Weasel end up dead, can Tony just say, "Hey, don't talk to me. JPay owns the copyrights on those orders."

overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Overturn murder conviction?
Murderers belong to a electric chair. Keeping those morons around is total waste of taxpayers money.
Before you start your hippy bull shit about "what if he is innocent..." find out, how much it cost to keep one of those scumbags in prison for a year.
I bet most of you wish you could spend that much on yourself for the rest of your life :)

Gas/chair/needle all the violent repeat criminals and be done with those morons.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[BlueTrin]

Oh but what if he is innocent ?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to look into how much it costs to execute inmates.

Furthermore, what if they ARE innocent and exonerated later based on new evidence? There've been quite a few cases where someone has spent literally decades in prison only to be proved innocent by a variety of means.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/alabama-death-row-inmate/
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/prosecutors-dismiss-1975-murder-charges-against-3

Would it have been fair or just for these men to have, instead, died?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we can start with you. Before you start your hippie bullshit about "But, I'm innocent, this is different!", just find out how much it would cost to keep your scumbag ass in prison for a year.

Firing squad/noose/guillotine your ass, and we'll be done with you, moron.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[shentino]

Then you punish whoever fucked up the case.

Heck, in California if you commit perjury and get someone executed on bullshit testimony, YOU get the chair next.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[hax4bux]

Are you late for church?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Prison shouldn't be "Club Med", it should be a jail cell with no TV, PC, or library.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are innocent. Others may have killed in self defense and were convicted by corrupt prosecutors twisting the facts to the jury because they were more interested in advancing their careers than justice. It could happen to you. These days, it can happen to any of us.

Only when there is absolutely no doubt, the crime is clearly on video, the motive is clearly not self defense, only then should execution be allowed, and I do agree it should be swiftly applied.

And why are you still using my handle? I have been using A.C. for more than 10 years now. Maybe even 15 years. Copycat. Get your own handle.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I think the legal system always gets it right... No !!
Do I think the balance of ones bank account should be a factor in the determination of justice ... No!!
Do I think those in power are incorruptible and would never use the legal system against those with less power.... Hell No !!

Do I think that once you kill someone you don't get a second chance to correct you mistake ... Yes

This guy is just a troll. No-one is that stupid....

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[BlueTrin]

So you want to make sure that they cannot do anything but stay a criminal after their sentence is finished ?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[MightyMartian]

You didn't actually answer the question as to what happens if an innocent man is executed.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[paiute]

finished?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[MightyMartian]

People can spend a long time on death row. Punishing those that are guilty of framing an innocent man who faced the death penalty for years might not even possible.

And let's be pretty clear here, most incidents of wrongful imprisonment involve police investigators and prosecutors, both of which are heavily protected against any charges of wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and the like.

So once again, what happens if an innocent man is executed?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Innovative idea : don't execute in the first place. Genius, isn't it?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Half-pint HAL]

Oh but what if he is innocent ?

The GP asked you to look at the cost of death row prisoners. I think what he means is paying compensation to relatives for a false conviction is cheaper than keeping them alive until the appeals process is finished, and that he personally feels that this line of logic is acceptible. Personally, I consider this attitude murderous in and of itself. Perhaps the GP will voluntarily submit to the death penalty...?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[myowntrueself]

You didn't actually answer the question as to what happens if an innocent man is executed.

I think some people view this in a similar way to the military and 'acceptable losses' or 'collateral damage'. They think that since, in military operations, a certain level of combat casualties, innocent civilian casualties or friendly fire incidents are unavoidable and an acceptable 'cost of doing business'.

They fail to recognise the difference between the civil legal system and warfare. And remember, the USA has been at war for most of its existence, its become a way of life and just background noise in the news media.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you start your hippy bull shit about "what if he is innocent..." find out, how much it cost to keep one of those scumbags in prison for a year.

Do so yourself; it's far cheaper than executing a prisoner.

I bet most of you wish you could spend that much on yourself for the rest of your life :)

And I bet prisoners feel every last cent's worth of comfort from that money. But you're sort of right; I really, really wish that money went to anything else, anything at all, that's not the prison system.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Dutchmaan]

most incidents of wrongful imprisonment involve police investigators and prosecutors, both of which are heavily protected against any charges of wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and the like.

Maybe that's the part that needs to change. Take away some of those protections and then maybe you'll have prosecutors who will place the truth over their own careers.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess most of you missed " violent repeat criminals"

Sounds harsh but do you really think it's more humane to keep them locked up for 10,20,30 year or for life? Especially for life. What's the point?
One mistake out of hundreds of thousands of violent scum bags? You, ass hole americans, kill more people around the world every day. Calling it collateral damage. And now you worry about murderers an rapists?
The fact is, if person has ended up in jail 2 times because of violence, she or he will be back for third round. There is absolutely no reason to keep that violent scum around.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[sumdumass]

Why would that make sure they stay a criminal? There are menial unskilled jobs they can do upon release.

That being said, education in prison is likely a good thing to lower the risks of recidivism. The only problem I have with it is the ability to study in careers that they cannot legally or as a matter of practicality, participate in. Certain professional licenses bar felony applicants and industries like banking is not likely to hire a convicted thief. So tailor the opportunities to practical career paths and it should be somewhat productive.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Stolpskott]

Overturn murder conviction?
Murderers belong to a electric chair. Keeping those morons around is total waste of taxpayers money.
Before you start your hippy bull shit about "what if he is innocent..." find out, how much it cost to keep one of those scumbags in prison for a year.
I bet most of you wish you could spend that much on yourself for the rest of your life :)

Gas/chair/needle all the violent repeat criminals and be done with those morons.

Hmm let's see... assuming the Seattle Times is not just pushing this because they or the report authors are anti-death penalty...
Seeking death penalty adds $1M to prosecution cost, study says
http://www.seattletimes.com/se...

Or according to the Nevada Legislature, "The Legislative Auditor estimated the cost of a murder trial in which the death penalty was sought cost $1.03 to $1.3 million, whereas cases without the death penalty cost $775,000."
(All the study links I can find for that one are either pdf or paywalled)

Kansas: "Defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not sought, according to a new study by the Kansas Judicial Council. Examining 34 potential death-penalty cases from 2004-2011, the study found that defense costs for death penalty trials averaged $395,762 per case, compared to $98,963 per case when the death penalty was not sought. "

Idaho: "A new, but limited, study of the costs of the death penalty in Idaho found that capital cases are more costly and take much more time to resolve than non-capital cases. One measure of death-penalty costs was reflected in the time spent by attorneys handling appeals. The State Appellate Public Defenders office spent about 44 times more time on a typical death penalty appeal than on a life sentence appeal (almost 8,000 hours per capital defendant compared to about 180 hours per non-death penalty defendant). Capital cases with trials took 20.5 months to reach a conclusion while non-capital cases with trials took 13.5 months."

California: Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell (2011, updated 2012)
"The authors concluded that the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978:
$1.94 billion--Pre-Trial and Trial Costs
$925 million--Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions
$775 million--Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals
$1 billion--Costs of Incarceration
The authors calculated that, if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years."

Texas: "Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)." Granted, the Texas study is probably too old for immediate relevance. ...and so on...

Going purely from memory for this next little item, so I cannot provide any citation for it, I seem to recall that the cost of keeping a prisoner on Death Row is about $90,000 to $100,000 higher than keeping a prisoner in the general population.
Sounds to me like the Death Penalty is a ridiculously expensive option, considering that it is primarily there as a deterrent. Given the crime rates in the US, I would have to question whether the deterrent is working. So if it is not working, and it costs a butt-ton of money, why bother with it?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

While it's entirely possible that those men are innocent, having the original conviction thrown out and the state declining to prosecute them again after so many years doesn't prove they are innocent. I've always believed that a person who is capable of committing a murder is capable of denying it afterward.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you were running Operation Paperclip after WWII, and you got ahold of Werner Von Braun who had recently (within the last 5 years) worked a bunch of concentration camp "inmates" to exhaustion/death building V2 rockets which were used to kill British civilians and destroy British property, you would lock him up with no amenities whatsoever and train him for a manual labor job after release?

Or no, let's fast-forward to the modern era: if you had a child prodigy genius working for NASA who got locked up for chatting with a faux 13-year-old on the Internet, would you lock that guy up today with no TV/PC/anything and train HIM for manual labor upon release?

Stop and think about what you are saying here.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never has a stronger case of {{citation-needed}} been seen on Slashdot. Show me just one case where a prosecutor or cop was executed.

what most people, including the grandparent post, don't get is that the innocence project is not just a one of set of mistakes based on lack of DNA evidence. 15-50% of US convictions for serious crime are fit up jobs with the cops just choosing the most convenient victim. Those who were sentenced when there was no DNA evidence and still living when it became common are just lucky because the cops who fitted them up could not predict the change in technology.

If you still support the death sentence in America after reading this post then you are a murder yourself.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bleeding heart idiots like the above that are the reason prisons don't work. If you make it uncomfortable to be in prison, it'll help teach them a lesson that they shouldn't be breaking the law. But no, give them Club Med and teach them that crime has perks.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[X0563511]

Given the crime rates in the US, I would have to question whether the deterrent is working.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of convictions in the US wouldn't be eligible for capital punishment in any jurisdiction.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

when has that ever happened? Most gov't employees should feel secure that it would never happen to them.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because bloodthirsty Christians like the AC that started this thread want to kill kill kill. If you are unlucky enough to be sent to jail, they should just string you up by a rope without the bother of a trial. Please note the overlap of Christianity and the states that want ultra conservative laws and death penalties.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[drinkypoo]

Murderers belong to a electric chair. Keeping those morons around is total waste of taxpayers money.
Before you start your hippy bull shit about "what if he is innocent..." find out, how much it cost to keep one of those scumbags in prison for a year.

It costs us more to reply to your comments than you're worth. Please report to the nearest suicide booth for recycling.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[AK Marc]

Pausing a person's life and preventing personal development for a few years doesn't help them integrate into society.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Kids, can you say, "False dichotomy"?

Re: overturn murder conviction?

[Type44Q]

He's clearly feeling cranky; perhaps he had planned an illicit rendezvous in a portapotty with a male staffer and when he got to the park, the ingrate was nowhere to be seen... ;)

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are all choosing the "most convenient victim". It is just a lucky coincidence that the guilty are usually more convenient.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Maow]

Oh but what if he is innocent ?

The GP asked you to look at the cost of death row prisoners. I think what he means is paying compensation to relatives for a false conviction is cheaper than keeping them alive until the appeals process is finished, and that he personally feels that this line of logic is acceptible. Personally, I consider this attitude murderous in and of itself. Perhaps the GP will voluntarily submit to the death penalty...?

With capitol offence level stupidity, the voluntary part shouldn't be necessary.

And I'm sure the OP would be okay with it, since it fits within their world view so well.

Nah, they probably whine up a shit storm over getting a minor traffic ticket.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Sigma 7]

There are menial unskilled jobs they can do upon release.

Some prisoners get sex-offender treatment, and were subject to much more restrictions. They're not likely to even get unskilled jobs, because "children congregate bearby".

City ordinances sometimes are the cause of this, and they'are also known to create sex offender colonies.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[shentino]

I'm well aware that "the establishment" is practically immune.

That's why I was suggesting a *change*.

You know, something OTHER than the status quo?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping fools like *you* around is a total waste of taxpayer money. Nazi Germany had s solution for wasting living space on Polish people, disabled children, gays, prisoners of war, and especially the Jews because they caused the economic blight of Germany and certainly didn't deserve property or money. Much simpler to just kill them all, and better yet make them dig their own graves..

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[yndrd1984]

While it's entirely possible that those men are innocent, having the original conviction thrown out and the state declining to prosecute them again after so many years doesn't prove they are innocent.

While it does happen, it's pretty rare for someone to get a Declaration of Actual Innocence - in fact the entire appeals process revolves around procedural and legal errors, not factual ones. Just getting a new trial for someone convicted before DNA testing was available, but who can now prove that their blood or semen doesn't match the evidence, is an uphill battle.

So what would you accept as good enough evidence? The Innocence Project claims to have found 140 actual perpetrators of the crimes that their clients were originally accused of.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops! Someone forgot to take their satire pill today.

Re: overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

excuse me, but /pol/ is over there

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. He's only posting here because his sister is on the rag at the moment, and she's fetching him some new strings for his banjo while she's down the shop getting some more tampons.
He'll be gone from here before you know it. Unfortunately, only to be replaced by an equally dense sister fucking, banjo-playing inbred redneck whose brain cell is destined to die alone.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Barsteward]

read this about the FBI and their decades of convictions due to flaws in hair analysis - "The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions." - just hope that one of your family isn't in that group.

If you still think all people on death row are ALL guilty, you need to get yourself educated on miscarriages of justice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Holi]

Yes because prisons are so comfortable now, and our recidivism rate is so low. Prison was supposed to be a bout rehabilitation, not just punishment. All prisons do now is turn minor criminals in to major criminals.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Economies of scale. Death Penalty is rare, that is why it is expensive. If you do it every day it becomes very cheap.

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[sumdumass]

That's a false equivalent. First, a Nazi war criminal did not violate domestic law. Why would you compare them to domestic criminals. Next, there will be outliers in everything. Surely you don't think every slave driver who ends up killing someone deserves to escape charges and end up with a government job for the rest of their life.

Finally, if there is an overriding government need for some talent the convicted possess, are you fine with giving them a free ride and where does it end. I mean is the sex slave trader who can count to ten entitled to the same treatment as VonBrown?

Re:overturn murder conviction?

[sumdumass]

Most of the time it will allow them to finally grow up. A lot of prison terms are for crimes that essentially are decisions people would never make later in life.

Do you know the way to San Jose?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do-do-do-do-do-do-do

Day 10318

Now that was a tangent that went through the woods to nowhere interesting

Solitary?

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't even breach the terms of service. His sister did. If anything, she should be sent to solitary for copyright infringement (and don't forget: about 40 years of it, since it's worse than murder).

Re:Solitary?

[gl4ss]

yeah.. the prison administrator should be sent for some solitary time because he thinks he is a judge. enforcing copyrights of the prison vendor via punishing measures? is the dude getting money from the jpay to be a jpay thug?(sure does. he should be doing time for that though).

Four Punishments

[Anonymous Coward]

The law given through Moses only has four types of punishment. Incarceration is not one of them. Holding people in custody prior to trial is allowed, but pre-trial custody should not act as punishment either.

By the way, execution for pre-meditated murder is first given to Noah, in the form of a poem, soon after God killed most of the people Noah ever knew.
Let's see if /. can name the other 3...

Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight. A prisoner sends his sister a video, SHE publishes it, and they send the BROTHER to solitary at the demand of the company. Sounds like the sister needs to be demanding criminal penalties against prison officials as well as her civil suit. Prisoners maybe criminals, but don't punish them for things they did not do. Especially since copyright violation is a civil crime not a criminal one (and claiming copyright over someone else's work by means of a terms of service is questionable at best).

Ryan Shapiro

[koan]

What's the J in JPay stand for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.glassdoor.com/Revie...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Ryan Shapiro

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the J in JPay stand for?

"Jew," the company is a vehicle by which Jews extract money from municipalities (taxpayers) and incarcerated individuals.

Re:Ryan Shapiro

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the J in JPay stand for?

Jail?

Judge Jury and Executioner.

[wisnoskij]

OK, JPay owns all your posts, what does not follow is the Original Poster being liable for any and all copyright violations of the content they created, and what does not follow at all is the prison system acting as an enforcement arm of JPay.

Re:Judge Jury and Executioner.

[jopsen]

OK, JPay owns all your posts, what does not follow is the Original Poster being liable for any and all copyright violations of the content they created.

Hmm... Maybej JPay wants to argue that the original poster was not authorized to send the video to his sister because it was copyrighted :)
Lol, I hope the summary is inaccurate, because there is so many disturbing elements (like criminally corrupt violations of human rights) to that summary...

In America

[rsilvergun]

you'd have to kill our Jury trial system. That's why nobody ever brings these cases to trial. The defense & prosecution each get to pick jurors and It's easy to find one "Tough on Crime" juror who will always side with the prosecutor. They indited those cops in Baltimore but it's just for show and to calm things down. After the dust settles they'll drop the charges. Not because they're complacent, but because they know they can't win, even if the police turned out to be guilty.

Re:In America

[Holi]

If? He died in their custody. No one else had access to him and he suffered mortal wounds, They are without a doubt guilty.

Chris Rock put prisons on my radar.

[MevanMartinez]

If not for Chris Rock jokes and my searching through Youtube and then Netflix, I would not have learned what a mess the USs judicial and prison systems are. I also caught up police procedures and criminal behavior by watching "The First 48," on Amazon VOD. Folks, the system is rotten from top to bottom, but also some people just ask for trouble repeatedly. My family was not perfect, but my dad hung around long enough to see me start college. That I recall, our only family incident involving the cops was when my sister ran away upstate. And none of my three siblings and I have drug addictions or preference. Our cousins, on the other had, are total fuck-ups when it came to drugs. One relative sold her house to pay for her now EX-husbands legal fees. In sum, Americans love to get high and are total wackjobs when it comes to functional family dynamics. The population is also too diverse and self-absorbed in "getting theirs" at someone else's expense. I saw some prison specials about the major units in the South and I cringed. There is no way I would ever visit those states and even chance landing in jail. It's like the Twilight Zone or a Charlton Heston movie. I am interested in seeing it change, but Americans are distracted and lethargic. I would rather move to a country with a small, homogenous population, and not on a drug smuggling route. As bad as it sounds, I am looking for one with a low indigenous population as they are often adamant about growing coca. There is no way that the United States will get its shit together in the 25 years left before I retire, and I refuse to keep paying to keep 2 million people in jail.

Re:Chris Rock put prisons on my radar.

[Barsteward]

here's a top ten list of countries to avoid http://www.mapsofworld.com/wor... (USA is not on it)

Free Employees

[CanEHdian]

To justify the discipline, prison officials said they were enforcing JPay's intellectual property rights and terms of service.

If you told someone that 20 years ago, they'd have called you a crazed conspiracy theorist and asked where your tinfold hat was. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. Let's make our life's goal the enforcing of "intellectual property" rights and TOS.

13th Amendment Permits Slavery for Prisoners

[Anonymous Coward]

Prison in the U.S. is one of the top ten fastest growing industries - as the 13th amendment permits slavery for those imprisoned.

Thirteenth Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The abuses are intense. With more prisoners per capita than any nation in the world, America is the slave state par excellence thus far in modern history.

Re:13th Amendment Permits Slavery for Prisoners

[Anonymous Coward]

And prisoners are men.

America is a feminist police state.

Anything men might want is banned.

(marrying young girls, owning good weapons, etc etc)

A monopoly on prisoners.

[Anonymous Coward]

... all content, whether it be text, images, or video ...

When one posts on FaceBook, it is voluntary and one has the choice of donating all "text, images, or video" to Google+, MySpace or (original) BeBo instead. Jpay has a monopoly and surprise, surprise, is treating the user as the product and then abusing users (courtesy of prison staff) anytime the profits of Jpay are threatened. This is the peak of fascism.

Next, prisoners must thank, um, Jpay for raising their chocolate ration to 20 grams per week.

Uh oh

[StikyPad]

If J-Pay is for sending money to prisoners, then what is J-Date?