Posted on 10/21/2014 3:23:02 PM PDT by smoothsailing
October 21, 2014
By Sky News US Team
Pennsylvania's governor has signed into law a measure aimed at curbing the "obscene celebrity" cultivated by convicts at the expense of victims.
Governor Tom Corbett signed the bill on Tuesday near the spot where Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was shot dead by Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1981.
The measure passed with unanimous approval after Abu-Jamal delivered a pre-recorded commencement address earlier this month to graduates of Goddard College in Vermont.
It allows prosecutors or crime victims to seek an injunction when an offender's conduct "perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime", including causing "mental anguish".
Abu-Jamal, 60, has drawn international support in the decades since his conviction with claims that he is the victim of racial injustice.
His assertions were broadcast in weekly radio commentaries and he authored books that brought further attention to his cause.
"This unrepentant cop killer has tested the limits of decency," Gov Corbett said, flanked by uniformed officers and Officer Faulkner's widow.
"Gullible activists and celebrities have continued to feed this killer's ego." ....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.sky.com ...
In Mumia’s case, I believe his death sentence was reversed on appeal. So some of the blame falls on stupid judges.
The current governor, Corbett, just signed an execution order for Richard Baumhammers, who killed 5 people in cold blood during a shooting spree back in 2000. Wanna bet Baumhammers won't be executed?
I think we have reversed the emphasis on prisoner rights. It is my understanding that inmates retain their first amendment rights except those which prison officials may restrict for legitimate prison concerns.
Example: inmates right to peacefully assemble could be restricted because larger groups are difficult to control and gangs could be segregated. Also, inmates can be classified and housed with those who have similar classification.
However, inmates have been given a wide latitude on religious rights.
The burden of proof used to be on the inmates with courts rejecting cases out of hand in favor of prison officials responsibility to run the prison. In the last 20 years or so, the prison officials have had to establish the need for restrictions challenged in court by inmates.
Some examples.
"IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER RIGHT OF ACTION AND ANY OTHER REMEDY PROVIDED BY LAW, A VICTIM OF A PERSONAL INJURY CRIME MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST AN OFFENDER IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF, INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND OTHER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LITIGATION, FOR CONDUCT WHICH PERPETUATES THE CONTINUING EFFECT OF THE CRIME ON THE VICTIM."
Which is about re-victimizing conduct, and not about speech.
What part about keeping criminals from continuing to profit from their crimes, or victimizing their victims do you object to?
Can you show a source that inmates cannot petition government officials or file grievances. As far as i know every system in the country has a grievance procedure since the late 70s.
Letters to public officials are typically mailed out sealed without staff screening.
I have. I have been a lawyer for more than 30 years and I have represented defendants in criminal cases.
Incarcerated prisoners are held essentially to have lost all of their rights until and unless a State or Federal Supreme Court decides otherwise.
Nope; "a prisoner retains all the rights of an ordinary citizen except those expressly, or by necessary implication, taken from him by law." Coffin v. Reichard, 143 F.2d 443, 445 (6th Cir. 1944).
I've got nothing against keeping criminals from profiting from their crime, or re-injuring their victims. But an injunction against speaking does neither of those things. I'm sure there are many valid applications of this law, but an injunction against pure speech isn't one of them.
I agree with you. It’s a bad law that can easily be turned against people who offend Islam.
My 22 also lists another standard for rights restriction. Basically to need to safely operate the prison system. I am sorry it’s been awhile and i don’t have a specific cite.
Not quite. There was a long window of time before they found a Federal Judge willing to order his death penalty reconsidered. During that time he could, and should, have been executed. Even after the decision for reconsideration, the state could have sought the death penalty again. After consulting with Faulkner's widow, she made what she described as a heartbreaking decision to forego the death penalty. The PA Attorney General made it clear they would do whatever she wanted, but with so many witnesses now dead or unwilling to testify, getting a capital sentence was now very unlikely. Cook agreed to accept life without parole in exchange for ending all appeals.
Almost all of the blame falls on stupid judges, but Rendell had a chance to force the issue before the final appeal was made. He didn't.
I didn’t say they couldn’t petition for redress, what I said was that their ability to do so is much more restricted, and it is. A specific grievance procedure is already a recognition of a limitation of the right.
They can write to pubic officials and file grievances. Tell me about your grievance system.
We know that he is not as free to petition government officials for redress of grievances as you and I
That sentence is simply not true.
Seven years after Coffin, the Ninth Circuit, in STROUD v.SWOPE found that "We think that it is well settled that it is not the function of the courts to superintend the treatment and discipline of prisoners in penitentiaries, but only to deliver from imprisonment those who are illegally confined."
You should read Stroud, a decision which impinged directly on the claimants right to "free speech." The concurring opinion is particularly damning to your position.
Thank you for the correct history. Just stinks.
Here is another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Belly_of_the_Beast
Jack Abbott was an American prisoner and the book consists of his letters to Norman Mailer about his experiences in what Abbott saw as a brutal and unjust prison system. Mailer supported Abbott’s successful bid for parole in 1981, the year that In the Belly of the Beast was published.
The book was very successful and on July 19, 1981, the New York Times published a rave review of it. However, the day before, Abbott had killed a waiter during a row at a restaurant called Binibon on 2nd Avenue in the East Village. Abbott was eventually arrested, convicted of manslaughter, and returned to prison for the rest of his life until his suicide in 2002.
Do you agree that the manner of legal representation is a form of petition for redress? Or do you believe due process is separate from that?
+Not sure if I understand/
I believe the last element of due process is the right to appeal. That may be done with an attorney or self filing, or with the assistance of a “jail house lawyer” a legal term.
Not sure if an appeal is a petition, but may be.
I was addressing the right to petition public officials (Governor, Corrections commissioner etc.) which would be separate from a legal appeal of ones case. IMO
The same moronic celebs who also celebrate Lenin, Stalin and Che, for starters.
If you want to be technical and argue that petition applies only to political entities and not to administrative or judicial ones, I would reply that such a technical objection is historically unsound: Magna Carta's guarantees were primarily procedural and not political.
But if I stipulate that I will allow you to say that due process is not what the First Amendment authors had in mind, I believe there are still examples where incarcerated prisoners are not entitled to the same privileges and immunities in that regard.
Like what?
Obviously things that incarceration itself makes impossible, like attending hearings and public meetings mandated by sunshine laws. Those are what I had in mind with my statement about how obvious it is that they don't enjoy the same right to petition. You can't come to the mike to protest an ordinance if you're in jail.
Anything else?
Well, for example, in several states convicts cannot be lobbyists [in most states the restriction is not permanent absent a pardon; it's usually for ten or twenty years.] That restriction holds, a fortiori for those actually in prison. Lobbying is recognized -- subject to certain statutory restrictions -- as a form of petition protected by Amendment I.
In your first paragraph do you refer to prisoners?
I am not familiar with that case.
The court has recognized a role for jail house lawyers. So i guess you have to give up some canteen to get your filing done. Or find pro-bono.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.