« US Sentencing Commission releases latest detailed "Compassionate Release Data Report" (with first data since proposed guideline amendment) | Main | Spotlighting disconcerting comments after a disconcerting crime »
September 23, 2023
Many notable new reads at Inquest website
It has been some months since I blogged about the website Inquest, which describes itself as "a forum for advancing bold ideas to end mass incarceration in the United States." Though I have not flagged the site in a while, regular readers likely recall prior posts spotlighting many great essays, and here is another quartet of notable new pieces:
"Exceptional Punishments: No one should be made to give up their rights in exchange for being spared from prison" by Kate Weisburd
"Our Evidence-Based Obsession: Better research won’t get us out of our crisis of mass incarceration" by Jonathan Ben Menachem
"Envisioning Futures: The art of knowing what we’re confronting and revealing who is being made invisible by the carceral state" by Maria Gaspar & Gina Dent
"Chained by Debt: Erasing court costs and fines is a relatively small change that would have an outsize impact on those harmed by mass incarceration" by Shivani Nishar & Sarah Martino
September 23, 2023 at 06:36 PM | Permalink
Comments
I shockingly agreed with the premise of the first article, although for different reasons than the author. I’m not a huge fan of ankle bracelets, SO registries, etc., either. She wants people dangerous criminals to freely do what they please, while I would rather keep bad people in prison where bracelets and registries are not necessary.
A quick question. She mentions the CJS refusing to allow criminals under court supervision to get married. Does anyone have an example of this?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 23, 2023 7:56:00 PM
Tarls, not knowing the specifics of what Ms. Weisburd is citing to, I have a hunch. It is probably not a broad prohibition. Instead, it probably involves one of two situations: 1) A domestic violence/child sex case in which the probation/parole conditions include a no contact with the victim; and 2) a child sex/child porn case in which there is a general condition against contacts with children and the prospective spouse has children from a prior relationship.
For both conditions, it is not an absolute prohibition on marriage, but rather on marriages to either specific individuals (the first situation) or in certain (but somewhat commmon) circumstances (the second situation). And it probably depends on whether the defendant is on probation (court supervised) or parole (board supervised). If they are on probation, especially on the no contact with victim condition, most judges that I have known (whether uber liberal or ultra conservative) will relax a no contact condition if the victim comes to court and asks for it to be modified.
And, as the Supreme Court has recognized, being on probation and parole inherently involves a loss of some but not all constitutional rights. While you are not in prison, you are still (at least as the term is used in habeas cases) in custody subject to the supervision of the government. You have to appear at an office when the government orders you to do so, you have to keep the government notified of your address and employment, you have to participate in certain government-ordered activities, etc.
Posted by: tmm | Sep 24, 2023 10:14:51 AM
I think tmm has a good answer for a big part of this, Master Tarls. I found a website listing Georgia special conditions on sex offenders that states: "The individual under supervision shall not date or marry anyone who has children under the age of 18, unless approved in advance and in writing by the community supervision officer in consultation with the treatment provider or the sentencing court." https://dcs.georgia.gov/offender-supervision-0/adult-felony-probation-supervision/sex-offender-special-conditions. I believe this is not an unusual condition in sex offender cases in a number of states.
And there is also the broad (and I think not-uncommon) general supervision condition for all offenders to "not associate with any person convicted of a felony." That would seem to prevent a person under supervision from getting married to anyone with a felony record (though this condition is also typically subject to possible modification).
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 24, 2023 2:27:51 PM
Thanks, guys.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 24, 2023 4:10:07 PM
