If you annihilate your family

[_Jersey Girl]

Well. We ought to be like Norway, if I'm catching the Leftist drift correctly, so hopefully he gets a cozy room, a gaming station, and all the accoutrments afforded to those who work hard and keep the law. Perhaps having a picture of his family will help him heal.

- Doc

Let him have the picture of his family, then, and with his only reading materials being their autopsy reports. He can read those to his family photos every night.

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades, does the warden have any discretion? Can he restrict which pictures an inmate can have beyond the restrictions in the prison rules?

It all depends on the state. And that often depends on which lawsuits have been filed, won, or lost over the years.

It isn't okay.

It's simply not illegal.

It's despicably hurtful to the victim's family.

Of course it is, but mere despicability and/or hurtfulness doesn't nullify the truth of what I said.

I wonder if there is some way for the Rzucek family to sue for victim's rights and damages about the photos?

Anybody can sue anybody for anything, so yes.

The Rzucek family has been horribly traumatized by these events while Chris Watts talks to his daughter's pictures and reads bedtime stories to them in his cell every day.

MY GOD.

Why are you so shocked by this? Maybe I'm a little jaded after having worked in law enforcement for nearly 22 years, but this picture thing is fairly run-of-the-mill stuff.

[_Jersey Girl]

Why are you so shocked by this? Maybe I'm a little jaded after having worked in law enforcement for nearly 22 years, but this picture thing is fairly run-of-the-mill stuff.

Are you saying that it's common for prisoners to display photos of their victims?

[_Dr. Shades]

Are you saying that it's common for prisoners to display photos of their victims?

You may not see them displayed too often, but the more extreme the crime, the weirder the proclivities of the perpetrator.

[_Jersey Girl]

Are you saying that it's common for prisoners to display photos of their victims?

You may not see them displayed too often, but the more extreme the crime, the weirder the proclivities of the perpetrator.

So is that a yes?

[_Bach]

This thread is totally ridiculous. Why would anyone w a working brain be trying an issue that has been settled long ago in the courts. Ignorance and naïveté is the only answer.

Jersey Girl, now let’s debate why a death row inmate should have his/her way with a last meal!!! I mean: “Why the hell should we afford them this right if their such bad people”!!

I’m fairly certain that Shades has no credible credentials to even begin giving any authority on either/any issues being discussed here. Perhaps, maybe, some color on when Otis Cambell’s rights may have been violated by Barney Fife. But I suspect even Shades would admit to his ignorance and lack of understanding anything to do with the law as he has so proficiently demonstrated here for the last decade.

Shades, if I’ve mistated your professional credentials, my apologies. Please correct me where I’m wrong.

[_Markk]

Shades, does the warden have any discretion? Can he restrict which pictures an inmate can have beyond the restrictions in the prison rules?

Can the family sue the prison using victim's rights laws? Is the Victim's Bill of Rights even applicable in this case?

I wonder how much weight the warden has to leverage in a situation like this.

It's simply heinous that he be allowed to have their photos in his cell. Was Manson permitted to post pics of Sharon Tate, etc., in his cell? Crime scene photos?

Where's the line in a case like this?

If he's going to have family photos, how about trade out the family pics for autopsy photos and make him look at that every day of his miserable life?

In California, inmates have more rights and benefits than many "free" folks.

San Bernardino County had a long standing program where if a inmate felt there was abuse or excessive force, they could file a grievance by requesting a form and fill it out. Then they put a kiosk where they could file... now they are going to issue each inmate a tablet, issued in the morning and turned back in at the end of the day.

So inmates with nothing else to do all day can file grievances all day.

If a deputy is walking a inmate to a certain area, and grabs his arm to turn him or hold him up, it is now "excessive force." The inmate can file a grievance, the deputy has to defend his action. West Valley detention center, San Bernardino Counties main jail, now has to pay a team deputy's who do nothing but sort out this mess and make sure what grievances have merit, and which are bogus. The very most have absolutely no merit

https://statescoop.com/california-corre ... ilitation/

I just googled this and found it is all over the country and not just CA. And not just for grievances, but for entertainment...

To your question...

If other inmates are allowed family pictures, then it would be a violation of their "rights" if they were not allowed family pictures.

[_Jersey Girl]

To your question...

If other inmates are allowed family pictures, then it would be a violation of their "rights" if they were not allowed family pictures.

We're not talking about simple family photos. We're talking about photos of the inmate's victims.

[_Markk]

To your question...

If other inmates are allowed family pictures, then it would be a violation of their "rights" if they were not allowed family pictures.

We're not talking about simple family photos. We're talking about photos of the inmate's victims.

I understand that Jersey Girl...but that is a big "so what" according to our laws, or at least the current interpretation and application of them. There are lawyers that do nothing but look for ways for inmates to sue the system.

If you think the correctional officers like it, I highly doubt that, but look at the prosecutor in Chicago. It most likely wouldn't have happened years ago in that most people, like you and I, would see the idiocy and "sick nature" of it.

[_Dr. Shades]

You may not see them displayed too often, but the more extreme the crime, the weirder the proclivities of the perpetrator.

So is that a yes?

It's a "perhaps." In our particular state, I don't recall it ever being addressed during training. Technically, no pictures are to be displayed on the walls at all, but this isn't enforced very often. They are allowed to have a certain number of photos in their possession, and they can be of pretty much anyone as long as they don't consist of pornography.

As for them having pictures of victims, well, they all have pictures of their wives and/or girlfriends, and they beat their wives and/or girlfriends up all the time. It's simply too difficult to enforce, 'cause when a photo gets mailed in, there's no way for the folks in the property room to know if it depicts a victim or not.

The guy we're talking about happened to be "caught" because he's so high-profile that everyone knows what he did, so when the photos were mailed in either the property room folks (or his state's equivalent) recognized them from the media, or the staff members knew what he'd done to them as soon as he mentioned who the pictures on the wall were of.

Please keep in mind that I could be wrong about any of this. I simply don't remember this sort of thing being mentioned during training.

I’m fairly certain that Shades has no credible credentials to even begin giving any authority on either/any issues being discussed here. Perhaps, maybe, some color on when Otis Cambell’s rights may have been violated by Barney Fife. But I suspect even Shades would admit to his ignorance and lack of understanding anything to do with the law as he has so proficiently demonstrated here for the last decade.

You have never operated a business, nor have you ever created any jobs.