Kia Franklin
So, doing the time isn’t enough?
Georgia inmates file class action prison abuse suit:
seeking compensation for alleged widespread physical abuse - including two deaths - and intimidation of prisoners statewide. Twenty-five guards and prison officials are alleged to have committed systematic beatings, later orchestrating a cover-up that included torturing prisoners who complained.
Let me just jump the gun and anticipate that this blog will generate inflammatory comments about how prisoners don’t have rights. Well, under a system of “justice” in which imprisoned people can be wantonly abused and mistreated simply because they are behind bars, it certainly appears to be true that they don’t have any recognized rights. At least not effectively speaking.
First, I’d ask, what about people like the exonerated inmate Charles Chatman, the focus of Corinne Ramey’s post on Friday? Do the wrongfully imprisoned have no rights? Should they?
And second, I’d point out what everyone, I hope, already knows: that some rights are innate, and that we possess them whether or not a system of law is functioning properly and acknowledges them. One is the right to be treatedly humanely. If their allegations are true—and this isn’t a far stretch of the imagination when you look at the bigger picture of abuses in our criminal “justice” system—then one can hope that the civil justice system will prevail in bringing these people retribution.
This case is yet another example that illustrates the importance of civil justice even for those who are living in and primarily dealing with the criminal justice system.
Posted at 7:13 AM, Jan 09, 2008 in Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
The lawyer loves the criminal. The criminal lovers include prosecutors, judges, and prison officials. The criminal gave them their jobs. One may not even criticize the criminal without getting sued for verbal abuse. Physical control is now deemed unlawful torture.
The lawyer never uses the V word. I am saying this taboo word openly here. Victim. The lawyer never proposes suing, or in any way deterring his pal, the vicious criminal, for the injuries to the V word.
These ultra-violent, vicious predators should have all been executed long ago. The lawyer keeps them alive to seek the rent. Their hundreds of victims may rot.
There. I used the V word again.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | January 9, 2008 08:15 AM
According to SC, deaths at the hand of prison guards are really just the result of "physical control." This he says while blind to the facts of the case and despite enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that these allegations are not at all a far fetched possibility. Oh well I guess you've just lost what little cred your opinions once had.
Posted by: Kia | January 9, 2008 09:39 AM
No credibility is possible where lawyer wages are questioned. Jesus, returning, and walking on the water, would be derided if he questioned the way the lawyer makes a living.
The death penalty should apply to all repeat violent offenders. Very few prisoners are non-violent. Almost none is a first offender. I question why any of them are still alive, not why a few were killed during prison control operations. Each of those prisoners will commit 1000's of violent crime while alive.
Let's try an experiment. I dare Kia to use the V word in a sentence. I am going to say the word that cannot be spoken out loud by the lawyer, Victim. Kia can't say the V word. It is impossible for a lawyer to utter it.
Why is the V word so taboo? The "V word" makes no money for the lawyer.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | January 9, 2008 06:32 PM