Resident.
I like this better than the mocking proposals but it’s less specific than the one prescribed in the legislation. I suppose it’s workable in the correct context, though.Resident.
You know what? I appreciate that. The good fight gets exhausting at times, and I don’t want to fight with anyone here. The place should be fun.Shane, thank you for your input. Your training as a professional counselor gives the topic a more balanced perspective. I think many of us were just jesting tongue in cheek. "Average folk" just look at something and say "well that's just stupid" without analyzing it in depth.
The right to free speech relies on different legal theories than defamation. The former involves government action and relies on constitutional law principles. The latter usually involves private parties and relies on tort law principles. Plus, any defamation claim would come from the incarcerated individual, not the state.so, if I were a guard in New York State (i'm not) and called them a convict, which is technically correct, would my first amendment rights make her law irrelevant? After all, I'm not slandering the convict, merely pointing out the fact they've been convicted of something illegal by their peers
Correct.The right to free speech relies on a different legal theory than defamation. The former involves government action and relies on constitutional law principles. The latter usually involves private parties and relies on tort law principles. Plus, any defamation claim would come from the incarcerated individual, not the state.
As to you question, most NY State workers (which I presume a jail or prison guide would be), like any other public or private worker, have limited speech rights when it comes to the workplace. But b/c the guard is a government workers, they'll likely have greater free speech rights than a private worker who must effectively limit their speech to however their employer tells them (there are some exceptions, but they're limited, like whistleblowing and concerted action for the welfare of workers).
When it comes to the free speech rights of a government employee, the first amendment analysis basically comes down to a weighing of the public's interest or benefit in the employee speaking freely and the government's interest in carrying out its laws and policies. In this case, the "I want to call an accused individual w/e I want b/c I feel like it" probably won't be enough to outweigh the state's interest in telling you properly choose the words you use at work.
Sweet Jesus, it’s like a 1L final all over again.The right to free speech relies on different legal theories than defamation. The former involves government action and relies on constitutional law principles. The latter usually involves private parties and relies on tort law principles. Plus, any defamation claim would come from the incarcerated individual, not the state.
As to you question, most NY State workers (which I presume a jail or prison guide would be), like any other public or private worker, have limited speech rights when it comes to the workplace. But b/c the guard is a government worker, they'll likely have greater free speech rights than a private worker who must effectively limit their speech to however their employer tells them (there are some exceptions, but they're limited, like whistleblowing and concerted action for the welfare of workers).
When it comes to the free speech rights of a government employee, the first amendment analysis basically comes down to a weighing of the public's interest or benefit in the employee speaking freely and the government's interest in carrying out its laws and policies. In this case, the "I want to call an accused individual w/e I want b/c I feel like it" probably won't be enough to outweigh the state's interest in telling you to properly choose the words you use at work.
Except that's not today's reality and I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson foresaw that. That is why his position was we need to strive to keep the innocent free. It's very rare that innocent people are "locked up". It does happen and to Jefferson's point, we should work to avoid that.Thomas Jefferson said he would rather a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be locked up.
I'm ok with "alleged criminal". But yes, they are "alleged" until convicted. Then we can call the "convicted criminals."People get detained in local jails for months before trial and potential conviction. They are, at worst, alleged criminals. You're talking about assuming guilt, which is an attitude we need less of both in this context and in our daily human interactions.
Why not just make life better for the elderly instead of making life worse (or over) for the incarcerated? We have the resources to do this, what is lacking is the wisdom and the will.Reminds me of what John Wayne said in True Grit.
Something about being to hard on the Rats, as the judge and prosecutor agreed he was too rough on the Rat.
Agreed, some of the people in prison shouldn't be there. Our system is far from perfect.
But they are there as a Social Punishment for crimes against society.
In no way should they have a better way of life than the poor old disabled man that worked his whole life now living on SS.
What I get a year on SSI and SS is about 1/10th of what it takes to keep one person behind bars for a year.
Our system is far from perfect, and if you can get away with crime, it pays.
Even if you don't get away with it, it pays better than for the elderly.
Bring back the death penalty, and raise the income for the elderly I say.
We can do both. Justice is supposed to be retributive not recreation.Why not just make life better for the elderly instead of making life worse (or over) for the incarcerated? We have the resources to do this, what is lacking is the wisdom and the will.
Early Elvis impersonators.
I never noticed before but in this picture the instruments look to be fakes! Probably too hard to dance with real ones. Kurt
The change is designed to “reduce harmful stigma against incarcerated people by correcting outdated terminology used to refer to incarcerated individuals in state law,” according to her office. Advocates have also decried the usage of felon, prisoner and convict.
Reminds me of the time I was on call for a urology service and a young lady prisoner was in the hospital with a bad kidney infection (pyelonephritis, yeah I can use big words). I got called for a minor problem and took care of it. Out of earshot range I asked the accompanying guard what she did and he said, "She murdered her husband with an ax." I replied, "You're chiting me." He put his hands up and said with a puzzled look on his face sincerely said, "It's what she did." I silently thought, "The S.O.B. probably deserved it!" I stopped asking about what they did after that.A lot of people incarcerated are there not because they are bad people but because they made bad choices. Those are the ones we need to concentrate on, so they can be brought back into society. Not everybody in prison is there because they axe murdered a bus full of nuns...
That is the challenge with all the changing terminology over time: the new, less-stigmatized term eventually becomes stigmatized too. And "eventually" seems to happen a lot faster these days.Assuming this actually catches on, all that is going to happen is that all the stigma associated with the word "inmate" is going to move to this new phrase...
Enter your email address to join: