Kevin Singer, currently serving a life sentence in Wisconsin, has been a Dungeons & Dragons enthusiast “since childhood,” says the New York Times. Prison authorities confiscated Singer’s hand-written D&D paraphernalia and forbade Singer from playing his favorite role-playing game on the grounds that it might lead to gang activity. In a ruling Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected Singer’s claim that the D&D ban violated his First and 14th Amendment rights.
Both legal and gaming blogs pounced on the story, and readers responded in droves. At last count, the post at Above the Law, which included prurient confessions and a distasteful sexual assault joke, garnered 73 comments; the Gizmodo post had 208.
Now, the argument that Singer’s nerdy hobby is a threat to prison security is too patently absurd for me to refute here. Do a lap around the blogosphere and you’ll read lots of predictable but fun jokes pointing out how unlikely it is that D&D would cause breakouts of violence.
But beyond the quirky particulars of this case, what is the news here? That prisons arbitrarily curtail the rights of inmates? Well, duh. What headlines should we look for in tomorrow’s NYT? “Drunk Person Makes Regrettable Decision”? “Economy Bad”?
I kid, I kid. This story does bring up some important points.
1. Fear is still a trump card. Freedom and security will always be in tension in any democracy; but in our democracy, security wins far more often than makes sense. That’s hardly news, but it bears repeating. Fear still drives much of our politics, despite the fact that Obama’s administration has disavowed (rhetorically) both the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. Just last week in the airport, I heard a voice announce that the security threat level was “orange.” We’re still doing that? Really??
2. The “rational basis” standard doesn’t seem very rational. I know federal judges are smart and all. So, honestly, maybe I’m missing something. But it appears that the Wisconsin prosecutors only had to establish that D&D was “rationally related” to compromised security — meaning that some link could be formed between the two concepts using reason, specious or otherwise. How does that standard make sense? Seriously, can someone explain it to me? Because I literally think I could form a “rational relationship” between any two concepts. Keeping animals in cages is rationally related to chattel slavery, therefore pet puppies violate the 13th Amendment. See, it’s easy! (This post at Volokh Conspiracy includes some good discussion on the “rational basis,” especially in the comments.)
3. Prisoners have constitutional rights. Some denizens of The Internets seem confused on this point. For instance, on this blog, a commenter writes, “A prison inmate, having been convicted of violating the rights of another(s), implicitly gives up his own rights. He’s got NONE.” Not true, jtt283 — if that is your real name. Prisoners do have rights. These rights are enumerated in several parts of the Constitution, including the First and 14th Amendments.
Criminologists often talk in terms of deterrence and rehabilitation. If our criminal justice system really were focused on preventing crime and reforming former offenders, it would at least have a chance of succeeding. Instead, prison administrators spend their energy preventing nerdy murderers from having harmless fun with dice.
Photo Credit: mshea