Is it legal to inform one inmate of another's true/exact crime? Or will it be found?

Factual Questions
1

Kind of confusing question, so bear with me here.

From what I’ve heard and read, there’s a definite “hierarchy” in jail, and if these things can be believed, child molesters in particular are at the low end of the totem pole.

Say, hypothetically speaking of course, someone is indicted on four counts of child molestation (not sure what the exact charge is, unfortunately). Then in a plea bargain it gets reduced and the schmuck … excuse me, defendant … pleads guilty to two counts of aggravated assault (I think that was the hypothetical guilty plea … some kind of assault).

Two part question here. First: Is the “rumor mill” in most jails one where other inmates will quickly find out the “true” crime this hypothetical man is in for? And second: If not, would it be legal for someone else to somehow inform other inmates “hey, by the way … so and so is a child molester”?

It seems to be a bit of a grey area to me. Obviously with free speech one can write anyone one chooses a polite and informative letter, right? But the intent would be also obvious – to make sure others knew he was a child molester, and not just in for “simple” assault, with the understanding that in his new society, it stands a good chance of making him someone’s girlfriend (or everyone’s).

So … does the jail rumor mill work? And if not, would passing notice with the implied intent of making sure this hypothetical man gets some of his own medicine be legal? Note to moderators – I’m not asking for info on how to commit an illegal act; just information on if a certain act is legal. Thanks.

2

Anything that’s in public arena (as in reported in the paper etc.) you can assume that it’s known. Plus, criminal records are considered to be ‘public information’. However, that being said, while I worked in the system, I wouldn’t divulge details of one person’s file with any other client, including things that were public info.

HOwever- - folk who are locked up have lots of time on their hands and very little to do with all of it. Some of the stuff can be gleaned pretty easily. In your c/m example, it wouldn’t be too difficult to have some idea. In my state (MI) many of the molesters are held in the same unit - this makes provision of sex-offender specific counseling more efficient. So, if you saw Inmate A heading off to Housing Unit B, you could make that leap in assumptions pretty easily.

While I ran the correction center, I was often amazed at what they knew. Ex. There had been a very newsworthy case of a kidnapping, where the defendant was found not guilty. a couple of years later, the defendant was sent to my correction center (for an unrelated crime), I knew before she got there that she was the one that had been charged with the other crime.

There was another woman I called “Ears Eyes Nose” of our town - we could hear a siren go by, she’d leave to go to the ‘store’, come back 1/2 hour later with the full details of who did what to whom and why and who’s baby was supposed to be fathered by but really was… etc.

As far as the c/m thing, as to if they suffer at the hands of others inside - I’ll leave it to casdave who, IIRC, works inside a prison.

3

Whatever would make you think there are laws about this?

Certainly prison staff are supposed to keep records confidential but I can’t imagine a law requiring inmates to keep secrets. It also doesn’t particularly matter if the matter was pled down as inmates don’t have access to records. No one announces what people are in for.

It is generally considered bad form to question someone on why they are in. If an inmate in this position wishes to stay in the general population he shuts up about it and does his time. He might be found out the way people find out anything.

How do rumors get around? The same way as they did in high school.

Your making this all too complicated.

4

Whatever might make me think there are laws about this, Ned?? The fact that some form of harm might come to the schmuck in question if such information came out, that’s what. I just don’t know if the fact that passing along such information would most likely LEAD to such harm means that the passing of that information would legally be considered to be the CAUSE of the harm.

I think you missed the legal question, Ned. I wasn’t asking if it’s legal for an inmate to ask what someone’s in for, but for another person – an ordinary citizen – to tell Inmate A what Inmate B is in for. So John Q. Public wouldn’t be telling Inmate A “Go **** this guy” but rather “This guy is a child molester” – with the implied understanding that more than likely, Inmate B would then get ****ed (hopefully over and over again – and **** can mean any number of things). That’s what I was asking for the legality of – is the fine line between the two enough? I mean, to take it to the extreme, it would be illegal for me (I think at least) to tell someone “I want you to kill John.” But what if I were to tell someone “John is the one that killed your mother” with the understanding that this person would then go kill John? Same thing here – John Q. Public would be telling Inmate A something that he believes would cause him or Inmates C-Z to harm Inmate B (and more than likely HOPES would cause that). Does the belief/hope that the provided information will cause harm make the providing of the information illegal?

The first part of the question, though – whether inmates have other ways of finding out, was a question of “does it occur?” rather than “is it legal?” And for that, thanks to wring for his opinion on the subject. Sounds like more than likely it gets known, but I’ll wait for casdave’s opinion as you suggest. Thanks.

5

IANAL, but wouldn’t this be covered by regular libel laws? It’s already illegal to go around saying somebody is a child molester if it’s false. I don’t think it can possibly be illegal to do so if it’s true, regardless of the harm that may ensue.

6

People, including prisoners, watch TV, read newspapers, talk to friends and relatives. There are no special laws restricting information available to prisoners and they would be innefective if there were. The path your logically travelling down now is incitement, criminal facilition, conspiracy or some other involvement in the planning or commission of an offence. Thats different from merely providing public information. Even certain knowledge, assuming one could prove such a thing, of the effect of the information would be a tenuous basis for a criminal charge.

7

I think the real question is, inmate X is a child molestor. If outside person A tells inmate Y this information, knowing that it will in all probably get Inmate X assaulted, is outside person A in trouble?
IANAL… but the answer is probably yes.
If I were to tell a fanatic anti-abortionist that Dr. X performs abortions and lives at address ZZ and usually leaves home at 7:15 a.m. then that fanatic goes and kills the Dr, I am liable for inciting.
Same case. Instead of a gun I am using a person (or inmate) as a weapon.

8

As far as prison staff, visitors, or those involved with law enforcement, or working toward the rehabilitation of offenders etc, then yes you would be in line for prosecution on several differant counts, and that does not take into account any actual harm to an offender that can be proven to have been a result of the unauthorised release of information.

In Europe we have laws about the storage and control of information held on individuals and they are very tight indeed.

This covers information held either in written records or computor records.

Any person or individual must prove that they have a legitimate right to hold that information,which must be accurate and that any purpose it is held for is fair, especially as regards decisions made using it.

The subect, including inmates, has a right to know what information is held, how it is used to make any decision, and what purpose it is held for.The information must also be proportionate for the purpose for which it is being held.

There are obvious exclusions but the onus is on the keeper to prove their case.

Simple mailing lists, phone contact lists, credit ratings agencies and a whole load of others are now starting to feel uneasy at the prospect of lawsuits.

Just about all prison staff have access to the inmate data system, even if it is just for enquiries, it would very very hard for me to prove that information that I recieved came to me through the media rather than prison records and, even so, if it were also held in the record I would be instantly dismissed.

The only likely way that Joe Public will meet a serving con is in a prison, and that makes Joe subject all the legal paraphanalia of prison, say it and yes you could be up in court for it, the con under discussion could sue directly too, say on the grounds of loss of family visits contact because they had to be moved to a jail hundreds of miles away for their own safety.

If you knew a con and wrote to that person don’t forget that mail can be intercepted and read by prison censors and the intention would be clear and in writing.

As for jail heirarchy, yes there is one but it is fairly loose, basically it would not matter what your offence was, if you were a total dickhead you’d be in for a hard time.

Being vulnerable is the the most dangerous condition for any prisoner, you might be a serial cop-killing, bank-robbing, thug but that will not help you one little bit if other cons see that you can be intimidated.

In terms of offences one is really just looking at differant shades of shite, granny beaters are not really any better than street robbers, or burglars, or armed robbers and the list goes on.

They all cause trauma to individuals and society, many have offences in their past for which they will condemn another con for.

It’s hard to say wether a child molester is worse than a murderer, that a kidnapper is any better a rapist in terms of human trauma.

All that being said, word obviously gets around through newspapers, tv, radio etc which means that there are segregated prison sections for vulnerable prisoners(VP units) but you might be surprised at just who is housed therein, such as informants, serious debtors to other prisoners, ex-police, ex-prison staff etc.

9

As far as prison staff, visitors, or those involved with law enforcement, or working toward the rehabilitation of offenders etc, then yes you would be in line for prosecution on several differant counts, and that does not take into account any actual harm to an offender that can be proven to have been a result of the unauthorised release of information.

In Europe we have laws about the storage and control of information held on individuals and they are very tight indeed.

This covers information held either in written records or computor records.

Any person or individual must prove that they have a legitimate right to hold that information,which must be accurate and that any purpose it is held for is fair, especially as regards decisions made using it.

The subject, including inmates, has a right to know what information is held, how it is used to make any decision, and what purpose it is held for.The information must also be proportionate for the purpose for which it is being held.

There are obvious exclusions but the onus is on the keeper to prove their case.

Simple mailing lists, phone contact lists, credit ratings agencies and a whole load of others are now starting to feel uneasy at the prospect of lawsuits.

Just about all prison staff have access to the inmate data system, even if it is just for enquiries, it would very very hard for me to prove that information that I recieved came to me through the media rather than prison records and, even so, if it were also held in the record I would be instantly dismissed.

The only likely way that Joe Public will meet a serving con is in a prison, and that makes Joe subject all the legal paraphanalia of prison, say it and yes you could be up in court for it, the con under discussion could sue directly too, say on the grounds of loss of family visits contact because they had to be moved to a jail hundreds of miles away for their own safety.

If you knew a con and wrote to that person don’t forget that mail can be intercepted and read by prison censors and the intention would be clear and in writing.

As for jail heirarchy, yes there is one but it is fairly loose, basically it would not matter what your offence was, if you were a total dickhead you’d be in for a hard time.

Being vulnerable is the the most dangerous condition for any prisoner, you might be a serial cop-killing, bank-robbing, thug but that will not help you one little bit if other cons see that you can be intimidated.

In terms of offences one is really just looking at differant shades of shite, granny beaters are not really any better than street robbers, or burglars, or armed robbers and the list goes on.

They all cause trauma to individuals and society, many have offences in their past for which they will condemn another con for.

It’s hard to say wether a child molester is worse than a murderer, that a kidnapper is any better a rapist in terms of human trauma.

All that being said, word obviously gets around through newspapers, tv, radio etc which means that there are segregated prison sections for vulnerable prisoners(VP units) but you might be surprised at just who is housed therein, such as informants, serious debtors to other prisoners, ex-police, ex-prison staff etc.