I read about this at the Above the Law Blog, and I thought this closing paragraph was spot on.
The case suddenly makes a lot more sense to me, it’s a prisoner grudge. From Marley’s link:
Speaking as someone with actual experience in running prisons, that is one ridiculous regulation. I can’t imagine any reason why I would forbid prisoners from playing role-playing games.
The fact is, the prison didn’t have to be “right” about whether or not D&D fosters gang activity. They just had to think it did in such a way as that their decision to remove the game was not aribitrary. Waupun, where the event took place, is a Maximum Security prison. The D&D playing plaintiff bludgeoned someone to death with a hammer. I’m just saying, you can’t always get what you want after you murder someone. Does anyone really disagree with the idea that the prison has the right to say what privileges and pastimes are permitted within its walls, especially its Maximum Security walls?
The judge(s) didn’t say that D&D fostered gang activity, they said it was reasonable for the prison to believe it might. Is that stupid? Yes, probably.
Lawful Evil strikes again.
I wouldn’t use kinder / hobbits / halflings for that. Gnomes if absolutely necessary, but no halflings.
Admittedly there’s no kill like overkill. For a standard cell door, though, I expect the unlock cantrip to work just fine.
I’d roll to bend bars.
Nothing like the quick and obvious solution.
Yet a further wrinkle: this was a summary judgment against Singer, which means that the court was obliged to treat resolve all factual disputes in Singer’s favor. In other words, they had to decide that if there were a trial, and if at that trial everything Singer said was found to be true, and every time Singer’s opponent made a factual claim that contradicted Singer, Singer’s version was the correct one… that if all that were true, then Singer would still lose.
Ironic, since Waupun is only about 90 miles from Lake Geneva…which any good D&Der knows is the birthplace of the game. 
Some role-playing games, D&D among them, encourage a group to work together to achieve goals and use intelligence and creativity to solve problems. I don’t think that is a good reasons to ban them at all, but I can see why the prison administration would prefer the prisoners dumb and unwilling to work together
I can see security problems. Ever seen a gamer meltdown because his 17th level thief didn’t make his poisoned weapons saving throw? Now picture a 250 pound mentally unbalanced offender on a 40 year stretch for manslaughter doing the same. 
Yay, rehabilitation ! Social behaviour is overrated, anyway.
Similar here in Canada.
In Canada at least, a judicial review of an administrative decision like that would depend on a couple of factors:
-
Did the prision official violate any of the the prisoner’s rights under the Charter of Rights? I assume the answer here is likely to be “no”; and
-
Was the decision not rationally based?
On the latter point, the courts tend to defer to the decision-maker, assuming where that person has expertise in that area that the decision-maker has insight into how to do their job.
In short, they will not substitute their decision for that of the decision-maker merely because they would decide otherwise on the point, but only where there was no reasonable basis on which the decision could have been made; a fairly high onus to meet.
Edit: think of judical review as the prisioners’ saving throw. In this case, they had to roll a “20”. No surprise that they failed.
I look forward to major D&D nerd Stephen Colbert getting a hold of this story. Anyway I understand the court’s reasoning in backing the prison here but the confiscation itself does not make any kind of logical sense.
Clearly, Dr. Stephen Colbert, D.F.A., is now qualfied to serve as a consultant/talking head on prison reform. He enjoys keen insights into this little-understood, and highly dangerous, prison subculture.
Depends on who you’re talking about being Lawful Evil here. The prison officials may qualify, if they intended to harm or otherwise discomfit the prisoner. I’d say the 7th Circuit’s action would be closer to Lawful [del]Stupid[/del] Neutral. They appear to have decided the case according to the law, without malice or benevolence.
The prisoner is likely Chaotic by default, but could be Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Evil, or possibly even Chaotic Good if his crime had similar motives to the one committed by Billy Jack…
Chaotic Good seems unlikely, given his history.
Agreed. Apparently the victim was his sister’s boyfriend, and she testified against him during the murder trial.
It’s been a long time since you have practiced. You have described the way it works for the rich and powerful. Impoverished parties are routinely dismissed on summary judgment and appeals buried in quick unpublished decisions in California. The one good thing that has happened in recent years is that in federal court you can cite unpublished opinions. Many state courts do not allow that, including California. All sorts of interesting things happen in unpublished opinions: clear repeated objections in records suddenly do not exist and only one party’s interpretation of the facts are considered.
That said, prison wouldn’t be much of a punishment if people like me were allowed to play D & D to while away the time. It would be like getting lifetime appointment to District Court.