In a decision issued today (here is an alternate link to the decision), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Wisconsin prison’s rule forbidding inmates to play Dungeons & Dragons or possess D&D publications and materials [HT: Josh Blackman].
The prison’s rationale for the ban is that playing D&D might stimulate “gang activity” by inmates. But the government conceded that there is no evidence that Dungeons and Dragons actually had stimulated gang activity in the past, either in this prison or elsewhere. The only evidence for the supposedly harmful effects of Dungeons and Dragons were a few cases from other states where playing the game supposedly led inmates to indulge in “escapism” and become divorced from reality, one case where two non-inmates committed a crime in which they “acted out” a D&D story-line, and one where a longtime D&D player (not an inmate) committed suicide. Obviously, almost any hobby or reading material might lead people to become divorced from reality, or in rare cases commit suicide. And disturbed individuals could potentially “act out” a crime based on a scenario in almost any film or literary work. Should prisons ban The Count of Monte Cristo on the grounds that it might encourage escape attempts? Moreover, the “escapism” rationale conflicts with the gang argument. People who become engrossed in escapism and retreat from society are presumably less likely to become active gang members.
That said, the Seventh Circuit decision may well be legally correct. It is based on the highly deferential standard under which most prison regulations are to be upheld against constitutional challenge so long as they are “rationally related” to some legitimate goal of prison administration. And, as lawyers know, when courts apply such a “rational basis” test, that usually means that almost anything goes. The test is mandated by Supreme Court precedent, and the Seventh Circuit judges had little choice but to follow it.
UPDATE: I should perhaps mention that the court also cited statements by a “gang expert” who argued that playing D&D might stimulate gang activity because Dungeons and Dragons has a structure similar to a gang:
The sole evidence the prison officials have submitted on this point [the connection between D&D and gangs] is the affidavit of Captain Muraski, the gang specialist. Muraski testified that Waupun’s prohibition on role-playing and fantasy games was intended to serve two purposes. The first aim Muraski cited was the maintenanceof prison security. He explained that the policy was intended to promote prison security because cooperative games can mimic the organization of gangs and lead to the actual development thereof. Muraski elaborated that during D&D games, one player is denoted the “Dungeon Master.” The Dungeon Master is tasked with giving directions to other players, which Muraski testified mimics the organization of a gang.
This argument is, I think, too weak to bother refuting — even if it is just barely compelling enough to pass muster under the rational basis test. By this “reasoning,” you could ban the “cooperative game” of football because “during football games, one player is denoted the ‘quarterback.’ The quarterback is tasked with giving directions to other players.”
Crunchy Frog says:
Sounds like a stupid rule, but an even more stupid lawsuit.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 6:46 pmDave N. says:
Just proof that laws or regulations can be stupid and yet still be constitutional.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 6:47 pmShelbyC says:
It does sound like a stupid rule. But in a punative context, isn’t the fact that they enjoy playing it a rational basis?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 6:59 pmIlya Somin says:
But in a punative context, isn’t the fact that they enjoy playing it a rational basis?
No, otherwise, you could justify virtually any censorship in prison, and even the government in this case didn’t go so far as to claim such a rationale.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:02 pmChris Travers says:
Is GURPS banned there too?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:04 pmZimriel says:
The prison’s rationale was laughable. You sure this wasn’t the 9th Circuit? Usually you have to go all the way to California to find judges this dumb.
I would have accepted a prison-sovereignty argument, that criminals don’t get to have nice things. But yes, inductively that means the prison can censor pretty much the entire fiction section. If they can’t do that, and Ilya 7:02 says they can’t, then they can’t censor Vault Of The Drow either.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:11 pmCurious passerby says:
Isn’t prison supposed to be unenjoyable? Whatever happened to making big rocks into little rocks?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:15 pmpc says:
Was the petitioner’s saving throw versus fortitude or dexterity?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:17 pmHugh says:
Let me guess, the classic game ESCAPE FROM COLDITZ is probably also banned.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:20 pmChris Travers says:
Intelligence? Wisdom? Charisma?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:22 pmRandy says:
not sure how this passes the rationality test. If there is no evidence to support the government’s position, where is the rationale? Or is it that if the govt says that piece of paper is white when in fact it’s black, that’ enough?
I think this is not just silly but dangerous as well. The rational test wasn’t meant to be a green light to anything — it was just a minimal standard. But there is still *some* standard, right?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:25 pmMatthewM says:
Of course the prison’s rule is justified. Magic-user prisoners might launch a Meteor Swarm at their jailers; inmates might slip a Phylacter of Love into a guard’s drink (or even worse, a Throat Leach.)
The only downside is that prisoners will no longer have the know-how to combat wayward Gelatinous Cubes or Beholders, which have a tendency to hang out in dank stone corridors. But I guess they should of thought of that before they robbed that 7–11.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:30 pmjimM47 says:
Those judges better watch out: my 15th-level Rogue/Wizard just added Palsgraf’s Exploding Package to his spellbook!
(It’s worse than being imprisoned in a 10x10 stone corridor)
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:33 pmkiwi dave says:
Sounds like some very scary gangs.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:36 pmAn American says:
At least for me, the link above doesn’t work. Try http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-3400_028.pdf
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:47 pmBlackstone says:
For those of us who may not clearly understand the term rational basis, here is the definition of “rational-basis test” from Black’s Law Dictionary (Ed. 8):
I hope this will allow for a better-informed discussion.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:48 pmSoronel Haetir says:
I would have expected a rationale like “D&D paraphenalia consists of numerous small items amogst which it would be easy to hide contraband of a more dangerous nature than the paraphenalia itself. Rather than force our staff to poke through these items we don’t allow prisoners to have them.”
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:53 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Well, anything short of that, yes. There just has to be some chain of reasoning that could justify it. It doesn’t have to be the reasoning the government actually used. It doesn’t have to be compelling or plausible. Just possible.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:58 pmPendulum says:
Then, of course, there’s the informal definition of rational basis:
“Just say something. Anything.”
Quote
January 25, 2010, 7:58 pmNigel Kearney says:
How does the relationship of the Dungeon Master to the players mimic the organization of a gang? The Dungeon Master is more analagous to God than agang leader. Sounds like somebody needs to invite Captain Muraski to actually play some D&D.
Anyway I’m not a lawyer but unless ‘rational basis’ mean the same as ‘no rational basis’, there isn’t rational basis here.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:02 pmjcm says:
I guess the escapism referred is the psychological .
Should prisons ban The Count of Monte Cristo on the grounds that it might encourage escape attempts? Do cons really think about anything but in escaping? In some countries to escape if you have opportunity to do is not illegal as long you dont create the opportunity . You escape thanks to an attempt of other.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:03 pmMark N. says:
It seems to depend on the case and how deferential the judges feel like being. When judges want to uphold a law, rational-basis seems to mean: can we think of a possible basis for the law that, even if almost certainly not a good basis or even based on decent facts, is at least not totally insane? In these cases, judges are willing to speculate completely hypothetical bases that the legislature hasn’t even actually offered, and it’s pretty much impossible to strike down a law— there is almost no possible law for which you could not think up some basis on the edges of plausibility. Other times, when judges actually want to exclude legislation whose basis is not particularly rational, it seems to sprout “teeth”, and fanciful hypothetical bases aren’t automatically admitted.
The result is that it’s not clear the test even really exists [pdf] except as a rhetorical device.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:05 pmBama 1L says:
I think Professor Somin and some of the earlier posters are dismissing all too hastily the threat posed by gamers in Wisconsin’s prison population. Did anyone here actually attend Gen Con when it was in Milwaukee? There is a reason Wizards moved it. Did anybody else witness the chaos when Napoleon’s, the venerable game store in Shorewood, went out of business? Wisconsin gamers are absolute animals.
I refer you to pretty much any issue of Dork Tower for further evidence. Pretty much all the characters, based on real-life denizens of Madison-area game stores, would commit violent felonies if the only consequence were three squares, a cot somewhere other than mom’s spare room, and lifetime gaming buddies.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:05 pmAnon21 says:
There is no “paraphernalia.” D&D is a pencil-and-paper RPG.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:15 pmohwilleke says:
I tend to agree. While there probably isn’t a constitutional right to play D&D, the justification is silly. If more inmates were uber-nerdy D&D players, life would be good. What is wrong with a justification along the lines of “D&D is fun and this is prison and prison is not supposed to be fun, it is supposed to be punishment.” That seems like a more rational penalogical justification on the merits than some bizzare paranoid fear of D&D related gang activity.
Indeed, probably the strongest argument against the prison rule is that the justification for it given to the court is insincere and utterly unpersausive such that no reasonable juror could believe that this is the true reason for the rule.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:18 pmohwilleke says:
Don’t forget the dice.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:21 pmohwilleke says:
Isn’t the point of this case that the government can justify virtually any censorship in prison on an absurd gang activity basis?
A rule that disallows activities that are purely fun is narrower in application than the gang activity rule proffered in this case.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:23 pmCory J says:
I like my judges to have a Lawful Neutral alignment, so I agree he had to uphold it under rational basis review.
On the other hand, a judge that would have reached to strike down the law would be a Chaotic Good alignment, I guess. I could see someone saying an often-reversed judge like Judge Reinhardt is Chaotic Evil.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:37 pmyankee says:
The problem there, though, is that the rationales posited by the court are totally insane, at least to anyone who actually knows anything about D&D. They can’t even get the rules of the game right: the Dungeon Master doesn’t give orders to the other players, unless you count things like “roll initiative” and “make a saving throw.” And if you count those, then the other players also routinely give orders to the DM, which defeats the “gang structure” rationale. Honestly, it would have been more compelling if they had used a rationale like “somebody could throw a d20 in someone else’s eye,” though that would still permit diceless RPG’s.
Just one more example of how the rational basis test is not a test at all.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:37 pmArthurKirkland says:
Sounds like time for establishment of a “Church Of The Divine Dungeons And Holy Dragons.” The game’s manufacturer should have the honor.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:39 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
I was not predisposed to view the Seventh Circuit’s decision with favor; the gang-related angle seems particularly dubious. But “Singer was sentenced to life in prison in 2002 after being found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide in the killing of his sister’s boyfriend. The man was bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer.” Apart from Singer not being the most sympathetic plaintiff, concerns that D&D arguably might not be conducive to Singer’s rehabilitation and/or peaceful coexistence with his fellow inmates and the guards do not seem outlandish to me. D&D undeniably can place a strong emphasis on problem-solving through in-game/fantasy violence. I think this gives the prison officials all the rational basis that they likely need, given that they banned the game in part because of their judgment that it promoted competitive hostility and violence. I’m not sure I would have made the same choice as these prison officials, but this application of the rational basis test does not seem ridiculous to me. I think readers have to bear in mind that we are not dealing with average role-players in conventional circumstances here, but rather folks antisocial enough to have landed significant prison sentences (in this case for a very violent crime).
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:39 pmPatrick says:
Obviously the regulation has a rational basis. Look at any high school. Who’s terrorizing the teachers? Who’s beating up other kids in the halls? Who’s injuring student athletes so badly they miss games?
The Dungeons and Dragons gangs, that’s who.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:42 pmptt says:
Heaven forbid that Crips and Bloods go in and Dorks and Nerds come out...
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:43 pmyankee says:
I’ll concede that this rationale at least sort of makes sense. But the “gang activity” rationale offered by the prison (and accepted by the court) does not. The so-called expert can’t even get the rules of the game right. Can the court take judicial notice of the rulebooks?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:45 pmIlya Somin says:
I was not predisposed to view the Seventh Circuit’s decision with favor; the gang-related angle seems particularly dubious. But “Singer was sentenced to life in prison in 2002 after being found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide in the killing of his sister’s boyfriend. The man was bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer.” Apart from Singer not being the most sympathetic plaintiff, concerns that D&D arguably might not be conducive to Singer’s rehabilitation and/or peaceful coexistence with his fellow inmates and the guards do not seem outlandish to me.
The rule isn’t limited to Singer or to others who have committed comparably serious crimes.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:47 pmShelbyC says:
Hey, y’all can laugh all you want, but I understand that since the ban the weggie rate in Wisconsin prisons has dropped dramatically.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 8:50 pmreadery says:
The state pretty much has a legitimate interest in a ham sandwich, Why not in Dungeons and Dragons?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:00 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Professor Somin:
I suspect that this policy is in fact limited to “others who have committed comparably serious crimes,” because offenders in the federal system tend to be housed with relatively like inmates. See generally Bureau of Prisons, Prison Types & General Information and Designations. The opinion indicates that this is not a Bureau-wide policy, but rather a policy implemented solely by “officials at Wisconsin’s Waupun Correctional Institution” (page 2 of Slip Opinion) in response to an anonymous letter and follow-up investigation at that facility alone (pages 3–4 of Slip Opinion). But I am open to contrary facts if there are any.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:03 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Of course, I may be mistaken that it’s a federal facility. If it is a state prison, I would want to know more about how Wisconsin’s prisons are organized.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:09 pmChris Travers says:
“Muraski elaborated that during D&D games, one player is denoted the “Dungeon Master.” The Dungeon Master is tasked with giving directions to other players, which Muraski testified mimics the organization of a gang.”
this is factually incorrect though.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:17 pmluagha says:
The excellent comic book ‘Knights of the Dinner Table’ covers this topic in depth.
(Since dice are illegal in many prisons because they promote gambling among the inmates and gambling among the inmates provokes knife fights among the inmates; in those prisons where Dungeons and Dragons is allowed the prisoners must often make their own dice or randomization materials. The authors of the comic books were given a set of polyhedrons carefully glued together from stiff paper, and filled with just enough salt so they would stop rolling reliably.)
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:23 pmSoronel Haetir says:
Umm, dice? And I’ve seen plenty of other small items used in conjunction with maps.
And I’ve seen references to the fact that prisons can limit the number of sheets of paper a prisoner has at any one time. With that in mind this action does not seem at all unreasonable.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:26 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
It turns out that Waupun is a state facility, which I should have surmised based on the circumstances of Singer’s crime. That said, its latest annual report available online indicates that it is a maximum security facility (see page 5). So I still suspect that Singer is housed with “others who have committed comparably serious crimes.” But does anyone know anything about the organization/classification of Wisconsin’s correctional institutions?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:27 pmPatent Lawyer says:
I take it Palsgraf’s Exploding Package does 5d6 points of damage to a random target at least 50 ft. away from the caster?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:31 pmNickM says:
A real rational basis would be that the game can be used as a cover for gambling, which is a prohibited activity for prisoners.
I have no idea why the state didn’t give that reason.
Nick
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:33 pmMike McDougal says:
D&D players = BIG NERDS
BIG NERDS get beaten up by MEAN MEN.
It’s all about prisoner safety.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:38 pmAaron says:
Anon 21:
Not in the latest edition. Maps and tokens to represent the characters and enemies are pretty much required.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 9:52 pmBleepless says:
The possibilities for violence are endless:
“You ain’t no sixth-level bronze dragon.”
“You can’t talk ’bout me like that. I’m gonna shank you.”
Quote
January 25, 2010, 10:02 pmspeedwell says:
Amber Diceless RPG, for Oberon’s sake, then. THAT game is little more than directed cooperative storytelling. D&D is basically directed cooperative storytelling plus randomization. Are prisons going to ban storytelling next? (I’m sure they would ban any fraternization between prisoners if they could.)
I recall a study I read about 25 years ago where the researcher measured internalization of locus of control in borderline retarded high school students before and after a D&D campaign in school that he directed. Not only did their internalization significantly improve (it’s a measure of self esteem and self-discipline), but so did their math and verbal skills.
God forbid we do anything to actually improve the self-discipline, social skills, and intellectual powers of borderline retarded prisoners, eh.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 10:17 pmBama 1L says:
Strangely, the target must be outside the zone of danger created by the caster. Don’t be surprised if casting the spell creates a cottage industry of kibbitzers saying you manipulated the facts to reach the result.
You could swat it away with Bigby’s Learned Hand, but that spell casts only if the benefit exceeds the casting cost.
Another paradoxical spell from the federal grimoire is Brennan’s Chilling Effect, which despite its name actually works as a silence spell.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 10:43 pmOperationCounterstrike says:
The thing about D&D is, you don’t really need the books. The best monsters, and the best-plotted quests, are custom-invented by the Dungeon Master anyway.
Let them play Traveller (remember that one?) and have an underground episode like the Star Trek episode about the Horta. Problem solved!
Quote
January 25, 2010, 10:44 pmDan Hamilton says:
D&D might start Gangs????
Am I wrong in thinking that prison gangs are as common as dirt in prisons???
Don’t all prisons have gangs???
Couldn’t they just show that there are gangs already in the prison to destroy the argument against D&D??
Quote
January 25, 2010, 10:45 pmEMB says:
In fact, I’d say that this argument works far better for football than it does for D&D. Despite the name, the “Dungeon Master” is somewhere between an opponent and a referee to the other players; he doesn’t give orders like a quarterback.
On another note, if there were evidence that the ban on D&D playing was originally created because D&D promotes devil worship and witchcraft, would that be likely to affect the outcome?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 10:59 pmpc says:
You could make dice out of the shanks.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 11:14 pmAvatar says:
You want to play Amber with people who’ve actually committed murder? That game will drive –normal– people to stab each other in the back.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 11:18 pmJeff Hall says:
From a list of prison tattoos and their meanings:
Quote
January 25, 2010, 11:24 pmWoodruff says:
Heck, I thought just being in prison promoted role playing, competitive hostility, violence, addictive escape behaviors, and gambling.
Quote
January 25, 2010, 11:29 pmSteven Appelget says:
Ten bucks says Muraski’s research consisted of reading the Chick tract, “Dark Dungeons”.
Did he ever get deposed?
Quote
January 25, 2010, 11:35 pmravenshrike says:
Er, it’s dice, books, and paper. If you really want to be nice to them you can give them a latex mat. They don’t need the plastic figures, paper bits or various beads can act as markers.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 12:31 amSuperSkeptic says:
Maybe because they had no witnesses that would testify that it could be used as a cover for gambling. Perhaps they had no witnesses who could even explain how it could be used for gambling. I don’t know that it can, but I don’t know how to play it.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 1:06 amRoyLitmus says:
If anything playing Dungeons and Dragons kept me out of prison. While I sat in my friends basement on Friday and Saturday night desperately trying to level up my Elf Magic User other kids in my school were drinking and doing drugs.
Playing Dungeons and Dragons is probably more or less going to stop gang violence instead of inciting it. Who wants to shank the prison guard when you can fireball the oncoming orc army?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 1:27 amTheo Dudek, Ultimate Game Master » No D&D in Prison?!! says:
[...] and offensive things I have heard all year, it appears that prison inmates in Wisconsin are forbidden to play Dungeons & Dragons or even possess D&D materials. This inhumane practice was just upheld by the 7th Circuit Court [...]
uberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhC: 7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Forbidding Inmates to Play Dungeons and Dragons: In a decision issued today (here ... http://bit.ly/5cDuoW...
Kevin says:
I’d just like to say that anyone who claims to be enough of an expert on D&D to be an expert in a case regarding its legality in prisons is the kind of person who might claim to be an expert on other things that he’s clueless about.
Can he be fired, even if the inmates can’t get their RP on?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 4:04 amPrison Bans D&D For Mimicking Gang Structure | JetLib News says:
[...] it nonetheless as having a ‘rational basis.’ Law professor Ilya Somin suggests that the court may have had no choice, given how deferential rational-basis review usually [...]
ded parrot says:
The Dungeon Master typically designs the adventure (or uses a published pre-designed adventure) and referees the actions of the players while they play the adventure. In a very real sense, the players play AGAINST the Dungeon Master, who has to manage the flow of the game, resolve combats, and introduce new target opponents for the player characters as the game progresses.
It would have been more astute on the court’s part to observe that the players must cooperate against an authority that not only writes the rules but interprets and enforces them with no effective or timely outside appeal. That cooperative aspect of the game certainly DOES mimic a gang development exercise.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 6:19 amאין D&D בכלא | טקטיקה says:
[...] הטוב ומעוררות גיחוך במקרה הרע, ובכל זאת אלו הן הסיבות מאחוריהן עומדת החלטת בית המשפט: אירועים בודדים של אסקפיזם, שלא הובהר מה הבעיה [...]
ChrisHo says:
More than likely someone at the prison either does not like the game, does not like the defendant, or just doesn’t like the idea that prisoners enjoy something. Then it came down to defending the position by any means.
While I do not think prison should be full of flowers and bunnies, well maybe it should, this type of activity is frivolous and as such harmless. If anything it could be used as a lead in to promote math and reading, let alone management and working well with others. I would prefer prisoners learn D&D rather than lift weights.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 7:23 amAll Dungeon, No Dragons » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog says:
[...] much for that plan. According to Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy: In a decision issued today the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Wisconsin prison’s rule [...]
Keli says:
That’s what I was thinking — it seems like there is allot worse things prisoners could do(and are doing) than play D&D.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 8:44 amChris says:
You don’t need dice to play D&D. A sheet of random numbers works just fine.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:01 amAnderson says:
Really pushing the rational-basis test here. Had one of the learned judges ever been a half-elf magic-user/thief, we might have seen a different outcome.
Which just goes to the importance of diversity. I would hope that a wise gnome illusionist with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:06 amSewicked says:
I am somewhat surprised that they did not call upon a psychologist to weigh in on the cost/benefit of roleplaying. I am not an expert, but from what I remember, roleplaying allows the player to channel aggression in a socially acceptable way (as an earlier poster said: fireball the orc army rather than shank a guard) and often helps to develop empathy and socialization skills. Role playing games certainly help math & reading skills; many also assist in history and research skills. Roleplaying actually helps some people with mental illness.
I am less surprised that they did not call upon anyone who actually had gaming experience. I know that must be very hard to find in Wisconsin *sarcasm*.
If their reasons showed any knowledge of D&D or gaming in general, I would grumble a bit, but I would accept it. However, I do not see that they did any research on gaming itself or its effects on borderline personalities.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:12 amkatana0182 says:
It appears to me to be more of an attempt by the prison to cause pain to the inmates than to be legitimately related to any bona-fide penological interest. Ultimately, it is the prison who will lose, as prisoners not allowed to pursue harmless leisure activities like Dungeons and Dragons will undoubtedly pursue harmful “leisure” activities, like rape, drug dealing, riot, and shiv manufacture.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:28 amWolfgaar says:
And the books. (Were these guys using miniatures and maps or were they purists)
My thoughts are this:
Prison officials should have a lot of leeway to run their prisons in the way they think best. The litmus test here is intentionally broad and easily proven in court.
However, as a person who plays D&D, I can empathize with the inmates who are likely extremely distressed at having what really is a fantastic mental “escape” taken from them. You can argue that they shouldn’t have any kind of escape, but we need to recognize that inmates who don’t have some means of passing the time will grow irritable, unruly, and aggressive.
I could, envision an alternative prison that might actually use D&D as a rehabilitation means, one that gets people to work together in positive ways.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:35 amJMalec says:
Here is a working link to the opinion if anyone is interested.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/073400p.pdf
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:58 amInmates at a Wisconsin prison will no longer be allowed to play Dungeons & Dragons because the game structure "mimics the organization of a gang." says:
[...] “mimics the organization of a gang.” Read more: US Circuit Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit , Volokh.com , Slashdot about January 26, 2010 8:25 AM — by Eric [...]
Anderson says:
The decision was pretty much forced by Singer’s failure to present evidence from prison security experts that mocked Muraski and made it implausible that D&D could be any serious threat.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:06 amPatent Medicine says:
That is a stupid rule. Wouldn’t banning crime shows like “CSI” be more to the point?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:45 amTHUNK says:
My initial knee-jerk reaction to this was “WHAT? How dare they!” Besides, I thought we fought this fight over 20 years ago against the christian extremists. In fact some of Muraski’s arguments sounded very similar in tone and terminology to those used by the religious right to try and ban D&D in the 1980’s. (i.e. the dreaded lure of escapism, the terrifying loss of self, the increase in violent tendencies, etc.) Ultimately, it boils down to a lack of knowledge of how the game is played. In some ways, it sounds like Muraski was having a knee-jerk reaction to the term “Dungeon Master”. I wonder if he would have had the same reaction if the guy in charge of the Monopoly money was called the “Money Master”. I like the DM vs. quarterback comparisons Somin made to illustrate how silly all this seems.
But after my initial knee-jerk reaction and after reading some of these comments I can kind of, sort of, if I squint, see some of the prison’s point of view. First is this:
Singer killed someone (with a sledgehammer!) and I for one am not going to lose any sleep if this killer doesn’t get to play D&D for the rest of his life. It’s called prison and punishment for a reason.
Secondly, I wonder what kind of game a guy like Singer was running. The thing about D&D is that the rules can allow for some really dark, even disturbing, stuff. Yes, it’s just escapism, and yes, it’s just a game, but in the right circumstances with the right disturbed individuals (and this Singer guy might just fit the bill for disturbing...remember it was a sledgehammer!) the game can allow for the imagining of some real seriously sick sh!t. Who’s to say their group didn’t take things too far? I have seen people take an unhealthy interest in the game. However, the same can be said for any hobby someone’s obsessed with. The issue is not with hobby but with the person, and to ban the game right out seems a little overreaching and extreme to me.
Also, I think the gang connection argument is weak since the DM can, and often does, change from adventure to adventure. What kind of gang allows their “leader who gives directions” to switch interchangeably every few months? The issue is whether or not D&D posed a threat to the prison staff, and while my initial answer would be to answer with an unequivocal “NO”, after some thought, I guess I could see how the right messed up individuals (oh I don’t know...maybe the kind you might find in a prison) could conceivably use D&D to help foster an environment that would make it threatening, if not actually dangerous, to the prison guards and the organizational structure of the prison itself. Calling a D&D group a gang however, just sounds ludicrous.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:58 amthogo says:
Will this stupid bulls**t also influence other games? For example chess: 2 gangs, black & white (!)...
The term “divorced from reality” is also very funny, because what is more different from reality as this kafkaesque american gulag system?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 11:01 amPubliusFL says:
Winner!
Quote
January 26, 2010, 11:12 amterry says:
If you thought that “This argument is, I think, too weak to bother refuting...”, why did you go on to provide an example refuting it?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 11:36 amjenifer says:
Play Dungeons and Dragons :D
Quote
January 26, 2010, 12:03 pmS.E.E. says:
Dungeon Master equals gang leader? That’s laughable. The standard English nouns used in adventure game manuals as synonyms of “Dungeon Master” are “referee” and “judge”, and though imperfect, they are much closer to the mark than “leader”. The Dungeon Master operates the world the players interact with; he does not tell the players what to do, but what the results of their actions are. By analogy to video games, he is one part the programmer of the game, one part the machine on which the game runs.
(The above is the opinion of a member of the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design, the professional association of published game designers, writers, artists, and other game creators. He has twenty-one years experience playing various editions of Dungeons & Dragons and related games, both as an ordinary player and as a game master. Ask him about his current characters!)
Quote
January 26, 2010, 12:03 pmDavid Chesler says:
Perhaps the prison was afraid that if the prisoners studied D&D enough they’d come across phylacteries, and that could lead to ... davening.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 12:11 pmluagha says:
On the topic of chess and gangs and prison, I’d think the prisons have to be careful on that too. Inner-city chess is serious business — when I was bused in to an inner-city chess tournament in eighth grade, I was threatened with a knife by a sixth-grader who said he’d kill me if I didn’t let him win. (By chess ranking, he was theoretically better than me but I don’t know how many games he won by pocketknife. I played like never before and we stalemated.)
When I went to the University of Chicago, the local gangs would routinely de-escalate their conflicts by challenges of chess champions in Harper Square. An acquaintance of mine who was a very strong chess player was once watching, and didn’t really put together the fact that about thirty either burly or rangy fellows stood behind each comparatively young chess player and was oblivious to the thick air of tension. After a mildly bad move, he leaned in and said, “Oh, man, you should have moved your rook there.”
All eyes turned to him. One older (in gang terms, perhaps thirty) fellow said, “You kibitz again, we kill your ass.”
Quote
January 26, 2010, 12:23 pmDr. Kahn says:
I think we’ve lost perspective here: the jail-birds who played D&D likely learned the game before incarceration and we are forced to ask, “What was D&D’s role in the prisoners’ life of crime?”
Quote
January 26, 2010, 12:55 pmMike Jesse says:
Shut UP! The last thing I want is my GM decisions up for appeal! The party is uppity enough as is!
Quote
January 26, 2010, 1:04 pmRapewaffle says:
Regardless of what the law might say, the actual consequences of the decision are what counts. On balance there are good reasons to believe that D&D is correlated with reduced levels of violent crime and suicide. It’s possible that people might act out crimes in D&D they later commit in real life, but if you ban D&D in a certain context you might prevent one crime and cause three. Certainly you can argue that those three crimes are just vague handwaving but the same is true of the crime you hope to prevent, especially if you’re talking about any organised social behave as being ‘gang activity’.
As for the “they’re in prison to suffer” argument, I think that’s a lot more damaging. Being deprived of your freedom is bad enough; that’s why we abolished flogging. Within the context of imprisonment I think convicts should have as much freedom as possible to find ways to make their lives worthwhile. If life in prison is devoid of joy, then the people who live it will also be devoid of aspiration. Particularly for people serving long or life sentences, they need to be able to better their condition in some way, whether it’s through education, taming small birds or playing D&D.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 1:11 pmIcosahedrophilia says:
Although it doesn’t appear to be related to the decision, a dungeon crawl basically boils down to breaking & entering (which requires bypassing their security systems), killing the inhabitants, and taking their stuff. Not to make the warden’s case for him, of course. :-)
Quote
January 26, 2010, 1:17 pmCruel and unusual punishment § Unqualified Offerings says:
[...] legal bloggers are busy figuring out whether a ban on D&D in prison violates the “rational basis [...]
BatGnat says:
Dont be silly, they just need to roll a 10 or above....+ bonuses
Quote
January 26, 2010, 1:59 pmNOHC says:
“OK guys, you’re trapped in a poorly lit dungeon, there’s monsters hell bent on killing you all around, with no hope of you escaping...”
*shanks the DM*
Quote
January 26, 2010, 2:02 pmxx says:
They should ban Monopoly because it promotes the idea that you can “get out of jail free.”
Quote
January 26, 2010, 2:03 pmA.W. says:
i think its brilliant. it says to nerds everywhere, don’t commit crime, or else you will be deprived of your D&D.
Look, it doesn’t seem like it is seriously a good idea, but bluntly, you’re in prison. Under our constitution you can be sentenced to slavery as a prisoner. it seems a little silly to pretend that you have a right to read or play any particular book or game. i wouldn’t be surprised if the case law reads otherwise, but to that extent the case law seems wrong.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 2:13 pmMark N. says:
I wonder if the laughably bad rationale the government advanced is a post-hoc justification to cover up an illegal rationale. For example, perhaps the warden is highly religious, and banned D&D on the grounds that it constitutes witchcraft and sorcery.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 2:39 pmJ says:
The tide comes in, the tide goes out. The sun rises and sets. Every 18 months, Pat Robertson will say something incredibly stupid.
And more predictable than any of these: People who know nothing about Dungeons and Dragons will attribute monstrous, criminal, sexual, or satanic aspects to it.
Oh and P.S.: Anyone want to consider the horror of smuggling dice into prison in, um, the usual place? (Ouch: Four-siders).
Quote
January 26, 2010, 2:50 pmKevin says:
The problem is twofold: (1) the plaintiff’s witnesses didn’t address the Murasaki’s claims that a D&D group is structured like a gang; and (2) the plaintiff’s witnesses were largely other prisoners or people with no experience in prison administration, and so the court felt Murasaki’s testimony was more credible regarding the needs of the prison. As such, the Court found that there was a rational basis between banning D&D and preventing gang activity, as stupid as that notion is.
There’s also a third problem: Odds are good that Murasaki has never played D&D or read the rulebooks. “Muraski also has extensive training in illicit groups ranging from nationwide street and prison gangs to small occult groups and has been certified as a gang specialist by the National Gang Crime Research Center.” I’d bet that he didn’t get his knowledge of D&D from his training as a gang specialist but from his “extensive training” regarding “small occult groups.” Police “occult experts” are usually people who have gone to seminars which push Christian fundamentalism and urban legends as fact. If someone spraypaints “Ozzy Rules 666″ on a wall and you want someone to say that it’s proof that an international Satanic conspiracy is operating in your town, look for a police occult expert.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 2:52 pmTodd G. says:
It seems to me that the prison can ban the playing of D&D under that argument, but owning and reading the books (which were confiscated) is a different behavior. If, for example, owning pornography were banned, I fail to see how that ban would cover a (hypothetical) manual on how to film or photograph pornography. At least, under a solely first amendment argument.
Could someone answer: what would the plaintiff’s next course of action be in this case? To protest to the prison that the reasoning for their prohibition is faulty and to demonstrate the positive values of fostering problem-solving and channeling aggression in a socially accepted way?
Also, in response to the comments about the fostering of dark imagination through D&D, I would like to point out that writing is generally allowed in prison. Certainly the writings of the Marque de Sade from his time in prison out do the average content of a D&D adventure. Since D&D is collaborative, there is actually a check-and-balance against what is socially acceptable, or at least acceptable by the fellow players at the table. This is not so for writings that go unread by others.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 2:54 pmJ says:
*As for the “they’re in prison to suffer” argument, I think that’s a lot more damaging. Being deprived of your freedom is bad enough; that’s why we abolished flogging. Within the context of imprisonment I think convicts should have as much freedom as possible to find ways to make their lives worthwhile.*
Yes. I thought I remembered hearing that people who commit crimes are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. That is, you go to jail. Your movements are restricted. You eat crap food and wear orange clothes. No you can’t vote. But that’s it: The guards don’t get the right to beat you. You have to have your basic human needs taken care of (i.e. no turning off the heat in winter, no saving water by not letting you bathe).
Here’s the rub: I’m betting that prisoners at this prison are still allowed to play basketball, read books, lift weights, watch television. The question is: Why is this SPECIFIC pastime been singled out for opprobrium?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 2:56 pmJ says:
*”...to small occult groups”
Holy shit: Thirty years on from the Satanic Panic and people STILL THINK there are “cults” out there plotting crimes. Amazing. Does Muraski have training in leprechaun detection and witch-burning, too?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 3:00 pmRandom Nuclear Strikes » So When I Played AD&D by Myself, I was Forming a Gang of One? says:
[...] Court rules inmates may be prohibited from playing D&D because, among other things, it’s ... [...]
ohwilleke says:
One of the main effects of the ruling is to make Murasaki and the National Gang Crime Research Center whom he convinced he was an expert and received certification from, look like utter idiots.
The judges, particularly the appellate judges on the 7th Circuit who must defer to the trial court to some extent, aren’t expected to have factual knowledge. But, an expert who is testifying about stuff he knows absolutely nothing about, in a way that is patently absurd, is troubling. If he makes these kinds of opinions about things I know about, how can the court system trust him on something that the average person doesn’t know much about.
Indeed, it is hard to see that his expertise is even properly viewed as expertise in this case. Perhaps the challenge on appeal really should have been to the propriety of certifying him as an expert witness and accepting his expert testimony on matters that went beyond the scope of his expertise.
The testimony also makes Muraski look unethical and dishonest. Perhaps, even though his testimony was credited in this case, defense attorneys in other cases can impeach his future testimony based on his testimony in this case.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 3:09 pmathorsten says:
i’m pretty sure the plaintiff rolled the wrong character: should’ve been a thief, which is certainly a suspect class. Then the state would’ve had the burden to roll against its constitution, and compelling interest is one mean modifier.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 3:11 pmSteven says:
Perhaps the rational justification is that D&D players are more likely to be victims of prison rape, and thus the ban protects them. Prisons are dangerous places, as Judge Easterbrook has said.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 3:20 pmPintler says:
And playing Dungeons and Dragons is a basic human need?
I would propose that those are all optional (except for law and religious books must be allowed). If the warden wants to allow ping pong but not weight lifting, Parcheesi but not Monopoly, or Sim City but not Grand Theft Auto, fine.
For most of us law abiding types, the cushiest prison would be horrible. I expect, however, that there are criminals from situations where a cushy prison — no 9–5 grind, no commute, just work out, play D&D, and eat — doesn’t sound too bad. We law abiding types fear prison, IMHO, mostly because of the type of people one encounters there. That same kind of fear may not exist when you, well, happen to be one of those kind of people (predatory criminals) already.
While I don’t want prisons to be Devil’s Island hellholes, should being imprisoned be more pleasant than, say serving on a submarine, where you have to stand long watches — much more than 40 hrs/week — and be studying for promotion exams, where your watches come at all hours, and where you are constantly woken up to participate in the latest casualty drill?
Quote
January 26, 2010, 4:13 pmH. M. M. says:
I’m guessing the role-playing game at http://www.lumpley.com/puppies.html will not be allowed any time soon, either.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 4:51 pmdave says:
I’m thinking this gang “expert” was a Satanism “expert” back in the 1980s.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:17 pmMichael Ejercito says:
If one did enough research, one could find examples stretching back to 1789.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 5:32 pmJerry Cornelius says:
Isn’t the warden a “Dungeon Master?”
I believe Runequest, Gamma World, and Call of Cthulhu are still permissible under the court’s ruling–
Game on!
BTW...are there ANY prison activities that don’t foster “escape fantasies?”
Quote
January 26, 2010, 6:04 pmUpton Updike says:
Gays can play D&D and not get married.
Inmates can get married but can’t play D&D.
I suppose we’re even...
–UU
Quote
January 26, 2010, 8:25 pmJonathon Dyer says:
Well, obviously the next step is to ban Goethe’s classic, The Sorrows of Young Werther, which, on its initial publication in the late 1700s instigated an epidemic of copycat suicides, mimicing that of the protagonist. Similarly, I don’t believe any of these distressed young gentlemen were incarcerated at the time of their suicide attempts, but one can’t be too careful.
BTW, why one would think that D&D might engender thoughts of suicide but Call of Cthulhu wouldn’t is quite beyond me.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:38 pmSomething of a Criminal Myself says:
Having spent some time in jail may make you appreciate a lot of things. I didn’t do any ‘hard’ time, but I did spend 19 days in county jail, because of a Contempt of Court charge that (had I an attorney willing to fight for my rights instead of the paycheck) would have proved to be illegal.
However, in the meantime, I got to talk to a lot of small-time petty criminals. I also got to deal with a lot of petty and mean prison guards. The people who were nice to me were other inmates. The folks who were mean to me were prison guards.
Just because I was in jail didn’t mean I was a horribly bad person. But the prison guards treated everyone like trash. The best and the finest protecting our country’s law and order.
So with that little preamble, it’s important to note that prison isn’t supposed to be horrific. It’s supposed to be restrictive and confining and, since the late 1930’s, the concepts of penology involve a primary concept of rehabilitation, not terminal punishment.
Prison sucks, I can factually tell you that. Being in a cage is probably one of the worst things you can do to a person. To dehumanize and demoralize them as well constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Now, D&D is not a problem. To have the issue brought up, it’s important to note that Muraski was a “Gang Expert” not necessarily even knowledgeable in D&D at all.
I note that the problem was the plaintiff did not provide sufficient counters to Muraski’s claims. How would a prison inmate be able to refute the claims of a “Gang Expert?” You can’t just get on the stand and say, “YO, man, you’re FOS! STFU and sit down.”
You have to have a credible witness who qualifies as an expert in a field that stands a chance to refute the claims of opposing counsel’s “expert.”
I would think, to gain traction in a matter like this, the plaintiff should appeal. And next time, cross-examine the “Expert.”
Where do you get your information about D&D?
Have you personally played the game?
DO you have any direct experience with the game and how it relates to gang interaction, especially how it promotes gang activity?
And maybe write a letter or two to the Madison University Psychology Department or some other folks who could reasonably refute Muraski’s ridiculous claims vis-a-vis how D&D could promote gang activity.
I would like to laugh all this off, but people, if you haven’t been to jail for anything, then you have no business commenting on how bad it’s ‘supposed’ to be. It’s bad without having to be made cruel or inhumane.
As far as basic human needs and how D&D satisfies this, it is a basic human need to be socially accepted. That’s what gangs thrive on — acceptance into a group.
Which would you prefer to see when someone gets out of jail:
How many days in solitary confinement they spent and how many prison fights they were in;
or, that they got involved in a mentally stimulating activity that harmed no-one and actually promoted an interest in acedemic pursuits?
Of course the jail system is horribly flawed in the first place. We have a large group of people who have never been to jail (and by all rights should not have to ever go there) and think that the system works fine the way it is (as they have never done more than have to pay a parking ticket or a traffic citation, they have no clue how screwy the system really is) so they make these comments about how nasty it should be.
Now, granted, there are some horrible people in the world and a fair number of them are in jail, right where they belong. My personal experience in county jail told me about 85 percent of the folks most definitely belonged there and were repeat visitors. Maybe another 10 percent could have been simply treated with less punitive means in the judicial system and the other remaining 5 percent or so absolutely got shafted and shouldn’t be there at all (like my self.)
And in the end, the plaintiff may have pre-meditatively killed his sister’s boyfriend with a sledgehammer — but does that mean he later wasn’t sorry, or felt remorse — or that possibly the boyfriend might have deserved something, just not something that final?
And if playing D&D helped pass the time and to socialize in a way that was less potentially threatening than basketball or football in the prison yard — more power to him, I say.
In the end run, I don’t live in Wisconsin, so it’s not my problem. However, if my shoes were in his position, I would sincerely hope that I didn’t have to deal with the same types — or worse — that I had to deal with in a minimum security county jail — in a state run maximum security facility. My betting senses tell me that such is the case.
Also, if I were in his shoes, I would hope that there were other avenues to explore beyond simple physical exercise and watching TV.
By the way, when I was in jail, you know what the inmates most liked to watch?
Court TV, Judge Judy, Judge Wapner, COPS, CSI, Law and Order, and various sports shows. They never really watched the news, comedy shows, educational channels *(though they were available) or anything else — except for: Talk shows. All of which I abhorred.
It would be nice to consider that some folks, even violent criminals, might change and like to do something other than what the majority of the thugs that do belong in jail do — or that, over time, in a penitentiary (which means a place to do penance, part of which is to reflect on your acts, be contrite and change) — might seek to find ways to better themselves and be allowed to do so.
Your Mileage May Vary.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 9:43 pmDavid Byron says:
I feel a song coming on....
Dear Captain Muraski....
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:19 pmreadery says:
As other commenters have noted, there are better rationales out there than Wisconsin chose to emphasize, including:
1. The game is played with dice. Dice can be used for gambling. They also have sharp edges which can be used as weapons (particularly the D&D 4-sided die.)
2. The game has a lot of little pieces and parephenalia (including the dice and the bags used to hold them) which can be used to conceal contraband.
3. The game is fun, so fun that it can make people want to stay cooped up for long periods of time to play it. To retain their deterrant and punitive effect, prisons might not want prisoners to have too much fun or to enjoy their prison time too much.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:26 pmreadery says:
Also, by its nature, the game provides cover for people seeking to plan escapes. Organized planning of how to break into and out of imaginary dungeons is an important part of what people do in the game, and this could be used to create a cover for real planning on how to break out of the real dungeon the prisoners are in.
Quote
January 26, 2010, 10:34 pmJohn Brady says:
Basketball is like a gang activity. Chess is simulated war. D&D, I guess is what, too pagan?
Quote
January 27, 2010, 2:03 amMike says:
If prisons and courts can ignore widespread prison rape, then I guess irrationally banning D&D is minor. Still, it’s fascinating to imagine a straight-faced courtroom conversation about making sure that prisoners don’t escape from the reality of prison life.
It’s like the Far Side cartoon in which the damned are laboring away in Hell. They’re all miserable, of course, except for one fellow pushing a wheelbarrow and whistling a merry tune. One devil-guard says to another: I don’t think we’re getting through to him.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 5:26 amlegionofmarduk says:
To anyone it may concern,
http://www.petitiononline.com/d20d12d8/
the only way to try and make a difference it to build media support for a review of the ruling.
The above link is an online petition.
I know there are several hundreds of thousands of gamers and former gamers who may sign it and send a message.
Please, take some seconds of your day to help strike a blow against a demeaning and degrading view of what prison life should be.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 6:19 amFlavio says:
...because in the real world inmates love to stay on lockdown(?)
Quote
January 27, 2010, 6:25 amTania Winter says:
The Otakus who play D&D don’t strike me as prison material. If they did wind up in the slammer they’d most likely be somebody’s bitch. Keeping house for King Kong wouldn’t leave much time for playing games.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 8:57 am+2 mace says:
the true
nerds
gunners of law school are really showing their true colors hereQuote
January 27, 2010, 9:45 amlifetime gamer says:
i concur. but it seems a little hinky that the judicial officials need to wrap the ‘adjustment’ in terms like gang-related, instead of “that it promoted competitive hostility and violence”. The word ‘gang’ presumes that role-playing groups are out for a collective good — when (at least from my perspective) most players are out for their own [characters’] good.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 1:29 pmUnemployed 3L says:
In many prisons, control is held by the warden and the guards not only through fear, but also through ignorance. Many (I would gather, most) prisoners are ignorant of their rights and do not bother to educate themselves through the avenues available to them, e.g. prison libraries. While they should not be faulted for this, they do suffer needlessly due to this ignorance.
An intellectual hobby that not only encourages strategy, intelligence and wisdom, like chess, but also imagination and the pursuit of knowledge is highly dangerous to the status quo of the prison system. I highly doubt anyone at the prison worried about a bunch of inmates yelling “MAGIC MISSILE!!” at one another. On the other hand, if whole “gangs” of inmates are burying their heads in books authored by people smarter than the warden, written in words the prison guards probably can’t pronounce, let alone understand, and the “gangs” are doing this cooperatively, it does raise a concern, albeit a legally irrelevant one.
So it’s no surprise that the Prison was so adamant about prohibiting D&D in the prison. Everyone who has ever been in a position of dictatorial power knows that knowledge is the most dangerous weapon your subject can have.
In this case, it wasn’t just the inmates who lacked knowledge, it was also Singer’s attorney, who, at least from the rendition of the case on this website, had no f*cking clue what he/she was doing.
Also, in response to
If you want your petition to be taken seriously, 1) write it to the appropriate parties (perhaps the media, as opposed to our country’s Commander-in-Chief), 2) capitalize the words that need to be capitalized, e.g. “United States” and “U.S. Constitution,” and 3) proofread for professionalism and grammar.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 3:18 pmDevin says:
If only Mike Stackpole had been consulted as an expert.
As has been pointed out, this smacks of the same ignorant garbage Pat Pulling tried to convince police officers of back in the 1980s.
All of which was thoroughly debunked in Stackpole’s The Pulling Report.
There’s just no reason for continued ignorance of this sort on a hobby that’s been around since the late 70s.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 6:54 pmConrad says:
What forms of the right to assemble could not be argued to result in a structure similar to gangs?
C.
Quote
January 27, 2010, 11:47 pmJaypoc says:
My parole officer says I have a nice THAC0!
Quote
January 28, 2010, 12:00 amHedgeWizard says:
Did they load their dice with heroine to get a natural 20 everytime?
Quote
January 28, 2010, 4:42 amKevin Kirby says:
Actions like these only expose the well-documented lunacy of prison professionals. Obviously, the complex, literary-based rituals of a multi-player role playing game could serve even more as a rehabilitative tool than as some sort of nefarious and shadowy gang activity. Of course, such tools would only be useful in the right hands...
Quote
January 29, 2010, 8:13 pmMartin says:
If I was WotC marketing, I’d slap a sticker on every D&D Player’s Handbook:
“Banned in Wisconsin Prisons”
Who thought one of the nerdiest hobbies out there could be so badass.
Quote
February 3, 2010, 12:33 amM. Alan Thomas II says:
Stackpole isn’t the only one who’s been working for decades to combat the hysteria. (Not that he doesn’t do good work; he does. He’s just not the only one doing it.)
Paul Cardwell, the Chair of the Committee for the Advancement of Role-Playing Games (CAR-PGa) was consulted, but his testimony regarding studies showing a positive relationship between role-playing games and rehabilitation was held to have no bearing on the reasonableness of a belief that there was a negative relationship between role-playing games and rehabilitation.
If you’d like to help CAR-PGa improve its amicus and testimony skills, feel free to look them up at http://www.car-pga.org/.
Quote
February 5, 2010, 1:02 pmPaul Cardwell says:
I have been involved in quite a few prison cases in my capacity as Chair of CAR-PGa. In only one have I gotten as far as a deposition (Farmer and Hardy v. Dave Dormire et al. That one was slapped down with a summary decision for the prison without any evidence being permitted. I seem to have been quoted in Singer, but I was not actually involved it the case beyond telling him to get a lawyer and have the lawyer get in touch with me (which he didn’t).
Most state prisons ban the games because they are only interested in punishment. The law says they also have to provide protection of society (usually temporary) and rehabilitation (rarely even tried beyond basic education). They have generally secret time limits on appeal of rules so they can say “you took too long” and suppress the case at its beginning. If the inmate gets a lawyer in time, the “order and security” excuse is used, despite the fact they offer no evidence to support the view. It is basically Der Furher befehl, wir folgen (the leader commands, we follow, the Nazi Party motto) and the courts are the followers.
Federal prisons, on the other hand, have no such problem with the games, but do with the dice. As a result, gamers use kiddie game spinners for random number generators. No prison has yet explained to me how to shoot craps with a couple of 20-sided dice!
Some German prisons use role-playing games as part of the rehabilitation. They have a much lower recidivism rate than the US. It rather reminds me of those Old Testament passages where the Hebrews conquer some tribe and praise God for the victory over the weaker enemy deities; but a couple of verses later, they are worshiping those “weaker” gods. We adopt the Nazi motto, while the Germans adopt freedom.
Quote
February 5, 2010, 7:58 pmM. Alan Thomas II says:
Paul, you’re letting your cynicism and politics show again. I’d rather not have our good points ignored on the grounds that we’re raving fanatics just because you can’t resist Godwin’s Law.
Quote
February 6, 2010, 10:02 amtrev says:
there are books and dice. some play with minatures also.
Quote
April 25, 2010, 4:39 pmDoc says:
I feel what needs to be pointed out is that what really encourages criminal and gang behavior, by the scientific evidence, is prison. People go in for a bag of weed, they come out addicted to meth(much easier to smuggle in) and traumatized by rape, belonging to the aryan nation. That is not even a remotely extreme example. Prison does WAY more harm than good, but it unfortunately has become so ingrained into our society that it will probably never be abolished. OK. That’s about as sane as I am going to sound for a little bit.
As I read more, the man’s crime was neither gang or D&D related. He beat his sister’s boyfriend to death. Apparently, there were extenuating circumstances that were not considered at trial, and I think that this is the reason why laws, in general, are bad. The idea that I am not intelligent enought to decide an appropriate response based on my present situation is just insulting. I know it’s not a good idea to shit off an overpass, I know it’s not a good idea to burn down a house, and I sure as hell I know if I kill somebody, somebody is going to be mad I did it and probably feel far fewer qualms about killing me. I not only defend the man’s right to play D&D, but I don’t want him in prison. Abolish the law, then have him out on the streets, waiting for the person he whacked’s brother or something to take him out. Eventually, people will realize they aren’t solving anything and just leave eachother alone, and it will be natural(arise without the intervention of irrelevant, but accepted, mental constructs) and require no litigious bull. It is what actually works. And yes, I just called first degree homicide litigious bull. It is a sanitized term for a dirty act, the courts consider it with little regard to context in the face of ridiculously high minimum sentences for all crimes, prosecutors exploit the jury’s desire to consider it contextually by inventing(FANTASY! Maybe we should ban prosecutors.) the story of the crime when real evidence will not be considered as closely as an emotional reaction by the legal layperson, thus making the epistemological approach to judiciation(innocent until proven guilty) irrelevant, and that’s all before you even get to the prison.
So Sure. He did it. Whatever. My point is that the people who come up with such a broken system that causes so many more problems than it is even capable of solving. Deterrents don’t work, the idea of positive punishment only works if the punishment immediately follows the act, as in Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence. Also, most of the evidence says that you can’t really prevent murder. Passion crimes can’t be prevented because they are spur of the moment decisions, and I don’t know about you, but I don’t want people waiting around my house to intervene. Planned(premeditated) crimes can’t be prevented because they don’t think they are going to get caught. Compulsive crimes are the result of freaking compulsions. Only way you prevent them is if the person’s internal discomfort encourages him/her to see a professional. Which(professional therapists), by and large, are the worst of the worst if they work in prisons. Prohibition doesn’t work, god himself couldn’t keep 2 people from eating an apple when they were already happy(yeah, I know it’s a myth but it gets the point across) so removing D&D will only encourage him to play from memory, or simply make up his own game. It’s not that hard. Both deterrence and prohibition basically only serve to reasure the weak-minded that they are safe from people who probably are not dangerous, and certainly should be treated elsewhere.
This is an extension of a system where people try to manage too many people to whom they are not legitimately responsible. By legitimately responsible I mean those who have willingly relinquished control of some part of their well being in full understanding of what that entails, and not some arbitrary and unwanted so-called “right.” How is the right to have a cop handle your problems for you without being offered the choice to handle it on your own a right at all? That’s not a right. That’s just retarded. People who imprison others for any reason other than the immediate protection of themselves or those they have permission to pretect are worse than child killers by a looooong way, in my opinion. I’d rather have anarchy than be forced to pay for such a shamefully bad penal system. Gary Gygax was way better at balanced mechanics than our so-called justice system.
Quote
May 24, 2010, 11:56 pmDoc says:
paragraph 3, sentence 2 correction
My point is that the people who come up with such a broken system that causes so many more problems than it is even capable of solving have no business trying to make the decision to flip a burger, much less take a man’s legally obtained posessions.
Quote
May 24, 2010, 11:59 pm