Should a criminal in prison have the right to earn a living through publishing a book about his crimes? I was reading a about Jacque Mesrine, and the "Son of Sam" Law was passed when his book was published in the 1970's, by the French government.
What about OJ Simpson? : D
What about OJ Simpson?
We'll let OJ Speak for himself:
I didn't do the crime.
I'm not going to pay them a dime.
I feel that my advances in the business world will shatter a lot of white myths about black athletes-and give some pride and hope to a lot of young blacks
I think I've been a great citizen.
My wife has indicated we have a great marriage. We had one bad night in our life.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
In a real justice system where restitution to the victims is the goal, then absolutely not. The proceeds of the book would go to the victims of the crime.
In OJ's case, he was acquitted so there was no crime. He could write any book fiction or nonfiction and get all of the proceeds. The lawsuit portion was a complete travesty of justice. If the restitution was the goal then the lawsuit would be first not last and there would be no jail time if the victims were satisfied with the restitution.
@Smiling Dave : i gotta admit, OJ does speak for himself! By the way, you don't happen to live in Argentina, do you?
Nope.
Sorry to jump in this conversation late, but it does not seem the question was answered.
First off, you assume that a criminal belongs in what we call "prison" to spend his life at taxpayers expense and the only thing left to debate is what "WE" (the state??) should allow him to do.
The answer is YES he should/must earn a living by whatever means including bookrights and movierights.
.What if state prisons did not exist? Then a prisoner would HAVE to be allowed even expected to keep earning a living to PAY for his room and board at least. If he is producing poorly out of spite or avoiding giving the victim money, he will have to live in a very squallid rat infested private prison because that is all he can afford.
His income could also be a source of restitution to the victim of his crime rather than being a burden on society carried by the taxpayer, including the victim.