Do you remember a time, long ago in our past, when one had to go out to buy something and bring it home? It seems like a crazy concept, but it really happened. People drove their cars to a sort of vending center, where they exchanged monetary units for perishables and other items. They would then buy enough to last them for some time, and when they needed more, they would head back again and again. Someday kids will read about this very outdated practice in their history textbooks. All joking aside though, the idea that one would actually go out to a store to buy something is becoming obsolete. These stores have fewer users than they did fifty years ago, even with a larger population. The world of explosive technology has penetrated nearly every aspect of life, and shopping certainly under that umbrella.

People’s lives around the globe|world] today, especially those of the United States citizens, are of a highly mobile type. We use our cars to go anywhere, work a whole bunch of separate shifts to augment our bank accounts, and have more entertainment in our house than does a whole circus. Consider going out to the movies in the present day; in the prehistoric days, before the VCR player, you would have to buy a ticket for the theater playing at your time. Now you can simply download movies temporarily whenever you choose by taking your pick from an on-demand service. Our homes these days are like the best place to relax and have fun; it almost defeats the point of going out. This self-containment is a must today though because we have more going on in our lives than ever before.

Tweet This Post

An inmate in a maximum security prison was recently involved in a privacy case that went all the way to Maryland’s highest court. Usually inmates, especially those who have committed heinous enough crimes to land themselves into a maximum security prison, are expected and granted no privacy. These people have forfeited that right by taking away someone else’s rights, sometimes even through murder. This man actually killed another prisoner while already serving his prison sentence.

What happened was he wrote a letter to his dad and left it in an unsealed envelope. The letter described his confusion with his actions, and how he was disturbed that he killed another man. Prison officials seized the letter and used it as evidence against the man in a case against him. This letter provided irrefutable proof that he did indeed kill the man, and this would certainly land him a guilty charge, with no contest. This man would be in prison for the rest of his life, if not land him on death row.

In court, prison officials argued that the letter wasn’t sealed, and that all prisoners have to have all of their mail scanned and censored, both out-going and incoming. This, they argue, would have had the letter found anyway, so they would have gotten him like that. They also argue the letter is good evidence. The man argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were being violated by them reading and seizing his un-sent letter. Even though it was unsealed, they still should have not been allowed to get into it. By doing this, the evidence should be negated he said, and he wasn’t planning on sending the letter anyway, it was just a venting system.

Tweet This Post

In the old days, before the dawning of the “Information Age”, when criminals would commit a crime, they would be fugitives on the run for a long time; laying low. They would re-emerge after hiding out for a number of years and slowly re-make their empire. The times have changed, and so have the criminals. Criminals now brazenly go directly to court to change their names and escape police records.

When police bring someone in, obviously they remember a face, but after it has been a long time they simply look someone’s name up to see who’s who. A violent gang member who was arrested by police recently changed his name to Tony Soprano, after the popular Sopranos television show character. The police did not know him as Tony Soprano though. After his name change, if the police were to pull him over and run his license, they would have no record of “Tony Soprano” a being violent criminal. When they run someone’s license, if the person comes back as a past felon, they will approach with caution. Tony Soprano had no record though, and they probably just laughed about the irony of his name being the same as a murderous television show character’s. Little do they know he likely is armed.

Tweet This Post