Photos of Prison Guard

[NuTex]

I thought everyone would find this interesting.
NuTex
State to fight reinstatement of guard who posed nude

by DAVID DISHNEAU
Associated Press Writer

The state plans to fight reinstatement of a prison guard who was fired after nude photos of her appeared in a magazine and on the Internet, a spokesman for the state prison agency said Friday.

The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services filed a petition for judicial review in Washington County Circuit Court Friday. On Thursday, the agency asked an administrative law judge to stay his order that it rehire Marcie Betts, 22, of Hagerstown.

The appeal will seek to overturn Administrative Law Judge D. Harrison Pratt's Nov. 12 ruling that Betts' First Amendment right to make and publish photographs of herself outweighed the impact those images might have on the state's ability to safely and efficiently run its prisons.

Betts expressed disbelief at the state's move. "I don't know why they are wasting taxpayer time and money on something they could solve as simply as letting me go back to work," she said.

The state contended during a two-day hearing in September that inmates eventually would see the photos of Betts and perceive her as a "sex object." Betts would then be at greater risk of sexual assault or blackmail, which would jeopardize the safety of officers who might have to come to her aid, the state and its witnesses argued.

Pratt called the state's argument speculative and lacking in supporting evidence.

Betts testified she and her husband took the pictures in 2002, after she had taken a test for the prison job but before she was hired. She said she sold 81 pictures to a World Wide Web site, BurningAngel.com, for $300. One image was later published without her knowledge in Tabu Tattoo magazine, Betts said. She has a large tattoo of birds, flowers and a skull on her chest.

Betts lost her position at Roxbury Correctional Institution near Hagerstown on Jan. 29, two months after being hired as a correctional officer. She initially denied any knowledge of the photos when asked by a fellow officer and an inmate, according to testimony at her September hearing. A copy of Tabu Tattoo containing her picture was found in an inmate housing unit the day before she was fired, according to the case files.

Maryland prison inmates are allowed sexually explicit material, including magazines and photographs, but they cannot use computers connected to the Internet.

[NuTex]

I thought everyone would find this interesting.
NuTex
State to fight reinstatement of guard who posed nude

by DAVID DISHNEAU
Associated Press Writer

The state plans to fight reinstatement of a prison guard who was fired after nude photos of her appeared in a magazine and on the Internet, a spokesman for the state prison agency said Friday.

The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services filed a petition for judicial review in Washington County Circuit Court Friday. On Thursday, the agency asked an administrative law judge to stay his order that it rehire Marcie Betts, 22, of Hagerstown.

The appeal will seek to overturn Administrative Law Judge D. Harrison Pratt's Nov. 12 ruling that Betts' First Amendment right to make and publish photographs of herself outweighed the impact those images might have on the state's ability to safely and efficiently run its prisons.

Betts expressed disbelief at the state's move. "I don't know why they are wasting taxpayer time and money on something they could solve as simply as letting me go back to work," she said.

The state contended during a two-day hearing in September that inmates eventually would see the photos of Betts and perceive her as a "sex object." Betts would then be at greater risk of sexual assault or blackmail, which would jeopardize the safety of officers who might have to come to her aid, the state and its witnesses argued.

Pratt called the state's argument speculative and lacking in supporting evidence.

Betts testified she and her husband took the pictures in 2002, after she had taken a test for the prison job but before she was hired. She said she sold 81 pictures to a World Wide Web site, BurningAngel.com, for $300. One image was later published without her knowledge in Tabu Tattoo magazine, Betts said. She has a large tattoo of birds, flowers and a skull on her chest.

Betts lost her position at Roxbury Correctional Institution near Hagerstown on Jan. 29, two months after being hired as a correctional officer. She initially denied any knowledge of the photos when asked by a fellow officer and an inmate, according to testimony at her September hearing. A copy of Tabu Tattoo containing her picture was found in an inmate housing unit the day before she was fired, according to the case files.

Maryland prison inmates are allowed sexually explicit material, including magazines and photographs, but they cannot use computers connected to the Internet.

NuTex.. interesting story...unfortunately lying about the photos probably was not a good plan...I am surprised sexually explicit photos etc. are allowed in prison...Hmmmm?...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[NuTex]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> unfortunately lying about the photos probably was not a good plan <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree. Bad move.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I am surprised sexually explicit photos etc. are allowed in prison... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My understanding is that it helps keep the frustration from getting to a dangerous level among the inmates.
NuTEx

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by outdoorbare:
NuTex.. interesting story...unfortunately lying about the photos probably was not a good plan...I am surprised sexually explicit photos etc. are allowed in prison...Hmmmm?...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I too am surprise that they allow explicit materials for prisoners. Although, it is unfortunate that the woman was fired but when you decide to publish nude photos of you online, there's always going to be someone you know who will find it. By publishing nude pics of you online, you accept the consequences of your action. I think a lot of people are naiive when posting pictures of themselves online. They think no one they know willl find out. With MILLIONS of people online these days, someone who you knows or knows someone you know WILL find out. It is unfortunate the woman lost her job but I don't feel bad for her

I feel her ability to do her job is in no way affected by those pictures. It shouldn't be relevant to her work at all.

[NuTex]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I feel her ability to do her job is in no way affected by those pictures. It shouldn't be relevant to her work at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree and it sounds like the courts do too.
NuTex

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The state contended during a two-day hearing in September that inmates eventually would see the photos of Betts and perceive her as a "sex object." Betts would then be at greater risk of sexual assault or blackmail, which would jeopardize the safety of officers who might have to come to her aid, the state and its witnesses argued. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm... so the state thinks that an attractive female guard would not be in any significant danger from a group of confined convicted male criminals absent the existence of these photos? I'm surprised they don't require her to wear a Burkha. In fact, for her protection she should wear one outside the prison as well. Americans aren't as far from Taliban thinking as we like to believe.

[Bob S.]

So basically, the state is arguing that if the inmates see a naked picture of her, they will see her as a sex object. Well, these are men serving who knows how long with access to pornographic magazines. Wouldn't they objectify the women anyway?

And her lying was not wrong. It seems that an inmate had been reading this magazine (I'm sure just for the articles /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and somehow recognized something about her. Of course she denied it to the inmate and an officer. What was she supposed to say? She had to maintain her professionalism. Prison guards can lie to inmates.

I hope that she gets her job back.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
It seems that an inmate had been reading this magazine (I'm sure just for the articles /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and somehow recognized something about her. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually not. The magazine Tabu Tattoo was intercepted by prison authorities before it reached the prisoner it was being sent to.

Note that Mrs Betts knew nothing about the pictures in that magazine, they were published without her knowledge. She did know about the 81 photos she sold to an 'adult' website before she was hired at the Roxbury prison where inmates do not have internet access.

Mrs. Betts is no particular friend to the naturist movement. In fighting (http://www.FightForOurRights.com) her unlawful dismissal she has allied herself with the pornography industry and the 'protect porn' movement.

So why should we care?

Because what happened to her could happen to any of us.

Many of us have pictures online. With hidden cameras and cell-phone cameras any of us could unwittingly find ourselves exposed.

Although we recognize the vast difference between social nudism and 'adult' entertainment, not all authorities do. Mrs. Betts did not break any laws, if she can be legally dismissed from a civil service job due only to non-job related lawful activity, so can we.

So will we.

http://www.fightforourrights.com/db4/00327/fightforourrights.com/_uimages/110.jpg
Marcie Betts

[NuTex]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Because what happened to her could happen to any of us.

Many of us have pictures online. With hidden cameras and cell-phone cameras any of us could unwittingly find ourselves exposed.

Although we recognize the vast difference between social nudism and 'adult' entertainment, not all authorities do. Mrs. Betts did not break any laws, if she can be legally dismissed from a civil service job due only to non-job related lawful activity, so can we.

So will we. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very well said naturistmark1. Regardless of whether one approves or not of these photos we should hope that she wins her case.
NuTex

[Croydon]

I think a lot of you are missing the point. She posted pics of herself on internet. Once you do that, the pictures are no longer yours. You have given ownership to someone else. She SOLD, I repeat SOLD, I will say it again, SOLD the pictures, therefore, the owners of that website own the pictures. They are free to do as they please with it w/o her permission because you know why? SHE SOLD THE PICTURES, therefore, she NO LONGER owns it. Look at it this way, if I had a yard sale and I sold an old bike to you, in exchange for the bike, u gave me cash. Once tthe transfer has occured, do I still own that bike? Of course not. When you do such thing, you have assumed the consequences. MANY people will see the pictures, furthermore, it is HIGHLY likely these pictures will be seen by people you know and it is possible these pictures will get you in trouble. It's sad that these pictures have led her to lose her job but I don't feel sorry for her, she assumed the risks when she SOLD those pictures.

I do agree with the courts' decision. Her ability to do her job has nothing to do with the pictures, she is capable of doing her job BUT BUTT BUT her SAFETY is at risk because of those pictures. Inmates have seen the pictures and that puts her in a vulnerable spot and she has placed herself in danger. She wasn't fired b/c she sold pictures of herself. She was fired b/c those pictures have provided an unsafe environment for her to work. Considering her job, the peoeple she has to control (i.e. men in jail for rape, robbery, murder, drugs etc etc etc), she is no longer able to complete the duties of her job w/o some guy wanting to rape her, if possible.

She should have thought about all the consequences before she posted those pictures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croydon:
I think a lot of you are missing the point. She posted pics of herself on internet. Once you do that, the pictures are no longer yours. You have given ownership to someone else. She SOLD, I repeat SOLD, I will say it again, SOLD the pictures, therefore, the owners of that website own the pictures. They are free to do as they please with it w/o her permission because you know why? SHE SOLD THE PICTURES, therefore, she NO LONGER owns it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>She could have sold them with the condition that they not be used outside that website or that the new owner is not permitted to sell them again. Silly of her not to make that a part of the contract.

However, having said that, I really don't think that the men would rape someone just because they see pictures in a mag that look like a guard they have. If they were really concerned about that why hire such knock out guards to begin with? Isn't that in itself putting the guards in danger? Maybe men should not have female guards at all if that is a valid concern. I see no difference.

[themightysven]

No, as a figure artist, I have to interject here that even if you sell an image of yourself, you never lose the rights to YOUR image. If this website sold the image to the magazine without any concideration for her (monetary and/or consent) then they are liable for damages as a result. (like lost wages, and if she doesn't get her job back that could be a lot especially since she's 22 {that's adjusted wages for 38 years}) The important part here is that your own your image and that you can't be punished for posing nude by your employer.


<<I think a lot of you are missing the point. She posted pics of herself on internet. Once you do that, the pictures are no longer yours. You have given ownership to someone else. She SOLD, I repeat SOLD, I will say it again, SOLD the pictures, therefore, the owners of that website own the pictures. They are free to do as they please with it w/o her permission because you know why? SHE SOLD THE PICTURES, therefore, she NO LONGER owns it. Look at it this way, if I had a yard sale and I sold an old bike to you, in exchange for the bike, u gave me cash. Once tthe transfer has occured, do I still own that bike? Of course not. When you do such thing, you >>

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croydon:
BUT BUTT BUT her SAFETY is at risk because of those pictures. Inmates have seen the pictures and that puts her in a vulnerable spot and she has placed herself in danger. She wasn't fired b/c she sold pictures of herself. She was fired b/c those pictures have provided an unsafe environment for her to work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We don't know that any inmates have seen the pictures, but that is immaterial.

Prisoners don't need to see nude pictures to know she is an attractive young woman. That is the greatest 'risk' factor.

Yet the authorities agree that her job performance was exemplary, so apparently being young, attractive and female wasn't an impediment to her duties.

-Mark

[Croydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by themightysven:
No, as a figure artist, I have to interject here that even if you sell an image of yourself, you never lose the rights to YOUR image. If this website sold the image to the magazine without any concideration for her (monetary and/or consent) then they are liable for damages as a result. (like lost wages, and if she doesn't get her job back that could be a lot especially since she's 22 {that's adjusted wages for 38 years}) The important part here is that your own your image and that you can't be punished for posing nude by your employer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How is that so? I am confused. You say that she never lost the rights of her image. I am confused by what you mean. If you are saying that the internet site can say the pic is their own and they took it, no they can't say that but are they free to do as they please with it? Yes, they are. Different laws apply to acitivities that occur online. Again, I dont feel bad for this woman. She should have known that there's a possibility that these pictures may end up in wrong hand. She accepted the risk. Even if her picture never made it to that magazine, she still could have gotten into trouble b/c a co-worker could have seen it online and reported her. Again, she wasn't fired b/c of the pictures, she was fired b/c her safety may be in danger now that inmates have seen the picture.

They cannot show that those pictures would increase the danger she might be in just as a matter of having that particular job.

More on this at http://www.fightforourrights.com/

[NudeAl]

I do not think that the mere fact that these pictures exist or that they have been seen by the prisoners in anyway endangers her. I don't think she should lose her job over that. Now if you are in a position to work in and around dangerous felons, murderers, rapists and others like that you should be willing and able to defend yourself. You also accept a certain amount of risk for working in this environment. This ain't the local library so when these guys get pissed someone is going to get it. She may have to put up with a certain amount of crud from the inmates that know she posed for these pics but she will certainly get that from her co-workers as well. If she can do that, and take care of herself in a dangerous environment, she should get her job back. But she better not come crying if she gets hurt, either emotionally or physically, at work because of this. That dosen't mean she wouldn't have a workers compensation issue if that happened just that she knew what could happen. Let her have her job back she's not in anymore danger than she was before.

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croydon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by themightysven:
...even if you sell an image of yourself, you never lose the rights to YOUR image.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How is that so? I am confused. You say that she never lost the rights of her image. I am confused by what you mean. If you are saying that the internet site can say the pic is their own and they took it, no they can't say that but are they free to do as they please with it? Yes, they are.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, they aren't unless that was one of the rights they purchased from her. Obviously I don't know the details of this particular transaction, but it is not at all impossible for the website to have purchased only the right to publish online.

I'm in the camp that fails to see how the existence of these photos puts her in any more danger than simply being a woman guard in a male prison. Based on what I've read here, I think the system goofed, a may be guilty of sexual harassment. I certainly hope the judge sticks to his guns and makes them rehire her.

[Buzzer]

I know in my state prison gurards are not payed very much, especially considering the resposibility they are given and the restrictions that are forced upon them. Maybe, if they were salaried better, they wouldn't have to moonlight.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzer:
Maybe, if they were salaried better, they wouldn't have to moonlight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Marcie Betts wasn't moonlighting. Her 'modeling' career was entirely prior to her corrections job.

-Mark

[Rex]

It seems to me that the suggestion that Marcie has put herself at risk by posing nude and getting published and that the authorities have a right and obligation to "save her from herself" is just a variation on the old fallacy that if a woman is attractive, or nicely dressed, [or undressed] and gets harrassed or raped, then she's "asked for it".
Bureaucratic pomposity and stupidity never ceases to amaze me, but at least the judge has got it right.

[Bob S.]

Again, I cannot see how those pictures would decrease her safety that far to the point that she cannot perform her job duties.

The ultimate question is whether these pictures are enough for her to be fired from her job. And Mark's message makes the best argument for her to keep her job.

Bob S.

[Yukon1]

I have a minor degree in Criminology & Northern Justice, and I've never seen any report that says that female guards are in any more danger than male guards. If that was the case, they wouldn't be hired for a male prison in the first place. Even without the pictures, some of the guys will be putting their imaginations to work to see her without her uniform on. I got hired as a guard following my time in college, then turned it down as it meant I had to move out of the North. Prison guards here (in Canada) get paid very well - certainly none need to moonlight, even if that's what she had been doing.

I have a real problem with the comments that putting your nude pictures out in public means you have to accept whatever comes. Even if "whatever comes" is illegal? What if the US decides that my nude pictures make me an obvious pervert who shouldn't be allowed in the country? Or if Canada decides that your membership in INA or AANR or whatever makes you a danger to our society. This firing is well onto that slippery slope, in my opinion.

Murray