Comments by "MacAdvisor" (@MacAdvisor) on "Real Lawyer Reacts to She-Hulk" video.

  1. Objection: incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Prisons, in fact, do tack on time for breaking the rules. It happens hundreds of times each and every day across the country. The revoke awarded "good time" credits. That is, for the most part, why there IS credit for good behavior. It gives the prison a very big stick to keep the prisoners in order. The prosecution as a crime of every prisoner who broke a rule would be very burdensome, if not impossible. Moreover, the revocation of good time is administrative and, thus, has a much evidentiary standard. It is so low, in real life, as to be non-existent. The prison says a prisoner did something, he gets his time revoked with about as little due process as can be imagined. A prison break would not cancel the parole hearing, but it would almost certainly result in a denial. Additionally, parole hearings are not typically a one-time thing. They reoccur at some interval, typically two years. So, the prisoner could be denied this time and then get it next time. Charles Manson was denied parole 11 times. Patricia Krenwinkel, infamous for her role in the 1969 murder of actress Sharon Tate and six others and the oldest prisoner in the US, has been denied parole 15 times. The parole board would not grant parole directly following an egregious rule breaking, at the next hearing, after context has developed, it may well grant parole., BTW, while a decision is rendered in the name of the board, it is really a staff member who holds the hearing at the prison, if one is actually, the decision is made after reviewing the file.
    1