If you want a detailed response to this, reading Michel Foucault would probably be better than anything I could really say. He is a bit of a weirdo (putting it likely) like plenty of philosophers though.
I would but the people in the panopticon tower might be watching right now.
Who decides
The person you ask.
In Germany a prison break in itself is not punishable, because the human urge to be free cannot be punished. But Evers crime you commit during the break you will be punished if you geht caught. And you will have to sit through the rest of your time afterwards
“Might makes right.”
but I make left
I decide
if its a prison the people are breaking out of, its a prison break
This is a very complex and intricate topic and it really isn’t simple at all and it takes large amounts of mental effort to comprehend its mechanics.
The powerful
Who decides who the powerful are :P ?
Can’t believe I’m quoting fucking Mao, but: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Guns can provide opportunity, but (in spite of Mao claiming to be communist) it truly comes from the joining of people for common cause. A gun can help even the playing field, but it can easily be abused by those with ulterior motives.
Yeah, power can be abused, what else is new? But people joining for a cause also doesn’t do much if they don’t have the means to enforce their cause with violence - usually they’ll just get overwhelmed by whoever does have the means for violence. Peaceful revolutions are possible (e.g. Indian independence), but they require relatively specific circumstances and a lot of people who are willing to stay nonviolent even as they’re beaten up (and worse) by the police. I suppose you can do almost anything peacefully if your group is large enough and has enough cohesion, but that’s incredibly difficult to achieve and I think it’s actually more difficult nowadays, because everyone has a handheld communication device on them at all times that’s filled with fascist propaganda.
The rich.
Lol ok sounds like you are suggesting the rich people on my side are actually just friends with the rich people on the side of our sworn enemies!!!
Trust me as not a rich person, I know my rich people, they would never do that! Only the other side’s rich people would and then only because secretly the whole lot of those savages, poors and all want it to even if they claim they don’t and the rich are just being the heros in that situation.
deleted by creator
It’s always the side with the most guns. Or swords. Or sticks with stones tied to the end.
It always appears to be this side.
Take a look around.
Big gun
the term won’t be “prison break” but will depend on the jurisdiction that holds the person. if you are being detained by the state police, you’ll get something like “fleeing and eluding” but it depends on your local laws. if you’re in US federal custody then it depends on what they charge you with and how they detain you.
Fleeing would be a separate charge itself. the eighth amendment could get it thrown out but you’d still be able to be charged with it and would at least need to stand trial to be charged within X amount of time.
if, however, you’re illegally detained and the constitution is clearly being violated, then the perpetrators will need to be held accountable. don’t worry about it. you can just wait for the government checks and balances system to save you. they’ll be here any minute now. aaaany minute now.
By legal standards, it’s my understanding that any unlawful release from custody is a “jail break” regardless of the conditions of incarceration. Unjust detainment is a kind of legal threshold intended to assign a determination of legality to any scenario where anyone is taken into custody by state officials or law enforcement, not someone’s opinion of whether or not it’s fair.
The law never decides itself.
Sure it, doesn’t, neither does the weather but it still tends to function based reliably predictable criteria. I’m describing the baseline definition because OP asked about whether or not it counts. Judges decide, and generally err based on constituent parts of the scenario qualify for established legal definitions.
The short answer is a court of law.
The long answer includes a reference to the location because a few countries do not list “escape from prison” as a crime in itself recognizing the human yearning to be free. So only incidental stuff would be interesting in a subsequent legal case, i.e. damage of property, threatening people with violence, etc. If you can manage to slip out in a laundry basket, you are okay. Andy Duphresne would be liable for the wall and sewage pipe he broke. (And committing fraud, of course.)
The difference between a hostage and a prisoner is why you are detaining them. If you are detaining them for some crime or to prevent them from doing some crime or harm to “society”(the powerful) then they are a prisoner. If you are detaining them to try and trade or gain concessions from another party then they are a hostage.
The difference between lawful and illegal escape attempts isn’t between hostages and prisoners, false imprisonment is a crime and if you escape or help someone escape that’s legal. Taking hostages can also be legal, Putin will often make some trumped up charge for an American so he can use them as a pawn in a prisoner exchange, nominally the intent is to lock them up for committing a crime, but in reality they are hostages in putins game. The difference is whether the state is detaining the person or a non state actor.
