> I think you misunderstand the nature of authority by thinking that they would recognize this as an exception.

This is not the exception, this is the rule.

> and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Prisoners are constitutionally required to have "reasonable" access to counsel. I'm sure there's heaps of case law on what exactly is "reasonable", and there's always a risk that the guards won't allow it. If they don't, and you can prove it, you have a very good constitutional case. Kansas had to release like 70 inmates because it was discovered guards were recording inmate phone calls with counsel and releasing the tapes to prosecutors.

>Whats obvious here is that an incarcerated person only has the options that the carceral state permits to them.

Yes, thank you for the tautology. You'll note that this was exactly my question: does the state make such exceptions?

If you don't know, that's perfectly fine, but respectfully, your apparent mistrust of authority is hardly interesting to internet strangers. We're more interested in any factual elements you might have. Please, if you have any information specific to this case that we've overlooked, feel free to share. If not, hopefully someone else does!

Rather than the parent's comment coming across as mistrustful, yours comes across as apologetic for authority.

The idea that someone in authority, on being reminded that they're wrong, will turn around and do what's being asked by their subject is contrary to virtually every study on authority and, indeed, daily experience.

This entire discussion is in response to an article highlighting the prison system's refusal to update a system to provide inmates with their guaranteed rights.

Of course the state, in principle, makes such exceptions. The question is whether those exceptions are respected. And especially in light of the context in which we're debating (the article), yours and not the parent's seems the extraordinary claim.

> Yes, thank you for the tautology. You'll note that this was exactly my question: does the state make such exceptions?

Why would they?

> I'm a bit perplexed by your responses -- it seems like you either have information you aren't sharing, or like this subject make you impassioned.

I’m sorry if I come across negatively. I am impassioned about this. People who are locked up have no recognized rights. They are at the mercy of the guards. Not the legislature, not the prison system, the guards.