We are a screwed up people... Arizona is gonna start charging people $25 to visit friends/relatives

[kpete]

Inmate Visits Now Carry Added Cost in Arizona
By ERICA GOODE

For the Arizona Department of Corrections, crime has finally started to pay.

New legislation allows the department to impose a $25 fee on adults who wish to visit inmates at any of the 15 prison complexes that house state prisoners. The one-time “background check fee” for visitors, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, has angered prisoner advocacy groups and family members of inmates, who in many cases already shoulder the expense of traveling long distances to the remote areas where many prisons are located.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/us/05prison.html?_r=1&hp

[digitaln3rd]

1. It's just $25

There's an easy solution for people that don't want this fee.

Maybe they shouldn't, you know, commit crimes and go to prison. It's not a country club... it's PRISON.

[Hosnon]

4. It's a fee on visitors, not the inmates.

So your easy solution doesn't work.

[digitaln3rd]

37. And the visitors are going to visit who?

The criminals.

Sorry for not wanting to coddle petty thugs and criminals. Maybe it'll teach them not to commit a crime next time.

They don't have to pay rent, worry about bills, food, or health. God forbid they pay a one time fee of $25.

[GoCubsGo]

38. So, you are okay with punishing the families for the criminal's behavior?

Really? The families are the ones who would be paying the fee, not the inmate.

[digitaln3rd]

44. I highly doubt $25 is "punishing" families but..

It's a _one time_ fee that goes toward upkeep of the place where they're imprisoned (because the criminals sure as heck aren't paying anything for it).

Why are the families enabling the criminals in the first place?

[pinboy3niner]

48. Don't count on my vote for you as Humanitarian of the Year

These criminals have gone to trial, and justice has been rendered in their sentences--which they are now serving.

But you're gung-ho to add EXTRA punishment that is both extra-judicial and post-judicial just because they are 'criminals.' And to further punish the criminals, you would apply the punishment to non-criminals--the families--and hurt them as a way to hurt the criminals.

Your judgment of the families as enabling is entirely your assumption and is unsupported. But it's easy to sit in judgment of people once you've dismissed their individuality and dehumanized them into labels.

Isn't that sweet. :puke:

[RedRocco]

128. he probally also cheers on prison rape n/t

[suffragette]

49. On what basis are you judging the families as "enabling the criminals"?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mendocino]

77. Let's just say my cousin

who I haven't seen in years, got busted for pot, tried and imprisoned in AZ.

By your logic, I have to pay to visit him because I somehow enabled him? Am I a co-conspirator to his crime? Guilty by relation?

This is nothing but a shakedown, a bribe to the state.

[joshcryer]

120. "A bribe to the state," indeed. It's mob rule in every way.

[DrunkenBoat]

79. Of course they do. More than 10% of Arizona prisoners are contracted out to for-profit

companies. Their 'wages' are next to nothing & the prisons & the companies both profit off that fact.

In what sense is visitig a prisoner 'enabling'?

This is a sick piece of legislation.

[Gemini Cat]

113. Thankyou. You get it.

Welcome to DU!

[yardwork]

93. OMG.

[SusanaMontana41]

180. To paraphrase Gene Kelly in "Inherit the Wind":

We're growing an odd crop of progressives this year.

[Drew Richards]

106. wtf? NO it supposidly for background checks on INNOCENT AMERICANS

What gives them the right to run background checks on American Citizens that have committed no crime and are not applying for a loan...

man....Words fail me...

[emcguffie]

126. $25 is a hardship for any family who is underwater on their mortgage --

-- and is either unemployed or has experienced a reduction in income, as I have. I was put on disability, against my wishes, and our mortgage is under water. We run out of money just about every month, and cannot buy good food, such as fresh vegetables. Our utilities are turned off a few times a year. $25 is a lot of money when you have no money.

And you might not recall, but there are laws for sentencing that require some pretty extraordinary sentences for some pretty minor infractions. Or infractions that seem minor to me. Certainly not violent ones.

[csziggy]

129. Exactly - the guy that died from a tooth infection lacked $27 for medicine

That would have saved his life. $25 or $27 may not mean much to many people, but to those living on the edge of society, it can be a significant portion of their income.

If our culture really wants to have people who committed crimes move back into society, we should encourage family ties, not penalize the family for wanting to visit. Of course, our for profit prison system has no incentive to reduce the prison population or recidivism. They make much more money if prisoners never make it out of the system.

[fishwax]

134. the families are enabling the criminals?

by visiting them?

:puke:

[raccoon]

158. Boy, talk about broad-brushing and insensitivity...you win the prize. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

161. You really should quit while you're ahead.

:eyes::silly: That way we won't 'enable' you by reply.

[Ferret Annica]

167. Why do you want to further cut contact with the community...

... These men and women will have to rejoin when their prison term is up?

Better to get cannabis users and all others out who should not be there then to hold people hostage to a bogus fee to visit their loved ones when they have not done anything illegal. BTW, were you the class snitch and a teacher's pet in high school?

[COLGATE4]

173. Your posts are absolutely stunning in their insensitivity and

broad-brush tarring the families of anyone who commits a crime and is incarcerated. Are you sure you didn't mean to post this on Free Rethuglic?

[COLGATE4]

174. Welcome to my ignore list

[booley]

183. problem is these people are poor

many don't live anywhere near the prison where their loved one is being held. They have to pay out the nose just to get to them. And then we have food and lodging.

And this is besides the fact that many of these families took a financial hit when their family member was imprisoned.

After a while all these little costs that don't matter add up and begin to matter.

"Why are the families enabling the criminals in the first place?

That statement doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. Especially when having visits can further rehabilitation. Certainly inmates socially isolated except for fellow inmates have little incentive to not re-commit.

Are prisons there to rehabilitate and secure criminals... or squeeze money out of people?

[Auntie Bush]

66. Number 1, You don't sound like a Democrat! #2

#2 You lack empathy for families that are already terribly stressed out having loved ones incarcerated and going through the humiliating experience of visiting a prisoner in prison.

#3 Many Families of prisoners are already poor and cannot afford this extra fee, plus gas and may be unemployed or receive very low pay.

#4 Private prisons usually detain prisoners far from their home and loved ones. They often have the expense of maybe staying overnight, food and extra car expenses etc.

#5 This means many prisoners won't be seeing family members...including wives and children which are very important for a successful rehabilitation.

#6 How much money will they save in the end when they have a higher recidivism rate and families of welfare.

#7 Many people in the AZ gov. lack foresight and are just plain STUPID

A big SORRY...I meant to reply to POST 37...not 38

[Hippo_Tron]

56. America has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners

Do you really think we are coddling criminals?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[digitaln3rd]

74. Forgive me for not coddling criminals.

I missed that in the Democratic Party platform. Maybe we should all bake them cakes and candy.

Those poor murders and thugs, right.

[tkmorris]

117. I'll simply repeat what Hippo Tron said

Since you seem to be carefully avoiding answering him. America has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners

Do you really think we are coddling criminals?

[emcguffie]

127. It may be that you are extraordinarily poorly informed.

Prisons are a business here. They are for profit. Putting people in prison is a very profitable business. Have you ever heard of Catherine Austin Fitts?

[tblue37]

144. A lot of those "criminals" are just people who got caught with a small

amount of weed. I know many very decent young people who smoke weed, but since some of them are African-American or Hispanic, there will always be a good chance that they--and maybe even some of the white middle class kids--will be sent to prison.

The wealthy and powerful are the ones who make the choice to criminalize harmless private behavior like smoking pot. Sure, it is unwise to break any law that can get you sent away, but smoking pot is so pervasive among young people--and even among other age groups--that the fact that so many are still being locked up for it is bizarre and outrageous.

Many other "criminals" are people who have been railroaded into prison because they were to poor to afford good attorneys. Police departments needed to make their quotas, while the prosecutors, for whom convictions are far more important than making sure they have charged the right person, don't necessarily play fair at trial (and, of course, cops have been known to lie in the witness stand).

Point: lot of "criminlas" in prison are not guilty of anything but being the wrong color or being too poor tohire a good attorney. Of those who are guilty, many are guilty of "crimes" that really should not be crimes at all.

[ohheckyeah]

145. Because not charging a fee is

equivalent to baking them cakes and candy, right?

Seriously?

I think you took a wrong turn somewhere on the way to the internets.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllyCat]

169. And we really SHOULD charge the prisoner's kids who want to come see their dad

who has been missing from home and will continue to be missing. We really should punish those kids with $25 fees for being so daft as to choose to be born into THAT particular family. After all, they should have KNOWN the parent would be convicted of a crime, no matter how petty! Heck, it's probably even the kids' fault that he's there!

If only he'd committed a white-collar crime. Then he'd be lauded in the news and the kids would get $25 rewards!!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Auntie Bush]

67. See post # 66. It was meant for you...not post #38

[WinkyDink]

73. So why don't you join them if you think it's such a cushy existence? Look, Ma; No rent!

[Hosnon]

80. Again, it's a fee on the visitors, not the inmates.

Not sure why you are having a hard to getting that.

[MH1]

87. Do you REALLY think that everyone in prison is a 'petty thug'?

Hmmm.

[eilen]

123. Its a jail not a fucking zoo

Maybe hospitals should start charging a visitors fee, we'll start when it's your family admitted or maybe yourself.

[snooper2]

164. tool

[truth2power]

165. Your antecedents are all confused. Try again.

ETA> also your reading comprehension skills.

[doc03]

5. The visitors are paying the $25 not the inmate, did

they commit a crime just being related to someone?

[K8-EEE]

43. +1 and these so-called Christians always forget

this issue of they will be asked did they visit Jesus in prison and Jesus is ALL the people in prison, basically. What you do to the least of my brothers and all that. I am not a Christian but bet you anything the dicks who thought of this are.

[coalition_unwilling]

99. They aren't 'Christians' in any meaningful sense of the term. (OK,

maybe they're practitioners of the long-lost heresy of Anabaptism which basically said that, since God had already decided, aka predestined, who was going to Heaven, you could do whatever you wanted in this world. Calvin had to have the heresy's adherents forcibly suppressed.)

On edit: on a positive note, Yossarian in Heller's 'Catch 22' is an Anabaptist, IIRC. It's Heller's inside joke, I think :)

[enuegii]

132. I believe it was Chaplain Tappman who was an Anabaptist in Catch 22,

not Yossarian.

Actually, I believe Yossarian was an atheist.

[coalition_unwilling]

135. Oy vey, my memory goes rusty with age.Of course it's

Tappman who is the Anabaptist :)

In double-checking, I re-read the passage where they mistakenly ordered up a 'cetologist' for the Colonel. The cetologist tries to discuss "Moby Dick" with the Colonel, right before the Texan clears the ward. What is it with those fucking Texans? Even back then, Heller had their number :)

[FSogol]

6. -1 n/t

[xchrom]

10. really?

:eyes:

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. O M G...if I say what I should, I will probably get tossed, so just OMG

[Cirque du So-What]

20. No, we hold our tongues

...so allow me to reiterate...OMG!

[coalition_unwilling]

28. Same here. At a bare minimum, where is our Martin Luther King, Jr.?

[City Lights]

60. I'm sitting here OMGing for the same reason!

OMG! OMG! OMG!

[Gemini Cat]

119. +1 You and me both.

I think I can say what I read is fucking disgusting.

[pinboy3niner]

121. In The Grapes of Wrath, some characters were 'Okies'...

...and some wielded clubs against them.

Now whatever could have brought that to mind?

[Bluebear]

16. oh, you know, brother.

[pinboy3niner]

18. "Just $25" = no access when you don't have a dollar in your pocket nt

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

138. That's $25 *per person*

Four visitors equals $100. It's at the end of the article.

More importantly, it's a scam to extort money from families of inmates rather than protecting the staff of the facility:

Ms. Baldo said the money would not actually pay for background checks but would go into a fund for maintenance and repairs to the prisons.

[Fumesucker]

19. Welcome to DU..

I hope you enjoy your stay..

:hi:

[ebayfool]

72. I hope he doesn't ...

enjoy his stay, that is.

[TalkingDog]

21. Reading comprehension is a must. Try it some time.

n/t

[SusanaMontana41]

25. My my my. nt

[Sherman A1]

31. -1

A completely absurd statement.

[grahamhgreen]

33. Right out of the box from a RW think tank.

[FormerDittoHead]

47. Are people who haven't committed crimes exempt from the fee?

Your point wouldn't sound so ignorant if the fee was only for people who committed crimes.

[Lucian]

52. What an idiotic statement.

Maybe they shouldn't, you know, commit crimes and go to prison.

Do you know how many people are in prison for committing petty crimes (like smoking pot)? Or who are innocent? Geez! That's something I'd expect to read on FR, not DU.

[roody]

54. ...such empathy...

You are fortunate that 25 dollars is nothing to you.

[WingDinger]

59. We need to start harvesting live prisoner organs to pay back society for their indiscretions.

:puke:

[pinboy3niner]

62. And after their generous 'organ donation,' we can use them to make Soylent Green!1!!

I think we're finally getting the hang of this... :evilgrin:

[Mendocino]

86. Their bones can make fertilizer,

the hair can stuff mattresses, the blood fed to chickens.

So much $$$ to be made here! ;)

[joshcryer]

111. HAHA, nice.

[H2O Man]

64. gross

[sabrina 1]

68. Maybe, you know, if people pay their taxes to help build these

prisons and pay the salaries of those who work there, they kind of have a right to be able to visit them without a further, discriminatory tax??

Typical rightwing idea, no surprise to see it in that state which has zero respect for the Constitution or human rights. So glad we got out of there last year.

Prisoners are sentenced by the courts. No other punishment is allowed under our laws than the one ordered by the court.

This is an additional punishment, not even on them, but on their families. I believe this will be challenged as most of the laws in that state seem to be.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rustydog]

78. The sins of the father....ring a bell anyone?

Arizona spelled backward is: bunch of fucked-up haters!

Jumpin' jesus, are these Arizonians inbred losers or what?

[PavePusher]

133. Please back away from the broad brush, thanks. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

148. Not sure about Arizonans as a whole, but the state legislature is full

of dangerous men and women: cruel beyond description, completely lacking in decency and suffused with their own arrogance.

[Jamastiene]

97. The fee is for the people who want to visit them,

not the inmates.

Do you know who actually goes to prison? Those who cannot afford better lawyers. If they couldn't afford better lawyers, their family will not be able to afford the fee. It is not JUST $25.

[AlienGirl]

105. This includes people AWAITING TRIAL. In other words, not yet found guilty. In other words, INNOCENT

I believe in the wisdom of the men who wrote that people are innocent until *proven* guilty. People do sit in prisons for months awaiting trial, and until tried, they must be presumed innocent.

Tucker

[joshcryer]

110. I drove 150 miles to visit my brother in jail (he did some stupid stuff).

It's not "just" $25 on top of the gas expenses I had to pay, and the money I put on his account so he could get himself a pair of freaking socks that sold in the commissary for $15 each. I was lucky that they allowed out of state visitors.

[Skittles]

146. you're a good bro', jc

yes INDEED

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spanone]

130. dumbest post in years

[Brigid]

141. Crazy Sheriff Joe, is that you?

When did you join DU?

[Skittles]

143. it is fucking SICKENING

to force people to PAY UP to SEE THEIR LOVED ONES - it is EXTORTION

[Bragi]

156. An even easier solution

Your simple-minded law and order prescription misses the point.

The best way to avoid the fee is to not be born poor, disadvantaged or a member of a visible minority family. That's your best shot at staying out of jail.

[fasttense]

163. Obviously you and Arizona law makers can NOT be Christians.

Because Jesus clearly stated that we should visit those in prison.

And now they are going to charge all those Christian humanitarian groups that visit prisoners in jail $25. Sounds to me like AZ does not want anyone to visit the prisoners and find out what they are doing. What is AZ hiding in their prisons?

Next they are going to charge the families for feeding and medical care of their loved ones who are in jail. Sounds more like debtor prison every day.

[DocMac]

166. Maybe they are, you know, not guilty! nt

[joeybee12]

179. So, I'm reading your idiotic repsonses and your pathetic view of the world...

You should be typing on Free republic and watching Fox Noise if you really are this heartless.

[CreekDog]

181. so you are 100% sure that every person in those prisons is 100% guilty?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/nyregion/20award.html

if what you say is right, it should be right in all cases. is it? no. are you? no.

$18 Million to Man Wrongly Imprisoned
By ANAHAD O’CONNOR
Published: October 19, 2010

A Bronx man who was imprisoned for more than two decades on a rape conviction before being cleared by DNA evidence was awarded $18.5 million by a jury on Tuesday.
Enlarge This Image
Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

Alan Newton in 2006 after his release from prison. A jury awarded him $18.5 million from New York City on Tuesday.

The judgment, which came about four years after the man, Alan Newton, was released from prison, is one of the largest ever awarded to a wrongfully incarcerated person in New York City. Mr. Newton was convicted of rape, robbery and assault in 1985 — based largely on eyewitness testimony — and spent years fighting to have DNA evidence from the case located and tested after more advanced testing procedures became available.

A rape kit from the case was found in a Police Department warehouse in 2005 — about a decade after Mr. Newton and his lawyers had requested it — and subsequent testing showed that DNA collected from the victim did not match.

[Matariki]

184. This has got to be one of the more ignorant, flame-bait posts ever.

a heartless and stupid post.

[elocs]

185. Of course we know that everyone in prison is guilty.

Then again, we also know that prisoners do better when they have visits and contact with family and friends. Most will get out of prison someday so it's in our best interests if they succeed when they do get out because maybe they will live near you. Wouldn't that be special and ironic.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. You're paying to be registered and monitored by the government in order

to keep a semblance of contact with someone imprisoned.

Since when do you have to be screened without cause in order to visit? Will attorneys have to pay the fee in order to have access to their clients?

[doc03]

3. I would bet the vast majority of the families that have

friends and relatives in prison come from lower income levels.

[pinboy3niner]

8. Bingo! A fee = fewer family visits

This works like a poll tax on voting, creating a real impediment to visiting. Disgusting.

[NashVegas]

36. And Less Monitoring of Conditions, As a Result

[MadMaddie]

125. Less visitors and then eventually no visitors

That will lead to human rights violations because no one is visiting etc.....This is how the Republican private market works.

[Freddie Stubbs]

186. There is a constitutional right to vote. Is there a constitutional right to visit prisoners?

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. And have warrants maybe?

[Gormy Cuss]

34. I'd guess it's more likely a ploy to identify gang affiliates.

It's also a disgusting way to make it harder on the families of those incarcerated.

[Incitatus]

39. They can do that by requiring ID/

And they can do the background checks themselves. They have the access. It takes a cop just a minute to call in an ID and see if the person has warrants. There's no justification for a $25 fee. There's no way it costs them that much.

[joshcryer]

116. In my experience they write down the ID, and do the checks later.

Then they set up a watch list for returning visitors whose IDs were 'hit' the week before. I saw a guy cuffed once before for that, domestic abuse or something. He complained that he was there the week before and they said "well you shouldn't have come back, should you?"

[pinboy3niner]

41. They're not adding any checks to the screening they already do

The Arizona Corrections Department, Ms. Hamm said, has run perfunctory checks on visitors for years. In its application form, the department requires visitors to provide their name, date of birth and a driver’s license or other photo identification number. Providing a Social Security number on the application is optional, and no fingerprints are required.

Calling it a background check fee is misleading, because the fees will go to prison repair and maintenance:

We were trying to cut the budget and think of ways that could help get some services for the Department of Corrections,” Ms. Baldo said. She added that the department “needed about $150 million in building renewal and maintenance and prior to this year, it just wasn’t getting done and it wasn’t a safe environment for the people who were in prison and certainly for the people who worked there.”

Ms. Baldo said the money would not actually pay for background checks but would go into a fund for maintenance and repairs to the prisons.

[coalition_unwilling]

100. Instead of taxing the fucking rich to pay for the prison industrial complex

that protects the property of the rich, they tax the poor.

I hate to say it, but Arizona just plain sucks. There's no nicer way to put it. And I had plans to take my wife to see Sedona later this fall. Not now.

[pinboy3niner]

103. "Round up the usual suspects"

"
Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. :)

:toast:

[Jamastiene]

96. Exactly.

[joshcryer]

115. As someone said down thread, it's a "poor tax." Best way to put it.

[Frustratedlady]

7. Are their prisons under private contract? EOM

[blueamy66]

14. I'm pretty sure that the prison in Florence

is NOT private.

The one is Eloy is.

[mopinko]

30. my first thought.

this is insane.

[blueamy66]

9. What a bunch of horseshit.

1. What item on a background check would stop someone from being able to visit?
2. If this country would fix their stupid drug laws, there wouldn't be a $1B prison deficit in AZ and this fee wouldn't be necessary...if that is really the reason for it.
3. When is arpaio gonna start charging for county jail visits? Ugh.

What a bunch of horseshit.

[Vinca]

12. Sounds like "for profit" prisons.

[Odin2005]

13. We have become a nation that puts greed over morality.

[suffragette]

50. Exactly so Odin.

And sadly and tragically so as well.

[sufrommich]

17. It's not $25.00 per visit, it's a one time fee. The OP doesn't

make that clear.

[Capitalocracy]

24. Well, to be fair, it says "to visit" not "per visit"

and clarifies within the post

[Cirque du So-What]

26. Oh, well, that makes things SO much better!

According to the article, it's unprecedented, so the Arizona prison system appreciates all efforts to carry water for them, thereby gaining a form of 'legitimacy' - ersatz though it may be.

[pinboy3niner]

35. On top of it taking "up to 60 days for the department to approve the applications"

The end of the article describes what an ordeal it can be to make a payment--and even then still be barred from visiting because your receipted payment isn't recorded in the system.

It's a revenute-raising charade that--once again--is targeted at those least able to afford it.

[Obamanaut]

75. "...The one-time “background check fee”..." is right out of the OP. It seems clear. nt

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

140. One time $25 fee for each visitor

e.g., 4 visitors = $100 in fees

And the fee isn't used for a background check:

Ms. Baldo said the money would not actually pay for background checks but would go into a fund for maintenance and repairs to the prisons.

How far ahead of your visit do you have to apply? Where do you get the application? What do you get to show you've undergone the "background check"? How long does the whole process take? Does it have to be renewed annually?

Well, at least the Legislature limited the fees to people over 18.

[coalition_unwilling]

142. The legislature foolishly overlooked the fact that many of the terrorists will

come to the prison disguised as children :sarcasm:

[Obamanaut]

157. Of course it would be for *each* visitor. If Visitor A had a background

check, Visitor B would not be able to visit without his/her own check.

I would imagine that the number of people who are allowed to be on the 'approved list of visitors' is limited, so it is not a never-ending source of revenue.

[treestar]

22. Do they really need to background check the visitors?

I wonder what brought that perceived need on.

[monmouth]

27. Looking for "Wants and Warrants" on the visitors. n/t

[Erose999]

170. Wouldn't that be a violation of the 4th ammendment? They can't run you for warrants unless they

suspect you of a crime, right? This would make "visiting a prisoner" a reasonable cause for suspicion just as SB1070 makes "being Latino" reasonable cause.

[coalition_unwilling]

182. The whole 4th Amendment quesiton is a moot point, as the

Chief of Staff for the Arizona Senate confirmed that the fees were actually being levied to remedy a budget shortfall:

Wendy Baldo, chief of staff for the Arizona Senate, confirmed that the fees were intended to help make up the $1.6 billion deficit the state faced at the beginning of the year.

“We were trying to cut the budget and think of ways that could help get some services for the Department of Corrections,” Ms. Baldo said. She added that the department “needed about $150 million in building renewal and maintenance and prior to this year, it just wasn’t getting done and it wasn’t a safe environment for the people who were in prison and certainly for the people who worked there.”

Ms. Baldo said the money would not actually pay for background checks but would go into a fund for maintenance and repairs to the prisons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/us/05prison.html?_r=2&hp

****************************************

So, IOW, this is a tax on a sub-group of individuals, namely adult family members of the incarcerated, and all because Arizona won't make its rich pay taxes to pay for the criminal justice system that safeguards the rich's property interests.

[treestar]

29. Yep. I've experienced that - any opportunity to find

people who go to the government for anything, to see if they have warrants - is taken.

[Honeycombe8]

23. Wow. That's cold. nt

[coalition_unwilling]

32. This is an absolute outrage and the Arizona chapter of the ACLU

should seek an immediate injunction under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, i.e., your ability to visit those incarcerated and be visited while incarcerated should not hinge on financial ability to pay.

Jesus. H. Christ, this country makes me sick to my fucking stomach sometimes.

On edit: the full NYTimes article is a real eye-opener too. Un-fucking-believable.

[LaValle]

40. They should be happy

They should be happy it's not a Honduran prison.

Down there the family must support the prisoner. The country only feeds them water and like a gruel slop stuff and sometimes bread. It has enough "Nutrition" to survive on but barely. And thats all they get. they don't even give them clothing. The family must give them that or when what ever they were wearing when they went to jail wears out guess what you go around naked now.

And if they need or want better food the family must bring it. otherwise it's the slop one time a day with plain water. no TV no radio, nothing.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

45. Yes, Honduras is a mess under the governance of the oligarchy

our own government supports against reformers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Oh boy, we're better than Honduras!

Don't set your standards so high :sarcasm:

[immoderate]

101. I rejoice in their good fortune.

If only they knew.

And now I know how to be happy, a plushy, comfy, Arizona jail cell!

Thanks for the tip.

--imm

[raccoon]

159. I alerted on you. nt

[DocMac]

176. Clearly, the Honduran's need a revolution!

After the revolution, they need language in their new constitution that cleary states how prisoners are to be treated.

That should also include a radio. WTF, your description seems a lot like they are prisoners of war.

[bluedigger]

46. Why stop there?

Why not charge for admittance to courtrooms? If you are not ordered to be there by the court, attendance at a trial is a privilege, isn't it?

The underclasses have too much money. We need to get it from them, before they spend it on things we don't approve of.

[bluestate10]

85. They won't stop there. Once republican win this battle and are cheered

by the public, welfare families will be the next attacked, them the homeless and their advocacy agencies. The attack was on a population that will not get much sympathy from the general public. The next attack will be on a somewhat more sympathetic, but no the less, politically weak group.

[joshcryer]

112. +1, it won't stop there is right.

[KurtNYC]

162. Put a taxi meter in the patrol car

Charge for the disposable cuffs (at hospital rates; about $78).
Put a mini bar in each cell -- bag of chips $4, scented candle $25, etc...

[spooked911]

51. how disgusting-- and a perfect "conservative" policy

amazing how short-sighted every fucking conservative idea is.

[aikoaiko]

53. I had to pay a fee for my background checks for a job and a permit.

I can see why folks wouldn't like this, but its not inconsistent with other situations that require a background check.

[pinboy3niner]

57. There is no background check and the fee goes to repair and maintenance

The Arizona Corrections Department, Ms. Hamm said, has run perfunctory checks on visitors for years. In its application form, the department requires visitors to provide their name, date of birth and a driver’s license or other photo identification number. Providing a Social Security number on the application is optional, and no fingerprints are required.

It's a revenue-raising scheme that has nothing to do with 'background checks.'

[aikoaiko]

69. Are you saying that they simply record that info without looking in a database?

If they are looking someone up in their database then I think I would call that a background check, if not then I agree there is no background check.

Its true that the background checks I paid for also required fingerprints.

[Mendocino]

83. Then is there an assumption that

everyone who visits a inmate, must be a guilty of something that requires a background check?

[aikoaiko]

90. No, but the prison has an interest in prisoners not associating with known criminals.

edited to add: It is a vulnerable and desperate population and certainly not in the spirit of rehabilitation.

[Erose999]

171. Keeping all the criminals together in one place keeps them from "associating with known cirminals"

right?

:sarcasm:

[aikoaiko]

178. True, but the fellow incarcerated convicts are also under the control of prison.

And visitors are not.

[dembotoz]

55. Back when i studied corrections. Contact with the family had a very nice correlation

to a lower recidivism rate.

beside being bastards these folks are also imcompetent

[MH1]

88. Nah, recidivism helps their bottom line, right?

The private prison industry's bottom line, that is.

So, maybe not so incompetent?

Oh wait you were talking about the good of society, I guess ...

[Shagbark Hickory]

58. Why not just charge by the weight of the drugs and weapons the visitors bring in?

Seems more fair.

[Safetykitten]

65. Thank you so much for taking Janet. See, really no effect at all.

[Patiod]

81. Not sure where I see in their Bible about charging to be allowed to visit

Matthew 25:35-46

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ...

[Morning Dew]

84. Sounds like a good model

if AZ can figure a way to charge for feeding, welcoming, clothing etc.

They've got the prison visiting covered already.

[bluestate10]

82. Another case where republican dominant governments start by picking on the weakest.

How many "ordinary", as they see themselves, citizens are going to get riled up and fight over family members of prisoners being charged $25 for the right to visit an incarcerated relative? The answer is close to zero. Most people are so into watching COPS and prison shows that they have come to view both prisoners, their relatives and prisoner advocacy groups as sub-human. So the republican Governor and Legislature have picked a fight that they are likely to win and build support from, next expect attacks on welfare recipients and they work their way as high up the food-chain as they can go before public outcry stops them.

[KamaAina]

89. Oh, that oughta do a lot for morale.

:sarcasm:

Fewer family visits --> more P.O.'d prisoners --> more unrest.

And how much does THAT cost the department?! :eyes:

[ThoughtCriminal]

91. If Texas is the "Laboratory for bad government"...

Arizona is where it goes into mass production.

[War Horse]

92. So you should *pay* to visit a loved one in prison

I have to say that this is one of the most disturbing things I've read in a while. Sounds like something out of the TV show Black Adder.

Maybe the line of thinking is that they are providing a service by allowing someone to visit an inmate, and that people should pay for services provided?

[pinboy3niner]

94. Their first line of thinking is: The state needs money

Second line of thinking: "Round up the usual suspects."

[War Horse]

98. You are probably right

It's just that something about this also screamed "service fee" to me. AKA a step towards privatization...

[lynne]

95. The article states its a "one-time background check fee" for visitors -

- and that seems perfectly reasonable to me. $25. for a one-time fee that is needed to meet a requirement of visitation isn't excessive or unwarranted.

[immoderate]

102. Except they don't do a background check. It's a poor tax.

They use the money for prison maintenance. That's because they don't want to tax the rich, who don't go to prison anyway. They have money.


--imm

[pinboy3niner]

104. +1000

Thanks for using the term 'poor tax'--that's the best way to describe it. :thumbsup:

[ZombieHorde]

107. I just want to thank everyone in this thread who is opposed to this.

I know I can be punishment adverse, but the first comment seems based in misguided anger.

[coalition_unwilling]

108. If you want to do a bit more, you can donate to the following

organization that has filed suit on behalf of inmates and their families:

http://www.middlegroundprisonreform.org/main/index.html

I plan to send a check tomorrow. They don't take PayPal apparently or e-donations. So snailmail it is.

[joshcryer]

114. I truly love this thread, reminds me of old school DU.

There's something at least most of us can agree on here.

[rasputin1952]

109. I cannot believe this will pass Constitutional muster...

imposing a fee on a party to visit an incarcerated individual is so incredibly wrongheaded, it actually defies belief.

[southmost]

122. forget rehabilitation

lets just make money out of the criminally insane

[MadMaddie]

124. What did they say? Privatize it, nothing will really change.

That's what they always say, then they figure out a way to make more profits.

This is insanity.

[Motown_Johnny]

131. The (R)s are going for what I call "The Full Matthew"!

It isn't good enough to just exploit the sick and the poor, you need to get the imprisoned in there too or you just don't have the evil trifecta.





http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=KJV


^snip^



31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[coalition_unwilling]

136. Excellent citation. The Repukes are still on the Book of Leviticus. They

haven't made it to Matthew yet, having barely just learned how to read.

[Brigid]

139. And here's another one, my personal favorite:

Matthew 23, as distilled into a song for the musical "Godspell":

Alas For You

Alas alas for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrits that you be
Searching for souls and fools to forsake them
You travel the land you scour the sea
After you've got your converts you make them
Twice as fit for hell!
As you are yourselves!

Alas, alas for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrits that you are
Sure that the kingdom of Heaven awaits you
You will not venture half so far
Other men who might enter the gates you
Keep from passing through!
Drag them down with you!
You snakes, you viper's brood
You cannot escape being Devil's food!

I send you prophets, I send you preachers
Sages and rages and ages of teachers
Nothing can bar your mood

Alas, alas for you
Lawyers and pharisees
Hypocrits to a man
Sons of the dogs who murdered the prophets
Finishing off what your fathers began
You don't have time to scorn and to scoff
It's getting very late!
Vengence doesn't wait!
You snakes, you viper's brood
You cannot escape being Devil's food!

I send you prophets, I send you preachers
Sages and rages and ages of teachers
Nothing can bar your mood
Blind guides, blind fools
The blood you spilt
On you will fall!

This nation, this generation
Will bear the guilt of it all!

Alas, alas alas for you! Blind fools!!

[Ilsa]

137. This Extortion is ridiculous and unnecessary. There is no reason to burden

families like this for visiting their loved ones in prison. They usually have enough expenses associated with trying to visit, like long or overnight drives, etc. This is just another method of extortion.

[ohheckyeah]

149. So, on top of how unfair this is

they are blatantly lying about it. They call it a background fee but admit it won't be used for background checks. Why not call it what it is poor tax or extortion? Is this something like the Clean Air Act that allowed more pollution and No Child Left Behind that leaves every child behind? These people are just completely morally bankrupt.

[coalition_unwilling]

150. I call them 'dangerous' men and women, so called because

they personify cruelty and are suffused with their own arrogance. God\Buddha reserves a terrible vengeance\karma for folks like that.

[ohheckyeah]

152. Dangerous, yes,

but I would go so far as to say they are evil.

[coalition_unwilling]

175. Insofar as Hannah Arendt used the phrase 'banality of evil' to refer

to a mid-level bureaucrat like Adolph Eichmann (the subtitle of her seminal work "Eichmann in Jerusalem"), I would agree with your use of the term 'evil.' These Arizona legislators personify the every-day quotidian hum-drum evil, not the extraordinary of an Adolph Hitler. They're petty little bureaucrats whose utter moral vacuity is plain for all with hearts that feel to see.

[defendandprotect]

151. This is how far into fascism and fascist legal system we are at this point -- !!

War for profit --

Prisoners for profit --

Killing the planet for profit --


Guess we all know we don't have another FDR on our hands -- !!!


Yikes!

[Chimichurri]

154. Guess what a prison will have to do to get more visitors in order to increase profits?

This is a disgrace.

[RobinA]

155. My Question

would have to be - what are they going to do with the info? I can't get in if I had a pot charge 15 years ago? A decade ago I kited a check and got caught. What if I'd been convicted of third degree murder back in the day, did my time? I'm not allowed to see my relative? Is there some rule that says you can't visit a prisoner if you have a criminal background? The cops know who the gangsters are. Here in PA go have to put visitors on a list. It's a publically available several click process to find out if they have outstanding warrants or previous run ins with the law.

Total nonsense and harassment.

[rdking647]

160. i dont really have a problem with it

visitors are a privilege... the state could just ban families from visiting...
maybe if the inmates wouldnt commit a crime they wouldnt have to worry about the fee.

[Brigid]

172. For the brazillionth time . . .

The fee is assessed on the visitor, not the inmate!! You know, somebody who isn't even charged with anything?? AArgh! :banghead:

Did you even read the rest of this thread, or even the OP??

[dixiegrrrrl]

187. Wish we could assess a fee for people who sound off without even reading the OP first.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lonestarnot]

168. Gov's in on that private for profit prison industrial complex. Surprised she's only charging 25

admission.

[dixiegrrrrl]

188. If they get away with this, the fee WILL increase.

Have you ever known a state sponsored fee or tax which did not increase???