The windows through which you see what's happening in your prisons and through which prisoners view the world, are shrinking. Changes in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections regulations governing who, when and how prisoners may communicate with their families, friends and the public are shrinking the windows and constricting your insights.
New telephone regulations limit the number of persons whom each inmate may contact. Two inmates are not allowed to telephone the same number. And there are no more calls to your friendly congressman. No calls to courts. No calls to government agencies.
The calls a prisoner does make, cost more - a cost determined by the DOC which receives a huge "commission" (a/k/a/ a kickback from the telephone company, T-Netix, Inc., Englewood, Colorado, for each call. It's not the prisoners who pay these huge taxes on free speech, it's their families.
New prison mail regulations claim that mail is mail only until it arrives at the prison gate. After that, it's the DOC's property. Inmates will be allowed to receive only mail which isn't "contraband." "Contraband" mail includes ALL THIRD CLASS MAIL, "nude photographs," "free gift transactions," or even mail which has writing or drawing on the envelope or "Contained in the mail" (whatever that means).
Yes, writing or drawing on an envelope or on the letter transforms that piece of mail into. . .TaDAH!!! - "Contraband!"
All the letters sent by inmates will be prominently stamped with the message "Inmate Mail - Pa. Department Of Corrections. The message will be visible to everyone who sees the envelope. The intent is clearly to stigmatize the persons who receive mail from prisoners, exposing them to various forms of negative public reactions. How will old grandmother, living in the nursing home like getting "Inmate Mail?"
Imprisoned fathers who don't want to stigmatize their children will stop writing. Family and friends who cannot afford stigma will ask prisoners to stop writing.
Not just telephone and mail contacts have been stifled. Personal visits have been limited and restricted in more insidious ways. Visitors are being subjected to ever more humiliating and intrusive "inspections" before being allowed to visit their prisoner loved ones.
The anti-drug mania has taken on irrational dimensions. Prisoners lose contact visits for at least six months if they are convicted of any kind of a drug-related "misconduct" by the prison's internal kangaroo court. The loss of visits is enforced even where the charge has nothing to do with visiting.
Visitors are subjected to examination of their pocket lint by a so-called "ion scanner." The gizmo supposedly detects drug residue in some magical, unexplained way, supposedly by an electronic molecular scan. (Some folks will believe anything if you say it's electronic!)
The "scanner" appears to operate in a purely random way. It appears to be set off by so many harmless substances such as perfume and deodorant that the guards refuse to permit it to be used on them.
A "positive" scan of a visitor, even a false positive, subjects the visitor to having her/his car searched by the yokel prison guards. If they can search a car on that basis, can't they search your house, too?
Visitors are required to pass through a metal detector. It is often set so sensitive that it goes off on the fillings in a visitor's teeth! That's the excuse to turn away a visitor who's traveled for hours. Only the most dedicated will endure the hassles.
Contacts with the media are similarly restricted. Phone calls to the press are curtailed. Where they are allowed, they are recorded.
The media have no more right to access to a prisoner than his family has. That means no video cameras, no photos, no recorder, no access except during regular visiting hours in the visiting room. And a censor is assigned to videotape and monitor the conversation.
Two suits, styled "Petitions For Review," have been filed in the Commonwealth Court challenging some of these abridgements of the Constitutional rights of speech, press and association. Chimenti, et al. v DOC, 858 MD 1997 challenges many aspects of the new telephone regulations. Vorhauer, et al. v Horn, 3 MD 1998 confronts many of the new mail regulations.
The Chimenti action focuses on four separate problems. Firstly, it points out that the new regulation was adopted and enforced in defiance of the law. As much as they would like to, government agencies are not legally allowed to simply issue regulations. The Commonwealth Document Law requires, among other things, that the public have a chance to comment on new regulations before they are implemented. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth must pass on the legitimacy of the regulation and an independent board must pass on its cost effectiveness and public interest. DOC ignored all those legal safeguards to summarily impose its will on the public which pays to receive prisoner phone calls.
Chimenti goes on to assert the constitutional rights of prisoners and the public and to oppose the millions of dollars in "commissions" gouged from the public and paid to the DOC.
Robin M. Lewis, Esq. representing the DOC asserted that, of course DOC did no wrong and can do no wrong. She asked for the petition to be dismissed. The motion is pending.
Commonwealth Court judge James R. Kelley convened an unprecedented hearing on the prisoners' motion for a preliminary injunction in December 1997. The Court's ruling on the injunction awaits the filing of briefs.
The Vorhauer petition for review addresses the mail regulations. Like Chimenti, it challenges the adoption of the regulation without the required legal safeguards. It goes on the assert numerous constitutional rights of both the senders and recipients of the mail.
This Web site is one of the litigants in that suit.
The petitioners in Vorhauer have moved the Court for an injunction to preserve their rights and the matter is pending.
Although existing law clearly requires a judgement in favor of the prisoners and the public, Pennsylvania courts have adopted a hands-off policy where violations of prisoners' rights are concerned. The ultimate success of the litigation remains in doubt unless there is meaningful public support. If you care to offer any comments or assistance, the author invites you to write to him at:
Return to New And Interesting Menu.
Return to Crime Stories Menu.
Return to HOMEPAGE.