User:Lysander/Fighting censorship in the prison system
An incarcerated boylover (serving 15 years for receiving child porn) informs me, "There is a pro-SO [sex offender] newsletter put together by someone named Eric. He puts pictures in it, mainly head shots of youthful actors. This last newsletter was rejected because of a picture of a boy in just shorts. Nothing provocative, nothing indecent, well within the BOP [Bureau of Prisons] policy but the mail room rejected it. I was like 'give us any reason to reject this publication they object to us having.' Even a member of SIS [Special Investigative Services] saw it and thought there was really nothing wrong with the small picture. But the mail room employee thought it was not okay for a sex offender to have it. This Eric guy is not on probation (he was a state inmate) so there is no fear of being sent back to prison. I think it is great he sends the newsletter in but it is guys like him who need to say 'the letter is within BOP policy and I expect my shared thoughts and information about the outside world not to be interfered with as per court cases and the First Amendment."
"The BOP has all these policies and procedures but really they don't have to follow them. Mainly because there is no real accountability if they do not follow them and they make so many obstacles the inmate gets frustrated. Outside parties do not have as many obstacles. The thing is the biggest reform that needs to be done to a system as big as the prison system is the holding of the correctional staff accountable for their actions for breaking their own policies. Let's take the newsletter issue. If the BOP continued to find something 'wrong' with the newsletter and the inmate took the issue to court and the prison or prison staff was found in the wrong for stopping the newsletter the worst that would happen is the prison would have to start letting the newsletter in. Forget the hassle the inmate had to go through and the fact the inmate missed out on a few issues of the newsletter. It is nothing for the mail room to reject a letter and even send it back but the inmate has to spend hours and risk harassment for speaking up for their rights. I'll tell you what -- if the prison staff was fined or their pay affected in some way or even let go for infringing on the rights of an inmate, there would be a lot less personal judgments going on and only those incidents where it is a clear case of policy violations would there be an issue. If anything, Congress has made it harder for an inmate to stand up for their rights. This is not a new subject for you, I know. I guess I just need to rant a little.
"I am perplexed a little on how one from the outside could help effect a change within the prison system, especially one in my position in that I'll be on supervised release. As you found out, keeping contact with inmates does not work out so well when a person is still under the thumb of correctional officers (probation). But it is us that are leaving prison who know best in the sort of free world what is really wrong with the prison system. I think the no felon contact rules (laws) are more to isolate and control the ex-felon than for rehabilitation."
I'm wondering, what would be the best way to secure the rights of prisoners and outside parties to correspond freely? I'm thinking that maybe a Bivens or 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action could be brought for a violation of constitutional rights. But it would probably have to be brought by the outside party, rather than by the prisoner, because prisoners usually have to exhaust their administrative remedies before they can go to court (see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e). That's a process that requires several levels of internal appeals (i.e. to the warden, the regional director, and the general counsel) and can take more than a year; typically, prisoners give up before they finish those internal appeals.
Generally, under states public-records laws, a minimum of $100 and other actual costs are awarded as damages for non-fulfillment of an applicant's Freedom of Information request. Also, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 requires the Special Counsel to "promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or employee who was primarily responsible" if a court finds that records were improperly withheld. I wonder if we could get analogous laws passed providing for damages and disciplinary action if a prison official interferes with correspondence that should've been allowed to go through.
The other issue he brings up is important too, which is that under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 5D1.3, supervised releasees can go back to prison if they associate with convicted felons, for example by sending a prisoner a letter. It's a little bizarre that the justice system forces prisoners to associate with other convicted felons for years, and then after their release bars them from associating with those convicted felons, with the penalty for violating this rule being that they'll be forced once again to be in constant contact with those convicted felons. The rule seems to serve the exact purpose he mentioned, which is to prevent people who have been released from prison from doing much to stand up for the rights or well-being of those who are still incarcerated. Those members of society who haven't been convicted of felonies often don't want to have much to do with those who have, so often the only way for ex-prisoners to find jobs and so on is to look to their fellow outcasts for support.
