Arizona to charge prison visitors...

[BVS]

Anger as Arizona prisons charge visitors $25 to see inmates to help plug budget shortfall | Mail Online

Visitors to Arizona prison are being charged $25 to see inmates in a move believed to be the first of its kind in the U.S., it has emerged.
Relatives and friends of prisoners arriving at the jail have to pay the one-off 'background check fee' on their first visit.

On the department's website, it declares: 'All adult visitors applying on or after July 20, 2011 must pay a one time, non-refundable, $25.00 background check fee in accordance with Department Order 911.'
Campaigners are angry at the development, complaining that friends and family already have to pay large travel costs to get to remote prisons.

 

[bono_212]

What's your opinion on this? It's kind of a shamless moneygrab, but at the same time, it's not exactly an insane demand.

 

[BVS]

What's your opinion on this? It's kind of a shamless moneygrab, but at the same time, it's not exactly an insane demand.

I would say it's pretty insane. A poverty stricken mother has to pay $25 to see her son?



And how common is it that every visitor gets a background check? This seems pretty wasteful and counterintuitive in itself...

 

[coolian2]

utter bollocks.

 

[bono_212]

I would say it's pretty insane. A poverty stricken mother has to pay $25 to see her son?



And how common is it that every visitor gets a background check? This seems pretty wasteful and counterintuitive in itself...

Apparently it's not common at all since they're the first place to EVER require it. No, on further reflection, it's pretty awful to punish friends and families for others mistakes. Incarcerated relatives are hard enough to deal with, adding this is just cruel.

 

[Liesje]

I don't like it.

 

[Pearl]

Geez, how desperate are states for money that they have to resort to this? No, its not right.

 

[yolland]

As far as it goes a criminal background check (but not charging for one) is standard in many states. I've visited a prisoner here in Indiana before, and as I recall, it informs you right on the visitation application form that they're going to run a criminal background check on you first.

At least the fee is one-time and not charged for subsequent visits, still, I'll be surprised if this isn't found unconstitutional. And yes, for poor people, which describes a lot of inmates' families and friends, $25 could definitely be the difference between being able to afford a visit or not; as it is, they're often already paying transportation and lodging fees associated with traveling to the prison.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Has been working marvellous for Alcatraz for many years and there you cannot even visit inmates anymore. (Except the one working in the library)

 

[deep]

And how common is it that every visitor gets a background check? This seems pretty wasteful and counterintuitive in itself...

I believe the background checks have been around for a long time.

I had a friend that did time in a federal prison, Lompoc, in the 1980s.

Serious white collar crime, he was in there with some of the Watergate guys.

One friend would make the 2 hour drive to see him. I thought about it, but when I was told they would take my license and put me in the system, I did not go.

 

[Dfit00]

Typical from Arizona at this point.

Kind of a tough situation when you have a state full of republicans, heat up to your veins, anti-immigrants, anti-americans, the whole state pretty much hates humanity.

In their minds, a fucked up thing would be not to charge the $25.

 

[kramwest1]

Is there a reason to have a background check on visitors?

I could see if police/FBI/etc. wanted to find associates to follow-up leads, but that should be funded by the law enforcement budget.

If it's for security reasons for the prison, it is a prison isn't it?

 

[yolland]

^ From a warden's POV there are upsides and downsides to allowing visits, and one of the downsides is how many problems are created by visitors smuggling in contraband, collaborating with prisoners on scams outside the prison, that kind of thing. Precautions like baggage checks, and forbidding visits from convicted felons or people previously unknown to the prisoner are widely considered effective enough at reducing such problems to be worthwhile. It's probably kind of a moot point in this case though, since by the AZ DoC's own admission, the "background check fee" is really just an accounting fiction; the money actually goes towards the DoC's facilities maintenance fund. The problem with that, constitutionally speaking, is that the DoC is a government entity and thus it's the responsibility of the government to provide for maintaining its facilities. In some circumstances a state may legitimately charge some particular group of citizens more for maintaining a given public function, if they have a reasonable case that the defining feature of said group logically and directly yields a greater obligation--but it's hard to imagine what that would be here: prisoners will stay imprisoned whether anyone visits them or not; it's not the visitors driving facilities upkeep costs. I suppose it's possible that a judge could tell the state to merely rework the accounting aspect of the legislation and then a fee would be okay, but again I can't imagine what an acceptable rework might entail.

The dumbest and most depressing reader comments I've seen on articles about this sneer stuff like, "They should've thought about that before committing crimes" (as if criminals' acts are their loved ones' fault) or even worse, that we shouldn't "feel sorry" for families and friends of prisoners because they've "already showed what kind of people they are by associating with them." WTF, have these people never had families before? If one of my children or one of my siblings somehow wound up in prison then I can virtually guarantee you I'm going to visit them, because I consider myself to have certain lifelong obligations to them that I can't just wave away because they did something wrong. Furthermore, as any criminologist could tell you, the more contacts a prisoner retains with stabilizing figures in his/her life while in prison, the better his/her chances of a smooth readjustment and reintegration into normal society upon release.

 

[kramwest1]

The article specifically says a "background check fee." That seems different to me than security at the prison, which presumably would be metal detectors, pat-downs and supervision for visitors and therefore part of their operating budget. I don't know for sure.

Obviously, it is a bullshit "poor tax" that is right in line with charging for admission a congressperson's town hall.

 

[BAW]

Is there a reason to have a background check on visitors?

I could see if police/FBI/etc. wanted to find associates to follow-up leads, but that should be funded by the law enforcement budget.

If it's for security reasons for the prison, it is a prison isn't it?

Background checks are run on prison visitors for several reasons. You need to be pre-approved to visit, first of all. You can't just show up on visiting day and get in. Convicted felons are not allowed to visit in most prisons so that is one of the reasons. Gang associates are not allowed to visit in most prisons, so that is another reason. A lot of prison visits are not done behind glass, like in jail, they are face to face, contact visits so the prison really needs to know who they are letting in. I've visited prisoners in CA and Idaho and I had to apply and wait to be approved, after my background check.

That said, I can't imagine running a one time background check on someone is so cost prohibitive that it would necessitate a fee. I don't think it costs them anything, other than the man hours needed to run the searches. I can run a basic background on someone for less than $10 in about 5 minutes, and I don't even have law enforcement databases at my disposal.

 

[the iron horse]

Another m$ney grab by BIG GOVERMENT.




I'm just a stupid Libertarian

 

[financeguy]

Another m$ney grab by BIG GOVERMENT.




I'm just a stupid Libertarian

Agreed, Iron Horse.