Dear Cayenne:

I wanted to let you know the  in the new proposed visiting regs, §3173, states that prisoners with history of misconduct in §3177(b)(1), whether convicted or not, can be denied contact and non-contact visits altogether.  This means that if there regulations are approved, inmates can
selectively be punished by having their visits withheld.

We already know this practice is unofficially used, but to see it in writing in this manner is shocking.

Susan 

It appears that the revised visiting regs state that no sex offender - regardless of whether their crime wass directed toward a child - will ever be allowed visits from minor family members.

We know that sex offenders are often arrested for a minor situation which has been exaggerated and overblown by a vindictive former spouse or girlfriend. In fact, if the truth was known, 30% of the people in prison in California are political prisoners who have been "tagged" with the label so that
they can be kept locked away without any public support.  Very few people want to help an accused sex offender, even though in a large percentage of cases the inmate may have done a minor misdeed which was inflated or often, be totally innocent.

To say that no sex offender can ever have visits from minor children in their family, even though the offense may be completely unrelated to a child, is a cruel and unusual punishment.

I am a taxpayer and I resent your psychological torture and power games which are tearing families apart.  I for one will participate in a lawsuit, attend any and all pickets and work on an initiative
campaigns. Delete this one.  Riots will ensue if you do this.

Susan Randall
UNION Database Coordinator

Mr. Rick Grentz:

The first comment is that nowhere in this document is there an indication of a new hearing although there are major revisions to the point that the original hearings are moot when this document is
compared to the original. 

A new hearing for all parties must be held BEFORE this document can be considered for implementation. The most egregious changes are to the ability of inmates to work with their attorneys
and/or the defence team. 

The laws restricting the rights for the inmates to appeal, prepare writs, file complaints, sue, communicate with lawyers or legal staff is already severely limited by the evidence of the steady
reduction of these actions in  the last few years. Further limitations will be a continuance of the 
failure of the justice system to afford inmates a chance at any justice at all by the detention system. This is a hypocritical, self serving effort to keep inmates incarcerated.

Page 11 requires a new visiting questionnaire every two years. This is nothing but a paperwork obstacle to visits and clearly reveals the real intention to limit and eventually eliminate visits.

The inmate must mail a form every two years for each visitor and know when, the visitor must 
>return it even if nothing changed. A change of any significance, like a felony by the visitor, will show up on the computer that is used for EVERY VISIT, all the other changes are trivial. Is this a
make-work for the COs to justify more staff and/or another impediment to the visitor?

Page 21, 38, 41 Have placed the power of refusing visits with "evidence" exists for some misdeed. This places CDC in the position of changing the constitution by declaring "presumed guilty". This is
beyond your authority. Then, even if declared not-guilty, a requirement to provide a written request to resume visits is imposed. Other restrictions on Family Visits are onerous and unnecessary and certainly do not reflect any glimmer of a desire to "promote visits".

Page 22. Common sense would say a PERMANENT disability should not require a re-submission of information every two years. This again reflects the impression of a bureaucracy finding another way to make-work.

Page 44 to 59 have a number of objections that the legal community should address but one that is especially disturbing is the handling of legal papers where on page 55 the staff may read based on
the EXPRESSED consent!. This is an invitation for fraud by the staff to claim the right over objections of the inmate. Who in CDC believes anything the inmates have to say? This must be written consent. The pages include a number of vague warnings about minor infractions and resultant
expulsions of the legal team for extensive periods. This in light of the severe time limits to prepare for appeals, writs, etc. seems to underscore the CDC attitude of allowing injustices to go uncorrected simply because they are inmates.

Finally, to determine that only certain parts of the document are subject to comment is beyond your authority. It is all up to us to decide if you have made a document worth implementing, not you. The
document as now written has been made difficult to even read with the shuffling of paragraphs and therefore items can easily be missed that cry for correction. My recommendation is that you produce a decent, latest copy after this iteration and present something that can be read and understood and again corrected prior to another hearing.

Bob Driscoll

Rick Grenz, Chief,  
Regulation and Policy Management Branch 
Department of Corrections 
P.O. Box 942883 
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001 
 
Re:  Notice of Change to Proposed Visiting Regulations 
 
Dear Mr. Grenz: 
 
First I want to thank you for removing from §3170. General Visiting, the portion at beginning of (a)  Visiting is a privilege.  However,.  This restores visiting as a right guaranteed by the California  Constitution.
 
The problem is that in §3176.3 Restriction, Revocation or Suspension of an Inmate's Visits, (c) the word "visiting Privileges" is again used, and also used in (d); (e)(1); (A); (B)(2)(f).  Right in your document at (B)(2), it states, "A classification committee may impose a loss of visits for 180 days,. . ."  To keep the regulations in harmony, would not the words "a loss of visits," be a better choice of words, instead of using "visiting privileges."
 
In §3179. Appeals Relating to Visiting, (d) Again the words "visiting privileges" are inserted, and to bring into harmony, this should be changed to "'Any loss of visits' shall be promptly approved. . ."
 
In light of the above conflict in wording, I would suggest that the words "visiting privileges" be removed and replaced with "a loss of visits."  As this would reflect that visiting is a right, but can be removed for cause, after a due process hearing and appeal.
 
Thank your for your attention to this matter.
 
Sincerely yours,

Janice D. Crumley