On March 10th, a public hearing will be held on several proposed policy changes at the Adult Correctional Institutions.  Of the four proposals, two appear problematic:

Probation and Parole Management and Administration: Pre-Employment Background Investigations (Draft Policy 28.10-4 DOC dated 12/22/09) This formalizes background checks for prospective DOC employees, which is an obvious need for such a sensitive employer.  However, what it lacks is any procedure granting the applicant a chance to refute the contents of their BCI background check.  There are often errors in these databases, and the BCI is well known to lack dispositions of arrests.  The City of Boston, like several other jurisdictions, have comprehensive codes involving background checks and at what stage of the process a criminal inquiry should be conducted.  One key element is the opportunity to challenge and/or explain this "mark" on someone's permanent record.  Without codifying this stage, expedience (or laziness) could result in discrimination, both intentional and erroneous, against excellent candidates for RIDOC positions.

But more to the point...

Confidentiality of Medical Information (Photocopying Excerpt ONLY) (Draft Policy 18.59-4 DOC dated 07-18-08) In an attempt to further revenue generated by a captive consumer, the ACI has (for several years) begun instituting rising fees upon an impoverished population: the prisoners.  This proposal is an amendment to photocopying fees of prisoners' medical records, and would provide them free of cost to medical professionals for "continuity of patient care."  But for an inmate to gain access, they will pay 25 cents per page for the first 100 pages, and ten cents per page thereafter.  

"Indigent Inmates" are defined as those who have not had a deposit in their account of over $10 in the past two months and are not employed (inmate pay ranges from $10 - $90 per month, with a third of it "frozen" until release).  Regarding this policy and other payments, such as fees to conduct legal research (cases are blindly ordered at 5 cents per page), Medical Visit fees (basically $3 per visit), prescribed medication ($3 per portion)... prisoners are put into Debt Accounts.  "One half of all future deposits will be used as an offset to the charges until such time as the charges are paid in full."  Part of the meager paycheck is also used to fuel the Debt Account.  And newly added: "Any remaining debt at the time of an inmate's release from institutional custody is considered a legal debt and is subject to civil remedy by the state."

There have always been oppressed classes of people in this country, most of whom were (at the time) justified by the mainstream body politic.  Generally, it has been the human rights activists - be they Abolitionists, Suffragists, or what have you - who are tasked with using Constitutional Law to protect the minority from Tyranny of the Majority.  In the instant case, we have RI General Law.

This Law states "Costs shall be assessed ... based upon each person's ability to pay, following a public hearing of proposed fee schedules. Each offender's family income and number of dependents shall be among the factors taken into consideration when determining ability to pay."

We just established that by prison rules, it is impossible to be considered "indigent" no matter how poor one may be.  We also see how the policy still charges a prisoner, whether indigent or not, and generates negative "Debt Accounts."  Upon discharge a prisoner is then docked from his or her Frozen Account.  The Law which authorizes these Frozen Accounts, which are being held by Keefe Commissary Network, only allows funds used for "payment of any court fees and court costs required to be paid for the filing, prosecution, and defense of any action."  It does not allow for payment for medical treatment nor any other costs incurred during confinement.

Further consolidating the Debtor Prison model is that Keefe Commissary Network has signed a state contract which mandates they will give interest to prisoners' accounts.  They agreed to this in 2002 and again in 2007.  This corporation also has custodial power over prisoners' funds in Texas, Florida, Washington, and Massachusetts (to name a few), and it is likely they pool all of the funds in a single mutual fund generating "x" amount of interest.  In RI, the interest is paid out at abysmal banking rates (1-2%) and it is paid to the State rather than the prisoner.  They violate the contract, violate US Supreme Court affirmation (you cannot separate interest form the principal), while reaping a nice profit for themselves. Keefe has been party to kickback scandals in Florida and Missouri, so they deserve very little presumption of innocence.

Subjecting these debts to "civil remedy" puts a new spin on having "Paid one's debt to society."  Now a released prisoner, no matter how well intentioned, is put back into the community with still another guillotine suspended over their heads.  This scenario could have implications around clogging the civil courts, people's credit ratings, their probationary status, and possibly returning to prison over a few hundred dollars.

This public hearing, at Minimum Security, offers an opportunity to weigh in on this scheme that attempts to balance a prison budget on the backs of indentured servitude.