As I’ve described in previous articles about visiting rules, staff members are quite specific about how much affection prisoners can extend to their visitors. Carole and I have been nurturing our love through our visiting privileges since 2002. The rules authorize us to embrace and to kiss at the start and end of each visit. In all but two prisons we’ve been allowed to hold hands throughout our visit. Three of the five prisons where we’ve visited have allowed me to drape my arm around Carole during the visit.

Staff members are always present in the room when we’re visiting, but there are moments when we can feel comfortable in stealing an extra kiss. I should say that I feel more comfortable than Carole. She is really vigilant about observing the rules. We both cherish our visiting privileges, but sometimes I’m incapable of restraining myself and lean closer to kiss her, either on the cheek or on the lips. The kisses are never inappropriate as far as I’m concerned, as in the world, it is normal for a man to kiss the woman he loves.

I never allow my hands to wander inappropriately, and the extra kisses I give to Carole during our visits never amount to more than the affection I would express if we were in a public restaurant. The visiting room is the only place we can share together until my release, so I cannot behave in a way that could result in our further separation.

Other prisoners are not always so respectful of the rules. Carole and I have been visiting in three prisons where some prisoners regularly had sexual relations with their visitors. In one prison, the room was as crowded as a busy bus terminal. Four guards patrolled the room, and two surveillance cameras recorded the visits. Children were present. Despite the inappropriateness, we saw a man having sexual intercourse with his wife in a corner; we’ve seen women performing oral sex on their visitors as they hid beneath bobbing jackets.

When I transferred to minimum-security camps, we saw more sexual relations between prisoners and visitors. The guards sometimes caught prisoners in the act, and other times prisoners were caught because the family members of other prisoners reported the disrespectful behavior. No civilized person wanted sexual relations taking place where children were walking around freely, but some prisoners and their visitors lacked a sense of propriety. Last month, a former businessman who had graduated from an Ivy League school was cited for having sexual relations with his wife in the visiting room. Sanctions will keep him locked in segregation for a few months, and he will be transferred for disciplinary reasons to a higher security prison. He also will lose visiting and telephone privileges for several months.

The consequences for violating visiting rules sting. Carole and I do not place our visiting privileges in peril.

The post Sex in Prison Visiting Rooms appeared first on Prison News Blog.

As a prison family, Carole and I have had to cope with prison visiting rules since 2002. Our love and commitment to each other is strong, and we have learned to nurture our intimacy through words. Clearly, however, the rules sometimes interfere.

When my wife sits beside me, I feel an urge to wrap her in my arms, to kiss her, to touch her. Prison administrators consider such expressions of love as threats against the security of the institution. Despite Congressional findings as in the Second Chance Act that show close family ties can lower recidivism rates, prison visiting rules reflect the prison culture’s insistence that oppressive regulations serve the interests of society best.

Carole and I cope with the emotional struggle of separation by writing, talking, and taking advantage of whatever opportunities we have to share our lives together. We live as if in continuous preparation for the love we will create, make, and nurture upon my release. This conscious commitment has carried us through the past seven years, and we live in anticipation of our lives together. We’d be kind of like that couple in the 40-year-old virgin.

Not all prison families make it through the paralyzing rules of imprisonment. Many prisoners lose their families as a direct consequence of the physical separation. Administrators are indifferent to the emotional cruelty visiting rules inflict on prison families. Their expressed concern is security of the institution.

Some prisoners push the rules. They look for opportunities to grope or have sexual relationships. Some succeed, others do not. The penalties for being caught, however, are severe. Such sanctions will include a loss of visiting and telephone privileges. It is the threat of such sanctions that keep Carole and I vigilant in following visiting rules. Most prisoners try to do the same, though some cannot resist the human pull of attraction. If caught, they suffer the consequences.

The post Limited Intimacy in Prison appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Visiting privileges depend upon the security level of the prison. In higher-security institutions, the atmosphere feels more oppressive because of the higher concentration of guards, the surveillance cameras, the rigid requirements that limit prisoners from interacting with visitors. Those regulations exist, of course, because the classification of prisoners held in such institutions suggests those prisoners present a threat to security. In minimum-security camps, the atmosphere feels much less oppressive, as administrators do not perceive the same level of threat from prisoners held in open institutions.

Regardless of the security level, prisoners must send application forms to proposed visitors. Generally, the rules hold that prisoners must have had a relationship that precedes confinement for visiting privileges. The visitor must authorize administrators to perform a background check to determine suitability for visiting privileges. If the prisoner has family members with criminal backgrounds, administrators may deny visiting privileges. This policy applies to husband and wives, as well as fathers and sons.

Once approved for visiting, visitors may come to the prison on approved days. Administrators may limit visiting times. At the Taft Prison Camp, where I currently am confined, I may visit every Friday. If I choose to visit on Saturdays or Sundays, I may have only two or three visits per months. Visits generally last a maximum of six hours.

In the camp where I’m confined, prisoners have more freedom of movement. We’re allowed to choose form available seating, and we can hold hands with our visitors. We can walk without requesting permission. In higher-security prisons, guards assign seating and prisoners may not move without requesting permission.

In federal prison, prisoners are allowed to embrace and kiss their visitors at the start and at the conclusion of each visit. Other than hand holding in camps, guards do not permit additional contact. Guards enforce rules by terminating visits of those who misbehave and by suspending further visiting privileges.

Nurturing family relationships under such strict conditions presents a challenge for prisoners and their family members. To exacerbate these challenges, administrators also limit prisoners to an average of 10 minutes of telephone access per day. These obstacles complicate relationships with children and place stress on marriages. My wife and I write frequently, and we work hard to keep our love thriving. Prison policies hinder family relationships, and they contribute to high recidivism rates.

I am in total agreement with judicial decision that would lower prison population levels. Too many people who should serve sanctions in community confinement centers fill our prison system. Prisons are limited resources, and taxpayers should demand that they be used to confine those who prey upon society. A significant portion of prison populations could release to society without any threat to the public.

It is preposterous to believe that keeping a man in prison for a longer term somehow makes him more prepared for release. Rather, a prisoner’s adjustment pattern influences his chances for success, not the number of calendar pages that have turned. By locking so many people in prison who do not need to be in prison, this system has become a huge burden to taxpayers. The system meets the needs of suppliers who provide goods and services to the system, but it does not serve the interests of taxpayers. I believe that only those who present a danger to society should be in prison. We should require others to serve community-based sanctions at their own expense.

The post Prison Visiting and Judicial Decisions appeared first on Prison News Blog.

The rules in every prison where I’ve been confined for the past 21-plus years specifically stated that prisoners were allowed to hug and kiss their visitors briefly at the beginning of each visit and again at the end of each visit. Most lower-security prisons allowed prisoners to hold the hands of their adult visitors during the visit; in medium-security and high-security prisons the rules were stricter and did not allow hand holding or any physical contact once the visitors sat. Guards were sometimes more tolerant of prisoners who wanted to hold their small children during a visit.

In a few articles such as Visiting at FPC Florence, Lompoc Visiting, and Better Visits with Mom, I’ve described my experiences with visiting in several prisons. Regardless of which prison in which I’ve been confined, prisoners would test the boundaries. That was understandable to me, as I know what it was like to long for the loving touch of my wife. Yet I also knew the severe consequences of violating prison visiting room rules.

Obviously, the guards enforced the rules much more stringently in higher-security prisons. In those types of facilities, surveillance cameras recorded every action. Guards stationed in off-site locations monitored the prisoners, and disciplined those who were caught trying to kiss or tough their visitors during the visit. Sanctions frequently included loss of visiting and telephone privileges for months or years.

In minimum-security camps, the officers were less obtrusive. Some officers were permissive in allowing prisoners to embrace their wives a few times during the visit, or even hold their arms around them on occasion. Other officers were by-the-book, but camps were certainly more relaxed than higher-security prisons.

Those who recently transferred to minimum-security camps, however, sometimes misunderstood the relaxed atmosphere. They misperceived the friendliness of staff and openness of the facility as an invitation or free pass to grope, fondle, or relax their inhibitions in expressing affection for their wives. If they were caught, however, they would deeply regret their indiscretion.

I’ve known several prisoners who have been cited with violating the rules of visiting rooms. Generally, for those in minimum-security camps, sanction for violating physical contact rules include transfer to higher-security prisons across state lines, a period of time in segregation, loss of visiting, telephone, and commissary privileges.

Certainly, I understand the temptation to hold or kiss my wife longer. Yet I know the pain we both would feel if guards sanctioned me with a loss of contact. My wife is protective of our visiting privileges. She loathes the prison system that keeps me from her, but she is determined to follow all rules to the letter in order to assure that we always have access to each other.

I advise new prisoners to understand all the rules and practices of their institutions. They may choose how they want to adjust, yet they should also know that their loved ones pay consequences, too, when guards impose disciplinary sanctions.

The post Watch For Prison Visiting Rules appeared first on Prison News Blog.

Over the past 20 years, I have served time in more than 19 separate institutions, with long stretches in USP Atlanta, FCI McKean, FCI Fairton, FCI Fort Dix, FPC Florence, FPC Lompoc, and the prison camp at Taft, where I am currently confined. Tens of thousands of men with whom I’ve served time have no ties to society. Such alienation from strong support networks, I am sure, contributes to the high recidivism rates.

Since more than 95 percent of all prisoners eventually return to their communities, it would seem that taxpayers would support programs that encourage inmates to keep close ties with law-abiding citizens. Yet for some esoteric reason, prison administrators erect barriers that block those in prison from connecting with society.

Prisoners have three potential methods of keeping ties or building ties with those outside of prison. Those include the telephone, visits, and written correspondence. Yet prison administrators limit inmate access to all three.

Telephone calls for prisoners are not only much more costly than in society, in federal prison we are blocked from using the telephone for more than an average of 10 minutes per day. Because of that limitation, I need to reserve all of my 300 monthly phone minutes to speak with my wife, who is my primary source of support. Yet the 300-minute restriction means that I cannot use the telephone to call my mother, my sisters, or any friends with whom I would like to talk. Prison administrators make no distinction with regard to security level; they prohibit all federal prisoners from using the telephone for more than an average of 10 minutes per day.
Visits are another possibility to maintain ties to society. Yet prison administrators restrict those as well. Here, at the minimum-security camp in Taft, we are allotted 20 potential visiting points each month. Yet visits are only available on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal Holidays. If we visit on a Friday, we are charged 4 points; if we visit on a Saturday or a federal holiday, we are charged 8 points; if we visit on a Sunday, we are charged 6 points. This means that unless visitors can visit on Fridays, we are limited to three visits per month. It is a struggle to keep close family ties with such limitations.

Keeping ties through correspondence is another option, yet even that is difficult. I write every day, and I strive to keep those in my network of support current through regular postings I make to MichaelSantos.net and this blog. The world, however, has changed. Snail mail isn’t nearly as popular or convenient as e-mail. Although some federal prisons like FCI Terminal Island, FPC Victorville, and FCI Coleman offer e-mail services, none of the prisons where I have been confined has made e-mail accessible to federal prisoners.

The irony is that prison administrators pay lip service to the importance of maintaining close family ties. The Management Training Corporation is the private management company that currently presides over operations at Taft Camp, and this group has a reputation for preparing offenders for reentry. Since this management group took over operations at Taft, several slogans have appeared announcing MTC’s commitment to preparing offenders for law-abiding lives upon release.
I am hopeful that those who make decisions at MTC will recognize the link between strong support groups and preparations for success. If they do, perhaps we will see more opportunities to cultivate ties to society.

The post Hoping for More Access to Telephones and Visiting Time appeared first on Prison News Blog.