I got a quit disturbing email today. A guy that is on my web site got a note that the state of Arizona will file criminal charges against him because he uses the internet for advertising. it seems that arizona has a law against this? The ad they found from him was on a paying web site, but it's also on mine.

Does anybody has more info about this law?

I have a question? How does he have a chance to use the internet. The only way my Fiancee could ever get on there was when he was in computer class?????????????

well, he's on internet, so that is using internet in their eyes...he sent me an ad to be on my web site...that's also forbidden,...guess the AZ prison system has too much to hide?

Something is not right. Too many loopholes on that charge of not being allowed on the internet. Unless he is doing something ilegal (selling child porn or something)


For one thing the Arizona Department of Corrections has him on there.

For another thing you can't control who will put you on line. Anybody can make a web page with out your knowledge or permisson.

I think he can fight this through appeals. It's a BOGUS charge.

He can probably fight it, but who knows if he will get anywhere. I don't know about Az but NC would probably just laugh.

Oh this does not look good. If Arizona does this than the other States will soon follow.

AN ACT


AMENDING SECTIONS 31-235 AND 41-1604, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 31, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 31-242; RELATING TO PRISONERS.



(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)



Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 31-235, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

31-235. Prisoner correspondence; definitions

A. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MARK all mail written by a prisoner committed to the state department of corrections shall be marked by the department indicating that the mail was sent from a prison maintained by this state.

B. An inmate shall not send mail to the victim of the offense for which the inmate was convicted, or to members of the victim's family or household denoted by the victim, if the victim has requested not to receive mail pursuant to section 13-4411.01. The department shall inform the inmate of persons to whom the inmate is forbidden to send mail pursuant to this section and section 13-4411.01. The department shall impose appropriate sanctions, including reducing or denying earned release credits, against an inmate who corresponds or attempts to correspond with a person in violation of the request pursuant to section 13-4411.01.

C. AN INMATE SHALL NOT SEND MAIL TO OR RECEIVE MAIL FROM A COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER OR REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL IMPOSE APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS, INCLUDING REDUCING OR DENYING EARNED RELEASE CREDITS, AGAINST AN INMATE IF EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:

1. THE INMATE CORRESPONDS OR ATTEMPTS TO CORRESPOND WITH A COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER OR REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE.

2. ANY PERSON ACCESSES THE PROVIDER'S OR SERVICE'S INTERNET WEB SITE AT THE INMATE'S REQUEST.

C. D. On receipt of notice that an inmate has violated subsection B OR C of this section, the department shall review all of the inmate's outgoing mail to ensure that no further correspondence is sent to the victim or to the victim's family or household members who have requested not to receive inmate mail OR TO THE COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER OR REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE OR ANY PERSON WHO ACCESSES THE PROVIDER'S OR SERVICE'S INTERNET WEB SITE.

E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:

1. "COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER" HAS THE SAME MEANING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-3004.

2. "REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE" HAS THE SAME MEANING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-3004.

Sec. 2. Title 31, chapter 2, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 31-242, to read:

31-242. Internet access; violation; classification; definitions

A. EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AN INMATE SHALL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET THROUGH THE USE OF A COMPUTER, COMPUTER SYSTEM, NETWORK, COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER OR REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE.

B. AN INMATE WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.

C. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:

1. "COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER" HAS THE SAME MEANING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-3004.

2. "COMPUTER" HAS THE SAME MEANING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2301, SUBSECTION E.

3. "COMPUTER SYSTEM" HAS THE SAME MEANING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2301, SUBSECTION E.

4. "NETWORK" MEANS A COMPLEX OF INTERCONNECTED COMPUTER OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS OF ANY TYPE.

5. "REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE" HAS THE SAME MEANING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-3004.

Sec. 3. Section 41-1604, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

41-1604. Duties and powers of director

A. The director shall:

1. Be responsible for the overall operations and policies of the department.

2. Maintain and administer all institutions and programs within the department, including prisons, reception and diagnostic centers, conservation camps, community correctional centers and such other facilities and programs as may be required and established for the custody, control, correction, treatment and rehabilitation of all adult offenders WHO ARE committed to the department.

3. Be responsible for the administration and execution of all community supervision services, to include INCLUDING those for adult offenders WHO ARE released in accordance with law.

4. Develop a program to provide uniform statewide community supervision field services in this state and employ parole or community supervision officers based on qualifications prescribed by the director, including physical, psychological and educational qualifications and practical experience.

5. Be responsible for the development of policies and programs which THAT shall be recommended to the governor and the legislature for the purpose of improving the various adult correctional programs of the THIS state.

6. Develop and establish a uniform statewide method of reporting statistics as related to this chapter.

7. Employ deputy directors and other key personnel based on qualifications prescribed by the director which THAT require education and practical experience.

8. Adopt rules pursuant to chapter 6 of this title for the development of incentives to encourage good behavior and the faithful performance of work by prisoners.

9. ADOPT RULES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 6 OF THIS TITLE TO LIMIT INMATE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET THROUGH THE USE OF A COMPUTER, COMPUTER SYSTEM, NETWORK, COMPUTER SERVICE PROVIDER OR REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE.

B. The director may:

1. Adopt rules to implement the purposes of the department and the duties and powers of the director.

2. Take any administrative action to improve the efficiency of the department, including but not limited to the following:

(a) Create new divisions or units or consolidate divisions or units.

(b) Transfer employees between the various divisions and units of the department.

(c) Shift duties between divisions or units.

(d) Delegate to appropriate personnel the administrative functions, powers or duties that the director believes can be competently, efficiently and properly performed. The director shall not delegate the responsibilities in subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 5 of this section.

(e) Transfer adult inmates between adult institutions or adult facilities.

(f) Authorize work crews to perform acceptable tasks in any part of the state.

(g) Accept unconvicted persons pursuant to a court order for purposes of examination and treatment regarding such person's competency to understand any stage of a criminal proceeding after indictment or information or their ability to assist in their own defense.

(h) Accept convicted yet unsentenced persons pursuant to a court order for purposes of conducting a mental health examination or a diagnostic evaluation.

(i) Appoint certain employees of the department to peace officer status for purposes only of guarding, transporting or pursuing persons under the jurisdiction of the department and appoint certain employees of the department to peace officer status for purposes of investigating or arresting persons who commit or attempt to commit offenses directly relating to the operations of the department. Personnel appointed by the director pursuant to this subdivision For purposes of investigating and arresting persons who commit or attempt to commit offenses directly relating to the operations of the department, PERSONNEL WHO ARE APPOINTED BY THE DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION have the authority and power of peace officers only while engaged in investigating or arresting persons who commit or attempt to commit offenses directly relating to the operations of the department. Peace officers of the department shall not preempt the authority and jurisdiction of established agencies of this state and political subdivisions of this state. Such officers shall notify agencies of this state and political subdivisions of this state before conducting an investigation within the jurisdiction of the agency and before making an arrest within the jurisdiction of the agency and shall ask, except in an emergency, if the agency wishes to participate, perform the investigation or arrest the person to be arrested before proceeding. Personnel WHO ARE appointed as peace officers by the director shall have the minimum qualifications established for peace officers pursuant to section 41-1822. Personnel WHO ARE appointed by the director pursuant to this subdivision are not eligible to participate in funding provided by the peace officers' training fund established by section 41-1825 or in the public safety personnel retirement system except as otherwise provided in title 38, chapter 5, article 4.

(j) Operate travel reduction programs that are subsidized by the department for employees who commute between work and home by ***pools, carpools and buses or in vehicles that are purchased or leased by the department.







APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR MARCH 31, 2000.


FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE MARCH 31, 2000.

Renee
If someone files a good appeal against the prison system especailly one on the topics of human rights and habeous corpus, ....No..... they do not laugh. It makes them very angry because they have to hire an attorney and go to court just like everyone else and prove their case.

They like that they can intimidate most people in not fighting back through thier own weapon of choice. The court system.

Just wanted to add. A prisoner has a right to file civl charges against the prison and the individual correctional officers.
Be prepared for retaliation when you do though.
It is a long process but if you win the case you collect the judgement when you are released.

All of you have good points. The main reason they can do this in Arizona and in any State as far as that is concerned, is that Unless the unit the inmate is at allows access to a computer and the internet for the inmates, it is considered by the DOC to be stealing from the Dept of Corrections. It is the same if the inmate uses Stationary from the DOC or takes a stamp from the DOC or anything of that nature......

If an inmate has specific permission from his unit to use the internet, then they will let him do that. The only way a Web Site can be set up by an inmate is for someone on the outside to do it for him. He is not allowed to do that himself.

Donna

Donna,
The way I read the mandate is that they can prohibit prisoners from usuing outside sources to communicate through the internet. Not necessary the internet at the DOC site.
I hope I understood that wrong.

C. AN INMATE SHALL NOT SEND MAIL TO OR RECEIVE MAIL FROM A COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER OR REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL IMPOSE APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS, INCLUDING REDUCING OR DENYING EARNED RELEASE CREDITS, AGAINST AN INMATE IF EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:

1. THE INMATE CORRESPONDS OR ATTEMPTS TO CORRESPOND WITH A COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER OR REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE.

2. ANY PERSON ACCESSES THE PROVIDER'S OR SERVICE'S INTERNET WEB SITE AT THE INMATE'S REQUEST


blah blah blah


A. EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AN INMATE SHALL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET THROUGH THE USE OF A COMPUTER, COMPUTER SYSTEM, NETWORK, COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER OR REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE.



I think we are the remote computing service.

WHOA.. This is BS.. This in effect supresses inmates First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech!?? Please tell me if I am getting this wrong.. Where is the danger of an inmate communicating. Sounds like since the net is the global communications equalizer, they don't want inmates to have any access to it.

I think this may be something for our upcoming projects forum. This is a VERY important issue we all need to pay attention to. This could be a policy that the other DOC's adopt to muzzle inmates.

David

I was hoping you would look into that. Did you interpret that the same way I did?

You know we really need to send you to law school David. LOL
We need a PTO lawyer on retainer.

Uhg.. No Law School for me! I did so much legal typing on the inside I thought I would puke.. I don't like the law much because it's a game for those with long $$.. :)
I'm hoping one day we can run down someone that really knows their stuff and open a forum with them in it..
I have a good friend that is a lawyer but she does not practice criminal law.. I can ask general questions but that is about it..
Come on with the money though! I'm going back to school.. LOL.. :)

David

(CONT.) BUT THIS.. I'm gonna have to get involved with..
This smells really bad and could spread to other DOC's.. I wonder if ACLU and other org's know about this..
Soraya, talk to me..

David

well David, I completely agree with you. I even heard that AZ prisoners are not allowed to have any (new) pen pals. What does the prison system have to hide??? Damn...makes me angry. I talked to the guy that informed me about this and he says the exact same thing. The law is wrong, but it'll last until somebody finds it worthy to put his money in a lawsuit, and they'll have to take it all the way up to the 9th court? I wonder if we could do something? Like write those organizations or a petition or something?

Yes, this might indeed be something for the 'project' forum. we all need to put our shoulders under this before it gets out of hand. If one state can get away with it, others will follow. And once the prisoners are by law forbidden contact with the outside world, there's no telling what'll happen

For one thing aren't they (DOC)steppin on our rights?
How can they control who I write to in prison?
WHo I talk about on the internet.
If I publish the letter I recieve that is my right.
How can the DOC hold a prisoner accountable for what I have the right to do?

We need to dig into the history of this new law and find out what happened to casue this drastic change.
I have family in Phoenix that works for the state maybe he can dig up some information how this started.

Looks like Arizona is scared about somebody talkin about them,.

GUYS, WE REALLY DO NEED TO GET ON THIS-I AM SURE THEY WILL CRY SECURITY REASONS BUT THIS IS A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS ISSUE--

SHERRI

Pam requested some info about this law and received this email:

The legislation you asked me about came about several years ago. A Representative who is no longer with the House (McGrath) was apparently concerned about the number of prison pen pal websites and the scamming of women by male inmates over the internet. There were also security concerns about inmates having access to the internet, where they could contact minors, hack into other computers, steal information, and so on. Some inmates are in prison for committing computer related crimes.

While reviewing the statutes, I noticed that they restrict internet access for prisoners "except as authorized by the department." This means that the department of corrections, which oversees Arizona's prisons, could allow some inmates to use the internet, for example, for online classes or other legitimate reasons. This is something that would be determined by corrections department management.

If you would like any further information on this or other legislation, or if I can be of any help in the future, please feel free to contact me.

Respectfully,



Mark Clark
State Representative


Since when are prisoners allowed to use the internet? the guys I know in AZ hardly ever come close to a computer...

We have to analyze this and see if it pertains to others using it for them.

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that those inmates who have friends or family that have set up a web site for them, like Paul Colella for example, would be illegal?

That is what I am reading. Active communications on the Internet. Especially soliciting Pen Pals and people whom they can communicate with - spread the word about what is going on inside the walls.

Yep, it seems that they are very scared that the outside world will find out what's going on inside the AZ prisons.

Did you know that the SHU inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison in California cannot receive any liturature that has a Web Site address on it. There is a Judge in Crescent City (that is where the Prison is), that wants to know if the inmate are having this problem.

e-mail report Pelican Bay State Prison
Any person housed at PBSP that is denied correspondence because it contains internet-related/email should immediately contact the court and refer to this recent case ruling. Judge Weir can be reached at Del Norte Superior Court, 450 H. Street, Crescent City, CA 95532.

I don't understand why PBSP is doing this considering I don't know of ANY CA facility (county, state or fed) that allows internet access.

I don't know either but it has been happening for quite awhile. I once sent him papers to sign up for a pen-pal site and they would not give them to him. I had to re-send them and make sure I cut off any refference to any web site. Recently I sent him some medical info he wanted and they just simply trashed all of it because I missed one of the web-site listings. Go Figure

How anal-retentive can they get?

I personally think that we need to contact the national office or the ACLU. About this and the beatings in Florida.

I agree with Pam.

I had the same problems too, so now I always copy/paste in Word, before printing

That's a good idea Soraya :)

Well, well well. So Canada isn't the only place paranoid aboutthe Internet and inmates. Last December I typed out a letter to an inmate at Kingston Pen, here in Ontario, on my email account and emailed it to myself, then printed it off to mail to him. I got an email from a GUARD saying "I cut all references to your email address off of your letter so if *your friend* objects, I just want you to know that I didn't want the other inmates to be sending unsolicited emails to you."

I use "note pad" when I type a letter and it can go stright to the printer from there.

It doesn't look any different then an electric typewritter except it say at the top/center "untitled".

errh...correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought inmates don't have access to emails? how can they send you emails then>

As far as I know, no inmates in North Carolina have any access to the Internet.

I don't believe that restricting inmate usage of the Internet is a First Amendment violation because inmates have other means of communicating with the outside world. If we say that not allowing them access to the Internet is a violation, then we must provide access to every person in the United States. Internet service isn't even available in some rural areas, and there are plenty of schools that don't have Internet access yet.

I have to disagree that this is a human rights issue. Internet service is far from being a basic human right. Let's straighten out the REAL human rights issues before we start wasting time and energy on the luxury items!

We should be more concerned about health care, sanitation, mental health services, humane treatment, etc., than we are about inmates being able to be online.

Yes, I would LOVE it if my husband could email me or we could chat online. That would be fabulous. But, I'd much rather see him have adequate healthcare (and that definitely isn't happening) and nutritious food than to have an email account. If I'm going to fight for something, I want to fight for something that can mean the difference between life and death or improve the quality of life for inmates.

I'll be the first to say that I don't like the NCDOC's policies about the Internet, but I can't say they're anywhere near the top of my list of things that need to be changed in the system.

I've heard that in some prisons inmates have access to computers, but of course only as part of an education program. I'm not for sure if that would also mean access to the internet and I would think that if they did have internet access they wouldn't be able to set up an e-mail account! But you never know!

I write with guys from almost every state, some have access to a computer for their education or their job, but not one of the inmates has any kind of access to internet, nor know of anyone who has....

I don't want to sound ignorant here but... Is this saying or including such as "penpal ads" meaning that an inmate CAN NOT subscribe to such a service through say, a third party. If I am reading this right, I am mad as hell!!! I mean there are sites all over where one may read the stories of those who are, say, wrongly convicted, with the internet being the ONLY way for their stories to get out seeking their only avenue of support! Or where they are letting "US" on the outside hear of the many abuses that go on in side. Can they stop this? How far can something like this go? I have read articles from attorneys seeking aid/relief for their clients. Can THEY be stopped since, obviously, their info came from the one incarcerated?
WOW... UNBELIEVEABLE!! Somebody tell me I didn't read this right!

I;m afraid that is how it is. I was asked to take an ad of my web site, that I retrieved by a 3rd party. It was this 3rd party that asked me to take it off, just to make sure the inmate wouldn't get punished. It's really stupid, because I could say I looked up his name and number and posted an ad without him even knowing about it....I've received this email from this 3rd party yesterday:

HERE IS WHAT THE ACLU FAXED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE
ARIZONA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS :

June 11, 2002
To Terry Stewart, Director
Arizona Dept of Corrections
1601 W Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Director Stewart,

The Arizona Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU National
Prison Project, and the ACLU Technology and Liberty
Program have been contacted by many persons about the
implementation of House Bill 2376, enacted in 2000.
As we are sure you are aware, this legislation, which
amended ARS 31-235 and added ARS 31-242, makes it a
criminal offense for an Arizona prisoner to "have
access to the Internet" ARS 31-242 (A).

Even before this legislation, Arizona prisoners had no
direct access to the Internet, since they have no
access to computers that are linked to the outside
world. But House Bill 2376 goes much further and
attempts to suppress speech by free persons outside
prison walls. Prisoners may be disciplined if they
"correspond or attempt to correspond with a
communications service provider or remote computing
service". ARS 31-235 (C1). Perhaps most remarkably, a
prisoner may also be disciplined if "any person
accesses the provider's or service's Internet web site
at the inmates request" ARS 31-235 (C2).

Many Arizona prisoners, particularly those under
sentence of death, have information about their cases
posted on web sites maintained by advocacy
organizations such as the Canadian Coalition Against
The Death Penalty (www.ccadp.org). These prisoners
have begun to receive letters from ADOC threatening
that "if your name/information etc has not been
removed from this WEB site...or is located on any
other web site on the Internet system, disciplinary
actions WILL BE administered and possible criminal
charges may result." (emphasis in original). A copy of
one such letter, with the prisoners name and number
redacted, is enclosed.

We believe that House Bill 2376, and ADOC's
implementation of that legislation, clearly violate
the First Amendment. There can be no doubt that the
purpose and effect of this legislation is to suppress
the flow of information from prisoners to the outside
world, and to chill the advocacy of CCADP and other
anti-death penalty and prisoner rights organizations.
This is not a legitimate governmental objective, and
we are confident that this statute will be swiftly
invalidated by the courts.

We are writing to ask that ADOC immediately suspend
all enforcement of this statute. If ADOC refuses, and
continues to violate the First Amendment rights of
prisoners and their correspondents pursuant to this
clearly unconstitutional legislation, we will shortly
file suit to invalidate the statute.

Thank you for your kind attention. We look forward to
hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

Eleanor Eisenberg, Executive Director,Arizona Civil
Liberties Union

David C Fathi, Staff Counsel, ACLU National Prison
Project

Ann Beeson, Litigation Director, ACLU Technology and
Liberty Program




And here is the letter CCADP sent last week to three
prisoners requesting removal as a result of DOC
threats, and to the Warden, and the Supervisor of the
Criminal Investigations Unit at ASP Eyman.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

We are writing in our capacity as directors of the
Canadian Coalition Against The Death Penalty
(Hereafter referred to as the 'CCADP')

We have received a request from:
INMATE____________________DOC#__________________
(Hereafter referred to as 'the Prisoner') to remove
ANY and ALL information posted on the CCADP web site
as soon as possible, so that ANY and ALL references to
'the prisoner' be deleted in their entirety
IMMEDIATELY and WITHOUT DELAY.

We REGRET TO INFORM all parties concerned, that we are
UNABLE TO COMPLY with the prisoner's request at this
time. We believe that ANY and ALL requests received by
the CCADP from the State of Arizona, regarding removal
of information from the Internet, have been made under
duress and as a direct result of Prison Administration
trying to coerce and intimidate prisoners through
threats of retaliation, punishment and/or criminal
charges.

The CCADP has received correspondence from Arizona
death row prisoners since our inception in May of
1998. The materials currently posted on the CCADP web
site, include materials from Arizona death row
prisoners that were received by the CCADP before July
18, 2000, the date the statue went into effect that
prevents prisoners in the State of Arizona from
corresponding or attempting to correspond with a
“COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER OR REMOTE COMPUTING
SERVICE. or if ANY PERSON ACCESSES THE PROVIDER'S OR
SERVICE INTERNET WEB SITE AT THE INMATES REQUEST."

The CCADP RESERVES THE RIGHTS to ALL prisoner
materials it receives, which then become
the PROPERTY OF THE CCADP, (with the exception of
Copyrighted works.) The CCADP chooses to post
materials at will, WITH or WITHOUT the permission of
the prisoner in question. Prisoners ARE NOT AWARE when
they contact us that we MAY or MAY NOT comply with the
prisoners request for removal at a later date.

The CCADP also encourages other groups/international
organizations, and individuals that utilize the
Internet to copy our prisoner materials, and re-post
them on various different servers all around the
world. The CCADP is unable to remove or edit the
content of those pages and has NO MEANS WHATSOEVER to
ensure that these groups/international organizations,
and individuals comply with the prisoners request for
deletion. In many instances NEITHER the CCADP NOR the
prisoner HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE of these sites, and many
times these groups/international organizations, and
individuals are unable to be contacted either by
email, phone or by regular mail.

AS A DIRECT RESULT of the actions now being taken by
Arizona DOC officials, the CCADP intends to create
web pages for ALL Arizona death row prisoners, WITH or
WITHOUT their KNOWLEDGE or CONSENT and will
diligently scour the Internet to locate ANY and ALL
current postings by prisoners that may not yet be
deleted and copy them as well to include on our new
Arizona Prisoners section. We will also be encouraging
our members as well as members of the international
community to contact as many Arizona death row
prisoners as possible, WITH or WITHOUT their previous
CONSENT or KNOWLEDGE.





The deplorable conditions of deprivation and isolation
at SMU II demand that The CCADP not let up in it's
efforts to confront and defeat the draconian
legislation that has made this letter necessary. We
are currently working with other like minded groups
and individuals in Arizona and worldwide, to ensure
that this law is defeated so that the prisoners under
sentence of death at SMU II will at least know that no
one has been forgotten because the eyes of the world
are watching now.

For the information of all prisoners in receipt of
this notice. The Arizona branch of the ACLU would like
to hear from individual prisoners regarding the
notices they have received from the DOC threatening
action against you. They are able to take legal
action. See quote and ACLU address below :

"... we would very much like to hear from you or from
them. If you cannot forward the complaints you have
received, please let prisoners know to write to Az
ACLU, Legal Department, Post Office Box 17148,
Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148 - we will review each complaint
and try to initiate litigation to have the legislation
declared unconstitutional." - ACLU's Arizona
representative.

Directors: Dave Parkinson / Tracy Lamourie, Canadian
Coalition Against
The Death Penalty
80 Lillington ave Toronto, ON M1N 3K7 Canada

I'm dumbfounded!!
The implications here are really scary as to just how far ones rights can be infringed upon.
i certainly hope the AZ ACLU follows through on this!
Almost makes one want to solicit the name of every single man/woman incarcerated in the state of AZ and post on the internet... let the officials(?) of AZ deal with that!

TO: Bookgirl,
I might difer with you on this point...
There is a pilot program just started in one of the eastern states in a particular region of same whereby the government is putting computers into every home believing we are now into the "computer age" etc. and etc., therefore it is a necessary means of education/communication.
Stated, "if the pilot program is successfull, it will be enacted nation wide". The specific criteria was not given but this makes it (internet) a viable means of communication that ALL should have access to.
The above is not meant to discount the other issues you brought up... Yes, healthcare, decent/human treatment and etc. are most important but one must realize that each time the government takes little steps that become gigantic jumps upon our rights we are all affected. Next, could be your husband would not be allowed to write to you or anyone else, legal excluded, because, after all, you do visit and can speak to him then.
Just my two cents...