Prison Talk

Prison Talk (
-   Prison Legislation & Laws (
-   -   Which's More Important? Sentence Reduction or Extended Family Visits / Trailer Visits (

ChandaMija 05-17-2004 12:00 PM

Which's More Important? Sentence Reduction or Extended Family Visits / Trailer Visits
Sentence Reduction (Good Time) or Extended Family Visits AKA conjugal/trailer visits? I want to let you know that EFVs aren't necessarily for physical pleasure purposes, but it can be overnight or weekend visits with immediate family members including kids for quality time. Right now, only 6 states allow conjugal visits. Fed-X, am I right? And right now, pretty a few states allow good time up to 50% off the original sentence depending on the severity of the various charges. Since we already have those in some states, why are we complaining about wanting more laws on these issues? I just don't understand? :confused: If we want a law changed, then we have to pick ONE that's MORE important to us then we can take action on writing up a bill proposal and send it to the state legistature then they'll take consideration. So now, I already rolled up my sleeves and ready to brainstorm on an legal outline so I can write a proposal for ONE of these. So... tell me, people, which's more important to yoU???????????

MurphyGirl 05-17-2004 01:24 PM

My man says give him overnight visits!! He can do all of his time with a smile on his face!!

MiamiChica22 05-17-2004 01:50 PM

As for me--I think it depends on the length of the sentence. If I had like five years or less to do and got substantial time off for good behavior with no extended family visits, I think that I would opt for that. However, with 10-15 years or more, I would think that maintaining family ties would be more important in the long run than a sentence reduction. Just my opinion.

~BabyG~ 05-17-2004 01:57 PM

I agree with Miamichica22, she has a good point. If my man had a long sentance, one that couldn't withstand visits at the prison every weekend then I would opt to receive the conjucal visits that way he knows I am not getting **it** from someone else, I am getting **it** from him. Things would be much better that way.

bella 05-17-2004 07:27 PM

Moved to Legislation forum for discussion. Please only post general prison issues in the general forum.

bunnyrun5 05-18-2004 10:46 AM

Time Reduction
I chose time reduction like 50% for goodtime and completing a few programs such as GED, Substance Abuse and Life Skills. :cool:

Jennifer_04 05-18-2004 10:57 AM

I chose "good time" because I think even if you do have a 10-15 year sentence it would help get you home sooner. I know how great it would be to have EFV's everywhere. God I wish I could do that! But, I really want him home sooner! In a perfect world we could have both. (Well in a perfect world there wouldn't be prisons,but that's another issuse.)

chiquita76 05-18-2004 11:44 AM

Time Reduction for me too. My man has a long sentence ahead of him. I would love for him to beable to do 65%-50% other than 85%!

Dre'sbaby 05-18-2004 06:01 PM

The visits would/will be nice, but my baby has been in for ten years with only one ticket. He stays out of trouble, and a reduced sentence would be a nice reward for that. We can all of the "visit" when he comes home.

kintml2u 05-19-2004 03:54 AM

Old thread back to life....At one point I might have agreed to EFV, but considering the sentence for us is 15 years, and we are 1/2 way through....I have to go with sentence reduction.
The sentence lengths that are being handed out these days are completely outrageous! Something needs to be done!

Amy 05-20-2004 11:43 PM

If I could pick, I would want a sentence reduction. I just want him home. Sex is not a big issue for me, but I am sure he would beg to differ. He is serving an 8 years sentence under 85% so I guess that does make all the difference for me. At this moment we are down to about 3 years. If the sentence were longer I am sure my opinion would change, because I want him to be happy. However, his being at home is way more beneficial to the both of us than having sex. 05-25-2004 12:22 AM

In my case I couldn't really say. My man got State Jail time in Texas which NEVER gets reduced.. but on the upside the max for State Jail is 2 yrs.
But theoretically speaking I would have to say time credit. I think that it is better that they are rewarded in that way. Think about the men that don't have women on the outside, either because they choose not to or because they got burned already, they could care less about EFV's but I'm sure they'd appreciate some time cuts.

ShannonL 05-25-2004 03:22 PM

I say sentence reduction.

So I'm totally new at this and we aren't married anyway, so I'm not wanting conjugal visits... I don't think they are allowed in Ohio anyway... but I'm soooo curious how it works!! LOL Tell, tell!! :) How do they go about giving you privacy like that?

crookshank 05-28-2004 03:44 PM

reduced time
I have a long wait, nine years with six more to go five with the current kansas 85% thing. So I say reduced time would be the best.

chikabonbon 06-03-2004 04:20 PM

Well as for me my kids and most important my man who is doing 8 years.
says early release would be of better benefit. In the long run the kids would benefit from having a father all the time and not just once every three months. But than again he is the one doing the time. Its easy for us to sit here and say what we think is best but its really them doing the time. Not us .Easier said than done ha !

Dre's Lady 08-14-2004 01:46 AM

I'd pick the 50% off his sentence

littled73 08-14-2004 11:00 AM

It depends on the length of sentence. If it's less than about 10 years I would day reduction of sentence. If it's more I would have to go the other way.

rosibaker50 10-02-2004 10:58 PM

i believe the sentence reduction would be the best. alot of inmates do not have a wife to share conjugal visits with but they all want out ASAP as said. to go with EFV's would not effect the whole prison system just the married men....rosi

ChandaMija 10-27-2004 05:32 AM

Okay, looks like we all know what we want. Now let's let the moderators take over to make an proposal for your state's legistature. I'd strongly advise to turn it in around the time in November when Kerry gets elected. Because I hear that he supports alternate programs for inmates and he's looking to reduce the prison population. This EFV (extended family visits) and time reduction is a factor so maybe Kerry will take consideration into that? Go, State Moderators, Go! :)

MookieCollins 10-29-2004 07:19 PM

Pooh's a striker, there's no such thing as sentance reduction so I vote for trailer visits...course we're still fighting a case

tamaulipas 12-03-2004 03:19 AM

Ok, where are we at with this? Kerry lost and you know Mr. "Bush" doesn't give a rat’s tale about prison inmates -now I'm started on this.

My baby and I are looking at 2025 release date -that includes the "good time". Problem with "reductions" is that it can be taken way for whatever reason the DOC wants, and you don't get it back. Same with EFV, but if you're good for a certain amount of time, then it's possible to regain EFV's -especially if your pulling 20 years (lots of time to screw up and be good).

I seriously doubt our lawmakers feel that they need to listen to us -especially on "inmate issues". Look at what happened in WA with the inmate phones -they gave us a law to reduce the DOC's price gouging and at the same time gave the DOC a way to put an injunction on it and now none of the law makers will come to our aid -so we're still stuck being raped by the phone co. The "law" didn't mean or do squat. The DOC does what they want.

You also need to look at the ISRB in WA. The "new Parole" for those sentenced prior to the SRA. The ISRB is also supposed to "follow the rules and the law" however, I'm working with two inmates who've spent 5 -12 years past their ERD and have no infractions. By state law, the ISRB is supposed to allow these people parole -but they won't because release is at their "discression".

Keeping inmates "in" is big business and big money for the States and Federal Government. More inmates "in" means we need more corrections officers, more facilities -more taxpayers money. DOC doesn't make money on inmates who've been released. The more inmates released, the population goes down -population goes down, and we don't need all those corrections officers or facilities. You also need to look at the DOC administration -more DOC employees (corrections officers) the more administrative staff needed. There is also the corrections industry -training of officers -the less corrections officers there are, the less the corrections training industry makes. Same with the Unions -WA DOC officers are part of the teamster’s union -more corrections officers; the more union dues are paid to the teamsters. The teamsters lobby makes a ton of money getting states to hire, train, and expand opportunities for the corrections officers. The corrections industry is big business and big money for the unions.

Then you'll also have to look at CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) CCA is big business, and big money - getting states to allow them to build in their states (with tax payer money and tax breaks)- "build it and they will come" -more jobs for the state, they build in economically depressed areas, they pay the county and the towns for the privilege of being there -more jobs for the town, more economic growth, more business, construction of new housing -more taxes being paid.

Then you also have to look at all the industries that make money off of the DOC -AT&T (Millions in profits off of inmate phone calls), Proctor and Gamble -they have the contract for all the shampoo, toothpaste etc -more inmates, more money.

L&I Collects 10% of every amount of money that comes into the DOC from inmate funds and off of inmate wages -for the "Victims assistant programs" (even if their crime didn't involve a "victim")-more inmates, more money. The DOC keeps all the inmates money in the bank -guess who gets the interest -DOC (more inmates money, more interest they make).

I haven't even touched on the judicial system -more criminals to prosecute, the more money the county prosecutor and public defense office gets. Need more lawyers, need more admin staff -more money, more state/federal money for law schools, more jobs, economic growth for the community and the state.

It's all about money. And its a billion dollar industry -our politicians are going to protect that. A released inmate is not going to supply the economic tax base that the corrections industry will loose by inmate population decrease. It's basic economics, A released inmate is not going to get a job as a prosecutor or an attorney, or even make what a corrections officer makes -they will most likely be low to med income taxpayers or indigent and costing the state more by them being on DSHS or needed those kinds of programs. The DOC doesn't have to follow the same "housing and food" requirements while they are incarcerated, as they would have to pay them if they are outside getting DSHS help. WA spends $2.10 per DAY to feed an inmate 3 meals a day -can you imagine DSHS telling people outside that they can only have $2.10 per day to feed themselves?

In WA you can't get EFV unless you were married prior to the inmates incarceration. Even then it's a long process to get an EFV, some people have been waiting 2- 5 years. Visits are not regular and not guaranteed. Still, since I know there is no way our politicians are going to do anything in our "tough on crime" stand to reduce or let "criminals walk free" (it's the brainwashing of America) -I'll take my chances with the EFV.

The only way we're going to get any kind of sentencing reduction -is if the Supreme or Circuit courts find the SRA unconstutional -or certain sentencing practices in violation of due process or something. If sentences are going to be reduced without interference from the DOC (which they can easily do if it's a legislative act), then that's how it's going to be done.

Think about it -why do you think the DOC doesn't put money into programs that are proven to reduce recidivism? All studies have proved that EFV and regular family/friends contacts reduce recidivism. But the DOC consistently reduces the funding for these programs and won't allow the money from the inmate betterment funds to go towards those programs. Inmates don't get to choose where the money is spent from the betterment fund -the DOC does. Guess where 25% of the inmate betterment fund went in WA last year? To fund more correction officers and their benefits. Inmates doing "good" and getting out and staying out doesn't make the state, or the DOC any money. WA State has even reduced the funding to law enforcement (especially the state patrol) but added to the funding for the corrections industry. Most corrections officers make more money than our local police. County jails are making money off of housing state inmates. Our legislature in WA passed a bill that violates the speedy trial rights of defendants if its "due to administrative overload" -meaning that if the prosecution can't get to you in 90 days because their are too many cases a head of you -too bad for you -and screw your constitutional rights. So they sit in jail -and the State makes money when they're in jail. They also get federal grants to "help" states out with the cost of housing indigent inmates.

The Twin rivers sexual treatment center in Monroe is the largest federally funded sexual confinement/treatment center in the nation (and it only holds 126 people). Did anyone see how when the grant was given to the State of WA for this center, all the sudden the charging and convictions of rape of Sexual assaults went up -it's a damm easy crime to convict someone of. You don't need any evidence, just a willing "victim" (who can then get money from the victims assistance fund and file a civil suit for damages). WA then lowered the charge of "false sexual reporting" from a felony to a misdemeanor! WA is now getting "tough" on crime with the 18 year olds having "consensual" sex with their 15 & 16 year old girlfriends. Doesn't matter the parents consented, or the girl. The law says it's 3rd degree rape of a child and statory rape -3-7 years in prison and a registered SO the rest of their life. If they're convicted of that when there 18 they can't date "single mothers" and they can't have children of their own because they can't be around "children". They violate the law -wham, back in prison -more money for the state.

I would love to see sentences reduced to a more humane status (England doesn't do sentences over 10 years except in exceptional crimes due to inmates being "instutionalized" after 10 years -they also don't have a death penalty). America is one of the most violent nations in the world. -And the least forgiving. We attack countries to force them into "our way" of life. We drop nuclear bombs on entire countries with women and children. We torture our captives, and our own incarcerated, we throw their families and their children into poverty and give them no means or support to recover. Our citizens drown the despair in drugs and use violence as a way to feel some kind of power in a society that is out of control. Keep certain “sections” of people impoverished, and you control the nation. Impoverished people will fight each other just to survive, while the politicians sit back and do what they want (like pass the patriot act) while we're all fighting each other, and no one notices before it's too late. Those who have the power and the means to care and do something don’t because poverty, crime, and the uneducated have been villainized and treated as if they have a contagious disease in our country. It’s not “PC”.

Unless we somehow get around the "money" issue or the Supreme Court steps in, I don't think there is going to be much change or support from our politicians for sentencing reduction.

littled73 12-03-2004 06:45 PM

If anyone hasn't read the book the " Gates of Injustice" you really should. It explains alot of what aria is saying. Corrections is big business for the states. You are the only one with any interest in when your loved one comes out. Everyone else profits as long as they are incarcerated.

tamaulipas 12-06-2004 10:39 AM

So, Crime does pay - just not for the "criminals".
I'll check out that book, thanks. There is another good one called "going up river" which addresses the same subject.

sellenburg 12-14-2004 09:50 PM

I personally think EFV's would be more important. Keeping the family intact and spending time with thier kids will improve the inmates success of his goals inside and out. Stregthening the family bond while being incarated, inmates would I think get into less trouble inside and possibly keep them from returning for another stay. Early terms are greeat, but I think over all EFV would be more productive and would help keep families toghether! JMO.

bluesapphires4 12-20-2004 07:25 PM

I would have to say EFV's, the reason why, there is so many in the prison system that do have a flat sentence and don't get the time reduction.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001- 2019 Prison Talk Online