Posts Tagged ‘inmate pen pals’

From a Connecticut Yankee

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Today my husband was challenged by a Connecticut State Probation Officer to have me blog about his/our feelings, and our corporate view regarding Probation in CT.  My husband and I did some soul searching and discussed our feelings for quite some time with respect to the current probation system, we certainly have mixed feelings; my husband as a probationer and myself as a wife/victim of the system. The first reaction one has is a knee jerk…. lash out verbally, criticize and condemn the system because it is personally oppressive. On reflection, when viewing the Meta picture, such a commentary would be inappropriate and in any event untrue.
Despite several personally problematical experiences both of us fully endorse and support the need for a probation system in Connecticut, and frankly when all is said and done, and the dust clears, ours is first rate when compared to others. I would like to be able to say otherwise, but as a responsible taxpaying citizen, I have no complaints about my tax dollars going to the Probation Department and its officers. Through Con Com I’ve had the opportunity to interface with many departments…ours is heads and shoulders over most. With respect to our system however,  in my perception, and my husband’s the role/mission/goal of the probation department should be to assist it’s its probationers  to achieve personal success by living a moral and crime free life within the community, and I think they  have that a bit mixed up. I think they see themselves as some kind of “police force” charged with protecting the community. It’s a syllogism.  It is my/our belief that the probation system should to the extent financially and socially possible provide the tools necessary to keep the recidivism rates down, however not be so restrictive as to stymie the potential positive growth of its charges.  It is our feeling that the way the department is currently operated, like the rest of the prison industrial complex in CT it runs scared, and won’t allow probationers ample space to grow.  To some extent this is a function I believe of the repercussions following the unspeakable tragedy that befell Doctor William Petit and his wonderful family a few years ago.  If found guilty it wouldn’t trouble me an iota if the two alleged perps were boiled in oil, but that being said, clamping down on an entire system and population because of two maniacs just doesn’t cut it…and by the way, the two alleged perps were not on probation, they were on parole.
My husband has been in the CT system for about four months. For the most part, his reactions are favorable. One of the good things that happens right up front, or at least in the office to which he reports, is that the probationer meets with the Chief Probation Officer, TM, on his first visit to the office. This woman is no body’s fool. She has an easy down home style, but all the time she’s talking, she’s taking (mental) pictures. She’s been around for a bit and it strikes me that her assessments are pretty on the money. I like that she takes the time to do that. To some extent it assures that the right PO is assigned to the right probationer, and it gives her a feel for the probationer and what she might expect.  To the uninitiated it may not sound like much, but It’s a really strong plus for the system. The negative side of MS M interviewing probationers is that the system is very rigid and unforgiving. It doesn’t allow the people who operate it and operate within it a whole lot of latitude. Lots of what happens within the system has little to do with the law, rather it’s policy regulations formulated by those on high, and does not leave much room for interpretation…. That’s a big flaw in the system. Good or bad, to some extent, the line Supervisors hands are tied. At times that places a real hardship on the probationer and at other times on the system.   A system as large as Probation needs rules and guidelines to operative effectively. But it needs to provide for the individual as well. I think this system in my/our experience falls short of the mark in that area. The line Supervisors needs more authority, and the more senior Probation officers do as well.
The PO assigned to my husband’s case is an example of that rigidity. I need to start by saying, he’s a really heard working PO, and in our opinion a very good one from the system’s perspective.. One can reach him on his cell phone day and night…he invariably answers his calls, and when one gets him for the most part he has answers.  That’s the good part. The bad part is, we believe he perceives his mission is that of a cop rather than someone trying to help the probationer succeed.  I think a good PO needs to be some of both. I personally find the way of some probation officers a bit too intrusive.  I understand the need for some intrusion, but some place there should be a line. I am not on probation. The probation department has a standard line or that…”your husband is, and if you don’t like our methods we can have him move out.”  That is a bunch of nonsense. There is certainly a happy medium.  It’s a mixed bag, to some extent a matter of degree. I don’t mind a PO coming on a home visit, but I don’t think it’s appropriate that each time he come, he walks through every room in the house. When a PO is told for example, this room is my office and there is nothing of my husband’s in the room, that he still walk in and look on desks etc. My business papers are none of his, whether or not in plain sight. If he chooses to walk in a room to see whether there may be some kind of contraband visually present, I suppose that is okay within limits, but to actually stare down at papers and personal mail, I see as “going too far.” And then there is our bedroom. What possibly could a Probation Officer want that might be on my personal nightstand, or in my bedroom closet? To physically walk into the closet where I hang my clothing and night wear, to my way of thinking goes above and beyond. The same applies to our bathroom. Unless the PO has needed to relieve himself, or is taking a survey about bathroom tissue, why look in our bathroom?
Although I personally want nothing to do with these people, and will not interface with them except as absolutely required by law to satisfy the requirements of my husband’s probation, I must confess that on the whole, as a member of the community I applaud PO JM’s diligence, and the diligence of his brother and sister officers.  However, as the wife of a probationer, I wish at times he’d/they’d be a bit more liberal/reasonable if not trusting. I’m not suggesting they give away the candy store, but by the same token life changes, and as people get older, they really do change. At my husband’s age and health condition he’s not doing anything stupid, and that’s where the system falls down. They are so worried about what he may have done in the past they can’t accept the fact he’s now a 65 year old cancer victim, who has suffered two heart attacks, open heart surgery, and is likely to need more heart surgery soon. He’s also a diabetic and hypertensive. All those factors weren’t present then…Nor was I. They are now.  My husband does not choose to die in a prison, and these people just don’t get it… Their needs to be some room, some play.
In all fairness I might point out that my husband has an extensive major fraud background, and while in the system, he was not passive. When he perceived injustices were being heaped upon him, he responded in the appropriate forums…and he won. The system is unforgiving in that regard, and it wouldn’t surprise us if someone on high didn’t whisper into someone else’s ear about “special treatment” for my husband during this probationary period. Can I make that as a cold hard accusation?

Absolutely not. But you the reader can draw your own conclusions.  Also, as a matter of disclosure, you should know I do bear some bias (and a pending law suit) against the state corrections system. The state would undoubtedly attempt to use my husband as a lever to induce me to drop my litigation.  Although corrections and probation are not the same entity, they are tangentially related. I was a state employee for over 20 years, much of it in corrections (in a professional, non-custodial capacity). I’ve seen and heard it all. Thus it is possible my feelings are not totally objective. They come from a place of having been there and seen the best, the worst, and everything in between.
Hopefully this is not about our family but rather a commentary on the probation system as we see it. Reluctantly but being truthful, on the whole we are compelled to give the probation department high marks.
Responses are welcome.

Connecticut Yankee speaks out “why should I hire a felon”

Friday, November 20th, 2009

We have received several telephone calls with respect to our proposed, “felon work force.” Almost all of the comments have been favorable. As a result, one of our consultants has spent the week talking to prospective employers, and ferreting out their feelings with respect to hiring former inmates. I confess that many employers have clearly demonstrated a negative reaction. On the other hand, several responses to our inquiries have been favorable.

It was the opinion of our consultant that the current state of our enonomy plays a huge role with regards to those employers who indicate they will not hire felons. The response is universally the same, “why should I hire a felon when there are so many qualified people looking for jobs and who are not possessed with a negative history.” Our consultant attempted to pose logical arguments in favor of hiring the felon. In most instances the arguments fell upon deaf ears.

Curiously, if I had to pick segment of the market that was most opposed to hiring felons, it was the large retailers, i.e. Walmart, CVS, Home Depot, and Kohls, who posed the strongest objections. The retailers were followed by a few of the national supermarket chains in terms of level of negativity . The service industries for the most part maintained an open mind, as did the technology employers. Many government entities were surprisingly receptive, depending upon position applied for and nature of offense. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that the US Army will accept certain felons for enlistment now.

Although the results are really mixed, I believe they are sufficiently encouraging to take the project to the next level. In that regard, we are instructing our Lawyers to consider the legal ramifications, and requirements of structuring such an enterprise.

From a Connecticut Yankee Read On….

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Although this may sound a bit like a commercial, it is not intended to do any more than solicit information from our readers. We urge you to read the contents of this blog, and provide us with feedback. That which we are planning will involve a considerable effort in both people power and financial resources. If the out come is favorable, it could be a ground breaking in terms of employment for those of us who have been incarcerated in the past, and/or those of us who are being released from a prison in the near future.

We propose to become employment contractors of sorts. We will solicit business from large corporations, construction companies, retailers and even mom and pop stores. We would propose to supply these entities with trained and skilled workers. Those workers would remain our employees and our responsibility. We will use the Federal Bonding program up to its $10,000 limit, and we will post our own blanket bond in the amount of $15,000. In that way, our employees will be bonded for up to $25,000. That places a serious dent in any objections an employer might have in using the services (as opposed to hiring) a felon.

For the inmate crafts persons, we would sponsor them in an on line store…not unlike a mini e-bay for inmates. We would pay the costs associated with the web site(s), and even perhaps loan the inmate money for tools of a trade to start his or her on line business.

For mechanics, computer and other repair/technical persons we could do something similar. Kind of a “felons are us,” without using the word felons, nor any overt references to it. We would have to disclose to potential employers…but so what?

Please let us know what you think. An e-mail to us:
will be very much appreciated.

We value your input. Please write to us and share your thoughts.

a Connecticut Yankee SPEAKS OUT!!!!

Friday, November 13th, 2009

This blog focus’ on what the North Country Gazette, a New York Newspaper termed, “Correctional Billing Services-Phone Extortion.” For a local upstate Newspaper these folks are extraordinarily well informed and right on target. The prices inmates and their loved ones pay for telephone services are indeed “extortion.” Most correctional systems have contract telephone service carriers. Often these carriers are the “bastard children” of much larger carriers. They disguise their names so their images are not “sullied” by being identified as Jail House telephone service providers.   These carriers charge inmates up to $20.00 for a 15 minute long distance call while the respective corrections systems allegedly receive kick backs ranging from 20% to 60%. New York State’s kick back last year allegedly amounted to over 20 million dollars. That sum was for the most part taken from the earnings of low income families who can ill afford it. It is not much different in the federal system. The prices are high (23 cents a minute, and more for collect calls), and there are few if any alternatives available to an inmate who  wants to stay in touch with family and loved ones. To the extent that families cannot afford to pay these incredibly high bills, and that they want to stay in touch with loved ones, the inmate phone system as it exists today is conducive to becoming a breeding ground for economic crimes. Ask yourself how the families can economically cope with monthly phone bills of $1,000 and more.

The phone service providers are devoid of even a scintilla of mercy. They set arbitrarily low credit limits based upon criteria known only to them, thus phone service between the inmate and his loved ones is terminated. The real reason behind this happening is not so much a concern on the part of the carriers that the inmate’s family won’t pay, but rather a ploy to collect their monies up front in a prepaid account, thus enabling even greater profits on the backs of a segment of the population who can least afford it.
The North Country Gazette article speaks to an inmate’s family and friends being charged 17.34 for a 15 minute call and then blocking further calls after the callers reached a threshold of $130.00. Ask yourself whether the fact that one made a mistake and is in prison justifies carriers like Evercom, Global Tel Link, and others, as well as local, state and federal governments the right to financially rape the inmate and his or her family ? You can bet in small town USA, somewhere, or perhaps even big city USA, there’s a local Sherriff or two, who put new white wall tires on his wife’s car courtesy of the inmate telephone system.
There are a few viable alternatives to the inmate system, and those that exist  are not easy to ferret out. The various government entities do not want inmates using them for obvious reasons, and either block their numbers or keep literature describing alternatives out of the system by terming them contraband. As a matter of full disclosure, readers should be aware that part of our revenue is generated by providing alternate telephone service to inmates.  Our company has sent out thousands of mailing piece to prisons. Often they are returned without comment. Sometimes the people operating mail rooms don’t even bother opening mail pieces. They think they know what’s in them or don’t care and just send them back. It’s frustrating for us and for the people who requested the information we attempted to provide. The government’s  justification  for sabotaging free trade is coming up with some cockamamie nonsense about institutional safety and security. This is the reason they provide for sending back our advertising material, or blocking the phone numbers we and other alternate providers can supply. The costs to us rise into the thousands of dollars. The government could care less.  Then they cry when small business goes belly up because we can’t sustain these losses on an ongoing basis and still survive, yet they continue to thwart our efforts to earn a fair and reasonable living. The old boys  and girls clubs are alive and well while minority and woman owned businesses like ours are pounded into the ground by the bureaucrats.

How is this issue going to be resolved? Your guess is as good as ours.
The following is are the regulatory agencies to contact with you problems and concerns about this issue.

  • Federal Communications Commission
  • Local Public Service Commission
  • Federal Trade Commission

From a Connecticut Yankee

Sunday, October 18th, 2009
It isn’t all that often that positive things happen in the legal system with respect to inmate issues. We are therefore so very pleased to learn of the revamping of New York’s ultra oppressive Rockefeller Drug Law. Nelson Rockefeller with his countless millions you may recall, decided that the best social program to help addicts, particularly those who did low level drug sales to support heir habits, was to throw them in jail. Of course Rathskeller’s only interface with those unfortunate folks who happen to be addicted, was when him Limo passed by New York’s Washington Square Park (Remember Needle Park, you New Yorkers?). In any event, one of the good things New York’s present Governor has done, is to crusade for changes in the Law. Happily was successful and over 650 New York State inmates are now applying for early release. In the same vein, the State of CT has modified its Law. Previously before an inmate could file an appeal it was necessary to obtain the approval of the prosecutor. How absurd is that? How many of you know prosecutors who after working to put someone in prison is going to do a quick 180, and agree to give the inmate an appeal? Give me a break! Well that’s changed. The prosecutor is happily out of the equation. Appeals will go to the Judge. I’m not sure that will make a difference in the outcome, but at least now there’s a shot. Go for it CT.

We’ve been getting lots of calls from disguntled mom’s (some from dad’s as well). They go something like this…”He’s my baby’s daddy, and he got all this money and I don’t even have Pampers. I want you to post his butt all over the place.”  Certainly lets hope that those of us who can afford it will help our “baby’s momma” (and daddy)  as much as we can, and is practical, but gee whiz it isn’t always easy from behind the wall. They put up with all kinds of “stuff” out there, but they have no clue about the mental, and even physical stresses we go though when incarcerated. We won’t do any posting, but if we can help you at all by telling your significant other what you go through on a daily basis, please feel free to have them call us collect. We’d be happy to talk to them, and we might even be able to help them in terms of finding resources.