Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

June 8, 2015

Dear Chair Brezenoff and Members of the Board of Correction,

We write to you again on behalf of New York Citys children and families regarding the Department of
Corrections recent submission (May 26, 2015) of a request to begin rule-making regarding several
standards. We are particularly concerned about the requested changes to the minimum standards for
visiting. We urge you NOT to vote to begin rule-making at your June 9th meeting. There is not enough
time between the DOCs submission to the BOC and the next meeting, and we find the proposals
regarding visiting to be so confusing that, despite areas of great concern, we are frankly not even sure
how to respond. There remain too many unanswered questions and there is too much at stake.
We are dismayed at reading the DOCs letter requesting rule-making in that it seems to completely ignore
BOC members comments from the last BOC meeting on May 12th, including BOC members who
emphasized the importance of visiting, suggested improving existing visiting procedures, and expressed
the hope that the DOCs delay in submitting their specific request to the BOC meant that they would be
taking into consideration the points that were made at the meeting and by several advocate groups and in
our collective letter (submitted to the BOC on May 6, 2015).
We urge you to deny this request for rule-making regarding changing the minimum standards to visiting
for several reasons:

The request for the Department to establish the virtually unfettered ability to limit and deny
specific visitors, and separately to restrict visits, including limiting contact between children and
their parents is unfounded in fact /data. The data that DOC provides in its letter to the BOC do not
demonstrate a need for the kind of broad, sweeping, subjective changes they are requesting. The
figures they provide for contraband when viewed in the context of the total number of visitors
during the period in question are not convincing.

DOC has not instituted the other changes that offer much greater potential to reduce violence on
Rikers Island. It seems reasonable and practicable to institute these changes and evaluate their
effect. Since it is clear that most contraband is NOT coming in from visitors and BECAUSE
visiting is in fact a key intervention for reducing violence, the changes to the minimum
standards for visiting should only be cautiously considered as a last resort, after these other
interventions have been tried and measured. The use of some of the better technology for
scanning visitors and prisoners, a less punitive approach to the issue of contraband, may require
legislative action, but as far as we can tell, DOC has not submitted any proposed legislation
despite the fact that the session in Albany is nearly over, and despite the claim that preventing
contraband coming in through visits is a high priority.

There are too many unanswered questions in their letter. In particular, we are greatly concerned
about the following:

According to their letter, only young children in the inmates family can sit on the
parents lap throughout the visit. How young? How will young child be defined? Who
will decide the definition? On a daily basis, who will decide whether a young child is in
the inmates family?

Though the DOC suggests in one part of the proposal that their new policy is a reactive
response policy only denying a visitor after an incident has occurred, the request to
change the minimum standards contradicts this and if adopted and enforced would enable
denial of visitors up front- to a contact visit or any visit, based on a very low threshold:
someone deemed to pose a threat (no longer a serious threat) to the "safety, security or
good order" of the facility, "or the safety, security or health of inmates." What is meant
by a threat to the good order? Who would make this determination? When and where?
Would this occur after a person arrives at Rikers Island for the visit and then be based on
an assessment by a Corrections Officer? Or will each incarcerated person have to submit
a list of prospective visitors for investigation and pre-approval by an unspecified level of
DOC official?
The Department proposes to consider other criteria that also cannot be considered a
"reactive response policy," and would involve lengthy investigation and significant staff
discretion: for example, "lack of a family or otherwise close or intimate relationship
between the inmate and the prospective visitor;" "the inmate's or the prospective visitor's
pending criminal charges involving narcotics, weapons, gang activity, or violations of
correction facility rules, if any: " the nature of the inmate's or prospective visitor's felony
convictions or persistent narcotics of weapons- related misdemeanor convictions, if any,
within the past 7 years;" "the prospective visitor's current probation or parole status;" and,
"the nature of his/her conviction for which he/she was released from custody within the
past year."1

The changes to the appeal process are also unacceptable, allowing DOC to suspend or deny a
visitor for up to 14 business days (basically THREE WEEKS) before deciding about the appeal
and forwarding this to BOC. As a practical matter, the majority of incarcerated individuals will
no longer be at Rikers Island after 14 business days. And for those who do stay that long, being
without visits for three weeks is unreasonable even assuming the appeal is decided in their
favor. In addition, we believe an appeal alleging an improper violation of the Board of
Corrections minimum standard should go immediately to the BOC, not to the same agency that
made the determination.

We also write to remind you to consider the people who will be affected by these drastic changes in
visiting. We, too, are deeply concerned with the violence on Rikers, but unfairly targeting the hundreds of
thousands of visitors who visit appropriately, willing to endure a completely unfriendly and often
dehumanizing visiting process, with long waits, is not the answer. The proposed changes are unfair and
unfounded, and risk having the exact opposite effect as desired: cutting incarcerated people off from the

Italics/ emphasis added.

supports they have in the community and the children, families, and significant others who they love and
who provide support and outlets, will only increase violence. We remind you that thousands of those
incarcerated are adolescents/ children, themselves, and also include thousands awaiting trial.
In our previous letter we mentioned the opportunity DOC has to provide visiting children with a positive
experience, with a positive association with people in uniform, and with a meaningful visit with their
mom or dad (or uncle or brother). The proposed changes appear to move us in the other direction which
does not bode well for decreasing correctional populations or public safety.
Children who travel with a visitor who is denied entry for a reason other than a serious threat to the
safety and security of the facility, or the health and safety of other inmates (the current minimum
standard) will be devastated. Children look forward to seeing their parents and long for this contact. They
get up early, excited about seeing their mom or dad. What are they to make of the fact that for no reason
they can understand they are denied access to their parent? How long will they have waited before this
disappointing news is delivered? And the Officer who keeps their visit from happening will be seen in a
negative light.
As stated in our prior letter: the primary source of dangerous contraband is not visitors. Proposed changes
to visiting should be placed on hold while DOC implements and then evaluates the effectiveness of the
following actions:

DOC should strengthen screening, searches and security methods for reducing contraband,
both prior to entry of visitors to the visiting room and visit-exit strategies to better identify
contraband. DOC should explore the use of body scanners and TSA technology that is safe, less
invasive, and effective for identifying contraband;
DOC should install cameras and increase staffing in screening areas and in visiting rooms,
throughout the visit process;
DOC should evaluate the effects of improved screening and security measures on
contraband levels before changes to the visiting standards are considered;
DOC should speed up their proposed timeline for installing cameras and other measures
that have much greater promise for reducing violence on Rikers. Camera installation has
been pushed back to an estimated 2018 date, while measures to restrict visits would presumably
go into effect immediately.

At the very least, a decision by the BOC should be delayed so that DOC can explain exactly how the
proposed changes would work, giving the public a meaningful opportunity to comment. In order to fully
respond, we would need to know:

At what point visits will be denied?

Who will make the decision?
What information will the decisions be based upon?
Where will that information come from?
Will criminal background checks be conducted on the spot?
How will visitors be informed of denials or appeals,
What is the definition of good order?

What constitutes a threat?

What age is the definition of a young child?
What is the definition of family?
Who will make these determinations and what implementation monitoring mechanisms will be
put in place?

We hope you will not approve the DOCs petition to begin rule-making to change the minimum standard
for visiting. DOC states in its letter that it recognizes the value and necessity of quality visitation. We
urge you to take them at their own word and to reject the proposed changes to the minimum standards for
Finally, we urge you to consider the implications of weakening the importance of the Board of Correction
by weakening the standards and reducing its opportunity to promptly consider appeals. There is a reason
the Board exists in the City Charter as an independent body. Despite the good fortune of New York City
in its correctional leadership today and over much of its history, New Yorks prisons and jails are beyond
the publics eye and over the course of our history including the not so distant past have been the
scene of some of the most horrendous events in our country. Any attempt to curtail standards especially
those that involve bringing the public into the jail as visitors should receive extra scrutiny and
opportunity for public comment.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this critically important matter.
The Bronx Defenders
Hour Children
Brooklyn Defender Services
Lawyers For Children
Center for Family Representation
Legal Action Center
Center for Community Alternatives
NYU Family Defense Clinic
Citizens Committee for Children
The Osborne Association
Correctional Association of NY
Womens Prison Association
The Fortune Society
Philip Genty, Director, Prisoners and Families Clinic at Columbia University
Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children

Похожие интересы