|August 4, 2002
I wanted to let you know the in the new proposed visiting regs,
§3173, states that prisoners with history of misconduct in §3177(b)(1),
whether convicted or not, can be denied contact and non-contact visits
altogether. This means that if there regulations are approved, inmates
We already know this practice is unofficially used, but to see it in writing in this manner is shocking.
Mr. Rick Grentz:
It appears that the revised visiting regs state that no sex offender - regardless of whether their crime wass directed toward a child - will ever be allowed visits from minor family members.
We know that sex offenders are often arrested for a minor situation
which has been exaggerated and overblown by a vindictive former spouse
or girlfriend. In fact, if the truth was known, 30% of the people in prison
in California are political prisoners who have been "tagged" with the label
To say that no sex offender can ever have visits from minor children in their family, even though the offense may be completely unrelated to a child, is a cruel and unusual punishment.
I am a taxpayer and I resent your psychological torture and power games
which are tearing families apart. I for one will participate in a
lawsuit, attend any and all pickets and work on an initiative
Mr. Rick Grentz:
The first comment is that nowhere in this document is there an indication
of a new hearing although there are major revisions to the point that the
original hearings are moot when this document is
A new hearing for all parties must be held BEFORE this document can
be considered for implementation. The most egregious changes are to the
ability of inmates to work with their attorneys
The laws restricting the rights for the inmates to appeal, prepare writs,
file complaints, sue, communicate with lawyers or legal staff is already
severely limited by the evidence of the steady
Page 11 requires a new visiting questionnaire every two years. This is nothing but a paperwork obstacle to visits and clearly reveals the real intention to limit and eventually eliminate visits.
The inmate must mail a form every two years for each visitor and know
when, the visitor must
Page 21, 38, 41 Have placed the power of refusing visits with "evidence"
exists for some misdeed. This places CDC in the position of changing the
constitution by declaring "presumed guilty". This is
Page 22. Common sense would say a PERMANENT disability should not require a re-submission of information every two years. This again reflects the impression of a bureaucracy finding another way to make-work.
Page 44 to 59 have a number of objections that the legal community should
address but one that is especially disturbing is the handling of legal
papers where on page 55 the staff may read based on
Finally, to determine that only certain parts of the document are subject
to comment is beyond your authority. It is all up to us to decide if you
have made a document worth implementing, not you. The
August 4, 2002
Rick Grenz, Chief,
Re: Notice of Change to Proposed Visiting Regulations
Dear Mr. Grenz:
First I want to thank you for removing from §3170. General Visiting, the portion at beginning of (a) Visiting is a privilege. However,. This restores visiting as a right guaranteed by the California Constitution.
The problem is that in §3176.3 Restriction, Revocation or Suspension of an Inmate's Visits, (c) the word "visiting Privileges" is again used, and also used in (d); (e)(1); (A); (B)(2)(f). Right in your document at (B)(2), it states, "A classification committee may impose a loss of visits for 180 days,. . ." To keep the regulations in harmony, would not the words "a loss of visits," be a better choice of words, instead of using "visiting privileges."
In §3179. Appeals Relating to Visiting, (d) Again the words "visiting privileges" are inserted, and to bring into harmony, this should be changed to "'Any loss of visits' shall be promptly approved. . ."
In light of the above conflict in wording, I would suggest that the words "visiting privileges" be removed and replaced with "a loss of visits." As this would reflect that visiting is a right, but can be removed for cause, after a due process hearing and appeal.
Thank your for your attention to this matter.
Janice D. Crumley
Proposed Visiting Regulations