News, Inmate Visits Now Carry Added Cost in Arizona. (crime, house)

[JD59]

For the Arizona Department of Corrections, crime has finally started to pay.

New legislation allows the department to impose a $25 fee on adults who wish to visit inmates at any of the 15 prison complexes that house state prisoners. The one-time “background check fee” for visitors, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, has angered prisoner advocacy groups and family members of inmates, who in many cases already shoulder the expense of traveling long distances to the remote areas where many prisons are located.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/us...n.html?_r=1&hp

[khuntrevor]

I paid 63 to get a DPS card, to be able to apply for jobs in AZ--I wish it was 25. No sympathy here.

[rich67]

Good for Arizona. Another outstanding way to help out the budget in these tough times. I have no sympathy either. I don't think they need to have any visits at all, in my opinion. You commit a crime, you go to prison, you lose your civil rights and you lose your right to interact with ANYONE in the outside world. And for those visitors bitching about $25, if you want to see your man bad enough, you'll find a way to shell out the coin. Otherwise, stay home and tell him to not break the law when he calls you collect.

[keninaz]

I suppose everyone will think this is OK until they place some sort of fee or tax on them.
If it doesn't affect me and brings in money that's OK with me. And in this case they are relatives of criminals anyway.
Some attitude.
So be it.

[rich67]

I do have a "fee" and a "tax" placed on me. Every day I work the government takes it from me before I get my hands on it . And my tax goes to pay to house these people, give them food, cable, phone systems, staff the people to care for them, including medical care for them. So yeah, it DOES affect me. So anywhere they can lessen the burden of me having to pay more taxes to support CRIMINALS, I am all for it.

[Bummer]

EXCELLENT idea . . .

Why should the Arizona Taxpayers, or any taxpayers for that matter, be required to absorb the expenses involved with criminals having visitors?

Can't wait to hear the Bleeding Hearts and the Boo Hoo'ers cry Po Me.

[Rick Lee]

As long as this money goes to whichever fund it's really intended for and they don't spend a dime more than comes in, I'm fine with it. The problem is that they always target a group that either has no political muscle or will get the least sympathy from the voters. Sin taxes are famous for this. Then they forecast the new tax or fee will bring in $XX per year, which, of course, never materializes. They spend the money anyway, issue bonds for what they had forecast and then we all end up paying it, while some useful idiots think it's only affecting the targeted group.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by rich67

I do have a "fee" and a "tax" placed on me. Every day I work the government takes it from me before I get my hands on it . And my tax goes to pay to house these people, give them food, cable, phone systems, staff the people to care for them, including medical care for them. So yeah, it DOES affect me. So anywhere they can lessen the burden of me having to pay more taxes to support CRIMINALS, I am all for it.

Well said! Since this fee subsidizes the cost of doing background checks for visitors of inmates, I see no problem with passing on this cost to the visitors themselves. Sure is better than passing it on to the taxpayers. It's just like anything else: you want it, you pay for it yourself. Now, if we could only apply that same logic to the school system and the parents who currently use it as free babysitting ... our property taxes would be 60 to 70% lower!

Originally Posted by Bummer

EXCELLENT idea . . .

Why should the Arizona Taxpayers, or any taxpayers for that matter, be required to absorb the expenses involved with criminals having visitors?

Can't wait to hear the Bleeding Hearts and the Boo Hoo'ers cry Po Me.

Good point! What do want to bet that a protest or even a lawsuit is forthcoming ... courtesy of these bleeding hearts and boo hoo'ers screaming "unfair"?!

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Well said! Since this fee subsidizes the cost of doing background checks for visitors of inmates, I see no problem with passing on this cost to the visitors themselves. Sure is better than passing it on to the taxpayers. It's just like anything else: you want it, you pay for it yourself. Now, if we could only apply that same logic to the school system and the parents who currently use it as free babysitting ... our property taxes would be 60 to 70% lower!



Good point! What do want to bet that a protest or even a lawsuit is forthcoming ... courtesy of these bleeding hearts and boo hoo'ers screaming "unfair"?!

No it doesn't. The story points out that there are actually NO background checks performed. The money goes into a slush fund presumably to run the prison. It's a visitation tax and another national embarrassment for our sorry state.

[BrianH]

There are several checks that take place when a vistor wants to be placed on an inmates visitation list. That takes up time and $$$$ so to say there is no background check is just not true. They check to see if they have felonies or whatever, to see if they are eligible to visit an inmate.