Prison Mail Restrictions Work Against Rehabilitation Efforts

 I have to imagine that writing rules for how prisons run is difficult and extremely complex. You'd think with hundreds of years of experience, they'd have it all figured out, but new situations constantly arise. But, perhaps more problematic is when rules are created to solve one problem and yet cause many others. 

Michigan's prison rules regarding mail handling is one area where whoever creates the rules have actually caused more than they intended to solve. At least from a prisoner's perspective. 

When I first came to prison in 2009, prisoners could receive photographs, crayon drawings, glitter held on by glue, publications prisoners themselves wrote, and mail of any "reasonable" volume. But in the last nearly 15 years, much has changed. 

Today, Michigan prisoners cannot receive any photographs on photo paper, nothing on the paper other than pen ink, any publication they themselves have written and published, and nothing with more than 12 single sided or 6 double sided pages. Furthermore, we only receive photocopies of our mail and not the originals. That makes it impossible to get a color photo on regular paper through the mail, for example, because it will be photocopied before being delivered to us. 

Whoever makes these rules likely has good reasons for why they make them, but they don't often think through the full implications. Photocopying mail might stop illicit material from coming through on the paper, but it also stops us from receiving emotionally important drawings and creations from our children or grandchildren. Most people have even stopped sending prisoners holiday cards, because we can't get anything but a photocopy of them anyway. Furthermore, these mail restrictions haven't in any way slowed or stopped the influx of drugs into the prison system. Those come in through officers and other ways, not through the regular mail system. 

Volume limits are a recent problem, the latest in a string of increasingly restrictive mail rules. For example, I have recently had several pieces of mail rejected due to volume restrictions. I had signed up for several free educational programs for prisoners, including the PEN Writing Program. However, their mailings are more than 6 double sided pages, so their mail was rejected. I also participate in a Bible study through the mail, and that too, was recently rejected for volume reasons. (This is a lawsuit waiting to happen as it violates religious liberties.)

These new volume rules are limiting prisoners' ability to participate in educational and religious programs through the mail. The prison system has now made it very difficult for prisoners to voluntarily participate in things that will help them spend their time in prison constructively. While the Department touts its focus on "rehabilitation," it actively undermines rehabilitation efforts. 

Prisoners are allowed to appeal these decisions, but I have personally experienced a significant push back against my right to appeal these decisions. In fact, the prison refuses to follow the same policy that restricts our mail when it comes to our right to appeals. They do whatever they want to and make it impossible, other than through lawsuits, to have reason guide their decision making. 

If one appeals too often, which happens when a prisoner is actively pursuing constructive things to do with his time, he is labeled a "troublemaker." Prison administrators would rather prisoners spend their time mindlessly watching TV or playing cards, dominoes, and chess. I personally want to spend my time learning and developing as a person, not in mindless activities that keep me engaged in the destructive prison culture. 

I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but I know that when administrators do not use reason and discretion in their application of rules, they undermine prisoner rehabilitation and cost the state money in senseless lawsuits. Someone in administration needs to take accountability for these stupid policies, or at least the stupid application of them. Instead, they pass the buck and blame someone else. Funny. They urge us to take responsibility for our behavior and not shift blame to others, but they provide a pretty example of doing just the opposite. Typical.