The Oklahoma DOC began charging inmates for medical fees in the mid 1990's.

Don't know how they handle it now, but inmates were charged two dollars every time they had a doctor or dental appointment.

rewdiazepam

I don't know when WI started but I have not heard anyone say that it had been different in the past either. They pay for all their 'office visits' if a procedure is deemed necessary and they have to take them to a hospital to have it performed there are no charges other than the office visit fee, which is nominal even with their wages.

I would think that being charged for things like that, if the prison has jobs available for people to work that it should be about learning to survive with what you have rather than trying to figure out how the system is screwing them. If some of them would spend their time learning to work within the system, playing and winning using their rules, it will teach a person a lot about living life outside those prison walls and fences. Personally I like Norway and Sweden and the way they handle criminal punishment and rehabilitation. It appears that they want to create better citizens rather than never forgive. I wonder if they have less instances of heart attack and other stress related issues that are so prevalent here in the US.

My son is in Oregon. He can get dental and medical for no fee. He needs teeth extracted and dentures. No charge for extraction but $500 for dentures. Needs glasses. $200.

I doubt very much that it teaches inmates how to "survive" with what they have, as most inmates do not have anything to begin with and what little they do get comes from those on the outside of prison so really the only ones being adversely affected if not punished is friends and family.

The issue I have with this all, at this point, is that it is being done without the authority of a state law and thus, arbitrarily. In years pass Missouri legislators have filed such Bills to charge for medical care and each Bill failed to be passed by the legislative body.

Insofar as the sales tax this seems like a financial profiteering scam going on and it too is being done in the absence of a state law, moreover, without disclosing what percentage rate will be charged for things bought at the canteen. They already inflate the prices by 100% to 400% in contrast to the market price you would pay in society for the same things.

Really any experience that has a person work for money, budget it and spend only what they have vs what they might have etc. would seem to me to teach how to handle money. That is how they suggest you teach children, give them money to manage and help them do it. To me that is a survival skill, the skill to be able to support one's self in today's society.

I don't disagree with you that the state shouldn't charge sales tax on something like canteen considering how those operations are run and the products they sell and the prices they sell them for. It is robbery. It also appears that with some nudging from constituents they would kill the bill again.

The Bills that have been defeated involve charging for medical care. There are numerous issues that are involved here, for example. . . .

In Missouri, inmates receive $7.50 per-month in "state tips" so they can purchase such things as hygiene supplies, toilet paper, and over the counter medications, which are expensive items to buy in the prison canteen.

Moreover, out of that $7.50, inmates are also charged fee's related to their court cases, restitution, and other fee's that the state imposes on them - the state must leave the inmate $5.00 per-month out of their state tip and thus, deduct the remaining $2.50 to pay the fee's. So, now we are down to $5.00 per-month.

Now, if you tack on medical care costs, it means that indigent inmates will inevitably be forced to forego the medical care / treatment that they need unless someone whom they know on the outside pays for their medical bills.

I understand the reasons states do this, but in applying the basic business strategy here - the liabilities outweigh any purported assets.

As wards of the state, the state is then required to care for them medically. WI gives the same 'tips' a month to inmates, but inmates can also earn more if they pick up a job in the prison. The same restitution and things are taken out of their 'bank' as well. They are also required to pay a co-pay essentially for an appointment. So an inmate could pay their own way in prison if they needed to and had the motivation to get and do the jobs that are available. If MO doesn't have jobs to offer inmates and then expects them to pay more in fees, that is wrong. But if the opportunities are there for an inmate to get a job to earn a bit more then they should do that.

Not sure what it is like in MO, but in WI I know that there are people that commit crimes to get the 3 hots and a cot, and if that means prison they are OK with that. Which is frustrating to the tax payer as they are paying to house these people at $33,000/year/inmate to do so. I do believe that a prisoner should get the same quality healthcare that I get, if they do not get it, then how do we expect them to become responsible contributing members of our communities when we the citizens are not responsible about how we deal with offenders while they are in prison and once released.

I know it sucks that they are now imposing these things on your offenders, especially if they do not have a plan in place to absorb the costs for the inmate, such as extra jobs, an increase in the 'state tip', etc. But I don' think they are giving the same weight to the liabilities that you are statistically so they are not going to be drawing the same conclusions and will be hard to convince too...

First, let me correct your misunderstanding of the term "ward" because inmates are not a ward of the state since this is a legal title that can only be given by the probate court when appointing the person a guardian and neither prisons, a state department of corrections, nor a prison official is or can be a legal guardian of an inmate.

A person is a ward of the state if and when the probate court places the person under the guardianship of the department of social services or department of mental health. If the department of corrections were given the authority to be a guardian, trust me, you would not like that at all, and if such were allowed then I would not be a guardian of an inmate which I am by order of the probate court.

That said, while I understand the rationale to charging inmates for medical care, and I know it is inevitable that it will be done by statutory law, it nevertheless imposes greater liabilities than it does benefits that will bring about adverse affects.

Inmates in protective custody are not permitted to have jobs so they depend on their monthly tips and any money sent to them from someone on the outside. This will impose greater harms against them than those in general population who have jobs. Moreover, it is simply the states' way of trying to circumvent their requirements under the 8th and 14th Amendments because in imposing a fee it serves to deter and prevent inmates from seeking medical care in the first place.

Legal, do you just look for things to complain or correct people about? Or do you just do it to me? If you want to attack me, why not PM me instead of continually taking it public, I don't think that you would appreciate being attacked in public every time you post. Treat people as you wish to be treated.

I don't care the legal meaning of 'ward' and I am profusely sorry for not stating it like this, "an offender's housing, meals, protection and care is the responsibility of the state department of corrections for the time they are incarcerated and under the thumb of the department of corrections in their state. Since they are the responsibility of the state to feed, clothe, and keep healthy, then to not do so would make the state negligent in the care of the inmate and liable to the offender or their surviving family if something were to happen to them and the state was found responsible in a court of law."

So what are the adverse affects that the greater liabilities that are imposed by statutory law that is inevitable?

What are your suggestions for alternatives for those in protective custody to compensate for the new fees? Maybe the job permission should be changed, I don't believe that there isn't a job in a prison that a person in protective custody couldn't perform and still be kept safe.

If you are going to use legal terminology and legal arguments then please use them correctly as doing otherwise is incorrect and wrong to do. Moreover, there are folks here who might misunderstand what is said and think one thing or another when someone like you is using legal terms because of your status not only here but in the RSOL group.

Insofar as my suggestions, the first is that there must be a law authorizing this to happen and so far there is no state law, as all prior legislative Bills have been defeated. Second, if they are going to impose a fee then they need to increase the cost of living in state tips paid to offset the fees and thereby not prevent inmates from being able to purchase needed things from the canteen. And third, they need to increase the wages earned by jobs performed and start paying those in protective custody wages for the jobs that they do within their housing units.

If you are implying that I am affiliated with the national group, that would be an incorrect assumption, you would see clearly on their website that I am not. When the national organization was under different management we had a falling out. Assuming like you just did is also misleading isn't it? So being accurate on your part should also be held to the same standards you wish to hold me to. I think that is fair isn't it?

So to whom have you told those suggestions? Your representatives in government? Have you written to anyone else about it? Have you talked with the MO RSOL group to have them rally their folks to write as well?

Like everyone else, if I am wrong about something then point it out. If I believe I am right I will defend my position and if I am wrong, I appreciate being exposed learning opportunities. Insofar as your participation in the RSOL, I am going off of your screen name and your avocations here. Nevertheless, your status on this forum is such that you are a leader and thus, should use legal terminology correctly.

As to your suggestion to write others. Thus far, all state officials whom I have written about the sales tax issue are refusing to respond. Inmates are being told this by way of public announcements on their television system even though there is no state law authorizing this to be done. Hence, the sales tax is an illegal tax to charge, but then in this State, it's not like the law actually means something to state officials unless they can shove it down the throats of others.

So because they refuse to respond it is an excuse to stop trying? I have been told over my lifetime that if you don't try then you should expect nothing to change.

I have never claimed to be an attorney, I do not have a JD and I make it clear that I am not the legal end all and for more detail and specifics to the state someone is in they should consult a local attorney as they will know things that regular public will not without training. To hold me to an attorney standard is ridiculous and something I do not even do to you. Although, it would appear that you would like to be looked at as a pseudo attorney even though you are not one.

Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Assuming makes and ass out of you and me." You have made assumptions about me that are incorrect and as a self-proclaimed legal person should already know that making assumptions only causes more issues. So, if you are going to insist on perfection of some sort from others, be prepared to have the same expected from you along with a good attitude and non-confrontational posts. Fair enough?

At the present time I am waiting for the state officials to respond to my inquires about the sales tax issue and all that goes with it.

As I wrote above - I am no different than anyone else here. If you or anyone believes I am wrong about something I have written, then feel free to point it out. If I believe I am right I will defend my position and if I am wrong, then I welcome the opportunity to learn and grow.

I received a reply and here is my response:

Senator Bob Dixon and Representative Kelley

Attached to this email is a letter from Paul Harper who is the Department of Revenue Legislative liaison, which he purports to authorize the Missouri Department of Corrections to impose an unspecified sales tax on inmates on the premise that the Missouri Department of Corrections operates as a retailer no different than Wal-Mart.

Under Mr. Harper's legal argument for and on behalf of the Missouri Department of Revenue, and by virtue of the letter attached hereto, the Department of Revenue has not only abrogated the Department of Corrections status as a non-profit state agency, but also its sovereign and Eleventh Amendment immunity for as a for profit retailer, the Missouri Department of Corrections is now subject to the provisions of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act pursuant to Mo.. Rev. Stat. 407.020 http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4070000020.HTM

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sect 217.195 http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C200-299/2170000195.HTM holds that any and all money collected from prison canteen or commisary sales are to be kept in a separate account and used to benefit offenders in such programs as "the benefit of the offenders in the improvement of recreational, religious, or educational services" and the law further states that "the money in the inmate canteen fund shall be retained for the purposes specified in this section and shall not revert or be transferred to general revenue."

Where Mr. Harper has declared the Missouri Department of Corrections to be a retailer no different than Wal-Mart, then the Department of Corrections is knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and maliciously engaging in violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by "unfair practices" in price gouging as a result of merchandise being inflated from 100% to 400% in its price due to the monopoly system in play here. For example, but not limited to, the fact I can buy a pair of sweatpants at Wal-Mart for $5.00 plus tax, where as I have to pay $17.50 for a pair of sweatpants if I buy such for my ward out of the prison canteen system.

Using the doctrine of the clear statement rule, as attorney's for the government love to apply when interpreting state laws, imposing a sales tax against inmates is illegal under Mo. Rev. Stat. 217.195, as the state law does not explicitly and implicitly authorize the Missouri Department of Corrections to impose a sales tax on inmates for items bought in a canteen or commissary by, from, or in a non-profit state agency. To the extent that Mr. Harper purports that the opinion letter attached hereto supersedes this state law and makes the Department a for-profit retailer then the Department of Corrections is guilty of violating Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec 405.020 by unfair business practices as a result of using a monopoly system to price gouge.