\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

unknown

Seq: 1

30-APR-14

8:03

THE DOUBLE EDGED SWORD OF
PRISON VIDEO VISITATION: CLAIMING
TO KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER WHILE
FURTHERING THE AIMS OF THE
PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Patrice A. Fulcher*
ABSTRACT
Each year, the United States (“U.S.”) spends billions to house the
country’s massive prison population. The need to board over 2.3 million
incarcerated human beings has U.S. correctional departments looking
for ways to increase revenues and offset costs. According to these correctional agencies, one major expense is prison visitation. In order to
reduce spending and alleviate safety concerns, U.S. federal, state, and
private correctional facilities have turned to video visitation as an alternative to in-person visits.
The use of prison video visitation systems started in 1995. Since
then, many private telecommunications companies have professed to
have the solution to correctional visitation problems. These companies
promote video visitation as a cheap, safe, and easy alternative to inperson visits, as well as a profitable means of generating revenues. Government and private correctional institutions, buying into these
endorsements, have reduced or completely eliminated face-to-face visits
and installed video visitation systems within their walls. Under this
structure, inmates use video stations in their cellblock to visit family
and friends at corresponding video kiosks within the institution; or inmates visit loved-ones who are at home or elsewhere outside prison
walls via computer Internet video visitation.
In order to sell this method of visitation to the public, U.S. correctional agencies contend that video visitation helps to keep families
* Associate Professor, Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School. J.D., Emory University
School of Law; B.A., Howard University. This article is dedicated to the millions of prisoners
and their families who have become unwitting hostages in the Prison Industrial Complex. I
would like to thank Vice Chancellor John Pierre for his continued support and mentorship.
Many thanks to my research assistants Campbell Williamson and Hina Asghar for their
outstanding research and assistance in preparation of this Article. I would also like to thank
my family, colleagues, and friends for their encouragement and support.

83

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2461815

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

84

unknown

Seq: 2

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

together by allowing inmates greater contact opportunities with loved
ones. In some regards, it may be argued that video visitation does assist
in the preservation of family units. Inmates are often forced to serve
time in prisons miles away from their homes, so outside visits are far
and few between. Yet, through the use of in-home video visitation configurations, inmates are able to connect with relatives who reside hours
away.
At first glance, this visitation scheme may seem beneficial, but
this Article argues that prison video visitation is a double edge sword.
First, prison video visitation may help preserve family units while people are incarcerated, but the elimination of face-to-face visits robs
inmates of much needed human contact with their children, spouses,
and other family members. Second, almost all in-home prison video visitation systems exploit the relatives and friends of inmates because they
charge excessive fees to visit. Third, the economic success of prison video
visitation systems is contingent on the number of incarcerated humans.
So, like other profiteering schemes of the Prison Industrial Complex
(“PIC”), prison video visitation incentivizes incarceration: A decrease in
the prison population has a corollary effect on million dollar revenues
and corporate profits, hence compelling the need to detain more U.S.
inhabitants.
Consequently, this Article argues that face-to-face visitation
should be the primary means of contact for families that visit at prison
facilities. In order to accomplish this goal, inmates must be assigned to
correctional facilities close to their homes if space is available and there
is no proven risk to security. Additionally, if prison video visitation is
utilized, any fees associated with its use must be regulated to insure
that the financial expense is not exorbitant.
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. U.S. PRISON AND JAIL VISITATION PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . .
III. U.S. PRISON AND JAIL VIDEO VISITATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. The Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Onsite Video Visitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Online Video Visitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Keeping Families Together? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Inmates Serve Time Miles From Home: Video
Visitation Keeps Families Connected . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Face-to-Face Visits Eliminated: Video Visitation
Hurts Families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Another Inhumane and Profiteering Scheme of the
Prison Industrial Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2461815

85
88
92
92
93
96
100

R

100

R

103

R

106

R

R
R
R
R
R
R

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 3

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

85

IV. CONCLUSION: KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER WITHOUT
ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
I. INTRODUCTION
The desire for humans to associate with each other is great.
Therefore, it is not surprising that studies have shown that social connections lead to happiness and overall well being.1 The development of
the U.S. Postal System, the telephone/cell phone, and the Internet2
have helped people stay connected over decades.
The longing for human contact is in no way reduced when a person is incarcerated. In many regards, the need is even greater because
inmates are separated from family, friends, and all loved ones. Locked
in steel cages without any tangible sense of time, an inmate’s survival
is dependent on those he left outside the prison walls.3 Inmates often
feel isolated without any contact from family or friends.4 That letter
from home, weekly or monthly collect phone call, or even better, a faceto-face visit from a loved one, may be the only tangible interest fueling
an inmate’s drive for rehabilitation and release. Consequently, any
form of communication with family and friends reaffirms an inmate’s
sense of humanity and gives him hope.5 It assures an inmate that he is
still loved, has not been abandoned, and that he is still connected to the
free world.6
However, with over two million people incarcerated in the
U.S.,7 budget-stretched correctional agencies find it difficult to keep
prisoners connected with the outside world through the effective regu1. Ed Diener & Robert Biwas-Diener, Happiness: Unlocking the Mysteries of
Psychological Wealth, MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA, http://www.liveyourlifewell.org/go/liveyour-life-well/connect (last visited Sept. 20, 2013).
2. See Facebook Reports Second Quarter 2013 Results, PR NEWSWIRE (July 24, 2013),
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/facebook-reports-second-quarter-2013-results-2
16805531.html (noting that there were 1.15 billion active Internet users on Facebook, a
social networking website, as of 2013).
3. See generally Creasie Finney Hairston, Family Ties During Imprisonment:
Important To Whom And For What?, 18 J. SOC. & SOC. WELFARE 87 (1991).
4. Id. See also Cheryl Whittier, Breaking Down the Walls, THE BODY (July 1999),
http://www.thebody.com/content/art30877.html (discussing the specific issue of the isolation
of inmates with HIV).
5. See generally ROBERT JOHNSON & HANS TOCH, THE PAINS OF IMPRISONMENT (Robert
Johnson & Hans Toch eds., Sage Publications 1982).
6. Id.
7. Lauren E. Glaze & Erika Parks, Correctional Populations in the United States,
2011, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (Nov. 2012), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus
11.pdf.

R

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

86

unknown

Seq: 4

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

lation of inmate visitation.8 U.S. correctional institutions frequently
complain that inmate visitation is expensive and a security risk to
their facilities.9 Consequently, with the exploding inmate population,
prison and jail operators must now expend greater funds for additional
guards to be present during visitation hours or pay existing guards
overtime.10
In order to reduce the high cost of inmate visitation, elevate
safety concerns, and generate revenues, many U.S. correctional institutions are utilizing prison video visitation technology as a feasible
alternative to face-to-face visits.11 Private corporations, offering varying video visitation options, have quickly emerged to tackle this
specific correctional institutional crisis. These corporations proclaim
they have the solution to inmate visitation woes, and at the same time,
boast that their services help to strengthen inmate family units and
increase correctional revenues:12 Two noted companies are VuGate and
Renovo Software, Inc. (“Renovo”).
Between 1994 and 1995, VuGate developed the first video visitation software13 in conjunction with correctional officers; this has
allowed them to “meet the unique requirements of the correctional industry.”14 Since then, VuGate has installed over 4,000 correctional
visitation stations and court arraignment stations across the coun-

8. Adams County Jail First in State to Implement Inmate Video Visitation, ADAMS
CNTY. SHERIFF’S OFFICE (Sept. 6, 2013), http://www.adamscosheriff.org/press_view.php?id=
373http://www.adamscosheriff.org/press_view.php?id=373; Travis County Jail Visitation is
Now Video Visitation, TRAVIS CNTY. SHERIFF’S OFFICE (May 1, 2013), https://www.tcsheriff.
org/about/media-relations/press-releases/280-travis-county-jail-visitation-is-now-videovisitation; Washington County Jail Offers Video Visitation, SHERIFF’S OFFICE OF
WASHINGTON CNTY. (May 2, 2013), http://www.co.washington.or.us/_cs_upload/News/
sonews/687999_1.pdf.
9. SHERIFF’S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON CNTY., supra note 8.
10. See generally William E. Stone & Peter Scharf, Examining the Correctional
Technology Paradox: Can Correctional Technologies Save Aggregate Correctional Costs?, 11
J. INST. JUST. INT’L. STUD. 171 (2011).
11. Adeshina Emmanuel, In-Person Visits Fade as Jails Set Up Video Units for
Inmates and Families, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 7, 2012, at A15; Erica Goode, Inmate Visits Now
Carry Added Cost in Arizona, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 5, 2011, at A10 http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/09/05/us/05prison.html?_r=0 (noting that some prisons also charge a $25.00, one time,
“background” fee to inmate visitors in order to increase funds).
12. Luke Whyte, Internet Based Video Visitations Could Very Well Be the Future of
How Visits are Conducted in Jails and Prisons Across the Country, CORRECTIONSONE, June
1, 2010, http://www.correctionsone.com/products/facility-products/inmate-visitation/articles/
2075432-Internet-video-visitation-Why-and-how-to-make-the-switch.
13. Video Visitation,VUGATE, http://vugate.com/videovisitation.html (last visited Sept.
21, 2013).
14. Id.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 5

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

87

try.15 VuGate, as one of the largest manufacturers of video visitation
systems in the world, distinguishes its corporation from companies
that only install and manage video visitation systems.16 As a manufacturer, VuGate provides its customers an added assurance of a
consistent product supply that is amenable to growth and expansion.17
Like VuGate, Renovo, another manufacturer and distributer of
video visitation software, claims to be a world leader in inmate visitation management.18 Renovo entered the prison video visitation market
in 2003.19 Renovo has over 100 corrections facility customers in the
U.S. and Canada, and manages over 5,000 visitation stations.20 In addition to prison video visitation, Renovo also has applications that
allow for courtroom arraignments, telemedicine, distance learning, and
business videoconferencing.21 In 2013, Renovo partnered with another
inmate service management company, Cisco Connected Justice
(“Cisco”).22 According to Daniel Stewart, Cisco’s Senior Justice Advisor, this partnership will allow for the expansion and enhancement of
inmate management services to the corrections industry.23
VuGate and Renovo assert their products create significant
benefits to correctional institutions and families. They claim correctional facilities that adopt the video systems are safer places that
efficiently manage inmate visitation while reducing costs and increasing inmate-family connections.24 Moreover, VuGate and Renovo claim
that inmate video visitation does more than simply reduce costs; it is
also an effective means of generating revenues, and this makes video
visitation an appealing offer.25 However, while facially appealing, cau-

15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. About, RENOVO SOFTWARE, http://www.renovosoftware.com/about/about-renovosoftware/ (last visited Sept. 7, 2013).
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Renovo Software Extends Platform with Cisco Connected Justice, TELEPRESENCE
OPTIONS, May 2, 2013, http://www.telepresenceoptions.com/2013/05/renovo_software_
extends_platfo.
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. RENOVO SOFTWARE, supra note 18; TELEPRESENCE OPTIONS, supra note 21; LA
County Sheriff’s Dept Increases Security, Efficiency, and Accessibility of Inmate Visitation,
RENOVO SOFTWARE, May 30, 2013, http://www.renovosoftware.com/news/renovo-software-inthe-news/la-county-sheriffs-dept-increases-security-efficiency-and-accessibility-of-inmatevisitation.
25. Id.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

88

unknown

Seq: 6

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

tion should be exercised where cost saving measures may lead to
human exploitation.
Therefore, this Article first discusses the management of inmate visitation in U.S. correctional institutions.26 It next reveals the
varying operations that prison video visitation corporations offer.27 It
then discusses whether prison video visitation keeps families together,28 or is another means of economic exploitation derived from the
Prison Industrial Complex (“PIC”).29 Lastly, this Article argues that
the human need of inmates to stay connected with their family and
friends should be fulfilled by housing prisoners close to their homes.30
If this goal cannot be achieved, correctional facilities have to take every
measure to ensure that face-to-face visits are primary to prison video
visitation.31 Additionally, the cost of prison video visitation, like prison
phone calls, must be regulated in order to prevent the continued economic exploitation of people ensnared in the machinery of the PIC.32
II. U.S. PRISON

AND

JAIL VISITATION PROCEDURES

Typically, a person arrested and charged with a crime in the
U.S. may spend time in custody prior to the resolution of his33 case if
he cannot afford bail or if bail is denied.34 If that person is convicted,
26. See infra Part II.
27. See infra Part III.A.
28. See infra Part III.B.
29. See infra Part III.C.
30. See infra Part IV.
31. See infra Part IV.
32. See infra Part IV.
33. The use of the words “his” and “he” when referencing incarcerated persons in this
Article is not intended to discount the more than 200,000 women incarcerated in the U.S.
From 1980 to 2011, the number of imprisoned women increased by 587%, almost 1.5 times
the rate of men. Incarcerated Women, SENTENCING PROJECT, 1-2 (Dec. 2012), http://www.
sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Incarcerated_Women_Factsheet_Dec2012final.
pdf (“Oklahoma incarcerates more women per capita than any other state with 121 out of
every 100,000 women in prison. Rhode Island has the lowest per capita rate of women in
prison with 15 out of every 100,000 women in prison.”). Many of these women suffer from
drug addiction, mental illness, and have been victims of physical and sexual abuse, but they
rarely receive treatment while incarcerated. Id. at 3 SENTENCING PROJECTDec., .; See also
Women in Prison, ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/women-prison (last visited
Sept. 25, 2013).
34. WAYNE R. LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 12.1(a) (3d ed. 2012) (discussing
the conditions for bail and preventive detention in federal cases under The Bail Reform Act
of 1984); Id. § 12.1(b) (discussing general state criminal procedures on granting and denying
bail, suggesting that “judges are inclined to give primary consideration to” (1) the
seriousness of the offense; (2) strength of the case against the defendant; and (3) the
accused’s prior record, rather than usual factors such as an accused’s background,
character, employment, or ties to the community). A 2006 Department of Justice, Bureau of

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 7

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

89

then he may be removed from society and forced to serve time in one or
more of the 1,821 U.S. prisons,35 or 3,283 jail36 facilities.37 Although
incarceration isolates this person from his community, he (ideally) is
not completely cut off from society because most correctional facilities
provide visitation opportunities.38 However, each facility’s administration has a different attitude towards visitation: Several correctional
institutions encourage inmate visitation to foster high inmate morale
and family relationships, while others place extreme limitations on visits due to security concerns.39 Consequently, the number of visits this
Justice Statistics study of the 75 most heavily populated counties in a single month found
that “[a]pproximately 62% of felony defendants [in the study] were released prior to the
final disposition of their case” and that “[a]mong the 38% of defendants who were detained
in jail until case disposition, about 5 in 6 had a bail amount set but did not post the money
required to secure release.” Id. (citing Thomas H. Cohen & Brian A. Reaves, U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2002, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
(Feb. 2006), www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc02.pdf (concerning felony cases filed during
the month of May 2002)). It also noted that the “overall median time from arrest to
adjudication was 98 days.” Id.
35. James J. Stephan, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Census of State and Federal Correctional
Facilities, 2005, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, 1 (Oct., 2008), http://www.bjs.gov/content/
pub/pdf/csfcf05.pdf (“Private correctional facilities (up 151) accounted for nearly all of the
increase in the number of adult correctional facilities between June 30, 2000, and December
30, 2005. . . . About two-thirds of all private facilities were under contract to state
authorities and a third were under contract to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”). The South
has the highest number of prisons in the U.S. with a total of 779 facilities. Id. at 9 tbl.1.
36. James Stephan & Georgette Walsh, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Census of Jail Facilities,
2006, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, 3 (Dec., 2011), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
cjf06.pdf (“Jail facilities are confinement facilities, which are usually administered by a
local law enforcement agency. These facilities are intended for adults, but sometimes hold
juveniles before or after adjudication. Jail facilities perform numerous functions, including
receiving individuals pending arraignment and holding individuals who are awaiting trial,
conviction, or sentencing.”). The South has the highest number of jails in the U.S. with a
total of 1,356 facilities. Id. at 5, tbl.2.
37. LAFAVE ET AL., supra note 34, § 26.1(c) (discussing state legislations proscribing
mandatory minimum and heightened sentences, and noting that 70% of all felons in 2004
were sentenced to serve prison time, and as of 2005, “over seven million people were either
incarcerated or under supervision for probation or parole in the United States”); Id.
§ 21.1(h) (discussing the sentencing table that guides the sentencing judge in identifying the
appropriate sentencing range for a person convicted of a federal crime).
38. See generally Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz, & Aaron Littman, Prison Visitation
Policies: A Fifty State Survey, YALE LAW SCHOOL (Nov. 5, 2012), http://www.law.yale.edu/
documents/pdf/Liman/Prison_Visitation_Policies_A_Fifty_State_Survey.pdf; Alicia Sitren et
al., Jail Visitation: An Assessment of Organizational Policy and Information Availability,
UNIV. OF S.C. (Jan. 1, 2009), http:/scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000
&context=crim_facpub; Visiting Hours & General Information, FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS,
http://www.bop.gov/inmate_locator/visiting.jsp (last visited July. 13, 2013); Visitation
Frequently Asked Questions, CCA BAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER (Feb. 2013), http://cca.com/
Media/Default/documents/Facility-Info-Sheets/Bay%20Correctional%20Center%20Informa
tion%20Page.pdf.
39. See Boudin, et al., supra note 38, at 17; FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, supra note 39.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

90

unknown

Seq: 8

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

inmate will receive during a week, the time, duration, manner of contact, and restrictions placed on his visitors, will be determined by his
assigned facility.40
The visitation policies and privileges vary greatly from one correctional institution to another. A 2009 assessment of U.S. jails found a
deviation of inmate visitation guidelines based on the size of the institution.41 Large jails provided more visitation hours and longer visits
than small jails.42 The large jails that participated in the study offered
inmate visitation for 32 hours per week, with visits lasting an average
of 44 minutes.43 By contrast, small jails offered inmate visitation for 9
hours per week, with visits lasting an average of 33 minutes.44 Furthermore, the study found that large jails supply more written
information to family and friends of inmates regarding visitation policies.45 This in turn helps to ensure that more visits will occur: Visitors,
aware of visitation qualifications and expectations before they arrive at
a jail, have a greater chance to comply with visitation policies, decreasing the likelihood that they will be denied a visit.
Likewise, the visitation procedures in U.S. prisons differ. For
example, an inmate in a South Dakota prison is allowed to place family
members and only two additional people on his visitation list, while an
inmate in a California prison may place an unlimited number of visitors on his list.46 State prisons in Mississippi, Connecticut, California,
New Mexico, New York, Washington, and Colorado allow for overnight
family visits,47 while prisons in other states do not.48
40. Boudin, et al., supra note 38.
41. See Sitren, et al., supra note 38, at 207, 211 (This study included information
gathered from 30 jails. Jails having a capacity of 55 inmates or less were defined as small,
and jails having a capacity of 800 inmates or more were defined as large.).
42. Id. at 215 (finding that“[t]he average number of hours of visitation among large
jails was more than three times greater than the hours of visitation among small jails”).
43. Id. at 215, 216.
44. Id.
45. Id. at 214 (noting that large jails are also more likely to provide inmates and
visitors policies such as whether visits have to be scheduled, photo identification is required,
and the maximum number of adults during a visit).
46. See Boudin, et al., supra note 38, at 18.
47. Michael Mechanic & Laura McClure, How to Get a Conjugal Visit, MOTHER JONES
(July/Aug., 2008), available at http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/how-getconjugal-visit. The Mississippi State Penitentiary was the first state prison to allow
conjugal visits in 1918 when it was formally known as Parchment Farm. Columbus B.
Hopper, The Evolution of Conjugal Visiting in Mississippi, 69 PRISON J. 103, 103 (Apr.
1989), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/120664NCJRS.pdf. The Mississippi
Department of Corrections still affords inmates conjugal visits, but only to married,
minimum custody inmates who have an acceptable behavioral rating. Conjugal Visits, MISS.
DEP’T. OF CORR., http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/conjugal_visits.htm (last visited Sept. 26,
2013).

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 9

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

91

Although inmate visitation policies and procedures may differ,
most U.S. correctional institutions make it clear that inmate visitation
is not a guaranteed right, but a regulated privilege that may be suspended at anytime.49 For instance, the Federal Bureau of Prison’s
visitation regulations clearly state that “[t]he Warden has the authority to restrict or suspend regular visiting privileges temporarily when
there is reasonable suspicion that the inmate has acted in a way that
would indicate a threat to the good order or security of the institution”;50 the Georgia Department of Corrections recognizes the
importance of inmates staying connected with their families, but also
says that visitation is a privilege;51 and the Leavenworth Kansas Detention Center, a private prison run by the Corrections Corporation of
America (“CCA”), provides notice that “[v]isits may be terminated by a
shift supervisor or above if it is believed a visitor’s behavior is detrimental to the safety and security of the facility.”52
Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has helped to insure
that correctional overseers have extreme latitude in implementing visitation privileges.53 In Overton v. Bazzetta, the U.S. Supreme Court
found that Michigan’s Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) 1995 policy of excluding prison visitation privileges, in order to “limit the
number of visitors a prisoner is eligible to receive” and “decrease the
total number of visitors,” were not unconstitutional.54 Specifically, the
Court ruled that while MDOC inmate visitation regulations (1) exclude
minor nieces and nephews, and children as to whom parental rights
48. See Boudin, et al., supra note 38, at 19. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does not
allow conjugal visits for inmates in federal prisons. Conjugal Visits: General Information,
FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, http://www.bop.gov/inmate_locator/conjugal.jsp (last visited Sept.
26, 2013); Program Statement: Visiting Regulations, FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS (May 11,
2006), http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5267_008.pdf.
49. See, e.g., Program Statement, supra note 48, FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS ; (last visited
July. 13, 2013)Guidelines for Visitors, LA. DEP’T. OF PUB. SAFETY AND& CORR., http://www.
doc.la.gov/quicklinks/offender-info/visitation/ (last visited July. 13, 2013).
50. Program Statement: Visiting Regulations, supra note 49, at 1; FED. BUREAU OF
PRISONS (May 11, 2006), http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5267_008.pdf.
51. Frequently Asked Questions: Visitation, G.A.A. DEP’T OF CORR., 1 (Sept. 17, 2008),
http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/pdf/Visitation_FAQs.pdf (“Is visitation a right? No. While it is
important for every offender to maintain connections with and the support of family and
friends during incarceration, the safety and security of staff, offenders and visitors are
critical. Therefore, visitation is a privilege afforded to offenders and should not be
considered as a right.”).
52. Leavenworth Detention Center Information Page, CCA, at 2 (Feb. 2013), http://cca.
com/Media/Default/documents/Facility-Info-Sheets/Leavenworth%20Detention%20Center%
20Information%20Page.pdf.
53. See, e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003).
54. Id. at 129.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

92

unknown

Seq: 10

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

had been terminated from visits; (2) prevent minor children of inmates
from visiting unless accompanied by an immediate family member of
the child or inmate, or the legal guardian of the child; and (3) prohibit
inmates with two substance-abuse violations from visitation privileges
for at least two years did not violate inmates’ due process rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment, were not cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eight Amendment, and were not a restraint on the freedom
of association as guaranteed by the First Amendment.55
III. U.S. PRISON

AND

JAIL VIDEO VISITATION

A. The Operations
Prison video visitation is the use of videoconferencing software
and equipment to allow inmates to visit family and friends via the Internet as opposed to face-to-face.56 Instead of being transported to
visitation areas by security guards, inmates use video stations in their
cellblock to talk with visitors sitting at corresponding video kiosks
within the institution, at kiosks outside the facility, or at home using a
webcam on their computer.57
Prison video visitation is a relatively new industry to the Prison
Industrial Complex. The video systems surfaced in the mid-1990s
when VuGate was one of the first private companies to develop the
software.58 Since then, numerous private companies have begun to offer a variety of visitation management services that fall primarily
within two larger categories: (1) onsite video visitation via individual
kiosks; or (2) online video visitation outside of the correctional facility.
Both categories include online or kiosk visitation scheduling and a
level of supervision over the video equipment.59 Companies like Vu55. Id. at 132-137. In deciding whether MDOC’s regulations were rationally related to
legitimate penological objectives, the Court applied the four factor test it had previously
adopted in Turner v. Safley: (1) “whether the regulation has a ‘valid, rational connection’ to
a legitimate governmental interest”; (2) “whether alternative means are open to inmates to
exercise the asserted right”; (3) “what impact an accommodation of the right would have on
guards and inmates and prison resources“; and (4) “whether there are ‘ready alternatives’ to
the regulation.” Id. at 132 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987)).
56. Video Visitation, RENOVO SOFTWARE INC., http://www.renovosoftware.com/
corrections-solutions/inmate-video-visitation/ (last visited Sept. 29, 2013).
57. Id.
58. See VUGate, supra note 14.
59. See, e.g.,, RENOVO SOFTWARE, supra note 19; Video Visitation, JPAY, http://jpay.
com/PVideoVisit.aspx (last visited Sept. 29, 2013) (offering face-to-face visits is real time);
Video Visitation, VISILINC, http://www.visilinc.com/visitation.html (last visited Sept. 29,
2013) (noting that it provides the software to Renovo that connects the video systems

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 11

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

93

Gate and Renovo also manufacture and install the video system
hardware that is placed in the facilities, whereas other companies that
manage visits have the equipment installed by another vender.60
Global Tel*Link is also becoming a major player in the video visitation
market. Global Tel*Link has made a majority of its profits as a telephone service provider to correctional facilities, but the company also
offers video visitation management services utilizing Renovo
equipment.61
The data on the number of operating systems is not centralized
but various sources suggest that there are “hundreds of jails in at least
20 states” utilizing prison video visitation or developing plans to employ this machinery.62
1. Onsite Video Visitation
Facilities that use onsite video visitation normally do not
charge a fee to visitors. In order to visit inmates at these correctional
institutions, visitors are required to make appointments beforehand
and arrive with the appropriate identification. Two examples of correctional facilities that use onsite video visitation are the District of
between the inmate housing and visitor areas and that its; oOther services include
consultation, installation, maintenance contracts, and the replacement of parts);
IWEBVISITS, http://www.iwebvisit.com (last visited Sept. 29, 2013) (offering remote video
visitation); Video Visitation, TELMATE, http://www.telmate.com/products/video-visitation
(last visited Sept. 29, 2013) (offering onsite and Internet video visits and claiming to have
“more remote and local video visitation installs than any other competitor”); VideoViso,
STRIKE INDUSTRIES INC., http://www.strikeind.com/Corrections%20and%20Judicial.htm
(last visited Sept. 29, 2013) (providing inmate video visitation systems for jails of all sizes);
Video Visitation, SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, https://securustech.net/web/securus/118 (last
visited Sept. 29, 2013) (providing the ability “to schedule and participate in visitations with
your loved one from the safety and comfort of your home); Video Visitation Solutions, BLACK
CREEK, http://www.blackcreekisc.com/visitation (last visited Sept. 29, 2013) (offering onpremise and off-premise visiting and claiming to be the most “sophisticated” video visitation
company in the industry because its IP Visitor© Software includes “electronic fingerprint
capture and photo ID registration of all public visitors”). This list is in no way of exhaustive
of the video visitation companies in operation in the U.S. It is provided to show how
widespread the business and practice of prison video visitation has become. It continues to
expand.
60. See supra notes 13-18.
61. GTL’s Inmate Telephone System, GLOBAL TEL*LINK, http://www.gtl.net/products/
GTL_inmate_telephone_system.shtml (last visited Sept. 29, 2013); Video Visitation Fact
Sheet, GLOBAL TEL*LINK (Mar. 13, 2013), http://www.gtl.net/documents/7000321-%20GTL%
20Video%20Visitation%20Fact%20Sheet-%20Web.pdf (claiming to integrate the services of
the “leader in inmate telephone and offender management systems with the leader in video
visitation solutions”).
62. Emmanuel, supra note 12 (stating that the data on prison video visitation systems
was collected from “interviews with system vendors, criminal justice officials and legal
experts, as well as news reports”).

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

94

unknown

Seq: 12

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

Columbia Department of Corrections in Washington, D.C. and Clark
County Detention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada.
In 2012, the District of Columbia Department of Corrections
(“DCDC”) completely did away with face-to-face visits for all inmates
housed at its Central Detention Facility/District of Columbia Jail
(“DCJ”)63 in order to “significantly streamline visitor check-in, improve
the management of inmate visitation and improve safety and accessibility for family members and friends.”64 DCDC installed 54 video
stations in jail housing units and 54 video kiosks in the DCDC Video
Visitation Center (“Visitation Center”) located in the D.C. General
Hospital Complex across the street from the DCJ.65 Inmates are allowed only two 45-minute social visits per week.66 Visitors of inmates
residing at the DCJ now make appointments online or over the phone
prior to each visit at the Visitation Center.67 Once visitors arrive at the
Visitation Center, they present their I.D. and visitation confirmation
number to the guard.68 The guard confirms the documents and then
escorts the visitors to the 54 side-by-side, black, steel, video screen kiosks with attached phone receivers and seats.69
63. Online Scheduling for Video Visitation, D.C. DEP’T OF CORR. , 4, http://doc.dc.gov/
service/online-scheduling-video-visitation (last visited Sept. 29, 2013). Notably, attorneys
and their agents are still allowed face-to-face visits with the inmate they are representing at
the DCDC. Attorney or Legal Visitor, D.C. DEP’T OF CORR., http://doc.dc.gov/page/attorneyor-legal-visitor (last visited Sept. 28, 2013) (stating that attorneys and their agents are
allowed access to their clients “24 hours per day, seven days a week”). On average, the DCJ
houses 1,736 men and the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility houses an average of 501
women inmates. Demographics and Statistics, Average Daily Population for October 2008
Through June 2013, D.C. DEP’T OF CORR. (Aug. 4, 2013), http://doc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/
dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/Demographics%20and%20Statistics%20July%2013.
pdf. The majority of the men housed at the DCJ are awaiting adjudication of their cases, or
sentenced for misdemeanor offenses so they spend less than a year at this facility. It also
holds men convicted or charged with felonies are held at DCJ until convicted and then they
are transferred to the FBOPFederal Bureau of Prisons. Central Detention Facility, D.C.
DEP’T OF CORR., http://doc.dc.gov/page/correctional-facilities (last visited Sept. 28, 2013) (“As
a result of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
1997, sentenced felons [in D.C.] are transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”).
64. Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony for Department’s New Video Visitation Center, D.C.
DEP’T OF CORR. (July 19, 2012), http://doc.dc.gov/release/ribbon-cutting-ceremonydepartment%E2%80%99s-new-video-visitation-center.
65. See Video Visitation, supra note 64.
66. See id.
67. See id.
68. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., Educational Visitation Video: Video Visitation at the DC Jail,
YOUTUBE (Sept. 4, 2012), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9JoT7tJWpI&feature=youtu.
be (explaining, in an eleven-minute, twelve-second informational video, the video visitation
process while depicting an enactment of the entire procedure and the video kiosks at the
DCJ and Visitation Center).
69. Id.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 13

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

95

Global Tel*Link (“GTL”) installed the video visitation technology at the DCDC at no apparent economic cost to the DCDC, the
inmates, or visitors.70 However, this generous bequest from GTL may
actually come with a price. GTL is already making money from the
high population of inmates at the DCDC:71 It has an exclusive contract
with the DCDC for all of their inmate telephone calls.72 The DCDC’s
prison visitation video, linked to their website, makes note that visitors
may place money on inmates’ telephone accounts using the Offender
Connect Kiosk in the waiting area or at anytime the Visitation Center
is open, adding “[d]eposits may be made using cash ($5 bills or larger)
Master Card and Visa credit/debit cards.”73 Consequently, it is difficult
to view a scenario in which the DCDC will accept a bid from another
telephone provider (even at a lower cost to inmates and their families/
friends) if GTL is providing them with free video visitation services.74
In 2009, the Clark County Detention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada (“CCDC”)75 awarded a contract to Renovo to install 272 IP video
visitation systems, making this installation one of the largest in the
U.S.76 The system launched in 2010 and, since then, the CCDC has
70. GTL’s News & Events, Mayor Vincent C. Gray Announces Implementation of Video
Visitation for D.C. Jail Inmates New Video Visitation Center Housed within the D.C.
General Hospital Complex, GLOBAL TEL*LINK, http://www.gtl.net/about/GTL_DOC_Video_
Visitation_Conferencing_Center_Release.shtml (last visited Dec. 21, 2013); Sadhbh Walshe,
Prison Video Visits Threaten to put Profit Before Public Safety, THE GUARDIAN, ,(Oct. 25,
2012, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/prison-video-visits-profitpublic-safety (noting that “Global Tel Link [is] a private corporation that is in the business
of making money”).
71. Id.
72. Id. See also, D.C. DEP’T OF CORR., supra note 65.
73. See D.C. Dep’t of Corr., supra note 69.
74. If DCDC accepts a bid for lower telephone rates in the future, they may run the
risk of being sued by GTL. In 2009, GTL sued the New York Department of Corrections for
terminating their prison telephone contract and granting it to Unisys Corporation
(“Unisys”), a rival phone provider. Global Tel*Link v. N.Y. Dep’t of Corr. Serv., 894 N.Y.S.2d
580, 581 (App. Div. 2010). Unisys claimed that they would reduce phone charges to inmate
families by $600,000.00, but GTL argued that the decision to switch was arbitrary and
without a rational basis in the record. Id. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision
finding that there was a rational basis for the award of the telephone contract to Unisys. Id.
75. The CCDC is a jail that houses an average of 3,000 inmates:. 2,000 of the inmates
are persons arrested for misdemeanor crimes and felonies in the County awaiting case
dispositions, trial, or transfer to another jurisdiction; one thousand of the inmates are
sentenced to serve time at the detention center for less than a year. See Clark Cnty. Det.
Ctr., Nev., NVClark County Detention Center Population Grows,YOUTUBE (Sept. 27, 2013),
http://youtu.be/CmjBz2llyTo (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Deputy Chief
Todd Fasulo discusses the spike in incarceration in the Clark County Detention Center
generated from increased felony arrests and more people awaiting sentencing and
competency exams; this has caused the inmate population to fluctuate up to 4,000 inmates).
76. Clark County Detention Center Revamps Video Visitation Environment, RENOVO
SOFTWARE, (Sept. 2, 20909), http://www.renovosoftware.com/news/press-releases/clark-

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

96

unknown

Seq: 14

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

completely done away with face-to-face visits for inmates.77 The onsite
prison video visitation center operations at the CCDC are similar to
those at the DCDC, but some procedures vary: Visitors to the CCDC
have to pre-register online prior to their visits, while visitors at DCDC
must register in person before registering online.78 Additionally, Renovo was paid for the installation of the video systems at CCDC, while
the visitation system provided to DCDC by GTL was technically
“free.”79
2. Online Video Visitation
The software used to manage video visitation is quite intricate,
but the basic operations of online video visitation are not that complicated. Once the video equipment is installed in a correctional facility,
visitation management companies commonly host a server to maintain
and monitor inmate visits.80 These companies offer to regulate the
scheduling of online visits via a secured website, install software
within the facility so the staff can regulate online visits, install registration kiosks within the institution for visitors without access to a
computer, and manage billing accounts.81
Online video visitation programs normally charge inmates, or
their visitors, money in order to utilize the service. Since these fees are
not regulated, the cost of online video visitation varies depending on
the facility. For example, The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“PDOC”), which utilizes one of the oldest videoconferencing
visitation programs in the U.S., charges families $20.00 for a 55-minute visit.82 The PDOC provides “virtual visitation” locations at three
county-detention-center-revamps-video-visitation-environment (noting that Clark County
also allows sixty licenses for Public Defenders to meet with clients remotely).
77. Id.
78. Scheduling a Visit Over the Web, CCDC (June 24, 2013), http://www.clarkcountynv.
gov/Depts/ccdc/Documents/Scheduling%20a%20Visit%20over%20the%20Web%20_2_%20_
2_.pdf (showing step-by-step procedures for scheduling a visit online after a visitor has first
registered in person and noting that visitors of inmates at the CCDC may also register for
inmate visits via designated kiosks).
79. See Clark County, supra note 77.
80. Visitation Management Features, RENOVO SOFTWARE, http://www.renovosoftware.
com/corrections-solutions/visitation-management-features/http://www.renovosoftware.com/
corrections-solutions/visitation-management-features (last visited Oct. 3, 2013); Products,
VUGATE http://vugate.com/products.html (last visited Oct. 3, 2013).
81. See Video Visitation, supra note 60 (noting that staff can direct walk-in visitors to a
kiosk to register or schedule a visit in order to free up their time with visitors checking in).
82. See Boudin, et al., supra note 39, at 26, 27 (noting that in 2001 the PDOC
partnered with the Pennsylvania Prison Society and received a federal grant to provide
inmates with the opportunity to visit with families in Philadelphia via videoconferencing).

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 15

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

97

correctional facilities in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Erie, Pennsylvania.83 Visitors may go to one of these facilities and pay $20.00 to
visit inmates housed in one of the following eight facilities in the state:
Albion, Dallas, Muncy, Cambridge Springs, Greene, Pine Grove, Coal
Township, or Mahanoy.84 The Virginia Department of Corrections
(“VDOC”) also offers online video visitation services, for $15.00 for a
30-minute visit and $30.00 for a 60-minute visit.85 The VDOC maintains that the “minimal” visitation fees are used to cover costs for nonprofit agencies and are not deposited in the state’s budget.86 Likewise,
the Desoto County Jail (“DCJ”) in Hernando, Mississippi charges visitors for video visits, but the cost is $20.00 for a 20-minute phone call.87
The money collected from video visits at DCJ is divided between
Securus, the visitation management company, and Desoto County.88
According to Chad Wicker, the county’s Director of Detention Services,
Desoto receives “something like” 55 percent of the money collected and
Securus gets the rest.89 Securus is also DCJ’s telephone service provider, so as GTL did for DCDC,90 Securus installed DCJ’s video
visitation system at no cost.91 Moreover, Securus signed a 5-year contract with Desoto County and gave DCJ a $100,000.00 signing bonus
for the installation of the video visitation system.92 Within the first two
The Buncombe County Detention Facility in Ashville, North Carolina also offers online
video visitation through Renovo for $6.50 for a 10-minute visit and $16.25 for a 25-minute
visit. Buncombe provides on-site video visits at the facility only once a week, but visitors
have the option to purchase additional on-site visits for $9.75. At-Home Internet Video
Visitation at Buncombe County Detention Facility, RENOVO SOFTWARE (Sept. 19, 2013),
http://www.renovosoftware.com/news/press-releases/at-home-internet-video-visitation-atbuncombe-county-detention-facility.
83. Virtual Visitation Program, PA. DEP’T OF CORR., http://www.portal.state.pa.us/
portal/server.pt/community/inmate_information/7278/virtual_visitation/1107340 (last
visited Sept. 29, 2013).
84. Id.
85. Video Visitation Program, VA. DEP’T OF CORR., http://vadoc.virginia.gov/offenders/
prison-life/videoVisitation.shtm (last visited Sept. 29, 2013). The VDOC has offered video
visitation since 2010.
86. Id.
87. Yolanda Jones, County Jail First in State to Debut Video Visitation, THE
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (Nov. 26, 2012), http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/nov/26/
desoto-county-jail-first-in-state-to-debut-video/?print=1 (noting that “20 minutes is the
maximum time inmates are allowed to visit with their families and friends”).
88. Id.
89. Id.
90. See supra Part III.A.1.
91. DeSoto County Jail Will Soon Only Allow Video Visitation, WMC-TV (June 20,
2012, 6:53AM) http://www.wmctv.com/story/18840159/desoto-county-jail-will-soon-onlyallow-video-visitation?clienttype=printable#.
92. Id.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

98

unknown

Seq: 16

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

weeks of operations, visitation at the DCJ was up 65%; however, some
complain that video visitation is impersonal and want face-to-face visits reinstated.93
While U.S. correctional institutions may offer online video visitation to reduce threats to security94 and increase the number of family
visits,95 it is easy to ascertain how the above-mentioned fees allow institutions to reduce visitation costs and increase revenues.96 Therefore,
the “Increased Revenue” sales pitch made by visitation management
companies undisputedly draws correctional departments to implement
this technology. Million dollar companies, such as Renovo,97 practically guarantee increased revenues for correctional institutions who
use their technology.98 Renovo maintains that their VisPay system is
an “effective system to generate revenue from inmate visitation” because an institution can charge for “at-home internet visitation,
additional on-site visits, specific days, times of day, or even specific vis-

93. Jones, supra note 88 (“I hate it . . . . It complicates everything and is so
impersonal.”) (quoting Jordan Mansfield of Hernando County).
94. See Emmanuel, supra notes 12; Video Visitation, supra note 14.
95. See Video Visitation, supra note 13; see also, discussion infra Part III.B.
96. See Emmanuel, supra note 12.
97. Renovo Software, MANTA, http://www.manta.com/c/mmlppdf/renovo-software (last
updated June 3, 2013) (reporting the estimated yearly income for Renovo between 5 to 10
million dollars); See also VuGate, Inc., MANTA, http://www.manta.com/c/mm30ttp/vugate-inc
(last updated June 3, 2013) (reporting an estimated 5 to 10 million dollar annual revenue
for VuGate, and other basic business information).
98. See Revenue Generation, RENOVO SOFTWARE, http://www.renovosoftware.com/
corrections-solutions/revenue-generation (last visited Sept. 30, 2013). When the
Westchester County Department of Corrections in New York contracted with Primonics,
Inc. to install an online video visitation system, Primonics maintained it would save
Westchester County $300,000 by reducing the need for physical visits to jail facilities.
Primonics Inc., Westchester County Department of Corrections Selects Primonics’ Televisit
Corrections Solution, CORRECTSOURCE, Mar. 6, 2009, http://www.corrections.com/vendor/
show_press/15701 (Discussing video conferencing between inmates and county
representatives, Commissioner Joseph Spano said, “[c]ounty representatives, such as bail
expeditors and probation officers, are now conducting business from their main offices and
no longer have to physically visit the jail. Consequently, they benefit by reducing their
transportation cost and engineering productivity gains.”). Fox23 News http://www.
fox23news.com/news/local/story/Albany-County-Jail-to-launch-new-Video-Visitation/FTHg
GxdoeUmhop_0jriMqA.cspxAlso in New York, Assistant Jail Superintendent Clark of the
Albany County Jail (“ACJ”) had this to say about ACJ’s installation of a video visitation
system: “There are options where we can have the equipment put in for free, and then
through time, start reaping some of the benefits from the cash brought in through the video
visits. It’s all about revenue. It’s all about making money for the taxpayers of Albany
County.“ Julie Tremmel, Albany County Jail to Launch new ‘Video Visitation’ Program,
FOX23 NEWS, July 24, 2012, http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/Albany-CountyJail-to-launch-new-Video-Visitation/FTHgGxdoeUmhop_0jriMqA.cspx (noting also that
visitors pay $15.00 for a 20-minute visit).

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 17

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

99

itation locations.”99 Black Creek, another private company offering
video visitation, boasts that their “IP WebVisitor© provides the highest rate of revenue return in the industry.”100 Utilizing the “Video
Visitation Revenue Calculator” provided on Black Creek’s website, a
correctional institution has the potential of generating $183,456.00 in
revenues a year if it contracts with Black Creek to manage its inmate
visitation.101 Moreover, correctional facilities can surprisingly make
additional money by selling space on the video visitation monitors to
advertisers.102 For instance, in 2009, the Charlotte County (Florida)
Sheriff’s office started selling still frame ad space on their prison video
monitors to vendors.103 The ads cost 60 cents per showing and air for
two-minute intervals; the frame repeats 24 hours per day.104
Prison and jail video visitation operations may differ based on
institutional needs; yet, its utilization is motivated by realizing the
same advantageous outcomes: the preservation of family units, reducing security risks, cutting costs, and generating revenues. If these
benefits are achieved, then why the fuss? Well, before jumping on the
proverbial prison video visitation bandwagon, the following must be
discussed: (1) whether these societal outcomes are actually fulfilled; (2)
whether the economic gains from prison video visitation further the
exploitation of disenfranchised people; and if so, (3) whether there are
circumstances under which prison video visitation systems can still operate without causing harm to society.

99. Renovo, supra note 99 (“Whether you offer on-site video visitation, internet video
visitation, face-to-face, or a mix, Renovo’s flexible revenue generation module allows you to
generate revenue each step of the way.”).
100. Black Creek’s Video Visitation Solutions: IP Web Visitor©, BLACK CREEK, Ohttp://
blackcreekisc.com/visitation.html (last visited Oct. 8, 2013).
101. Video Visitation Revenue Calculator, BLACK CREEK, http://www.blackcreekisc.com/
calculator/calculator.html (last visited Sept. 30, 2013) (The yearly revenue was generated by
typing in responses to the categories prompted and suggestions of the company: (1) “Enter
the number of inmate stations” “Typically two stations per housing unit”; (2) “Enter the
number of visits per inmate section per day” “Example: Stations will be available 12 hours
per day for visitation. Visits will be 12 minutes in length. = 36 possible visits per day, per
station at %100 utilization. E.G. %50 utilization = 18 visits per station per day” 36;
(3)”Enter the charge per visit” “A good rule of thumb is about $10.00 per 20-30 minute visit.”
$10; (4)”Enter the number of days per week visitation is allowed” “Typically 7 days per
week.” 7; (4) “Go” clicked on go; (5) “Revenue IP Web Visitor© could be generating/year for
your agency” $183,456.00).
102. Charlotte Sheriff Selling Advertising, HERALD TRIBUNE ,Oct. 7, 2009, http://www.
heraldtribune.com/article/20091007/ARTICLE/910079991/-1/NEWSSITEMAP.
103. Id.
104. Id. (explaining that “[t]he cost for one looped ad for a year is $1,533”).

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

100

unknown

Seq: 18

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

B. Keeping Families Together?
1. Inmates Serve Time Miles From Home: Video Visitation
Keeps Families Connected
It is often challenging for inmates to keep in contact with their
families due to institutional and geographic barriers. Many correctional institutions do not have sufficient bed space or ample facilities,
so they send inmates to other jails or prisons to serve sentences.105
These transfer correctional institutions are often located in rural areas; so, convicted inmates are frequently housed miles away from their
communities.106 Hence, it is almost impossible for family and friends to
visit incarcerated loved ones due to high travel costs, time limitations,
or lack of public transportation to these facilities.107 For instance,
sixty-two percent of parents in state correctional institutions were
serving time 100 miles or more away from their homes at arrest in
2004; over fifty-eight-percent of these state inmates had never received
a visit.108 The number of inmate parents away from their families in
federal correctional institutions in 2004 was even higher: Eighty-four
percent of parents in federal correctional institutions were housed
more than 100 miles from their homes and over forty-four percent of
these parents had never received a visit.109
Without the ability to consistently visit incarcerated parents,
family units— especially children—greatly suffer. There are approximately 2.6 million children in the U.S. with a parent in jail or prison on
any given day.110 The hardships these children experience are copi105.
106.

Boudin, et al., supra note 39, at 25.
Anjannette Monroe, Effects of Prisoner Location on Visitation Patterns, 8 MCNAIR
SCHOLARS RES. J., 41, 42 (2012), available at http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=mcnair_journal.
107. Id.
108. Sarah Schirmer, et. al., Incarcerated Parents and their Children: Trends, 19912007, THE SENTENCING PROJECT, 8 (2009), http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/
publications/publications/inc_incarceratedparents.pdf (finding “only 15% of parents in a
state facility and about 5% of parents in a federal facility were housed fewer than 50 miles
from their place of residence at arrest”).
109. Id. at 7, 8.
110. Susan D. Phillips, Video Visit For Children Whose Parents Are Incarcerated: In
Whose Best Interest?, THE SENTENCING PROJECT, 1 (Oct. 2012), http://sentencingproject.org/
doc/publications/cc_Video_Visitation_White_Paper.pdf. The exact figures of children of
incarcerated parents are illusory because “it is nobody’s job to find out.” Megan McMillen, I
Need to Feel Your Touch: Allowing Newborns and Infants Contact Visitation with Jailed
Parents, 2012 U. ILL. L. REV. 1811, 1820 (2012) (“Although the number of children affected
by parental incarceration can be estimated, the true scope of the problem is uncertain
because few reliable statistics exist. For the most part, law enforcement does not gather

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 19

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

101

ous.111 Children of incarcerated parents can become socially isolated
from peers, have disruptive behaviors, and reduced school performance.112 Also, with a parent removed from the home and placed in
confinement, children experience deeper poverty and are often placed
in unstable family environments.113
In order to reduce these ills, there has been a growing trend to
support and sustain children whose parents are imprisoned.114 In accordance with this movement, efforts have been made to create greater
opportunities for children to visit imprisoned parents at jails and prisons.115 Increased contact with incarcerated parents can improve a
child’s welfare by relaxing their fears associated with their parent’s detention while fostering their relationship with that parent.116 In turn,
visits with family members also help inmates. Incarcerated parents,
as well as all inmates, behave better in prison, have a lower rate of
recidivism upon leaving prison, and are generally more successful
when they re-enter society if they stay connected to their families while
incarcerated.117
Arguably, one way to raise the number of contacts between children and their incarcerated parents to preserve family units is through
information about the children of arrested adults and correctional institutions do not ask
prisoners for specific information about their children. Because there is no specific agency
or system charged with collecting data about this population, it is unclear how many
children are affected, who they are, or where they live.”).
111. See generally id.
112. See generally R.M. Cho, The Impact of Maternal Imprisonment on Children’s
Education Achievement: Results From Children in Chicago Pubic Schools, 44 J. HUM.
RESOURCES 772 (2009); Susan D. Phillips, et al., Disentangling The Risks: Parent Criminal
Justice Involvement And Children’s Exposure To Family Risks, 5 CRIMINOLOGY & PUB. POL’Y
677 (2006); Dina R. Rose & Todd R. Clear, Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime:
Implications For Social Disorganization Theory, 36 CRIMINOLOGY 441 (1998).
113. See generally id.
114. Phillips, supra note 111, at 2.
115. Id. (listing other efforts to help children of incarcerated parents such as increasing
opportunities for physical contact with parents and with instituting programs that allow
children to engage in normal parent-child activities during visits).
116. Jason LaMarca, Virtually Possible-Using the Internet to Facilitate Custody and
Parenting Beyond Relocation, 38 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 146, 165 (2012) (focusing
on video visitation in the context of parental custody and visitation rights).
117. See Monroe, supra note 107, passim; Jessica Gresko, Families Visit Prison From
Comfort of Their Homes, CORRECTIONSONE, July 2, 2009, http://www.correctionsone.com/
pc_print.asp?vid=1852337; Jeffrey M. Leving, Illinois Virtual Visitation for Incarcerated
Fathers, LEVING’S DIVORCE MAGAZINE (Mar. 31, 2009, 3:49PM), http://divorcemagazine.
wordpress.com/2009/03/31/illinois-virtual-visitation-for-incarcerated-fathers (noting the
existence of an internet video program in Florida, called Reading and Family Ties, that
allows incarcerated mothers to read stories to their children). Jeffrey Leving is the
chairman of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood and has pushed for the creation
of a virtual visitation program for incarcerated fathers in Illinois. Id.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

102

unknown

Seq: 20

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

the use of video visitation.118 Children are able to visit their incarcerated parents via video visitation kiosks at correctional institutions,
online with computers,119 or through the assistance of community organizations.120 Some jurisdictions arrange with non-profit
organizations and churches to host video visitation computer stations
for families without internet access,121 while organizations like Assisting Families of Inmates, Inc. (“AFOI”) help transport families to
correctional institutions in Virginia.122
One proponent of video visitation, Jeffery Leving, argues that it
helps to reduce the detrimental effects on children who grow up without their father’s presence.123 Leving further maintains that children
should visit their incarcerated fathers using videoconferences in child
friendly settings instead of unfavorable prisons environments that can
be traumatic.124 Candace McCann, an inmate at the Rockville Correctional Facility in Rockville, Indiana, meets with her seven year old
daughter almost every Saturday morning using a scheduled videoconference.125 Candace proclaims that video visitation makes her feel like
she is “at home, kind of“ as she watches her daughter draw pictures,
model clothes, and show off her lost teeth.126 Likewise, Deborah Reagin, imprisoned for a methamphetamine charge, says video visits “give
her a chance to feel like she’s still nearby.”127 Deborah’s daughters
have taken her on video tours of their new homes and she has enjoyed

118. Solangel Maldonado, Recidivism and Paternal Engagement, 40 FAM. L.Q 191
(2006) (examining the effects of incarceration on fathers and their children, and suggesting
that virtual visitation is a viable option to increase the contact between prisoners and their
children).
119. See discussion supra Section III.A.
120. See Phillips, supra note 111, at 4.
121. Id. (noting that the Sheriff’s Office in Pinellas County, Florida outfitted a bus with
video visitation equipment that travels to four cities).
122. Transportation Program, AFOI, http://www.afoi.org/services/transportation.html
(last visited Oct. 2, 2013) (“The cost is $10 for each adult rider & $1 for each child. Adults
with 2 or more children pay a maximum of $12.”).
123. Leving, supra note 118 (arguing that “children whose fathers are involved in their
lives perform better in school, complete more years of schooling, have fewer behavioral
problems, have better cognitive and psychological development, experience less poverty, are
less likely to drink and use drugs, and have better self-control”).
124. Id.
125. Gresko, supra note 118 (noting that Candace’s daughter lives three hours away
from the Rockville Correctional Facility with Candace’s aunt).
126. Id.
127. Id.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 21

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

103

watching her 3-year-old grandson dance to the song ”I Like to Move It“
from the movie ”Madagascar.“128
The benefits that prison video visitation provide to families,
children, and inmates are unquestionable. The opportunity to stay connected with family members is critical to families and children, as well
to an inmate’s overall morale while incarcerated and upon his re-entry
into society.129 However, the likelihood that the benefits of prison visitation also produce significant societal and economic costs cannot be
ignored.
2. Face-to-Face Visits Eliminated: Video Visitation Hurts Families
The research regarding the effects of reduced or eradicated faceto-face visits on inmates and their families is limited. However, there
seems to be a consensus among prisoner rights groups and other prison
advocacy organizations that video visitation should supplement, not
eliminate, face-to-face visits.130 According to The Corinne Wolfe Children’s Law Center (“CWCLC”), parent-child visitation is one of the
most important elements to ensure the overall well being of children of
incarcerated parents as well as inmates; and the most effective form of
parent-child visitation is through contact visitation.131 During contact
visits, children have the ability to touch his or her parent, which (1) is
“necessary for children to successfully bond with a parent”; (2) “helps
normalize the situation and the interaction between parent and child”;
128. Id. Deborah, also incarcerated at Rockville Correctional Facility in Rockville,
Indiana, states that ”[i]t makes my day a whole lot better to be able to see my family, to talk
to them“ and also to be able to see her rat terrier, Peaches; something that would never
happen in a regular prison visit. Id.
129. See La Marca supra notes 116; Monroe, supra note 117; Maldonado, supra note
118.
130. Phillips, supra note 111, at 3, 14 (“Children may benefit from video visitation if it
increases opportunities for them to communicate with their parents. But video visitation is
not a substitute for in-person contact visits, particularly for infants and young children.”);
Anthony Gierzynski, et al., Vermont Legislative Research Service, Prison Video
Conferencing, UNIV. OF VT., (May 15, 2011), http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/CriminalJusticeand
Corrections/prison%20video%20conferencing.pdf; Corinne Wolfe Children’s Law Center,
Connecting Children with Incarcerated Parents, UNIV. OF N.M., 2 (June 4, 2011), http://
childlaw.unm.edu/docs/BEST-PRACTICES/Connecting%20Children%20with%20
Incarcerated%20Parents%20(2011).pdf [hereinafter CWCLC] (“Contact visitation is
recommended in most cases unless contact with parents is not determined to be in the
child’s best interest by the court.”). See also Institute of Public Law, UNIV. OF N.M., http://
lawschool.unm.edu/ipl/index.php (last visited Oct 8, 2013) (noting that the Corinne Wolfe
Children’s Law Center is located in the University of New Mexico’s Institute of Public Law).
131. CWCLC, supra note 131, at 2, 3 (discussing the correlation between parent-child
contact and reduced recidivism).

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

104

unknown

Seq: 22

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

and (3) “benefits children emotionally and behaviorally.”132 So arguably, correctional visitation policies that do not allow face-to-face or
contact visits are failing to provide inmates and their children with the
best opportunity to maintain their family units.
Communities have begun to voice their disdain for the elimination of face-to-face and contact visits for prison video visitation. In
Washington, D.C., there has been public uproar against the total elimination of face-to-face visits in the D.C. Central Detention Facility/
District of Columbia Jail.133 “Being in the same room is something you
can’t replace,” said Denise, a parent of an 18 year old in custody at the
D.C. Jail.134 Denise appeared on WRC-TV news, and described how
video visitation created distance between inmates and family members
after D.C. eliminated face-to-face visits.135 Additionally, other D.C.
families, the District of Columbia Bar Association, the Washington
Post editorial board, and members of the D.C. Council are pushing for
the restoration of in-person visits: These groups argue that videoconferencing is impersonal and undermines inmate rehabilitation.136 On
February 5, 2013, D.C. Councilman Muriel Bowser introduced Bill 20122, the Video Visitation Modification Act of 2013, in order to overturn
D.C.’s policy that eliminated in-person jail visits.137 Councilman Bow132. Id. at 2 (commenting that contact visitation between children and incarcerated
parents is recommended in most cases unless the court determines that it is not in the
child’s best interest or, if contact visitation is not feasible due to distance, then visitation by
telephone or videoconferencing should be encouraged).
133. John Kruzel, Visitation Slights: How Two Policies Stack the Deck Against D.C.
Inmates, WASHINGTON CITY PAPER (May 22, 2013, 6:03PM), http://www.washingtoncity
paper.com/blogs/citydesk/2013/05/22/visitation-slights-how-two-policies-stack-the-deckagainst-d-c-inmates.
134. Id.
135. Tom Sherwood, Push for In-Person Visits at D.C. Jail (WRC-TV news broadcast
Feb. 6, 2013), available at http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/first-read-dmv/189949461.
html.
136. See, e.g., Public Statement Regarding the Video Visitation Policy of the D.C.
Department of Corrections, D.C. BAR, http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/sections/litigation/
video.cfm (last visited Oct. 4, 2013) (arguing that videoconferencing “should not, and simply
cannot, replace all in–person visits” which are invaluable for detainees, family and friends
who support them); Washington Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights and Urban Affairs,
Council Members Move to Reinstate In-Person Jail Visits (Feb. 5, 2013), http://www.
washlaw.org/news-a-media/298-news-jail-visitsn (applauding the legislation stating,
“[s]eeing one’s parents, children, spouses, or other loved ones on a computer monitor is not
the same as seeing them face-to-face”).
137. Press Release, Councilmember Muriel Bowser, Bowser Introduces Bill Re-instating
In-person Detainee Visitation Policy, (Feb. 5, 2013), http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/bowser/
downloads/pr/2.5.13.Bowser.Introduces.Visitation.Bill.pdf ; Video Visitation Modification
Act of 2013, D.C. COUNCIL, http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/lims/legislation.aspx?LegNo=B200122.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 23

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

105

ser has clearly expressed her disapproval with D.C.’s switch to video
visitation:
If we’re going to stop the revolving the door of returning citizens, it’s important that we create the best possible situation for our
men and women in the prison system to re-enter society as productive
citizens. That’s why we need to change current measures that are detrimental to rehabilitation, which include preventing in-person visits.
We can’t physically separate our citizens who are returning to society
with the personal bonds that connect them to it.138
In support of Bill 20-122, the Director of Governmental Affairs
of the Office of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) wrote a letter to
the Chairperson of the Committee discussing the bill, outlining the
ABA standards that support reinstating face-to-face visits.139
Moreover, years of psychological research fortify the need for
face-to-face and contact visits. Since the nineteenth century, psychologists have recognized that humans have a biological need to be
touched.140 This need has been described as an “actual hunger for
touch that can be met only through contact with another human being.”141 Recent studies have shown that the touch can reduce stress
levels, create a level of trust between people, and lead to heightened
levels of performance.142 For instance, the need for physical attachment can easily be seen in newborns and infants when a parent is sent
to jail:143 Infants as well as small children who are not held by parents
during prison visitations develop an increase in anxiety, mental health
138. Press Release, supra note 138, at 1; see also WCR-TVSherwood, supra note 136
(stating that prison visits through a TV screen are not actually visits).
139. Letter from Thomas Susman, ABA, to Tommy Wells, Chairperson, Comm. on the
Judiciary & Pub. Safety, D.C. Council (June 19, 2013), http://www.americanbar.org/content/
dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/2013june19_dcvisitation_l.authcheckdam.pdf (“[T]he ABA
supports developing alternative visitation methods such as video visitation in some cases,
but only to the extent that video visitation does not replace critical in-person contact visits.
Contact visits are crucial to a well-functioning correctional program and should be available
especially for people whose confinement extends beyond 30 days.”) (citing ABA, TREATMENT
OF PRISONERS STANDARDS: VISITATION STANDARD 23-8.5(e) (3d ed. 2011)).
140. Robert W. Hatfield, Ph.D.,Touch and Human Sexuality, Vern L. Bullough &
Bonnie Bullough, Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia (1994) available at http://faculty.plts.
edu/gpence/PS2010/html/Touch%20and%20Human%20Sexuality.htm; Need for Touch, THE
WELLSPRING, http://www.thewellspring.com/wellspring/sensing/1927/need-for-touch.cfm
(last visited Oct. 4, 2013) (discussing a study in which children who were abandoned and
sent to foundling homes died by the thousands because they were not held, but were fed,
clean and protected).
141. Id.
142. Carey Benedict, Evidence That Little Touches Do Mean So Much, N.Y. TIMES, Feb.
23, 2010, at D5.
143. See McMillen, supra note 111, at 1824 (looking at how the lack of contact during
jail visits effects infants and newborns).

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

106

unknown

Seq: 24

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

problems, and antisocial behaviors.144 Therefore, correctional policies
that allow contact visits would likely reduce these effects on children
as well as the adults.145
In-person and contact visits also greatly strengthen family ties
at a time where communal bonds are severely threatened.146 These visitation practices help to fulfill the primary stated goals of correctional
institutions: preserving family units and the successful re-entry of inmates into society.147 Yet, why would jail and prison administrators
adopt prison video visitation to the exclusion of these types of visits?
The answer appears to lie in money, an instance where “[g]reed is the
inventor of injustice as well as the current enforcer.”148
C. Another Inhumane and Profiteering Scheme of the
Prison Industrial Complex
The Prison Industrial Complex (“PIC”) is a multimillion-dollar
profiteering industry that is driven by the greed of private corporations, the federal government, federal, state, and private correctional
institutions, and politicians.149 The PIC is one of the fastest-growing
industries in the U.S.150 It “has its own trade exhibitions, conventions,
websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies,
investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food
supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety
of colors.”151 This system generates revenues from the economic ex144. Id.
145. Id. (explaining that “good-quality contact” with incarcerated parents will help
counteract threats to attachment) (citing Joseph Murray et al., Effects of Parental
Imprisonment on Child Anti-Social Behavior and Mental Health: A Systematic Review,
CAMPBELL SYSTEMATIC REV., Sept. 23, 2009, at 12, 35); David Fathi, The Common Law of
Supermax Litigation, 24 PACE L. REV. 675, 686 (2004) (focusing on the inmates in supermax
prisons and how contact visits leads to better prison behavior and more successful
reintegration upon release).
146. Editorial Board, The Post’s Views:Virtual Visits for Inmates? WASH. POST, July 26,
2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/virtual-visits-for-inmates/2012/07/26/gJQ
AultJCX_story.html.
147. See Monroe, supra note 118 and accompanying text.
148. Julian Casablancas Quote, IZ QUOTES, http://izquotes.com/quote/33183 (last visited
Oct. 4, 2013).
149. Patrice Fulcher, Hustle and Flow: Prison Privatization Fueling the Prison
Industrial Complex, 51 WASHBURN L.J. 589, 593 (2012).
150. Vicky Pelaez, The Prison Industry In The United States: Big Business Or A New
Form Of Slavery?, GLOBAL RESEARCH (Jan. 31, 2013), http://www.globalresearch.ca/theprison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289.
151. Id.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 25

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

107

ploitation and dehumanization of the high numbers of human beings in
U.S. jails and prisons.152 Private prison companies, for example, donate money to political campaigns under the belief that politicians will
pass tough crime laws.153 Once implemented, these laws help to maintain, if not increase the correctional population:154 As the population
increases, public prisons implode, so federal and state correctional institutions contract with private prisons to house their inmates.155
Then, private prison companies use their inmates’ labor in order to
make additional profits for their shareholders.156 Accordingly, inmates
housed in public federal and state departments of corrections are also
economically oppressed and degraded through the workings of the PIC
because they are forced to work for little to no wages.157 These inmates
make products for governmental agencies and private companies, and
work inside and outside jails and prisons for the benefit of governmental agencies.158 Equally troubling, the exclusive use of prison video
visitation may be another profiteering scheme of the PIC.
The growth of jail and prison populations has become more concentrated in disadvantaged and primarily minority communities in the
U.S.159 Once a person is arrested, his family may become economically
depressed, or further depressed, with the loss of income.160 Initially,
the family may expend funds for bail and attorney fees. Then, the family may struggle to pay for costs—like visitation—associated with
152. Fulcher, supra note 150, at 599 (discussing how the PIC generates high revenues
from the utilization of private prisons).
153. Id. at 607 (“Between 2003 and 2012, CCA, GEO, and Cornell Companies (prior to
its merger with GEO) contributed a total of $4,839,548 to state Democratic and Republican
candidates and committees.”).
Id. at 607, 608.
154.
155. Id. at 597, 598.
156. Pelaez, supra note 151.
157. Noah Zatz, Working at the Boundaries of Markets: Prison Labor and the Economic
Dimension of Employment Relationships, 61 VAN. L. REV. 857, 857-958 (2008). The Federal
Prison Industry (“FPI”) was created in 1934 and is a wholly owned U.S. for-profit
corporation. Factory with Fences: The History of Federal Prison Industries, NCJRS, 10
(1996), http://www.unicor.gov/information/publications/pdfs/corporate/CATMC1101_C.pdf.
158. Zatz, supra note 158; David Leonhardt, As Prison Labor Grows, So Does the Debate,
N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 19, 2000, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/19/business/as-prison-laborgrows-so-does-the-debate.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm; Pelaez, supra note 150.
159. See generally TODD R. CLEAR, IMPRISONING COMMUNITIES: HOW MASS
INCARCERATION MAKES DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS WORSE (STUDIES IN CRIME AND
PUBLIC POLICY) (Michael Tonry & Norval Morris eds., Oxford Univ. Press, USA 2007).
160. Jeremy Travis, et al., Urban Inst. Justice Pol’y Ctr., Families Left Behind: The
Hidden Costs of Incarceration and Reentry 5 (2005), available at http://www.urban.org/
UploadedPDF/310882_families_left_behind.pdf (“Most parents (71%) in state prison were
employed either full- or part-time in the month preceding their arrest.”).

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

108

unknown

Seq: 26

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

incarceration if that person is convicted.161 Consequently, the money
depleted from families of incarcerated inmates is excessive from the
onset, and may increase exponentially every day their loved one is in
custody.
The current implementation of video visitation within facilities
in most cases is not an additional expense to families, but the fees for
online video visitation run the risk of becoming exploitative. As explored above in Part III.A.2, correctional institutions have complete
discretion in implementing rates and fees for online visits.162 As a result, charges for inmate online video visitation fees are completely
unregulated just like inmate telephone calls were for the past twenty
years. However, in August of 2013, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) stepped in and voted to regulate inmate calls.163 The
FCC, finding that inmate telephone fees were “exorbitant,” voted to cap
telephone rates at twenty cents a minute for debit calls, and twenty
five cents a minute for collect calls.164 Prior to the FCC’s regulation,
inmates were paying over $17.00 for a 15-minute phone call.165 Not
surprisingly, the inmate telephone service providers Securus and GTL,
161. Id. at 5, 6. In Arizona, state legislation allows the Arizona Department of
Corrections (“ADC”) to charge adult visitor a $25.00 one-time fee to pay for a “background
check,” but the money admittedly goes towards prison maintenance and repairs. Goode,
supra note 11. Correctional institutions charge inmate families for background checks as a
condition of visitation. Id. The ADC also charges 1 percent for deposits made to an inmate’s
spending account. Id.
162. See supra notes 85, 86, 88 and accompanying text.
163. Aaron Smith, FCC Votes to Reduce Rates for Prison Phone Calls, CNNMONEY, Aug.
9, 2013, http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/09/technology/prison-phone-calls/index.html (noting
that this FCC decision comes more than a decade after the U.S. District Court denied
Martha Wright’s petition for relief from exorbitant inmate telephone fees to her grandson at
$1,000.00 per year). Notably, the FCC made the decision, in part, to break up a monopoly of
prison phone service companies charging exorbitant rates. Id. However, the top providers—
GTL, Securus, Pay-Tel, Telmate, and CenturyLink—will still be allowed to make a profit.
Id. See also Matt Sledge, Prison Phone Call Industry Will Fight New FCC Rules Lowering
Rates For Inmates, HUFFINGTON POST, Sept. 9, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/
09/09/prison-phone-call-fcc_n_3894556.html?view=print&comm_ref=false; Press Release,
Mark Wigfield, Federal Communications Commission, FCC Bars High Rates for Long
Distance Phone Calls in Jails and Prisons Nationwide (Aug. 9, 2013) (copy on file at http://
www.fcc.gov.). But see Doug Lung, Government Shutdown Curtails Some FCC Operations,
TVTECHNOLOGY (Oct. 7, 2013, 11:31AM), http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/governmentshutdown-curtails-some-fcc-operations-/221739 (“[D]uring the Federal Government-wide
shutdown, the FCC is limited to performing duties that are immediately necessary for the
safety of life or the protection of property. FCC online systems will not be available until
further notice.”).
164. Id. See also Gary Harki, Portsmouth’s Video Visitation is Convenient, at a cost,
PILOTONLINE.COM, Aug. 15, 2013, http://hamptonroads.com/print/686582 (companies who
wish to charge higher rates have to apply for a waiver).
165. Sledge, supra note 164.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 27

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

30-APR-14

8:03

109

who control 80% of the prison phone call market, are appealing the
FCC’s decision.166 In the past, these companies have made a fortune on
inmate telephone calls in this $1.2 billion a year industry.167 Currently, Securus and GTL are both providing video visitation services to
U.S. jails and prisons.168 As a result, these companies have the opportunity to recoup any losses from the FCC’s regulation of inmate
telephone rates from video visitation service fees.
Accordingly, the exploitation of prisoners and their families
through video visitation methods will lead to increased profits for
prison video visitation service providers. Securus and GTL are not the
only ones who will continue to make millions from unregulated inmate
video visitation systems. In 2008 alone, Renovo earned $5 million,
which was up from $2 million in 2007.169 The Renovo partners borrowed $110,000 from a relative of Eickhoff’s (a founder of the company)
relatives to start the business. They easily repaid the loan within six
months from the profits generated from the company.170
Correctional institutions are also generating funds from the use
of online video visitation by family and friends of inmates. In Ada
County, Idaho, the sheriff claimed that virtual visits would generate

166. Id. In response to the FCC decision, Richard Smith, CEO of Securus, lashed out:
“What we’ve built for the corrections industry is very secure and it helps solve tens of
thousands of crimes a year, and it helps save thousands of lives a year (pointing to the
technology his company uses to catch prisoners ordering hits on people). . . . All the good
work gets undone when you paint us as bad guys who are making lots and lots of money,
and we’re just raping the friends and families of inmates.” Id. Further, Smith maintained
that families should be able to pay the monthly rates—which, in his calculations, come out
to $34.00 a month —apparently because he saw people visiting inmates with one or two cell
phones and driving nice cars. See id.
167. Todd Shields, Crime Pays—for Phone Companies, BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK,
Oct. 25, 2012, http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/77924-crime-pays-for-phonecompanies. In exchange for exclusive state contracts to provide inmates phone services,
these phone companies turned over a portion of the excessive fees to the state. Id. According
to the FCC, “[f]orty-two states collected $152 million in commissions in 2008, with the
average being 42 percent of the calling charges . . . .”Id. Notably, the inmate telephone rates
were lower for the eight states that did not take a cut of the phone contracts. Id.
168. See Renovo, supra notes 60; GTL, supra note 62.
169. Dick Youngblood, Edina Firm’s Software Has Corrections Connections, STAR
TRIBUNE, Mar. 25, 2009, http://www.startribune.com/business/41867307.html?elr=KArks
UUUU.
170. Id. (noting that Renovo sells its systems with an annual support and upgrade fee of
$150 per video station); see also Datapoint Receives $800,000 Order to Expand World’s
Largest Video Visitation System at Pinellas County Jail in Florida, THE BUSINESS WIRE,
Jan. 15, 1999, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=53585303 (noting
that in 1999, Datapoint, another provider of video visitation services, received $800,000 to
install videoconferencing systems at the Pinellas County Jail in Clearwater, Florida).

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

110

unknown

Seq: 28

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

more than $2,000,000 over two years.171 In Portsmouth, Virginia, the
city contracted with a video visitation company called HomeWave;172
HomeWave grosses about $1,400 a month from inmate calls and the
Portsmouth Sheriff’s Department receives about $1,000 a month.173
Consequently, prison video visitation companies, through contracts with U.S. correctional departments, will continue to collect fees
in complete disregard for the humanity of the people involved. The exclusive use of unregulated inmate video visitation technology will
generate more difficult socioeconomic choices. For example, Ms.
Martha Wright, was forced to choose paying high telephone rates to
talk with her grandson on Sundays over paying for her prescribed
medicine.174 Moreover, this profit driven desire for revenues from video
visitation fees creates the demand for mass incarceration: The less people in prison, the lower the number of inmate family members
available to pay for video visitation, thereby lowering corporate gains.
When profits are at stake, these companies may follow the lead of private prison companies and start lining the pockets of politicians for
tougher criminal laws in order to keep people locked up and dependent
on their services.175 Finally, it also worth noting that all inmate video
visitation sessions are monitored and recorded, just like telephone
phone calls.176 Accordingly, since these recordings may be used as evidence in the prosecution of inmates awaiting disposition or appealing
sentences, this also potentially increases the number of people convicted and sent to prison.177
IV. CONCLUSION: KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER WITHOUT
ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
171. Sadhbh Walshe, Prison Video Visits Threaten To Put Profit Before Public Safety,
THE GUARDIAN, Oct. 25, 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/
prison-video-visits-profit-public-safety.
172. See Harki, supra note 165.
173. Id.
174. David Ganim, After Ten Years, FCC Votes for Prison Phone Reforms! PRISON LEGAL
NEWS, https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/%28S%284c0nsij5d44q5z553nmmh4bl%29%29/
25544_displayArticle.aspx (last visited Oct. 5, 2013); Sledge, supra note 164.
175. See supra note 153.
176. See Sledge, supra note 164.
177. I will specifically address this issue in a future Article.

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

2013

unknown

Seq: 29

30-APR-14

PRISON VIDEO VISITATION

8:03

111

Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend’s
Or of thine own were:
Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.178

Those who have a voice and a means to make a difference
should not overlook the plight of inmates and their families. Human
beings have a natural drive to stay connected, especially when a member of their community is confined to jail or prison, so families of
inmates will continue to be economically subjugated by those who pursue profits over human needs. People will continue to suffer under the
pains of economic disenfranchisement if in-person and contact visits of
inmates are completely replaced by video visitation screens.
The benefits of supporting a family’s commitment to stay connected with incarcerated loved ones are endless. Mark Schand of
Hartford, Connecticut, was recently granted a new trial after twentyseven years in custody. Schand was arrested and convicted for a murder when he was twenty-five, but maintained his innocence all along.
Schand’s motion for new trial was granted based on newly discovered
evidence: eyewitnesses at trial recanted their testimony that Schand
was not even on the scene. The prosecutor for the State did not object
to the motion for new trial, nor did he object to Schand being released
on his own recognizance. Schand’s motion for new trial was the result
of the efforts of his attorneys, Centurion Ministries Inc., an innocence
project, and—more importantly—the fortitude of his wife and family
members to fight for his innocence and keep him connected to his children. During the twenty-seven years Schand was imprisoned, his wife
Mia visited him every week. Mia was pregnant when Schand was arrested. After Mia gave birth to their son, she took him along with
Schand’s two other sons to see him every week. “My family stuck by
me,” Schand said. “The day I got cuffed up, I had a woman by my side.
Twenty-eight years later, she’s right here. I don’t know if that’s normal. I still can’t fathom that.” Schand’s son Mark said it was difficult
knowing his dad was in prison for something he didn’t do, but that his
dad was cheerful every time he visited him. “It’s basically like he
raised us from inside prison.”179
178. John Donne, No Man is an Island (1624), POEMHUNTER.COM, http://www.
poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island.
179. Buffy Spencer, The Republican, Judge Orders Mark Schand To Be Granted A New
Trial In Fatal 1986 Shooting Of Victoria Seymour, MASS LIVE (Oct. 4, 2013), http://

\\jciprod01\productn\F\FAM\9-1\FAM103.txt

112

unknown

Seq: 30

FLORIDA A & M UNIV. LAW REVIEW

30-APR-14

8:03

Vol. 9:1:83

In order to preserve family units and make inmate re-entry
more likely to be permanent and successful, more thought and consideration must be given about inmate placement and visitation
procedures in the U.S. correctional institutions. The first goal should
be to house sentenced inmates as close to their communities as possible. In so doing, the likelihood that families will be able to visit
incarcerated loved ones will increase. If inmates cannot be housed close
to their communities, correctional institutions must make provision to
provide transportation to rural facilities at no cost, or at least on a
need basis, to inmate families. While budget constraints always appear
to be at issue, a duty ought to be placed on correctional institutions to
raise funds; for instance, by teaming with non-profits, churches, or
other community organizations to meet this goal.
Second, correctional visitation policies must be revamped and
geared towards strengthening families and successful re-entry, not pecuniary gain. Administrators of U.S. jails and prisons should be
prohibited from making arbitrary and capricious guidelines that, by
their nature, prevent family and friends from visiting. For instance,
adults in Arizona should not have to pay for background checks before
they can visit someone in jail.180 These types of policies and programs
serve to punish not just the offender, but also their families and the
communities where they lived before their incarceration.
Prison video visitation, if regulated and used in conjunction
with face-to-face and contact visits can further the altruistic goals outlined above as well as the institutional goals of safety and efficiency.
The use of inmate video visitation services must not be oppressive, so
fees must be affordable and transparent so that there are no hidden
costs. The superior option is that inmate video visitation should be provided for free; yet, I am opposed to any “person” working and not
getting compensated, inmates and corporations alike. Ultimately,
prison video visitation is a double-edged sword as currently implemented, yet it does not have to be.
blog.masslive.com/breakingnews/print.html?entry=/2013/10/judge_orders_mark_schand_
be_gr.html (Centurion Ministries located and interviewed numerous witnesses. They found
five key witnesses whom the prosecution or the defense had interviewed during the
investigation of Schand’s trial in 1987. Schand’s attorneys argued for over twenty years that
prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the then Assistant District Attorney Francis Bloom
resulted in a false conviction. Cooke, one of the eye witnesses at Schand’s trial, testified at
Schand’s motion to dismiss hearing that “Bloom met with him and he came out of that
meeting believing if he identified Schand as the shooter at the 1987 [trial] he would get help
on his own breaking and entering case. Cooke was released on own his recognizance the day
he met with Bloom. After Schand was convicted, Cooke was given probation.).
180. See Goode, supra note 162.