Revisiting Family Visit Policies in Washington State: A Call for Reform

Washington State is one of the few states that still permits Family Visits, more commonly known as conjugal visits. However, the current policy (DOC 590.100) governing these visits in Washington State is deeply flawed and requires urgent revision.

One significant issue is the exclusion of individuals with a history of domestic violence or domestic violence indicators from participating in Extended Family Visits (EFVs) with anyone perceived to be in a "like relationship" to the alleged victim. This policy is problematic for several reasons:

Presumption of Innocence: The Department of Corrections (DOC) is effectively punishing individuals for crimes they have not been charged with or convicted of. This goes against the fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty." The use of domestic violence indicators to deny EFVs is particularly concerning, as it often penalizes individuals based on mere accusations or past incidents that did not result in conviction.
Thorough Background Checks: The DOC conducts comprehensive background checks before approving visitors and has full access to an incarcerated individual's criminal history. If someone is deemed too much of a safety risk to participate in EFVs due to a past domestic violence incident or indicator, it raises the question: why are they allowed to get married? The inconsistency is glaring. If a wife is considered unsafe during a supervised visit because of a single incident from over a decade ago, why is it assumed she will be safe once her husband is released at the end of his sentence?
Offensive Comparisons: The term "like relationship" is offensive and misleading. It equates long-term, committed relationships with brief and possibly tumultuous past relationships. For example, it is deeply insulting to consider a marriage of ten years as equivalent to a two-month relationship from twenty years ago. People change and grow, and past relationships should not be used to measure the legitimacy or safety of current relationships.
Misinterpretation of Domestic Violence: Domestic violence charges can arise from various situations, including non-violent public arguments or property damage like a slashed tire or a broken window. These incidents do not necessarily indicate a pattern of abusive behavior but can reflect momentary lapses in judgment.
Inconsistency in Policy Application: The policy allows murderers and sex offenders to participate in EFVs after completing certain courses, yet there is no similar path for those with a history of domestic violence. If educational courses and victim impact panels can help rehabilitate other offenders, why are similar opportunities not available for individuals with past domestic violence incidents?
Impact on Family Bonds: The current policy also severely impacts children, who are deprived of crucial bonding time with their incarcerated parent. EFVs offer a rare opportunity for children to interact with their parents in a more natural and intimate setting, fostering emotional connections that are vital for the well-being of both the child and the parent. Depriving children of these visits can lead to long-term emotional and psychological consequences, and it can also impede the incarcerated parent's rehabilitation and reintegration into the family and society.

EFVs can significantly strengthen relationships and encourage positive behavior among incarcerated individuals. However, the current participation policy is maddening and disheartening, denying many the chance to benefit from this program. It is imperative that this policy be revised to offer everyone the opportunity to participate in EFVs, provided they meet reasonable and rehabilitative criteria. By doing so, Washington State can ensure a fairer and more just approach to family visits, ultimately fostering healthier relationships and better outcomes for all involved.

Additional resources on this topic:

コメント