If enacted, AB 958 would amend several sections of the Penal Code, significantly affecting regulations concerning inmate visitation. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining family bonds for inmates, noting that regular contact with family leads to improved behavior and reduced recidivism rates. Moreover, the bill establishes that any denials of visitations must come with a clear rationale communicated to both the visitor and the incarcerated person, increasing transparency in the visitation process and ensuring accountability from correctional institutions.
Assembly Bill 958 aims to enhance the visitation rights of incarcerated individuals in California by formalizing the right to personal visits as a civil right. The bill stipulates that in-person visits from intimate partners and family members cannot be denied or restricted unless necessary to uphold a compelling state security interest. It also mandates the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide a minimum of three days of in-person visitation a week — with at least eight visiting hours each day — along with additional access to video calls. This legislative effort seeks to maintain family relationships as crucial for the emotional and psychological well-being of inmates, and ultimately for successful rehabilitation upon release.
The sentiment toward AB 958 has been generally supportive among advocates for prisoner rights, who argue that the preservation of family connections is vital for rehabilitation. However, there are concerns among law enforcement and correctional officials about how the bill's provisions might complicate security measures in prisons, prompting a debate about balancing security interests with individual rights. Supporters argue that the bill addresses long-standing issues of isolation faced by inmates, especially in light of the restrictions seen during the COVID-19 pandemic which limited access to in-person visits.
Notable points of contention include concerns that the bill may lead to potential complications in managing prison security, especially if the criteria for denying visitation are perceived as overly strict or subject to misinterpretation. Critics fear that without careful oversight, the provisions identifying legitimate security concerns may be inadequately managed, leading to situations where inmates might be unduly deprived of familial contact. Additionally, discussions surrounding the definitions of family and intimate partners have raised questions about who exactly qualifies for these visitation rights, potentially creating ambiguities in enforcement.