"Reading" a Neighbor's Mail

[omgheather]

When I worked at a prison the only private correspondence was between an inmate and their legal counsel.

All incoming and outgoing mail was read to prevent illegal activities (usually drug deals).  Unless things have changed a whole lot, a correspondence between a convicted felon and a child under 18 is monitored by the prison authorities.

I am assuming this is still the case.

Not doubting you, but how would the authorities verify that the person he was corresponding with was over 18? Do they just ask him, and assume he tells the truth, or do they do a background check on his pen pal?

I know for a fact in order to get a phone call, they have to submit a phone bill and copies of ID's before they allow a phone call to a private residence.  I also know you can't click over to the other line etc or the call ends.  They do keep strict tabs on that.

Mail, not so much.  They only read it for illegal substance, nude pictures, money and/or illegal activities.  Such as what and when for them to break out etc.

Other than that, mail is unrestricted.  But they do mark clearly where the envelope is from.

[Juana la Loca]

I may be wrong but I can not believe there is  parent wouldn't want to know .

POD to you.

Mama Isabella would have wanted to know if I'd sneezed at the neighbor's dog. You bet your (insert prized possession of choice here) that she'd have wanted to know I was corresponding with a prisoner.

Not that I ever did, mind you, but the other tricks I got up to are part of why Mama Iz has to color her hair now.

[It's good to be Queen]

In my experience, the prison can open and read all mail but they do not screen who it comes from.  I corresponded for a few years with an old friend in a state prison and all I had to do was get her inmate number and start writing.  I don't think there is any screening of who letters are sent to or received from unless there is some sort of restriction in place for the prisoner (i.e. a murderer can't correspond with his victim's family).

[DavidH]

I think the best response, now that the letter has been returned is to ask did their daughter get the letter on Saturday that they left in the mailbox after the usual delivery.  It alerts them to the letter, the addressee, which they would have to have read to know where to send it and does not set up the potential for embarrassment. 

If they feel they must discuss the sender, mention the letter from the prison, but don't discuss the inmate or his crime.  This should be enough for even the most clueless of parents to investigate further, but also allow them to say yes, it's part of XYZ project or something like that to avoid embarrassment. 

There is no need for the parents to know that the neighbor not only read the return address, but looked up the inmate.

In general, I think an anonymous letter is a bad idea because it doesn't allow the recipient to assess the credibility of the source.  Any teen who could conceal correspondence with the prisoner could also cast enough doubt on the anonymous letter to make it useless.  For example, they could say it was from an enemy at school who was trying to get her in trouble and that the letter in question was from someone else, or even part of the prank.

[Twik]

I think the best response, now that the letter has been returned is to ask did their daughter get the letter on Saturday that they left in the mailbox after the usual delivery.  It alerts them to the letter, the addressee, which they would have to have read to know where to send it and does not set up the potential for embarrassment. 

If they feel they must discuss the sender, mention the letter from the prison, but don't discuss the inmate or his crime.  This should be enough for even the most clueless of parents to investigate further, but also allow them to say yes, it's part of XYZ project or something like that to avoid embarrassment. 

There is no need for the parents to know that the neighbor not only read the return address, but looked up the inmate.

In general, I think an anonymous letter is a bad idea because it doesn't allow the recipient to assess the credibility of the source.  Any teen who could conceal correspondence with the prisoner could also cast enough doubt on the anonymous letter to make it useless.  For example, they could say it was from an enemy at school who was trying to get her in trouble and that the letter in question was from someone else, or even part of the prank.

<---- What he said. 

I particularly agree that anonymous letters aren't the way to go. As David says, without the original letter from prison, how would the parents know if it were true, or a smear campaign against their daughter?

[hobish]

This is what happens to nosy people - they get into awkward situations.

They know nothing about this girl. They should have dropped the enveloppe into their neighbour's mailbox without reading it (and worse, looking up information about the letter's sender).

Seriously. I hope this teaches them to mind their own business and doesn't fuel them toward more acts of busibodiness.

[Elfqueen13]

When I worked at a prison the only private correspondence was between an inmate and their legal counsel.

All incoming and outgoing mail was read to prevent illegal activities (usually drug deals).  Unless things have changed a whole lot, a correspondence between a convicted felon and a child under 18 is monitored by the prison authorities.

I am assuming this is still the case.

Not doubting you, but how would the authorities verify that the person he was corresponding with was over 18? Do they just ask him, and assume he tells the truth, or do they do a background check on his pen pal?

If the only unscreened mail is from a lawyer, then the age of the correspondent is irrelevant.  She's not his lawyer so all letters are read by prison officials first.  Doesn't matter if it's a 17-year-old girl or the inmates' 92-year-old grandma.

[wolfie]

I think if the neighbor's are going to say something they should just come out and say they noticed the return address was a prison and just wanted to be sure the parents knew about it. If they try to ask if the daughter got the envelope it begs the question of why they put the letter in the mailbox if they were so unsure that putting it there would get it to the recipient. There really is no way to make this a casual thing now - the only way to have done that is to hand the letter over. Now it's obvious they read the address and have been mulling it over and decided to say something afterall.

[Twik]

When I worked at a prison the only private correspondence was between an inmate and their legal counsel.

All incoming and outgoing mail was read to prevent illegal activities (usually drug deals).  Unless things have changed a whole lot, a correspondence between a convicted felon and a child under 18 is monitored by the prison authorities.

I am assuming this is still the case.

Not doubting you, but how would the authorities verify that the person he was corresponding with was over 18? Do they just ask him, and assume he tells the truth, or do they do a background check on his pen pal?

If the only unscreened mail is from a lawyer, then the age of the correspondent is irrelevant.  She's not his lawyer so all letters are read by prison officials first.  Doesn't matter if it's a 17-year-old girl or the inmates' 92-year-old grandma.

But if the authorities don't know that the recipient is 17, they may not inform the parents of what's going on. It doesn't have to be "baby, be outside the walls on Friday night at 2 am. Have plenty of gas in the tank." It could be "honey, we'll make a life together once we get out. In the meantime, could you send enough money for cigarettes and snacks for me and the east wing?"

[Elfqueen13]

When I worked at a prison the only private correspondence was between an inmate and their legal counsel.

All incoming and outgoing mail was read to prevent illegal activities (usually drug deals).  Unless things have changed a whole lot, a correspondence between a convicted felon and a child under 18 is monitored by the prison authorities.

I am assuming this is still the case.

Not doubting you, but how would the authorities verify that the person he was corresponding with was over 18? Do they just ask him, and assume he tells the truth, or do they do a background check on his pen pal?

If the only unscreened mail is from a lawyer, then the age of the correspondent is irrelevant.  She's not his lawyer so all letters are read by prison officials first.  Doesn't matter if it's a 17-year-old girl or the inmates' 92-year-old grandma.

But if the authorities don't know that the recipient is 17, they may not inform the parents of what's going on. It doesn't have to be "baby, be outside the walls on Friday night at 2 am. Have plenty of gas in the tank." It could be "honey, we'll make a life together once we get out. In the meantime, could you send enough money for cigarettes and snacks for me and the east wing?"

You're right, they probably won't inform the parents.  That doesn't make it ok for the neighbor to do so, either.

[USC1972]

I think the contrast between the general opinions in this thread and the ones in the thread about the girl using the library computers to avoid parental controls are interesting.  

There are certainly internet sites I wouldn't really want my kids seeing.  There are controversial topics presented in ways I don't like, there is pornography, and there are forums I don't think are appropriate, but a 15/16 year old will probably be exposed to most of these things soon anyway, and while I may not really agree with it, they probably wont have any lasting, damaging consequences.  In my opinion, the about the most dangerous thing my child could do on the internet would be to correspond with an convicted gang rapist.  

So if they are doing it by snail mail, I would certainly want to know.  This could actually mess up my kid's life, in ways that seeing a few dirty pictures never could.

If I were the parent, I would have no problem if a neighbor came to me and said, "If you already know, then it is none of my business, and nothing more needs to be said, but I accidentally received a letter for your daughter the other day with the return address of a prison.  And have you noticed that the Smiths got a new hybrid car?  I bet that gets great gas millage."  

I wouldn't assume they had looked up the details of the case, so embarrassment wouldn't be a concern.  

I also wouldn't feel any better just because the individual is currently incarcerated.  I wouldn't want my child associating with another child who was using drugs, who was particularly "dark and angst-y," or who was conceited and snobby.  We are not only judged by the company we keep, but it also indicates something about ourselves.  If my child was seeking our incarcerated rapists to befriend, the fact that they were in jail wouldn't make me feel at ease about how my child was developing.  I would certainly want to address why this is someone who they want to be involved with, even if meeting is not a possibility.

[Hanna]

This just isn't a cat that you can put back in the bag!  It doesn't matter at this point how they know.  They do know, and saying "Well, you shouldn't know, so you shouldn't tell" just doesn't sit right with me.

In the case of the daughter circumventing her parent's rules by using a library computer, I feel the same way.  It may be completely harmless, but that is for the parents to decide.

This is why I would give the parents the information, and let them figure out how they want to handle it. 

[audrey11]

Putting myself as the girl's parent and actually knowing a young man in jail for life.  I would actually be ok with the neighbor telling me, "I got your daughter's letter in my mailbox by accident the other day.  I don't want to seem as I am prying but just wanted to let you know it was from a prison." and leave it at that.

I would not be offended nor embarrassed.  It will leave it up to me to explain or tell them I will look into it.

I think that is what they should do. 

This.  Right here.  Except no need to explain or tell them you will look into it.  Just "thanks, beandip."

[workingmum]

I think I'd feel compelled to say something, but I'd preface it with "I'm sure you're already aware of this, but on the off-chance you're not, I noticed a letter from a prison addressed to your daughter in the mail I got for you." Just to let them know that I don't think they're so negligent that this is going on under their noses without their noticing it.

POD!

[workingmum]

But, what exactly ARE the risks here?  From the facts we have here, he won't be out for years.  Will the daughter even be living there?  If she is, is the guy going to remember and track her down?   Seems unlikely.  Its more unlikely he'll be long moved on to other territory by then.

As a parent, i would certainly thank you for telling me, whether I already knew about it or not. I would hate to think that someone had the opportunity to stop something before it gout out of hand, but didnt because they were afraid of.. "embarrassment"? Even though this guy is in jail already, you can safely asume he has friends, and to be honest - if he hangs with the sort of people that get involved ina  gang rape.. well i certainly wouldnt want them knowing where my 16 year old daughter lives.