Gay Prisoners U S A

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/06/01) */ A year or so ago the respondent mentioned in a letter he anticipated being released shortly from prisonA few months later we check the DOC web site and his prisoner listing had been removed, which indicates a prisoner has been releasedState DOCs do not show when a person is released or pending releaseIn accordance with our rules to keep the inmate listings as current as is possible, we removed his listing Since that time we received only letter from him and that did not include a self-addressed, stamped envelop which we require for a reply because of the cost of postageAll inmates are advised they must include such if they wish a replyHe'd been on the site for more than years in a listing that costs $10, meaning it cost him way less than $a year to be online He continually attempted to violate our listing rules by including sexually explicit comments he wanted to be made public in his listing and he had been warned about those comments on several occasions in our correspondence with him Our stand is we followed our rules and no longer have any obligation to the respondent

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/01) */
A year or so ago the respondent mentioned in a letter he anticipated being released shortly from prison. A few months later we check the DOC web site and his prisoner listing had been removed, which indicates a prisoner has been released. State...

DOCs do not show when a person is released or pending release. In accordance with our rules to keep the inmate listings as current as is possible, we removed his listing.
Since that time we received only 1 letter from him and that did not include a self-addressed, stamped envelop which we require for a reply because of the cost of postage. All inmates are advised they must include such if they wish a reply. He'd been on the site for more than 6 years in a listing that costs $10, meaning it cost him way less than $2 a year to be online.
He continually attempted to violate our listing rules by including sexually explicit comments he wanted to be made public in his listing and he had been warned about those comments on several occasions in our correspondence with him.
Our stand is we followed our rules and no longer have any obligation to the respondent.