When Policy Isn’t Clear—and the Consequences Still Cost You

This morning, my husband, Daniel, was written up over a dental appointment he chose not to attend. On paper, it’s considered a minor infraction. In reality, it highlights a much bigger issue: unclear policy, inconsistent enforcement, and how even small disciplinary actions can carry real financial and personal consequences for incarcerated people.

A couple of weeks ago, Daniel developed an abscessed tooth. He reported it and was seen by medical, who prescribed antibiotics and told him a dental appointment would be scheduled. The antibiotics worked. His pain subsided, the swelling went down, and by the time the dental appointment date arrived, he no longer had symptoms.

In North Carolina prisons, non‑emergency medical and dental care is subject to an offender copay. While the amount may seem small to someone on the outside, it is significant when you are earning only a few dollars a week—if that. Based on how he was feeling and the cost involved, Daniel declined the appointment.

When he did so, he was verbally told that he would not be written up this time, but that future refusals could result in disciplinary action. He accepted that explanation and believed the matter was settled.

It wasn’t.

He was later issued a C‑level disciplinary charge, the lowest severity category, but still an official write‑up. At that point, Daniel reviewed the form he had signed for the dental visit. The form did not state that attendance was mandatory, nor did it indicate that refusal would result in discipline.

He also reviewed the policy summaries available on the facility’s law‑library tablet. Those materials did not state that incarcerated individuals are required to attend non‑emergency dental appointments or that refusal automatically constitutes a disciplinary offense. Based on that information, Daniel believed the write‑up was inconsistent with what was documented.

He raised the issue with a sergeant and showed him the materials he had reviewed. The information was printed and taken forward—not to medical staff, who issued the write‑up, but to administration. Daniel was then called back and informed that the charge would stand and that he would need to proceed to a disciplinary hearing (DHO) if he wished to contest it.

Requesting a DHO hearing also carries a fee—another deduction from an already limited inmate account.

The issue here is not whether medical care is important. It is. The issue is that nowhere in the materials Daniel was provided did it clearly state that refusing a non‑emergency dental appointment was prohibited or punishable. Nor was he informed, in writing, that declining the visit would result in discipline.

When rules are not clearly documented, enforcement becomes subjective. When enforcement is subjective, accountability disappears. And when accountability disappears, the burden—financial and otherwise—almost always falls on the incarcerated person.

A C‑charge might not seem like much. A ten‑dollar hearing fee might not seem like much. But when stacked on top of medical copays, low wages, and restricted access to resources, those “small” costs add up quickly.

This situation isn’t about avoiding responsibility. It’s about transparency,

consistency, and whether people are being disciplined for violating written rules—or for making reasonable decisions in a system that doesn’t clearly explain the consequences.

When policy isn't clear and the punishment is certain, something is broken.