Seem some good arguements on either side for this one.
Whilst I would automatically drop a game if I knew I was playing with a baby
rapist (or indeed any rapist) I have a more tolerant attitude towards the
petty larcenists, weed dealers (positively welcomed 
), fine non-payers
and corrupt politicians who populate UK prisons.
Perhaps a section on personal security in dealing with other players, noting
the participation of prisoners in some games, in the House Rules with an
occasional F/S reminder would do the trick. At that point personal
responsibility kicks in. If you are really imbecilic enough to send large
sums of money to Africa just because someone asked you too then I am amazed
you have any in the first place.
If you are in a crime sensitive job, then you should be extra careful as
routine. I would, for instance, consider there might be criminals reading
this list and not give out my bank account details.
Non or limited communication is a pain but not restricted to prisoners 
My experience of people who have been or indeed are in prison is that they
are usually pretty crushed by the particular unpleasantness of living in a
shoe box with several other people with no personal privacy or freedom over
a period of years and just grateful for some kind of escape. If their prison
rules allow them to play then who are we to inflict an additional punishment
beyond societies. Perhaps they will gain some self esteem and meaning in
their lives and come out and play MEPBM rather than stoving in Grandma's
head. We will have performed a good deed and added to the common wealth of
man (Cue choirs of angels).
On balance I say let them play.
Chris Courtiour.