Prison, should prisoners pay?

[wellard]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: I mean, don't call it a simple task if you couldn't do it yourself.

Blimey one man has to do it why? can he use a computer or will you force him to use an abacus or count on his toes LOL

If thats the only objection 'it's too hard for one man to work out"

Sure it's pointless and counter productive to make the poor pay and sure its unethical to make spouse / children suffer. All good points but with a simple solutions .... exempt them! This is not rocket science (actually that is easy these days but I digress) User pays is not a new idea

Pressure is being put on jails to release prisoners because of the cost, Britain is even is looking at prison ships again. I would rather the scum be kept behind bars for the sentance that the judge deemed.

[wellard]

Originally posted by johnny: Let them pick rocks like in them good old days, or even better, throw their asses in the coalmines, we still have some of those and are currently out of use.

Have you heard anything about this proposal in the Netherlands Johnny?

[PurpleXVI]

Where would you set the limit for Poor Enough? And how would you punish married people at all if you couldn't take assets that were co-owned by their spouses?

My objection is that you're just saying "it can be done" without offering much in the way of facts or examples of fair implementation somewhere. You're underestimating the task of writing fair laws, in short.

[Bungleau]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The fact that most of them can't pay? So it's kinda pointless?

Then they don’t get charged a fee Timber, simple. [/QUOTE]I disagree. They do get charged a fee, but they work it off in prison. You don't disrupt their family (any more), and they still have to pay off that debt to society.

Or else let them work off what they can, accrue the balance, and when they complete their sentence, waive all or part of the balance. Time off for good behavior can also mean money off.

[robertthebard]

That last would never happen here. Kansas likes money, and if they can take it from you, they will. But hey, let's take it from the perspective of one who has actually seen the inside of a prison, shall we?

For the most part, no matter what work you get the convicts to do, it's going to be paid for by the State, one way or the other. Kansas has work crews now at the medium and minimum security facilities. It doesn't cost us any less to house those inmates than it would if they were in their cells 24/7.

The money to pay for it still comes out of taxes, but now, we're saying pay the inmate a "wage", and use that to pay for his stay in prison. That's like throwing Monopoly money at it, since it doesn't accomplish anything.

Another thing to consider is why are prisons overcrowded? I did 3 months in prison on my child support. Child support that accrued while I was sitting in prison for 5 1/2 years. I went to prison for being in prison. I am not alone. Shortly after I was released, the legislature here dropped child support back to a civil matter, instead of a felony offense. It's not how much money it costs to house inmates that have prisons overcrowded, it's what people get put in prison for in the first place.

[wellard]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Another thing to consider is why are prisons overcrowded? I did 3 months in prison on my child support. Child support that accrued while I was sitting in prison for 5 1/2 years. I went to prison for being in prison. I am not alone. Shortly after I was released, the legislature here dropped child support back to a civil matter, instead of a felony offense. It's not how much money it costs to house inmates that have prisons overcrowded, it's what people get put in prison for in the first place.

Whoa that three month extra was a bullshit thing Rob, it would have left me bitter, things like that and compulsory sentencing and stupid drug laws do add to the problem of overcrowding.

Look I see Purples point about the cost of implementing a cost recovery scheme and there is no point throwing away money on trying to recoup money you will never see. This would only be used on people with clear assets well above (say) $200,000
This may only affect 10% of the prison population but I fail to see any ethical reason not to introduce the scheme.

[robertthebard]

I'm just looking at practical application, whether it's a good idea or not I'll leave to smarter people than me, my abacus broke the other day...

[PurpleXVI]

Wellard, an alternative would be to grade people's fines based on their income. People in high tax brackets have to pay more so it'll sting just as much for them.

That'd save us the whole bother of determining where to start making people pay for their jail, how to avoid penalizing their spouses and children so badly, etc. I mean, someone who can afford to hit the high brackets likely has enough means left over to pay for his family afterwards.

PS: Robert, no kidding that thing was bullshit. I can empathize there.

[robertthebard]

It's so far behind me now that it almost seemed to have happened to someone else, but all in all, it's been a character builder, like I needed any help there.

[johnny]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Let them pick rocks like in them good old days, or even better, throw their asses in the coalmines, we still have some of those and are currently out of use.

Have you heard anything about this proposal in the Netherlands Johnny? [/QUOTE]Nope, not yet. Currently our government is too busy discussing the possiblity of creating healthier meatballs in our great war against obesity. Surely you understand that doesn't leave much room for issues such as managing criminal facilities ?