Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-16-2018, 11:38 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,620
You've served your time-Now pay your bill

This is the title of a recently released article concerning the debt prisoners can acquire while being prisoner-a debt that cannot be paid while in prison because, well
Quote:
No inmate can earn enough inside to cover the costs of their incarceration; each one will necessarily leave with a bill. The state of Florida, which pays inmate workers a maximum of $0.55 per hour, billed former inmate Dee Taylor $55,000 for his three-year sentence. He would have had to work 100,000 hours, or over 11 years nonstop, at a prison wage to pay for his three year incarceration. Even as a free man working at Florida’s minimum wage of $8.25, he would have to work more than 6,666 hours ― more than three regular work years ― and not spend a penny on anything else to pay it back. These debts are impossible for the even hardest-working people to pay off.
and
Quote:
Ex-offenders in the United States owe about $50 billion for various criminal justice costs like pretrial detention, court fees and incarceration costs. It’s estimated that as much 60 percent of a formerly incarcerated person’s income goes toward “criminal justice debt,” even for those who have ostensibly paid their debt to society.
The article further states that inmates are charged for their own incarceration in 49 states, and in 46 of those states failure to pay puts you back in prison. It gets even worse in the 20 states where probation and parole are privatized:
Quote:
In 20 states where probation and parole are privatized and profit-driven, the problem is worse. Additional supervision fees explode the amount of money that a probationer owes, and the likelihood of violation ― and reincarceration ― skyrockets. In Florida, probationers can be charged a 40 percent collections surcharge on their debts to the state.
In my opinion this "system" is wrong-it keeps people in debt and increases recidivism.
What do you think of the current system as it stands?
  #2  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:03 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,679
"Oh, hey, Warden, this place is super great--really!--but I just don't think I can afford to stay here. There's a nice Motel 6 over by the Interstate, so I'll just head over there, kthnxbye!"
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #3  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:20 PM
elbows elbows is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 13,787
It’s almost like America ISN’Tstruggling with the ongoing disaster of ‘for profit’, medicine.

Like, it’s going so well, let’s introduce a profit motive to the prison system!

(For profit prisons must be kept to a high capacity or the state pays million dollar penalties!)

‘For profit’ police and fire services cannot be for off, I should think.

People think it’s just the under class, the truly disenfranchised that are being victimized. But that could change.
  #4  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:56 PM
Mumberthax Mumberthax is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 193
Not only is it morally wrong, it may very well be illegal under the SCOTUS's decision Bearden v. Georgia.

Here's a summary of the decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearden_v._Georgia
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/660/
__________________
Sincerely,
Mumberthax
My pronouns are they/them. What are yours?
  #5  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:58 PM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,825
These fees are usually targeted at drunk drivers who have very short sentences and are not poor.
  #6  
Old 09-16-2018, 12:59 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
These fees are usually targeted at drunk drivers who have very short sentences and are not poor.
Where are you getting this from?
  #7  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:19 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,994
It's not even about the revenue, it is about preventing people from rejoining society as productive members. The sentencing guidelines are not enough, people need to be punished further, and forever, for their crimes. Serving time for your crime is not enough punishment, your life needs to be ruined. You can never be allowed to succeed at anything.

You can find yourself starting down this path simply by picking up one violation that you cannot afford to pay. Got a $200 speeding ticket, and don't have the cash to cover it? Well, that's fine, because now there are hundreds of dollars more in penalties to incentivize you to pay it.

What's that, increasing the financial penalty isn't enough to squeeze blood from a stone? Then we should also restrict your freedom, charging you for that service as well, that'll make you pay up.

Even those who have committed crimes that are deserving of some level of incarcerative punishment should be allowed to move on with their life once they have demonstrated repentance and repayed society with their time. Now, they are being asked to repay society's taking away of their time with money.

If inmates are allowed to choose their housing and accommodations, choose their probation or parole services, and decide which ones best meats their needs along with their financial capability, then sure. If an inmate wants a double sized cell with no roommate, then they can pay extra for that. If a parolee wants a P.O. who will make housecalls, rather than having to go to to the P.O., then they can pay extra for that.

The housing and services that are mandated by the justice system, however, should not be charged.

If that means that the criminal justice system isn't as profitable to private interests as it currently is, that's a feature, not a bug.
  #8  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:23 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,474
It's not really as outrageous as it sounds when you think about it.

If somebody is driving too fast and runs a pedestrian over, wouldn't you say it's reasonable to expect them to pay for the associated medical expenses? A person who does something wrong should be expected to pay the financial costs for the consequences of their wrong doing.

So if somebody is driving too fast, gets arrested and convicted, why isn't it reasonable to expect them to pay for the associated law enforcement expenses? That person did the same wrong as the first person. Don't they have the same obligation to cover the costs of the consequences?

Does it suck to go into debt for all of those costs? Yes, it does. But the costs are real; prisons cost money to operate and somebody has to pay for them. So should it be the criminal who broke the law and created the necessity of imprisonment? Or his next-door neighbour, who never broke any laws?

In an ideal world, nobody would break any laws or commit any crimes. We'd have no need for police or courts or prisons. But in the real world, crimes are committed and we need these things. So why not put the expense of them on the people who are breaking the laws and creating the need for them?
  #9  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:27 PM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,514
We all pay the cost of the prisoner's incarceration. That's what taxes are.

Many of us also feel we should cover the cost of the pedestrian who gets run over. That's called universal health care.
  #10  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:31 PM
filmore filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,019
I don't think the prisoner should have to pay the state back for their incarceration. However, I could see this making sense as a way to pay back victims for their losses. Perhaps it could be some sort of sliding scale based on the convict's income, where they pay nothing if their income is below a certain amount and a gradually increasing percentage the higher their income goes. So if they only have low-paying jobs, they don't pay anything back. But if they get a job that pays $100k, some of that would go back to the victims.
  #11  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:33 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,790
It's just business

No, the process appears to be more general. From the article:
In Rhode Island from 2005 through 2007, failure to pay court debt was the most common reason that individuals were incarcerated, which means that, in a state that routinely spends around $200 million on corrections every year, the most common reason for incarcerating people there was something other than crime.
In other news civil asset forfeiture is strongly related to a) higher local budget deficits and b) race. Jurisdictions with more blacks and hispanics experience more shakedowns by the cops.

Of course that's only one mechanism. There lots of ways city police departments can plug budget gaps:
You don’t get $321 in fines and fees and 3 warrants per household from an about-average crime rate. You get numbers like this from bullshit arrests for jaywalking and constant “low level harassment involving traffic stops, court appearances, high fines, and the threat of jail for failure to pay.”

If you have money, for example, you can easily get a speeding ticket converted to a non-moving violation. But if you don’t have money it’s often the start of a downward spiral that is hard to pull out of:
For a simple speeding ticket, an attorney is paid $50-$100,
the municipality is paid $150-$200 in fines and court costs, and the
defendant avoids points on his or her license as well as a possible
increase in insurance costs. For simple cases, neither the attorney nor
the defendant must appear in court.

However, if you do not have the ability to hire an attorney or pay
fines, you do not get the benefit of the amendment, you are assessed
points, your license risks suspension and you still owe the municipality
money you cannot afford….If you cannot pay the amount in full, you
must appear in court on that night to explain why. If you miss court,
a warrant will likely be issued for your arrest.

People who are arrested on a warrant for failure to appear in court
to pay the fines frequently sit in jail for an extended period. None of the
municipalities has court on a daily basis and some courts meet only
once per month. If you are arrested on a warrant in one of these
jurisdictions and are unable to pay the bond, you may spend as much as
three weeks in jail waiting to see a judge.
Of course, if you are arrested and jailed you will probably lose your job and perhaps also your apartment–all because of a speeding ticket.
----

As for the OP, no I don't have a problem with that policy. I see no reason why people shouldn't be punished with both imprisonment and the equivalent of fines later on. I can imagine judicial systems implementing such policies that are fair.

I can also imagine a blue unicorn. I see no evidence that the situation described in the OP is consistent with responsible and well thought out policy.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 09-16-2018 at 01:35 PM.
  #12  
Old 09-16-2018, 02:10 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's not really as outrageous as it sounds when you think about it.

If somebody is driving too fast and runs a pedestrian over, wouldn't you say it's reasonable to expect them to pay for the associated medical expenses? A person who does something wrong should be expected to pay the financial costs for the consequences of their wrong doing.

So if somebody is driving too fast, gets arrested and convicted, why isn't it reasonable to expect them to pay for the associated law enforcement expenses? That person did the same wrong as the first person. Don't they have the same obligation to cover the costs of the consequences?

Does it suck to go into debt for all of those costs? Yes, it does. But the costs are real; prisons cost money to operate and somebody has to pay for them. So should it be the criminal who broke the law and created the necessity of imprisonment? Or his next-door neighbour, who never broke any laws?

In an ideal world, nobody would break any laws or commit any crimes. We'd have no need for police or courts or prisons. But in the real world, crimes are committed and we need these things. So why not put the expense of them on the people who are breaking the laws and creating the need for them?
If the money is going into the public's coffers to help to make victims hole, or to repay society, that's one thing. I still don't see the reason in punishing someone for a crime for the rest of their lives, punishing them far in excess of what the sentencing guidelines are, but the convicted doesn't get the right to say how they repay society for their infractions.

Does it change your equation at all that the money is going to increase private profits?
  #13  
Old 09-16-2018, 03:06 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's not really as outrageous as it sounds when you think about it.

If somebody is driving too fast and runs a pedestrian over, wouldn't you say it's reasonable to expect them to pay for the associated medical expenses? A person who does something wrong should be expected to pay the financial costs for the consequences of their wrong doing.

So if somebody is driving too fast, gets arrested and convicted, why isn't it reasonable to expect them to pay for the associated law enforcement expenses? That person did the same wrong as the first person. Don't they have the same obligation to cover the costs of the consequences?

Does it suck to go into debt for all of those costs? Yes, it does. But the costs are real; prisons cost money to operate and somebody has to pay for them. So should it be the criminal who broke the law and created the necessity of imprisonment? Or his next-door neighbour, who never broke any laws?

In an ideal world, nobody would break any laws or commit any crimes. We'd have no need for police or courts or prisons. But in the real world, crimes are committed and we need these things. So why not put the expense of them on the people who are breaking the laws and creating the need for them?
For one thing, does this kind of retribution just increase costs for society at large? Putting ex-cons out into society with no reformation, education and loaded with debt is a recipe for them to end up homeless or involved in crime again, which increases costs for society at large.

Also a lot of us are cynical about 'personal responsibility' since it only applies for people who aren't rich and powerful. Powerful companies generally do not have to pay for the damage they cause society at large. Polluters do not have to pay for the cost of pollution. Financial institutions do not have to pay for the damage from reckless behavior. But some lower middle class worker who gets into a car accident does. This mentality that the rich can do whatever they want but everyone else has to live in a brutal, draconian system isn't appealing to most of us.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #14  
Old 09-16-2018, 04:53 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,623
Jails being a for-profit business NECESSARILY means that jail owners are encouraging crime. They are living off the avails of crime, if that terminology is used in the US.

In other words, owning a jail is not at all far from aiding and abetting.
  #15  
Old 09-16-2018, 05:26 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,373
(omitted)

Last edited by Bricker; 09-16-2018 at 05:27 PM.
  #16  
Old 09-16-2018, 06:14 PM
pool pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,060
It's a shame in this country how one bad mistake snowballs into the ruination of your life and impossibility of gainful employment for some.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #17  
Old 09-16-2018, 07:10 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 342
Can we just admit that we are criminalizing poverty?
  #18  
Old 09-16-2018, 07:16 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Can we just admit that we are criminalizing poverty?
If you don't criminalize poverty, then people won't have an incentive to not be poor.
  #19  
Old 09-16-2018, 07:18 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
Huh...and I'm a crank for distrusting LE and the justice system in general.
  #20  
Old 09-16-2018, 07:21 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Huh...and I'm a crank for distrusting LE and the justice system in general.
In general, LE and the justice system uphold the basics of civilization.

There are, however, many specific implementations of LE and "justice" that do not lead toward the ends of a more just and equitable society. Those are the ones that we are calling into question in an effort to improve.

That I would rather have our current justice system than anarchy doesn't mean that I do not see many improvements that can be made.
  #21  
Old 09-16-2018, 08:02 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,995
I had been given to understand that an incarcerated person is effectively a "ward of the state," and that it is under this doctrine that the prison system is legally bound to provide food, shelter and medical care* to inmates.

It would not have occurred to me to suppose that wards of the state are in fact captive customers of the state.


*do the state penal systems also charge for medical treatment that prisoners receive?
  #22  
Old 09-16-2018, 08:13 PM
jaycat jaycat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
We all pay the cost of the prisoner's incarceration. That's what taxes are.

Many of us also feel we should cover the cost of the pedestrian who gets run over. That's called universal health care.
Bravo, Johnny!
  #23  
Old 09-16-2018, 08:45 PM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
In an ideal world, nobody would break any laws or commit any crimes. We'd have no need for police or courts or prisons. But in the real world, crimes are committed and we need these things. So why not put the expense of them on the people who are breaking the laws and creating the need for them?
Because they can't pay it. They've spent years not working because we wouldn't let them, and they can't get a high paying job because of their record. You take people who have committed crimes, who you hope will stop and be productive members of society, and place them under extreme financial pressure, to the point where it seems impossible to go straight.
  #24  
Old 09-16-2018, 08:57 PM
filmore filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Because they can't pay it. They've spent years not working because we wouldn't let them, and they can't get a high paying job because of their record. You take people who have committed crimes, who you hope will stop and be productive members of society, and place them under extreme financial pressure, to the point where it seems impossible to go straight.
I agree. It is extremely difficult for an ex-con to get a job in the first place. That often means their only choices are low paying and undesirable jobs. If they have an extra burden that their meager income is going to be further reduced to pay back the state, it's that much less incentive to find legitimate work. At that point, they might as well find some sort of illegitimate work, which will typically pay better and won't have anything garnished from it.
  #25  
Old 09-16-2018, 09:12 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
We all pay the cost of the prisoner's incarceration. That's what taxes are.

Many of us also feel we should cover the cost of the pedestrian who gets run over. That's called universal health care.
Even if this is advocating for UHC, it's somewhat misleading.

Countries with UHC still have a concept of damages, and a dangerous driver can be liable for costs to both the victim and the state (both immediate and long-term costs).

The difference is, if the perpetrator is not solvent enough to cover such costs, the state will still (like always) ensure the victim receives the care they require.
  #26  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:46 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,292
In an economic society where the working class is earning less than their parents did, and relative wages continue to spiral down, it is important that the working class retain a modicum of good spirits and job satisfaction. Thus an underclass, much more disadvantaged than the bulk of the working class, serves an important role. Many citizens can feel relatively fortunate, and even that they're on the better side of the economic divide.

Inequality by race is useful, of course, since most citizens will be proud that they belong to the advantaged race. But persecution of ex-cons, to whom most citizens will feel superior, is also very useful — especially since many are denied rights including the right to vote.
__________________
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.

Last edited by septimus; 09-17-2018 at 03:47 AM. Reason: forgot .sig
  #27  
Old 09-17-2018, 04:33 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,430
So y'all have brough back debtor's prison? Did you miss it or something?
  #28  
Old 09-17-2018, 07:20 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,513
In fact, this is much worse than debtor's prison.
  #29  
Old 09-17-2018, 07:48 AM
Kearsen Kearsen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
This is the title of a recently released article concerning the debt prisoners can acquire while being prisoner-a debt that cannot be paid while in prison because, well and

The article further states that inmates are charged for their own incarceration in 49 states, and in 46 of those states failure to pay puts you back in prison. It gets even worse in the 20 states where probation and parole are privatized:
In my opinion this "system" is wrong-it keeps people in debt and increases recidivism.
What do you think of the current system as it stands?
Is the reason prisons get away with paying far below minimum wage because room and board is deducted?
__________________
Kearsen
aka...RollingRock
  #30  
Old 09-17-2018, 08:01 AM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,514
The reason is because it's considered part of their punishment. From the 13th amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
  #31  
Old 09-17-2018, 08:18 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
So why not put the expense of them on the people who are breaking the laws and creating the need for them?
Because they have no money.

Let’s think this through:

1) The state demands money.
2) The prisoner has no money.
3) The prisoner must earn money.
4) There is no money in jail.

Seems pretty clear to me. If your goal is to recover your expenses, putting the prisoner in a place where they cannot earn money is the least effective way to do it.
  #32  
Old 09-17-2018, 08:31 AM
Isosleepy Isosleepy is offline
Friend of Cecil
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,202
This isn’t materially different from the “bullet fee” reportedly charged in China to the family of executed prisoners, to reimburse the state for the cost of execution. And as repugnant. We pay taxes to maintain law and order. The prisoner has no alternative - he is not choosing to be incarcerated.

The run-over pedestrian is right to demand restitution. He has no choice but to be a run-over pedestrian, the consequences of this are rightly laid at the feet of the runner-over. But the state can choose not to incarcerate. We as society have chosen that certain crimes come with incarceration as punishment, and we as society pay taxes to make that happen. If we feel financial consequences are in order for certain crimes, we can (and do) add fines as consequences for certsin crimes.

In my book, if peeing in a swimming-pool were to be punishable by 5 days incarceration, at the end of which the pool-pisser were charged $1000 to recover the cost of incarceration, that is wrong. If the same offense came with 5 days plus a $2000 fine, then that is, well, just fine.
  #33  
Old 09-17-2018, 08:35 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's not really as outrageous as it sounds when you think about it.

If somebody is driving too fast and runs a pedestrian over, wouldn't you say it's reasonable to expect them to pay for the associated medical expenses? A person who does something wrong should be expected to pay the financial costs for the consequences of their wrong doing.

So if somebody is driving too fast, gets arrested and convicted, why isn't it reasonable to expect them to pay for the associated law enforcement expenses? That person did the same wrong as the first person. Don't they have the same obligation to cover the costs of the consequences?

Does it suck to go into debt for all of those costs? Yes, it does. But the costs are real; prisons cost money to operate and somebody has to pay for them. So should it be the criminal who broke the law and created the necessity of imprisonment? Or his next-door neighbour, who never broke any laws?

In an ideal world, nobody would break any laws or commit any crimes. We'd have no need for police or courts or prisons. But in the real world, crimes are committed and we need these things. So why not put the expense of them on the people who are breaking the laws and creating the need for them?
But let's say I charge things on my credit card that I cannot afford. If I keep doing this, there comes a point where I cannot pay it back.

Society allows me a fresh start through bankruptcy. Is this fair? Why should all of the other credit card customers pay a higher interest rate because I cannot manage my spending?

Also, many people who injure others are judgment proof, meaning that the injured party never recovers. Is that fair?

I tend to agree with you: It is not right that if someone scrapes together a little bit of money and is able to own a house or a car or put some money in the bank that he or she is now fully responsible for everything and will lose it all if something bad happens, while those who simply check out of society can get away with floating under the radar.

But some mercy has to be tempered with it. We don't want people living "off paper" and being part of the ever increasing underground economy (working under the table, selling drugs, etc.). There should be a reasonable way of getting people back on their feet with the tools to be able to contribute to society.

If step one is getting placed in handcuffs and going to jail, not many people will take that first step.
  #34  
Old 09-17-2018, 08:54 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
The reason is because it's considered part of their punishment. From the 13th amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
But is it? Did their sentence say incarceration + fine, or just incarceration?

And yes, it is a fine. They have no choice but to pay it, and that makes it a fine.
  #35  
Old 09-17-2018, 09:21 AM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,514
That post was a response to the one above it, asking about prisoner pay. I have no idea how that clause relates to the fines being discussed.
  #36  
Old 09-17-2018, 10:41 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
In my opinion this "system" is wrong-it keeps people in debt and increases recidivism.

You seem to be under the assumption that this is a bug rather than a feature.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #37  
Old 09-17-2018, 10:45 AM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,514
Oh yeah, it's definitely intentional. The American prison system is a business and they only make money when people are incarcerated. The folks who run the prisons (and the politicians in their pockets) have no interest whatsoever in reducing recidivism.
  #38  
Old 09-17-2018, 12:48 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
Oh yeah, it's definitely intentional. The American prison system is a business and they only make money when people are incarcerated. The folks who run the prisons (and the politicians in their pockets) have no interest whatsoever in reducing recidivism.
That's not the important part at all. They have a massive interest in encouraging first offenses and in encouraging worse offenses that get longer sentences. The jail owners ARE ORGANIZED CRIMINALS, not just "not interested in reducing recidivism"
  #39  
Old 09-17-2018, 01:26 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,474
You guys have a very false picture of the American prison system. Private prisons don't run it. They represent only a small percentage of the overall prison system (about eight percent). Twenty-three states don't even have a single private prison.

I'm not saying it isn't an issue; privately owned prisons are generally more poorly run than government owned prisons. But if you're talking about the general issue of imprisonment in America, you need to look at what's happening in the ninety-two percent of prisons that are being run by the government.
  #40  
Old 09-17-2018, 01:28 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
But is it? Did their sentence say incarceration + fine, or just incarceration?

And yes, it is a fine. They have no choice but to pay it, and that makes it a fine.
Yes, the payments are included in their sentence.
  #41  
Old 09-17-2018, 01:39 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,620
More on Criminal Justice Debt.
Quote:
The inability to pay these CJFOs can result in the following court sanctions:

-Increased court costs, fees, or fines.
-Incarceration for failure to pay.
-Suspension of individuals’ driver’s license.
-Increased time on correctional supervision or unsuccessful termination from supervision.
-Interest accrual and/or additional monetary assessment by private debt collectors.
-Liens, wage garnishment, and tax rebate interception.
-Barriers to securing criminal records sealing or expungement.
-Subsidized commissary among incarcerated to pay jail or prison fees.
In addition,
Quote:
Criminal justice debt is unique in that it cannot be discharged through bankruptcy (11 U.S. Code § 523). Interest accrues on CJFO debts that go unpaid, regardless of whether the individual was convicted. Credit scores are impacted, which affects car and home ownership, and employment prospects (if employers use credit checks to screen applicants).
What is funny is that if you are a lifer, you don't have to worry about any of this.
  #42  
Old 09-17-2018, 01:39 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Because they have no money.

Let’s think this through:

1) The state demands money.
2) The prisoner has no money.
3) The prisoner must earn money.
4) There is no money in jail.

Seems pretty clear to me. If your goal is to recover your expenses, putting the prisoner in a place where they cannot earn money is the least effective way to do it.
Where do you get this idea that poor people=criminals?

Most poor people aren't criminals. Most criminals aren't poor.
  #43  
Old 09-17-2018, 01:41 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Where do you get this idea that poor people=criminals?

Most poor people aren't criminals. Most criminals aren't poor.
The criminals that are most impacted by Criminal Justice Debt are poor. They are they ones that pay most of it.
  #44  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:34 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You guys have a very false picture of the American prison system. Private prisons don't run it. They represent only a small percentage of the overall prison system (about eight percent). Twenty-three states don't even have a single private prison.

Private profits are not the only reason one can think of to support keeping a disproportionally non-white-minority population locked up, working without payment and with no right to vote, forever.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #45  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:32 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
The prisoner has no alternative - he is not choosing to be incarcerated.
Seriously? They chose to be incarcerated by committing the crime.

There's an old adage:

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

How hard is it to go through life without committing a felony?
  #46  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:35 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Where do you get this idea that poor people=criminals?

Most poor people aren't criminals. Most criminals aren't poor.
You’re joking, right?

According to Bureau of Justice statistics: “We found that, in 2014 dollars, incarcerated people had a median annual income of $19,185 prior to their incarceration, which is 41% less than non-incarcerated people of similar ages... Not only are the median incomes of incarcerated people prior to incarceration lower than non-incarcerated people, but incarcerated people are dramatically concentrated at the lowest ends of the national income distribution.” 57% of incarcerated men - and a stunning 72% of women - had incomes of less than $22,500. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html

So, yes, most criminals are poor. But that’s not the point.

The point is that those criminals who happen to be poor get locked into a cycle of repeated incarceration because their poverty makes it almost impossible to meet their obligations (eg fines, bail bond, legal fees) etc, and being incarcerated makes their poverty worse. 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, so if you have thousands of dollars in the bank to pay for unexpected fines and legal fees, you are doing better than most.

Rich criminals, meanwhile, easily escape the trap because they can afford to pay their fines, buy better lawyers, make bail, and find new employment after their punishment is over.

The criminal justice system is designed in such a way that it repeatedly victimizes the poor and thereby fills yet more jail cells in a cycle most of them cannot escape.

Last edited by JB99; 09-17-2018 at 03:36 PM.
  #47  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:47 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Seriously? They chose to be incarcerated by committing the crime.

There's an old adage:

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

How hard is it to go through life without committing a felony?
Do you want ex-cons to be contributing members of society, or do you want to throw hurdles at them until they eventually end back up in jail?
  #48  
Old 09-17-2018, 04:47 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Do you want ex-cons to be contributing members of society, or do you want to throw hurdles at them until they eventually end back up in jail?
No one "ends up" in jail, except by their own volition.
  #49  
Old 09-17-2018, 05:06 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No one "ends up" in jail, except by their own volition.
If we define volition broadly enough and assume all citizens have a knowledge of law as comprehensive as yours, maybe.
  #50  
Old 09-17-2018, 05:16 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
No one "ends up" in jail, except by their own volition.

Now that's plain silly an assertion to make, on its face. Forget about all the factual objections one could make, the proofs to the contrary and anecdotes one could dig up ; but you're saying that the justice system is absolutely perfect and never puts innocents behind bars, ever.
Which is a laughable position, of course.


Then once released, what would you suggest is the recourse of an individual who cannot be hired due to their being an ex-con (or can only be hired in dead end, low wage bullshit jobs) who cannot both pay their bills and pay the fines Czarcasm brought up ? How does that person not end up in jail, and what the fuck does their volition or lack thereof has to do with any of it ? Should they, like Donald Trump wants to, just print money to get out of debt ?

Shit, that's sort of illegal to do if you're poor too, isn't it ?
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017