From Chicago Tribune (or this summary if you don’t want to bother with the Tribune’s registration):
Can we turn this into a Poll question:
X - I am a thoughtful American and I disapprove of this Illinois policy.
o - I am a right-wing asshole and I approve. Screw the scum!!
o - Other
This is a reprehensible practice. Beyond that, what is the point? Are they only suing inmates with lots of assets? I would imagine most have little or nothing. If I were in that position, I would not even go to court, let them have default judgment. It will cost them more to collect the judgment than it is worth.
Your link comes up with something about black gangsters killing a 9-year old.
So I picked Other - you, or your source, are probably leaving something out in order to give a false impression.
Regards,
Shodan
The part he left out of the summary is that they’re typically suing people that got out of prison AND just came into some money.
A snippet the OP left out
I’m also guessing they sue them between the time they hear about the money and the person actually receiving it so they can grab it before the person actually gets their hands on it. This isn’t something you want to not show up in court for.
Yeah! Like, “I am a centrist asshole and I can see both sides.”
I love this! I would adopt it as my sig, were I presemptuous enough to think I could live up to it more than just occasionally (that’s not meant to be a jab at you or anyone else).
Because they weren’t already paying for the cost of prisons with their taxes?
And if they weren’t, you could have arrested them for that?
Can we get a presidential candidate who cares about the function of our prison system, not how many people go in it?
Illinois is run by right-wing zealots?
I’ve heard of this practice, and yes it’s reprehensible. We already make sure it’s almost impossible for released criminals to find a job. That’s why most of them go back to crime after being released. Taking the money from anyone who does manage to (legally) get some is Orwellian in that it makes sure that there’s no escape from the system.
Eh, I’m not a centrist but actually can see both sides. That is not to say that our nation’s prison system doesn’t need huge reform.
What’s the other side? My first reaction was to think this couldn’t even be constitutional, but my second reaction was not being able to think of what part of the constitution it would violate. But then, IANAL.
And who is responsible for this? The Governor is an R but the Attorney General is a D. Does this practice predate either of those officeholders?
There is good intent in this concept, but I doubt it’s being implemented in a useful manner. Have you ever of the concept of criminals paying their debt to society? Well, that’s part of it. The trouble is that many people are in prison instead of paying their debt to society, and we are forcing them to rack up more debt in the cost of retaining them. Because the debt incurred may be very high, higher than the convict can possibly pay back then we need a lot of forgiveness in the system. But currently we are focused on the idea of paying a debt to society via punishment, counter-productive in general, and specifically counter-productive because it actually costs society money and the debt is not reduced.
Of course it’s all a mess now. Violent criminals need to be incarcerated to protect society. While incarcerated the convict’s capability of repaying society for his crimes is unlikely. Most people in prison now have been convicted of violent crimes, and that in itself is a result of screwed up justice system. But if we actually concentrated on having convicts paying their actual debt to society we’d have a much better justice system, less crime, and the prisons would only contain those so dangerous to society that we’d never let them out anyway.
Incarcerated people receive food, shelter and medical care at no cost. There is nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t be charged for that.
Maybe you left something out? Like mentioning that the Tribune asked if you wanted to register? You got the paper’s default headline, and could have figured that out if you [del]were potty-trained[/del] knew how to examine URL’s. My own OP mentioned the necessity to register for the Tribune and provided an alternate source for those who didn’t want to. :smack:
So I think you should pick
Other – too stupid to use the Internet.
Please don’t ever leave out your charming valediction. It’s the most intelligent part of your posts.
In the case of the guy who sued because he claimed he got inadequate medical care, a counter suit might be one of those unseemly things that organizations have to do to counter frivolous lawsuits. Might be.
However, suing someone after they are released as some sort of punishment seems to go beyond the purpose of the sentencing system. If the criminal, as part of his sentence, needs to pay fine, then so be it. But forcing him to pay after the fact seems like it should violate some constitutional principle, although I’m unsure what that would be. Maybe one of our resident lawyers can chime in?
But can the state pick and choose, only suing certain folks? No equal protection issue if they don’t sue everyone?
Oh, while I’ve got your attention Shodan, weren’t you the one who thought when inflation eats $1000 from your savings account that this reflects as a $1000 reduction in GDP? 
Did you get that ignorance fought? Do you understand now what “investment” means in economics? Do you finally see why people like you who know absolutely nothing about economics should focus purely on the real economy (not “money”) to begin making headway?
I’m less interested in “the Constitution™ of the World’s Greatest Country™” than in precedents. Do other countries charge for prisoners’ minimal room and board? I’ve heard that slaves in some brothels are charged room and board to ensure they keep none of their “earnings.” Are there other examples?
Here’s some more info. An article from 1998, shortly after the law allowing this was passed in 1997.
This, apparently, has been going on for over a decade.
But this seems to be based on the idea that the prisoner has agreed to be in prison and so incur those costs. Isn’t a basis of a contract the very fact that both parties agree to the terms?
I doubt very many prisoners agree to serve time in prison, by and large they are *put *there against their will, hence the walls and guards. You might argue that a guilty plea indicates acceptance of the contract but if that was true and the prisoners knew they would also have to pay for their prison time I doubt there would be very many guilty pleas.
You can’t have it both ways, want to lock people up against their will then you also have to look after them. You can’t then present them with a bill for services rendered. Whats next, a kidnapper presenting his victim with a bill for food and shelter?
I don’t think contract law applies here. If it’s unconstitutional, you have to cite the part of the constitution that it violates. And… you generally need to cite case law to support it. Breaking new ground in constitutional law is not that easy. I’m thinking of my idea about Equal Protection, above, but that’s probably not applicable since we’re not talking about suspect class here. This is a tricky one!
I would fall back on: How on earth is this good policy (right or wrong)?