It isnt uncommon to charge people to be in jail
So an ex-prisoner needs to break new ground in constitutional law to defend against a spurious bill sent that he never agreed to pay?
I mean, if thats what your country wants to do then go for it, but they should at least be up front about it. “Be aware, in this society all prisoners have to pay all the costs for their incarceration”. It sure is an incentive to behave, thats for sure. Pity about those millions of bankrupt criminals you’re creating though.
And the Governor only appointed a new Director of Corrections in August.
According to an article I saw, the law has been on the books since the 1980s (and many states have them), but it only picked up in the last few years, and a big burst came just this year. My guess would be that the idea has been percolating in the Department for a while, the new governor’s administration gave them the green light, and the AG saw money and unsympathetic defendants.
Uhm… sort of. He could lobby to have the law overturned by the legislature. What other method would you recommend?
I have no idea if that’s what my country wants. Do you want to pretend it violates the constitution if it does not? Your point is completely lost on me, especially since I already said I thought it was bad policy.
You seem to think that debts must be agreed to. If you go to a restaurant, order a meal, and eat it, then you incur a debt to be paid. You don’t have to agree to it. A prisoner doesn’t have to agree to be imprisoned either. The prisoner was fed, clothed, and sheltered for the term of his imprisonment, it’s not unreasonable to require him to pay for it, but as John Mace is asking, is it legal and constitutional? The answer to that does not lie in contract law, it’s a question of due process.
I suspect this is mostly a moot topic since I’d judge most released felons are judgment proof. I suppose some white collar criminals would have money, but since they are often fined as well as imprisoned I wonder if the rent charges would be akin to double punishment.
I wonder if the idea is to re-imprison offenders who can’t pony up.
BTW, Illinois has been captured by a group of wealthy conservatives:
NY Times
A Wealthy Governor and His Friends Are Remaking Illinois
*Unprecedented political spending helped elect a fresh-faced financier. *
By eating the meal you have made a contract with the restaurant. You are in debt.
Simple contract law.
I agree the paying for incarceration part has nothing to do with contract law.
So, if you don’t eat the meal, the implied promise from ordering it is void?
Interesting contract law.
And by committing the crime you have made a contract with society, you are in debt. It’s not the same as contract law, neither is the restaurant case.
Historically, being charged for the costs of your imprisonment was the rule. The idea that the government is obligated to pay for your upkeep while you’re imprisoned is relatively recent.
Thinking about this, it appears this is simple a way to add another “fine” to the wrongdoer. If the inmate must pay for incarceration, shouldn’t he have a right to reasonable incarceration standards, as in no overcrowding, etc. Singling out one to pay and not all the rest seems rather unfair.
But then, America really fails when it compares to other prison systems around the world.
Violating the terms of a contract is only one grounds for being sued. You can certainly be sued by somebody with whom you have no contractual relationship.
For example, if you go out driving your car while intoxicated and hit a pedestrian, he can sue you for his medical expenses even though you had no contract with that pedestrian and never even met him before the accident.
Its an additional punishment on top of time served, which is dishonest and unjust. If people want to recoup the money back, they need to change the law to have sentencing be “20 years and $X amount of dollars” instead of just 20 years
Yes, and the method of payment is time. That is, time for some, time and money for others. What about the guy who gets out and takes a job and earns enough to scrape by. Are they going to tax (charge) him when he’s already paying for it by paying taxes again?
And what about those inmates who work for 6, 8 cents an hour (whatever they make). Do they have a right to sue for minimum wage? The State makes money off them already.
Reasonable incarceration standards exist and have been codified for decades. And inmates have every right to sue is these standards aren’t met.
He’ll be taxed in the same why I am, to cover the overall costs of the justice system. He also has specific costs to pay, and the cost for the rest of us would be less if he paid it. My point is that the debt shouldn’t be paid with time, it should be paid with money. Incarceration should only serve to protect society, the debt to society should be paid off with money, earned through work if the prisoner has none. And realistically there must be forgiveness of a lot of the debt in order to have a practical system. A convict laden with a debt he cannot pay back is more likely to commit more crimes. But the debt is there and requiring some attempt to pay the debt will be more effective than just putting people behind bars. If they don’t have the means to repay their debt then make them work.
They should be paid at a rate commensurate with the same work performed by others not in prison. That would be minimum wage in most cases, and that’s what they should get. Part of the justification for sub-minimum wage pay for prison work is that they are not paying for their room and board, but it would be better to pay them on a reasonable scale and deduct the costs on a reasonable basis.
Concentrating on prisoners paying their actual debt to society and to their victims is not going to magically cure our crime and justice problems, but it will be a more transparent and directly attributable means of compensation that will not make criminal justice seem arbitrary and unjust.
None of that is endorsement of the Illinois system per se.
So, the status quo then. The rich have always shaped society and politics to make themselves more wealthy and powerful. The Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Kennedys etc.
Yeah, this behavior is reprehensible on the part of the state and is not in the public interest.
No, you misunderstand me, probably because you are stupid. I don’t believe your summary, because either you left something out of the facts, because you are dishonest, or because your source left something out, and you believed it, because you’re stupid. You are correct that I can’t be bothered to register to find out whether you are stupid, or dishonest, or both.
I am perfectly at peace with the default assumption that septimus posted it and therefore it must be wrong on some level. It usually works out, and the bother of refuting you runs into the difficulty that you are quite a little more stupid than you realize.
Regards,
Shodan
What if I am grabbed by the waiter, dragged inside to a table and made to sit there for 3 days while food is put in front of me? I want to leave but am not allowed to, do I still have to pay for the food?
Says who?