The key word there being “ex”. *Ex-*convicts. They’ve done their time. They’ve paid their penance. It is not just to release them only to continue to punish them and make it impossible and unviable for them to make an honest living. It would be more humane to simply give everyone an automatic life sentence than to release them under the terms you offer.
If I was incarcerated, and got a bill for said incarceration when I got out?
I would likely go on a murderous rampage ala Archer.
Never heard of a plea bargain? Plenty of criminals have agreed to serve time.
So fuck ex-cons. Fuck recidivism. Let them die in the streets or rot in prison. Fuck 'em.
.
Wait. Are people honestly and in good faith suggesting that charging prisoners for the cost of their incarceration is:
[ul]
[li]Morally defensible[/li][li]An effective way to defray costs of the justice system[/li][li]An appropriate way to dispense justice[/li][li]Going to leave society safer/more stable than not imposing this fine[/li][/ul]
I get that folks here like to get involved in navel-gazing about whether or not a government policy is constitutional (and, if it is deemed to be so by self-appointed experts, then anyone who thinks the policy is wrong can go soak their heads), but really . . . in my mind this is so close to A Modest Proposal that I can’t believe anyone could possibly find it appropriate.
As I’ve said, I don’t think this is a very good idea, but “I can’t believe anyone could possibly find it appropriate,” is an amusing choice of phrase for someone complaining about “anyone who thinks the policy is wrong [being told to] go soak their heads.”
I don’t have a cite but I seem to recall something when stationed there about South Korean prisons/jails, the incarcerated are (wholly?) mostly responsible for providing their own food (or their immediate family probably).
Aunt Bee’s fried chicken is a relatively modern phenomenon it seems.
Who says the state will take anything you earn? They have to make reasonable payments, and as I said there will need to be a lot of forgiveness to make this practical. And they should be working while in prison too instead of just living for free. Punishment consisting of free room and board and no need to pay debts does nothing to discourage more crime.
Paying debts is not punishment. There’s no other way to put it. Everybody should pay for their expenses and for any damage they cause others. That can be done be done reasonably within the means available to the debtor.
So in other words, your argument is that the entire model of incarceration as a penalty for crime is faulty, and we should just take people’s money instead, by forcing them to do hard labor on behalf of the state if necessary.
I didn’t think I’d ever see the day when chain gangs were being promoted as the progressive alternative to the prison problem.
Those are your words, not mine at all. Prisoners should work to pay for their needs just like the rest of us. If they have the means to pay without working then fine. If we can’t provide the work for them to do then we have to eat the bill, but the debt still exists. And in so many cases they shouldn’t be in prison at all, they should be working at real jobs to pay off their debt. Just because we have fucked up our economy so bad that we can’t put people to work to support themselves and pay their debts doesn’t automatically qualify the people who us the most to get a free ride. There are modern work crews now and the prisoners line up to get on them because it beats sitting in a cell doing nothing. Every able person should pay their way through life. And if people knew they would have to work to pay off their debts they wouldn’t incur them through crime so readily. And for those prisoners who refuse to work and have no other means of paying I don’t care if they sit out in the prison yard naked and fed a subsistence diet of bread and water.
So buying your way out of jail is fine.
“He who does not work, nor shall he eat”, eh?
Yeah, because that’s what’s holding our economy down - those welfare queen prisoners who expect a free ride just because they got caught committing crimes and had to be incarcerated.
If the death penalty isn’t an effective deterrent, what makes you think hard labor would be? Hell, if the threat of hard labor is so great at convincing people to never ever commit crimes, it’s a wonder that we as a civilized society ever decided to be rid of it in the first place.
You sicken me.
Interviewer: Mr. Helpmann, there are those who maintain that the Ministry of Information has become too large and unwieldy…And the cost of it all, Deputy Minister? Seven percent of the gross national product.
Mr. Helpmann: I understand this concern on behalf of the tax payers. People want value for money. That’s why we always insist on the principle of Information Retrieval charges. It’s absolutely right and fair that those found guilty should pay for their periods of detention and for the Information Retrieval Procedures used in their interrogation.
And then you can wonder why, when they couldn’t find work and had no money available for the necessities of life, they returned to the only other option they have. And people wonder why there is a cycle in America that’s absent on many other developed countries.
The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan and Iceland all have recidivism rates substantially lower than the US.
What?!? You mean other nations don’t let their criminals rot in an antiquated Calvinistic cycle of poverty and oppression?
Fuckin’ commies.
That’s the same logic they use with the death penalty. It’s a deterrent, right?
Only, it’s not.
Yes. That’s the point for some people: they think that the concept of “recidivism” is a crock — once a criminal, always a criminal, no matter what the circumstances. They’re all just Bad People, so what’s the problem with letting them die in the streets or rot in prison? They’re Bad People who can’t be saved.
Mind blowing, I know, but true.
So I guess they still get a bill when they have been found to innocent of the charges? Deducted it from the settlement? Or should the corrupt cops and\or incompetent DA foot the bill. From their OWN pocket, of course. Can we put a lien on the Judges’ house?
Why would you guess that?
Well, incarceration without those things (even if they were unable to pay for them) would probably be ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, prohibited by the 8th Amendment.
Charging them for it, though… one could argue that it’s an ‘excessive fine’, but I doubt they’d win. Still a shitty idea, though, and one that seems bound to increase recidivism.
It is more of a deterrent than not paying their debts which is what we do now.
I am so happy to hear that people feel the price of crime should be free room and board and elimination of debt. And at the same time think that is some kind of deterrent.