I’m so happy to hear that prison is simply “free room and board!” Yay reductionism!
How about the victims of their potential future crimes? Do they figure in, at all?
The real concern here is not for the ex-cons’ comfort and happiness. It’s about the most effective, lowest cost way to handle the post-prison situation. Making it harder for people to become productive, law-abiding citizens is not it.
Prisoners don’t get any debts eliminated just by going to jail. Unless you mean that going to jail and not having to pay the cost of being kept in jail counts as an “eliminated debt”.
How do you explain the fact that most other developed countries, where prisoners are not charged for the costs of their jail stay, have much lower incarceration and recidivism rates than the US does?
Obviously, combining a criminal record with at least tens of thousands of dollars of jail-expenses debt is going to push more ex-cons back into crime, rather than deterring them from crime.
And if you think that the prison system as it now exists in the US is such an attractive and tempting proposition, why aren’t you committing crimes in order to score yourself some of that sweet sweet free room and board?
In Thailand also, family tends to provide money for toiletry and food luxuries. In U.S. prisons also, family and friends provide gifts and money, no? But for all prisoners there is some minimal sustenance that is provided free. I’m sure the quality of “free” food in U.S. prisons is higher than it is in countries like Thailand – Is that a problem?
What countries, other than U.S., charge prisoners for the standard minimum housing and food in prisons?
I thought a premise was “Serve your time, get a fresh start.” But, after serving a long prison term then, in addition to many other difficulties, an ex-con who manages to accumulate several thousand dollars can have that money confiscated? It turns the premise into a lie.
Prisoners in this country are rarely charged for the costs of their jail stay and we have incredibly high incarceration and recidivism rates. Your logic is highly lacking.
Once again, why do law abiding citizens have to pay their own way through life while criminals get a free ride?
Has the state exempted discharge of prison debt via bankruptcy? If not, the for those who were bust when busted but have straightened their life out, it would be wise to go bankrupt upon release.
Is the state also charging the families of executed prisoners for the cost of the drugs/electricity/bullet used to execute them?
The problem might be that it’s your home that they burglarize to pay for their incarceration. But hey, they’re paying their way.
As a society we determine the terms and cost of incarceration, and as a society we pay for it.
Or maybe as a prisoner I could have some options? Cardboard box on a superfund site is only $2 a day! Or, stay in a jail cell in a prison on the national historic registry. Spend time in a piece of history for only $30k a year! But, for the prisoner who wants it all, try the ultra-modern facility we just built, with state-of-the-art security systems, SecureLok® passageways between every wing of the building, and TVs in the rec room, for a reasonable $60k per year!
The cost to meet their “needs,” however, is not determined by any realistic, real-life model. The yearly cost of incarceration is well beyond what a person could earn on a work crew.
It’s a bizarre twist of logic to call prison a “free ride.” We put person in prison. We don’t then get to decide that we don’t pay for it. Prisons are a choice we make as a society as a way to deal with behaviors we have decided are illegal. It’s our privilege and decision to fund them. If we don’t like how much it costs then let’s come up with another strategy. Punishing inmates for the necessity of maintaining a prison system in the first place makes no sense.
Prisoners who work are paid a pittance. Are those who are charged for their support while in prison credited with the difference between one or two dollars an hour and (at least) minimum wage? I wonder.
Bankrutpcy is handled strictly at the federal level, and states have no control over what debts are dischargeable (absent federal legislation allowing them to do so, which I don’t believe exists). Also, bankruptcy generally does not allow for complete discharge of civil judgments (or judgment creditors are the first in line, I forget which). As the OP’s link indicates, the IDOC only seems to be going after prisoners who have substantial assets and who are probably not good candidates for bankruptcy anyway.
They’re burgling your house already. With rare exceptions we use the free ride system in this country and the results have been horrific. I don’t advocate dumping unemployable prisoners on the street, that’s the system you are defending. The failure to ensure jobs are available before and after the crimes are committed is a different issue altogether and is in no way addressed by giving prisoners free room and board and not requiring them to attempt to repay their debt to society.
It would be one thing if the system was set up where prisoners knew, in advance, that they’d be working to pay off their room and board while in prison, but it’s quite another to sue them after they are released. And if prisoners who suddenly come into a sum of money are deliberately singled out and targeted… well, that’s just scummy and should make even the most corrupt politician blush.
The next time you walk out to the parking lot to get in your car, give thanks some ex-con didn’t steal it to “pay his debt.”
Again. If I force you to accept something, you are not getting a “free ride.”
The prisoners are prisoners because they committed crimes. They forced their actions on society. Justice is forcing them to repay society for their crime. I don’t advocate force if they’re willing to voluntarily repay their debt to society but that doesn’t happen very often. We are being forced to pay for the room and board of prisoners under the system you advocate. Why should law abiding citizens be forced to pay for these prisoners?
I’m having a hard time understanding why so many are advocating for a system where criminals do not have to pay their debt to society. What if someone commits a crime, serves a few years, gets out on the street and then wins the lottery? Should they be free and clear to keep all that money and ignore the debt they imposed on society?
Actually, no. They are prisoners because society has decided that prison is a reasonable reaction to certain behaviors. Prison is not a natural consequence of stealing, for example; it’s what society has chosen as a method for punishment.
“Debt to society” is a phrase that generally does not mean a financial debt. The ‘debt’ is a moral/social debt for breaking the social contract. Criminals “pay” that debt through incarceration and/or good deeds. (I don’t think this is a particularly unusual or foreign concept). Our justice system is not based on a financial accounting of the cost of a crime (and punishment). ‘Debt to society’ is paid when punishment is served.
Of course someone who commits a crime in their past and then strikes it rich should get to keep their money. They have suffered their punishment; their ‘debt’ has been paid.
You are describing what happens now, and I think it’s a stupid system. When someone commits a crime we should make them responsible for making society and their victims whole again. For some reason we have obsessed on the idea of punishment for repaying debt to society and clearly it does not work. Incarceration should be limited to protecting society, not punishing criminals. Instead we should seek justice by requiring criminals to do their best to repay society for the debt they have created by their criminal actions. That would be the debt owed to their victims, the cost of apprehending and trying them, and the costs of their upkeep. We should indeed ensure that they can perform reasonable work for reasonable pay to cover that debt, and in most cases some forgiveness will be necessary since they can rack up a debt they may never be able to pay off in their lifetime. But we have some chance of achieving justice that way while the current system offers none.
I can unstand the first; one person has damaged another. I’m not convinced about the others yet, as there are costs there that the government decides to incur. And their size can vary in ways that have nothing to do with the criminal.