So in other words, the rich should be allowed to buy their way out of jail.
Okay, but you still aren’t going to have much idea how many days they will actually serve.
That seem insurmountable. If the sentence ends early or is decreased, the fine or whatever you want to call it is decreased.
Food, clothing, shelter and medical care for prisoners is exactly what maintaining the penal system is. Prison is nothing more or less than an enforced stay in government provided shelter, eating government provided food, and wearing government provided clothing.
NYC spends $167,000 per year per inmate. What prison job is going to net anything close to that? I work a full-time, skilled, salaried job on the outside, and it would take me five years to cover that.
You keep harping on this “make society whole.” What does that mean? You can’t undo a crime. Nothing can ever go back to the way it was.
Wrong. We did. Incarceration is not an inherent consequence of committing certain crimes. We could instead do nothing. We could instead require some criminals to do community service. We could shoot all criminals in the head and charge their families for the cost of the bullets. Instead we voluntarily created a penal system as a way to enforce laws.
Cite that there is “disregard” for our justice system, and cite that the degree of “disregard” for a justice system tracks to crime rates. I think you just made both of these up.
Because:
[list]
[li]The cost of incarceration is well beyond the income expectations of your average, capable, employeed non-prisoner, let alone someone in jail.[/li][li]Society, as part of the choice to incarcerate someone, takes away that person’s ability to earn a reasonable income. “Hi, we are going to start charging you for room and board, and we are also going to not allow you to get a job. Why aren’t you paying back your debt to society!?”[/li][li]As I said upthread, we, you and I, choose to remove people from situations in which they are capable of supporting themselves when we incarcerate them. ‘Good enough’!? I am fairly sure that 99% of those in jail would happily hop down off of their elitist, “give me stuff for free” high-horses and go support themselves in exchange for not being a financial burden in the penal system.[/li]
First, who says “everyone should be paying their way through life”? What does that mean? Who decides what constitutes “paying your way through life” and whether or not I’m doing so? If someone doesn’t meet your expectations, are they a bad person? Do they ‘owe’ society? Are they making society unwhole?
Look, sometimes people who don’t “deserve” things get them. That coworker who doesn’t work nearly as hard as you but who makes more money. That family down the street who you know are on food stamps but somehow they have money to go out and have fun sometimes, on your hard-earned dime! I know that everything you get you earned; you receive exactly what you deserve in this life, because you worked hard for it. People who work equally hard but don’t have as much, well, they must not really be working as hard as you.
I get it. I know that sometimes, in order to justify the good things we have, we must convince ourselves that financial success and moral rightness go hand in hand. But I’ll bet that if I spied down with my omniscient eye onto your life, I’d find all sorts of ways in which you take without giving back. But instead of demanding that you make reparations for all you’ve taken from us, I’d think about how the motes I see in your eyes reflect the log in mine.
You don’t have to. You just make part of their sentence to be “work to be allocated by the prison staff, in compensation for living costs while incarcerated”. I don’ think anyone is suggesting that they be “sued in advance”.
So if you wait until the end of the incarceration period to figure out the total due, then the difference from the system under discussion is… what, exactly?
As your own citation notes, that figure is disproportionately high and in any case refers to the city’s jail population, not prison inmates. Some of them are convicts but most will not be, which factors in significantly to the associated cost.
Fair enough. Case of “taking the first cite I can find without reading carefully/comparing to other cites.” Looks like an average of $30k with some states hitting $60k is a more reasonable figure.
Mea culpa for using a bad figure. Still, the point that even a non-incarcerated full-time worker would have a very hard time covering the cost of their own imprisonment still stands.
No. You set it at the start, with the option to decrease. Just like the sentence.
Okay. When do you collect?
As a general principle, I agree that people should pay for their own food, clothing, and housing.
But when we incarcerate a person, we take away his ability to earn income that would be used for that purpose. Part of the package, so to speak, should be the assumption on society’s part of those costs.
That’s what I was wondering earlier. It could be due regularly during incarceration. It could be due on release. Or on sentencing, with deferred payment. So many possibilities.
But I don’t really like the idea.
And also take away a great deal of that person’s future earning potential.
I did address that. It’s our responsibility to provide work that would cover those costs. A prisoner working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week should be covering his costs. It’s our responsibility to provide that opportunity to work.
I did not intend that at all. By ordering you made a contract. As a practical matter a diner and a restaurant would probably reach some sort of accord depending on facts and circumstances.
My wife and I were once seated for dinner and were called away. We had just ordered, so I ran after our waitress and stopped the order from being executed. No problem except that we had used some water and there may have been water rings on the paper covering the table cloth. I left a tip and we were welcomed back the next time we came.
As Sampi and others say below, the original punishment imposed calls for restitution of the cost of imprisonment. That’s not a contract.
And as I said above, most released felons are going to be judgment proof. Yes, wages can be attached, but probably not worth the collection effort if the job is minimum wage, or close.
The free market does not like to compete with a captive labor force, whether it is manufacturing, data processing or maintaining state property. Any attempt to significantly monetize prison labor outside of the prison laundry and food service is going to get some push back from private industry.
But don’t you see that your “payback principle” is completely redefining the concepts of crime and justice according to differences in wealth?
If a rich person steals something, you just make them pay the owner for the loss and that’s that. How about when a non-rich person steals something they can’t afford to compensate the owner for the loss of? What amount of their life or liberty are you going to demand they forfeit as “payback” for the very same crime that the rich person could immediately walk away from just by writing a check?
It has long been the boast of egalitarian democracies that they don’t have “one law for the rich and another for the poor”. Of course that’s not always strictly true in practice, but at least it remains an important ideal that the justice system strives for.
Your proposed “payback principle” would totally eradicate that ideal in favor of deliberately making the law treat the rich and the poor very differently for the exact same crime.
It is not the free market which does that, the free market thrives on competition. It is individuals who do not want to compete who push back. They do so for their own benefit and an increased cost to everyone else.
This absolutely wrong. The only difference in wealth that is considered is that the least wealthy are more likely not have the means to pay all they owe and some of their debt must be forgiven. The debt stays the same, the sentence stays the same. The difference is that the wealthy may not have to work to pay their way, the same situation that existed before they were convicted of a crime. No one should be put in prison because they can not afford to pay for their crime. The sole purpose of incarceration should be to protect society IMHO. If you want to use it for punishment also that is another matter, but it should not be different for the rich and the poor
Only when that competition is on a level playing ground. Forced labor by captive workers which is not subject to free market forces like wages and job mobility is not something that any industry would consider healthy competition. It has been tried, and it became the target by a unlikely coalition of unions and corporations for lawsuits for unfair competition by government. And private industry is winning those lawsuits.
I do not advocate forced labor. It is paid labor, under the same OSHA regulations that apply elsewhere. It will almost certainly be relegated to growing food and projects not otherwise cost justified. No one is forced to work. If they have the means to pay for their cost of living already they don’t have to do anything. If they friends or family that will pay the bill that’s fine too. If they refuse to work then they go hungry. That’s the way it works outside of prison, except that outside of prison they’ll commit crimes to pay for their food, inside prison they lose that opportunity.