Should someone on probation be allowed to keep lottery winnings?

Great Debates
1

Lottery Winner May Forfeit $1 Million Prize Because Gambling Violated His Parole

Another story here.

We should stipulate to the fact that gambling is prohibited by the terms of his parole, and that he did violate those terms.

Is it reasonable that a felon on parole be prohibited from purchasing lottery tickets - an activity that is not only enjoyed by free citizens, but is also condoned and endorsed by the State?

It could be argued that the Elliott need not have accepted the terms of the parole, but instead served the full sentence and gone free unconditionally. Is it reasonable to expect that someone who is incarcerated turn down a parole that has conditions that restrict legal activities?

In the second article, the District Attorney states that “such conditions are often ordered for suspects who contend their gambling debts drove them to commit their crimes.” The conditions will not be in place after his parole is over, and there is nothing restricting him from purchasing lottery tickets then. Is this just legislation of morality over a captive audience?

2

I think the lottery winnings should go to the state to cover police costs, court costs, and incarceration and parole maintenance costs. With regard to the latter that is if the violation does not merit further incarceration.

Fuck amnesty for people who thumb their noses at the law !

3

FWIW, he’s on probation, not on parole.

I’m unfamiliar with how the terms of probation work in such a case. Do the rules specify that any otherwise legal income that was obtained in violation of his terms of probation must be turned over to the state?

If yes, he’s SOL. If no, they can sentence him for violating the terms of his probation if they want, but I can’t see where they can just take his money from him.

4

That was my thought- violate him, and when he gets out again, he’s got the money.

5

RULES AND ORDER! RABBLE RABBLE!

6

Given the terms of the probation, he shouldn’t get to keep the money.

However, I think it’s ridiculous he can’t play the lottery. I can understand perhaps being barred from casinos or something, but scratchoffs? Doesn’t make sense to me.

7

Should a person who was convicted of five DUIs be prohibited from drinking which is perfectly legal for most of us? I should say so. Similarly, a person who committed crimes because of a gambling habit should be prohibited from gambling.

8

Parole and probation rules are part of an agreement the State enters into with the convicted criminal. The criminal agrees to abide by these rules, and in return, the State forgoes or shortens incarcerations. The understanding is that if these rules are violated, the criminal may well do significant time in jail or prison.

The criminal has a clear choice. He can choose to reject the terms, and serve his incarceration times. Or agree to abide by them and get out of jail/prison quicker.

I have seen hundreds of felons who report to me that they ‘revoked’ themself, going back to prison because they were sick of obeying the rules, which include things like “don’t drink, don’t do illicit drugs, and don’t gamble”. These folks said they’d rather do a few more years in prison (to the tune of $28,000/year cost to the taxpayers) than follow the rules which would result in less/no incarceration time.

I don’t have a problem with such restrictions noted in the OP. They’re offered as an alternative to a longer sentence.

9

I’m with you so far. But what about the money?

10

If the conditions of his parole/probation disallow him from keeping any gains from forbidden activities, he should lose it.

If not, I’m not so sure

11

I think he should keep the money, and be punished for violating the terms of the probation. If he won the jackpot at a casino, I don’t think the casino could recover the money. If the state wants to play the role of a casino, they shouldn’t get special treatment.

IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.

12

He should be punished to the exact same extent that he would have been if the police had found him buying a losing lottery ticket, which (I assume) is substantially less than a million dollar fine. Why does the fact that the ticket is a winner change anything?

13

What’s the difference between playing the lottery and going to a casino? The end result is to gamble.

It’s obvious he’s an idiot. Anyone with half a brain would have realized they might get caught and should have given it to someone in the family or someone he trusted. Or lock the ticket up for as long as possible until the probation period had ended, but before the ticket claim period dried up.

14

Just out of curiousity - would anyone care if this guy hadn’t won?

What I’m trying to get at is that State lotteries are so important, AIUI, to keeping state budgets closer to the black that I am of the opinion that there’s going to be no enforcement for the “don’t buy lottery tickets” part of his probation. The problem here isn’t that he played the lottery, it’s that the won the lottery.

One of the reasons, from my reading of the articles, for this condition for the probation is that the guy is a problem gambler, and it contributed signifigantly to why he chose to try robbing banks. So, it certainly seems a reasonable condition to put on his probation, and to support the avowed purpose of rehabilitation.

But, while you and I can talk about how a single lottery ticket is only a buck or so, and not a problem for any healthy person to indulge in, we’re not talking about a healthy person. He got himself into such a problem in the first place I suspect because he was buying so many $1 tickets he was out of living money.

The state has no problem, it appears, with this problem gambler, or any other problem gambler, dropping any percentage of their income into lottery tickets. What they’re talking about punishing is that he won.

If they want to be consistent, I’d suggest refunding him the money for the tickets that he purchased before he won this jackpot, since his release. Then confiscate the prize money.

If they’re not going to do that, I can’t see why the state should take his lottery winnings, if they’re willing to take his lottery purchases. Both acts were equally against this guy’s probation order, and both stem from his problem gambling. Either both categories are against his probation, and the state needs to redress the monetary improprieties. Or neither is.

15

Unless the terms of his probation specifically address the idea that any winnings are forfeit, he gets to keep them.

He will probably have his probation revoked.

At that time, the dept of corrections might go after him to pay for his incarceration. I don’t think they could go after his money for previous incarcerations, but they probably could for the present time.

16

I was thinking along the lines of “risk to the casino”. I dunno, I kind of assumed that one wouldn’t be engaging in criminal activities in order to pay for lottery tickets, but after some thought, I realize that there’s lots of (idiotic) people who probably would, so um, nevermind. :o

17

:smack: Apologies to all who picked up on this. I’ve reported this and asked a moderator to change the title. I thought I was being so careful in composing the OP, too…

My thought here is that a lottery ticket is a contract between the State and the bearer. There are certain conditions that are implied by the purchase of the ticket; namely that the bearer is entitled to compensation in accordance with the rules of the particular game being played. Sometimes winnings may be garnished, but that is after a court proceeding that examines whether the person legally owes money to another.

A probation is a contract between the State and a felon. The fact that the State is the same party in both instances should not be of concern here. In the lottery, he won fairly and should be compensated. Elliott has violated the terms of his probation and I agree that he should be punished accordingly.

As to requiring him to pay for his incarceration: Is there precedence for this? Can the State require someone to compensate them for their expenses? Does it open the door for the entitled to pay for the cost to the State, and then demand that better conditions as a condition of that payment?

18

From your lips to God’s ear, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is still legal for them to drink. And it is just as illegal for them to get behind the wheel while drunk as it is for you or me. So, what *should be * is not the same as what is.

19

I believe Hajario’s point was intended to be, not whether something is a legal act for a citizen, but whether it’s a valid condition of probation, parole, or conditional release. If I were a judge or parole board member dealing with conditions under which a 5-time DUI felon need not be incarcerated, I’d tell him that the only time anything alcoholic better touch is lip is communion wine – and make that a condition he agrees to for his release. Likewise, if someone were on probation for an offense resulting from being a problem gambler, I don’t care who’s selling chances at what (State lottery, Cub Scouts selling chances on something to raise money for their Pack, or casino, it doesn’t matter) – it’s a condition of his release tat he not engage in gambling. Period. That it’s his civil right in a broad sense may be true – but we’re not talking about what he has in common with Mrs. Yancey in Sacramento and Dr. Gonzalez in Sarasota, we’re talking about what he agrees to in exchange for the penal authorities agreeing not to lock him up, or reduce the terms of his being locked up. And they can, ceteris paribus, impose whatever conditions they find wise.

20

My point, which may not have been clear, is that people are told that they can’t drink as a condition of their porole.