Make Crime Pay Us Back
By doing something I've always thought we should do -- charging criminals for their jail stay. Tracy Loew writes in USA Today:
Get arrested in Springfield, Ore., this fall, and you might spend the night in jail -- then get a bill for your stay.The city plans to charge convicted criminals up to $60 a night, depending on their ability to pay, when a new 100-bed lockup opens in October, Springfield Police Chief Jerry Smith says. Thus, the city could recoup most of its cost of about $70 a day.
"These people are the ones who cause the cost to operate a jail, so they ought to be the ones to pay it, not private citizens," Smith says.
The economic recession is spurring several local governments to turn to pay-to-stay programs, says Sara Totonchi, public policy director for the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, which fights legislation that imposes such fees on inmates.
"In these difficult economic times, policymakers are looking for different options to save money," Totonchi says.
Oh, boohoo. You do the crime -- don't expect me to pay for your time. And that has nothing to do with the way our elected and appointed idiots mismanage our tax dollars and our prisons.
And while we're at it, I think criminals should have to stay in jail until they earn money to pay restitution to their victims.
I dunno... we want criminals to avoid committing more crimes when they get out. If they get out of jail, and have a hard time getting a job, and then they have a debt they owe for their time in jail, they might feel very desperate and commit more crimes.
Have any of these cities done studies on the after effects, and if so, what are the results.
NicoleK at May 29, 2009 3:04 AM
You have to be careful with this as it can start a slippery slope. They say it will only cost those who can afford it - ok - what basis is used. What about a father who pays child support gets tossed in jail and then has to pay his jail fee on top of what he owes in child support he then gets further into debt and starts a downword spiral. Okay what about that drunk that before would have be tossed in a cab nows gets to spend 60 bucks extra for a cell for the night. This jail cell fee will become the next traffic camera or speed camera money generating scheme.
Then it gets worse - next you can just skip the jail time by just paying the fee. So a murder can cost me about 400,000 dollars. Okay Okay that would be ridiculous. Ok what about those that rich folk who gets tossed into jail. Thinging ya a little hard time in a shitty cell will teach them. They can just pay more to make life better. Hmm the next time Paris Hilton gets tossed in jail she can just say "Thanks officer I will have my deluxe jail cell please. Ohh do you take Visa?" A cell that is not uncomfortable but nice and for an extra fee of 10 a night comes with a cable tv hooked up show. How are people supposed to learn when they have the money.
I see visions of those crime lords locked up in Columbia that decked their cells with sofa's, curtains, Satellite TV, prime exercise equipment, plus that cook for those specials meals you want. Soon coming to those prisoners in the US.
>>And while we're at it, I think criminals >>should have to stay in jail until they earn >>money to pay restitution to their victims.
This is also problematic. Congratulations you are stuck in prison and you are lucky to earn 5 dollars a day. And you have to pay restitution to somebody lets say you owe 10,000 it would take you about 5.5 years to earn to pay off that.
Also with restitution you will soon get what happens in Korea (even Iran too) - Blood Money - okay you have been drunk driving - you kill somebody as long as you have the money to pay you can skip the police and courts. Okay go get in a fight, you started it rather then going to jail for a year for assault you can just pay a thousand dollars and hospital bills. No need for the police. What about rape! Hmm a high class prostitue cost 2000 dollars an hour. The rape lasted 10 minutes it will cost me 350 dollars rounding up. Include 100 hours of psychotherapy at 50 dollars an hour. That is 5000 dollars, okay got to include hospital costs okay make it 5000 dollars. So for 1850 dollars I can just skip the jail and pay restitution. Hmmm better start saving for my next major crime spree.
John Paulson at May 29, 2009 3:56 AM
OK, because a good idea might lead to something bad, we can't do it? If we used that criteria, we would never try anything because you can always find some possible consequence that is unpleasant or harmful.
There is no perfect plan or idea - everything might lead to a bad consequence, but what is even worse is not trying anything at all.
Ian Dolvn at May 29, 2009 5:02 AM
Amy, Amy, Amy . . .
This is the first time, in the short amount of time I have been reading you, that I have noticed being so far on the opposite side of an issue from you.
Jail should not be a profit center, it should not even break even. It should be incredibly expensive for society to incarcerate people and it should be safe (both for the convict and for the public).
Perhaps if jails cost us more there would not be so many things that we could be put in jail for. And don't confuse me with someone who makes excuses for shady people either (see some of my recent blog posts).
Most things these people are in jail for probably had associated fines that could have been imposed. Most of them probably had to pay 'court costs', yet another legal government scam. Now a jailer's fee?
Too much is too much.
John Tagliaferro at May 29, 2009 5:20 AM
I am right with Amy here. But, I happen to think that just killing them, much more quickly than we do, is the answer to most violent felons. We owe them nothing, certainly not free room and board.
"If they get out of jail, and have a hard time getting a job, and then they have a debt they owe for their time in jail, they might feel very desperate and commit more crimes"
This is the sort of thinking that has people wanting lighter sentences for child molesters and rapists, so they don't just kill their victims. When did the threat of someone breaking the law become a tool to hold us hostage? If they break the law again, punish them worse.
But, to do this, some things are going to have to be decriminalized. I'm not sure I think legalizing drugs is a brilliant idea, but it would probably have to be done just to free up jail space.
momof4 at May 29, 2009 5:35 AM
Think of all the money Mayberry will make from Otis! They could afford to buy Barney fife more than one bullet.
BlogDog at May 29, 2009 5:36 AM
Make incarceration a revenue source for government? Bad idea.
In government budget sessions, the guys in charge line typically seek ways to increase the revenue number each year over what it was the year before. If you have a line item called "jail fees" the two ways to increase that number is up the fee on each prisoner or increase the number of prisoners.
My guess is there will be a push on both those variables to increase the revenue number.
Don't agree? Think about parking tickets, traffic tickets, various municipal fines, etc. Has anyone noticed those going up, both in fine amount and frequency of issuance?
Simple incentives operating on people will produce fairly predictable results in most cases. Give government officials a pecuniary benefit--even an indirect one like larger budgets--for each instance of incarceration, and you will likely see those people push for more incarceration. It is true for prison guard unions and towns that have prisons to employ people. Why would we want to spread that same pernicious incentive of "jail=money" to every jail and sheriff's office in America? God knows plenty of those people are already hard to trust with their power, even when it costs them money to exercise it.
Spartee at May 29, 2009 5:55 AM
Uhm, hello?
You're already in prison, being punished for your crime. Unless you want to amend all the criminal statutes to specify the "jail fee" that is part of the sentence, this counts as an additional punishment.
If you're going to prison, you've already lost your freedom, and you have no income stream. So what are you supposed to do, hock all your shit before you go in?
Bad, bad idea.
brian at May 29, 2009 6:06 AM
Like red light cameras, another example of law for profit, what could possibly go wrong?
The increased incidence of rear end collisions and shortened yellow lights are coincidences, I'm sure.
MarkD at May 29, 2009 6:24 AM
>>You're already in prison, being punished for your crime.
An obvious point - that obviously needs to be emphasized here. Well said, Brian.
Jody Tresidder at May 29, 2009 7:04 AM
Sometimes I think Amy likes to drop back a few millenia on one just to make sure we're still reading.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 29, 2009 7:06 AM
Besides, England already tried this shit. They were famously charging INNOCENT people (i.e people who were wrongly jailed in the first place) for their stay.
Bad, bad, bad.
brian at May 29, 2009 7:15 AM
Umm... Isn't that the point? If they're innocent –so innocent they're in capital letters– why are they in prison anyway?
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 29, 2009 7:26 AM
"I think criminals should have to stay in jail until they earn money to pay restitution to their victims."
Thank you for another example of inconsistent thinking. By this reasoning, Bank of America has completely satisfied you because your money was restored.
There is no honest way to assign a dollar value to crime. How much money erases the degradation of rape, and/or the transmission of HIV in the process?
Before you properly take me to task for the apparent "straw man" - you are talking about jail maintenance fees at the same time as restitution to victims - the concept of imprisoning someone to "pay their debt to society" can't easily be decremented. Just how is a multiple offender's time in jail more or less valuable than that of the first-timer, in on a manslaughter charge because of gross negligence?
There is plenty wrong with the legal system. Making it about the dollar has already corrupted things, and adding another dollar value will not do differently.
-----
I have already seen the solution to prison expenses, but we lack the interest and political will to make it happen. The National Guard set up a tent city at NTC Orlando when I was stationed there. It had quarters for everyone, a mess tent, electrical power and sanitary facilities - inside two rows of razor wire, watched 24/7 by guards. This won't be accepted by the legal system because shooting anyone between the fences is somehow unacceptable - the facilities have to use passive restraints.
We can't even tell inmates that if they destroy their facility they have to do without. It's a sickness.
Radwaste at May 29, 2009 7:28 AM
> We owe them nothing, certainly
> not free room and board.
I think when eagerness to punish gets out of hand, you get all the perversions (including the sexual ones) that we see in the Middle East. The mechanics are complicated but reliable
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 29, 2009 7:28 AM
I agree with the principle of this idea, but not the implementation. Prisons should pay for themselves, but not be a profit making enterprise. Let's call it non-profit incarceration.
I agree that if the government is able to earn profits by jailing its populace, then more people will likely be jailed. However, cloistered nuns separate themselves off from the entire world for the reason of faithful contemplation. They are able to be completely self sufficient and cover all of their own expenses. This often includes raising and butchering their own meat and running mail order businesses. If a group of nuns have been able to do this for hundreds of years, a bunch of cons should be able to earn their keep. The additional advantage is that teaching a con a skill could likely prevent recidivism after release. Arizona has had a chain gang for years and their recidivism rate is the lowest in the country. (One doesn't necessarily lead to the other, but the numbers are hard to dismiss.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_gang#Reintroduction_and_criticisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Arizona
Julie at May 29, 2009 7:39 AM
>>I think when eagerness to punish gets out of hand, you get all the perversions (including the sexual ones) that we see in the Middle East.
Steady on, Crid.
I'm not sure it's "eagerness to punish" underpinning Amy's enthusiasm here, is it?
More frustration with the accounting of incarceration?
Jody Tresidder at May 29, 2009 7:43 AM
I have a problem with this; what do you do with the inmates who can't afford Jail?
Let's think about this. Most of the people visiting jail are not fortunate individuals. They are not thinking with long-term goals and they are not the type of those who own a bank account. If you are jailed and unable to pay for your own jail-time, will you be sued when you are released? This is a Catch-22 that can turn into a Kafka-esque circus. Let's take the Victor Hugo's way; you steal a bread and you have no money or ability to pay the two weeks' jail-time you are sentenced to. How long would you stay in the system if you got sued by the Jail?
The solution is simple: two prison systems. a Tent-city for the inmates who can't pay or refuse to work for their keep and a well-equipped jail for those who work. I wouldn't see no problem in the re-instatement of the chain gangs. With GPS technology, how far an inmate can run?
Toubrouk at May 29, 2009 7:56 AM
I'm not sure how successful charging people for their jail stay would be, and brian has a good point about innocent people being charged for their stays. (Crid, being arrested and thrown in jail overnight isn't the same thing as being convicted.)
However... I'm all for labor (chain gangs, making license plates, whatever) for actual convicts. (Here, inmates in the prison system manufacture all sorts of furniture: bunk beds for the prisons, chairs and benches for the state Capitol, barbeque grills for the public parks...And why shouldn't they?)
ahw at May 29, 2009 7:58 AM
I'm going to have to disagree as well.
I can just see this being abused. Someone gets nailed as a repeat offender say third DUI -- so they have to do 30 days in county lockup. That's $1,800. The person of course loses their low paying job. They then get out and are being slapped with this bill. He finds a job at a fast food joint that is paying barely minimum wage with no benefits. Where is the $1800 coming from? So a few months down the line he misses a payment. A bench warrant is issued -- he's picked up and so now he does another couple of nights in jail and loses his job. Now he is getting hit with another $180 to $240.
Can you see a pattern to this?
Make crime a cost center gives the authorities an incentive to utilize it.
And saying it won't happen:
Jim P. at May 29, 2009 8:13 AM
(pulls pin from written grenade and throws it into the thread...)
Joe Arpaio?
juliana at May 29, 2009 8:21 AM
If you are in a work release center you do have to pay for your stay. The one I used to work at required inmates to pay 25% of their wages to the work release center. If they refused to work, they went back to prison.
I am for paying for your crime. I think it would cut way down on crime.
Example- Hell no I'm not stealing that $25,000 car. I'll be paying for it for the rest of my life.
Judges, attorneys and politicians need crime otherwise we wouldn't need them.
That is why they balance the amount of crime.
Example- They give stiff penalties for crime and crime goes down. Then thay say the jails are too full so they let the criminals out.
Then crime goes back up and people complain so they arrest more people... crime goes down and it's a vicious cycle that benefits lawyers,judges and politicians because they are the ones that are "saving" us.
David M. at May 29, 2009 8:23 AM
Joe Arpaio?
Whatever you might think of him, he produces results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Julie at May 29, 2009 8:31 AM
I disagree with this one as well. However this line makes me think Amy needs to check her math.
If you are paying $60 per day in jail and you can work a minimum wage job in there ($7.25 per hour (new minimum as of July 24) 8 hours a day no one will pay felons overtime) you get $58 per day before taxes. So if you fall into the tax free bracket you will be in jail forever accruing debt. Now you might get a hand full of short tempered engineer, accountants, lawyers etc. but they are very very few and far between. Also the wealthier you are the better council you get. So those that are most able to pay would are the least likely to get in. I'm very happy with a wage gap but that's a bit harsh.
vlad at May 29, 2009 8:35 AM
> I'm not sure it's "eagerness to punish"
I think the oldest desire of mankind is to be guided by one's interior twitches in the construction of policies in the exterior world.
It's a bad move, though
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 29, 2009 8:35 AM
Watch for a future convict to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, where Sonia Sotomayor will rule in his favor, citing his upbringing as making him a victim for life.
Robert W. at May 29, 2009 8:38 AM
"If they get out of jail, and have a hard time getting a job, and then they have a debt they owe for their time in jail, they might feel very desperate and commit more crimes"
Booooo Hooooo!! You know, I'm in debt. Sometimes I have no idea how I'll pay it all off. I'd even say I feel desperate about my financial situation at times. I don't commit crimes to pay my bills. When you get out of jail, you should have a hard time getting a job and paying your bills. If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't break the law. I don't want to go to jail and I sure as hell can't afford $60 a day to be there...so I think I'll be a law abiding citizen. See how easy that is?
"If you're going to prison, you've already lost your freedom, and you have no income stream. So what are you supposed to do, hock all your shit before you go in?"
Correction: You have handed over your freedom. Let's not pretend these people "lost" anything. To say they "lost" something would imply that they have no say in the matter. They handed their freedom over on a silver platter the minute they broke the law.
I am SO sick about hearing all this crap about inmates' rights. What about our rights? What about my right to walk down my street and feel safe? What about my right to remain in possession of all of the items I have purchased with my hard earned money? What about my right as a 13 year old girl to go to my friend's house for a sleepover and have an enjoyable time and not be molested by her father? These criminals don't seem to care about our rights or our safety, so why should we care about theirs? They get free health care and better food and room and board than a lot of them came from. Hell, they get more than a lot of struggling, honest American families. How is that fair?
I'm all for this. They can make money while in jail. Maybe the state could even up the salaries in the kitchen a bit to help with the cost of boarding them. I can tell you one thing, I am sick and tired of my tax dollars going to feed, cloth and shelter people who, in my opinion, should have been put down for a dirt nap their first day in. I'm not saying all, but a lot of these people will never be sorry. They will never be "cured". Why do we keep them around....and why the hell should the honest, hard-working, law-abiding people in this country have to pay for it?
Kim at May 29, 2009 8:45 AM
> They can make money while in jail.
Entrepreneurial spirits don't do so well when they can't set their own hours
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 29, 2009 8:50 AM
Arizona has had a chain gang for years and their recidivism rate is the lowest in the country. (One doesn't necessarily lead to the other, but the numbers are hard to dismiss.)
Joe Arpaio?
Whatever you might think of him, he produces results
-Julie
No he doesnt,
Well I'll take that back - he has piled up nearly 50 million in wrongful death suits
there was an article in the paper this week on how they close out so many cases by simply not investigating them.
Here is a link to a story about how the sherrifs deparnment just didnt bother to investigate the rape of a 14 yr old girl
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-05-28/news/two-statutory-rape-allegations-tell-us-everything-we-need-to-know-about-the-mcso-s-priorities/
The guy is a sadiatic ass hole who spend more time harrasing and arresting mexicans, illegal AND LEGAL then doing his fucking job
The big bad sherrif and co took a 12 yr old american citizen zip tied his hands and forced him to sit with a group of illegal immagrents they had arrested from the drop house next door - are those the type of results you want american children being detained because of their skin color?
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-05-28/news/the-lumley-vampire-attacks-arizona-department-of-corrections-charles-ryan-for-the-death-of-marcia-powell-arpaio-s-goons-zip-tie-a-12-year-old-and-the-jail-lockdowns-are-over/2
Then there was the time they burned down a house, drove a dog into the falmes and nearly killed a familly down the street because they didnt set the parking brake on their tank while serving a warrent on a guy who didnt show up for TRAFFIC COURT
You want to see what sorts of results he gets?
Do some reading
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/specialReports/view/1166737
lujlp at May 29, 2009 9:05 AM
vlad at May 29, 2009 9:07 AM
Personally, violent offenders. Rapes & murders where there is solid physical proof and/or 3rd party witnesses
Banishment - find an island and dump 'em
lujlp at May 29, 2009 9:10 AM
Kim:
How very Saudi of you.
So someone goes in for tax evasion, we kill them. Someone goes in for drunk and disorderly, kill them. Someone goes in for kiting checks, kill them.
Gotta admit, it's efficient.
But given the complexity of our laws at this point, we'd run out of people REALLY fast.
There's a reason why sentences have limits to them. It's because there has to be a defined response for there to be justice. By making people pay room and board in prison, you immediately get rid of that. Those who are imprisoned and have outside means will live in relative luxury compared with their less well-off comrades. It also sets up a spoils system - as in "you blow me, and I'll pay your board fee this week".
No. If you give people an opportunity, they'll take it. There's enough corruption in the criminal justice system as it is without pouring more into it.
brian at May 29, 2009 9:11 AM
He might be the only man in the U.S. who understand the term "Hard Time".
Toubrouk at May 29, 2009 9:11 AM
And, this enforces stiffer penalties for being poor. A wealthy person commits his crime, does his time, pays his fine and moves on. A poor person who commits the same crime is paying for it forever.
I don't feel bad for convicted criminals. But unless we're giving people life sentences, we expect them to rejoin society at some point. Making that re-entry as difficult as possible is not in our best interests.
MonicaP at May 29, 2009 9:17 AM
However that was tried on a grand scale by the britts and it had mixed results for the monarchy.
vlad at May 29, 2009 9:20 AM
That because they had prison colonies and not a dump and abadondon policy
lujlp at May 29, 2009 9:22 AM
Putting on my bean counter hat for a moment, I can't help but wonder if the administrative costs of trying to collect the funds would eat up a significant percentage of or even exceed any funds collected.
Agree also that prisons/jails shouldn't be regarded as profit centers.
deja pseu at May 29, 2009 9:26 AM
I like Kim's thinking here :)
momof4 at May 29, 2009 9:38 AM
if you're my neighbour and i don't want you in my yard i'm going to put up an 8' fence and make you pay for it
i'm going to create a system of laws that you don't agree with and if you violate any of them i'm going to throw you in prison and make you pay for it
prisons are created by gov't to punish people who commit acts that gov't deems criminal
therefore, gov't should pay for them
i wonder how many of you would agree with paying for a foreign gov't throwing you in jail while you're on vacation for breaking a law you didn't know existed (like in China). still okay is it?
theOtherJim at May 29, 2009 10:35 AM
i wonder how many of you would agree with paying for a foreign gov't throwing you in jail while you're on vacation for breaking a law you didn't know existed (like in China). still okay is it?
Why would you go to a country without at least looking over the high points of the law? We are all obligated to follow the law even when we aren't familiar with it. Ever gotten a speeding ticket when you didn't realize that you were speeding? Same principle only on a grander scale. Yes it is okay to be tried and treated as a citizen when in a foreign country. "I'm a US citizen" shouldn't be a get out of jail free card.
If we don't agree with the laws then we need to work to repeal them. That should take us, what, 300 years?
Julie at May 29, 2009 10:55 AM
You don't have to allow your neighbor in your yard, TOJ, it's a law called trespassing, no fence required.
"prisons are created by gov't to punish people who commit acts that gov't deems criminal"
Not really, it's for acts society calls criminal. And yes, should I break a law in another country, I would expect costly fines and possible jailtime. Just like here. What's your point?
momof4 at May 29, 2009 11:35 AM
You don't have to allow your neighbor in your yard, TOJ, it's a law called trespassing, no fence required.
And we all pay for the enforcement of that law, through taxes.
Momof4, congrats on the little one. I wish you many hours of sleep and a total lack of colic!
-Julie
Julie at May 29, 2009 11:38 AM
Eh no. Nice in concept but as mentioned by many in the thread, its a bad idea overall. Nevermind that whole pesky Debtor's prison issue being a problem. Not that that stops them from doing it for child support.
Sio at May 29, 2009 1:19 PM
"Umm... Isn't that the point? If they're innocent –so innocent they're in capital letters– why are they in prison anyway? "
Nobody can be this naive. Judicial infallibility - what a touching display of faith.
Very telling gender break out in the comments. women, who benefit form the Female Senticning Discount in this country, tend to favor all this rigor. Surprise, surprise. Men, who tend to be on the losing end of false accusations and go to prison disproportionately, see the obvious injustice.
Kim, you whine about where are your rights. You expect to walk safely down a street because it's someone else's job to kep you safe. You're a little defenseless weakling. You don't have rights. You only have the priveleges stronger people provide for you. You need to man up and learn how to take care of yourself on the street.
Jim at May 29, 2009 2:35 PM
"You need to man up and learn how to take care of yourself on the street."
Thoroughly unneeded if society removed predators from the population. I suppose you also think, being a manned up man, that you're safe always, right? But wait, who are the overwhelming majority of victims of violent crimes? oh wait, that's right, men! Courtesy of other men. I fail to see the gender-biased benefit from making criminals pay here, buddy.
momof4 at May 29, 2009 3:15 PM
There is no one - period - responsible for your personal safety but you. See Warren v. DC.
"Removing predators from the population" does not address either jail costs or the first offenders. It doesn't address either unjust law or the motivation to consider crime a viable profession.
Want to call on "society" to remove these predators? You are part of that society. This isn't someone else's job.
It's expensive and demeaning to jail someone for life, yet people who won't confine their cat to the house think it's just fine for a person.
As a result, you can end the budget deficits of jails by simply determining who has conclusively been convicted and change their years of appeals on the public dime to a single .22 round and a trip to the organ donor program. But no: we are schizophrenic in this area too, by claiming that the system cannot conclusively prove anyone guilty because it doesn't work some of the time; no individual cases can be viewed as certain for some reason.
Radwaste at May 29, 2009 3:48 PM
First off, are we talking about jail or prison here? Because one a stuffed full of people that haven't been convicted of anything as of yet.
Aside from that, you have all the wrong incentive. Now counties have reasons to create all sorts of interesting, and little heard off laws every time their budget goes red. And it always goes red. Expect more things to become illegal, and longer jail times as punishments.
Ken Magalnik at May 29, 2009 4:05 PM
"You don't have rights. You only have the priveleges stronger people provide for you."
Actually we've got an entire Bill of Rights chock-full of righty goodness.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 29, 2009 4:43 PM
I am really surprised people are so opposed to this idea. I think the whole “pay for your stay” is fair and logical, I always felt it should have been part of the system. The only thing is, the money should be collected through work the inmates do, as opposed to the cash they have (or don’t have). Why shouldn’t they work and thus earn their keep? Prisons are not supposed to be comfy, they are supposed to be an unpleasant deterrent and hard work should be part of it, as opposed to free time to work on your muscles.
Also, I am all for the death penalty for serious felons like rapists and murderers whose guilt is admitted and proven beyond doubt. (And don’t start going on about innocents being killed, I am talking about the creepy, evil ones who are unremorseful and rotten to the core). There is absolutely no need to keep those people around in prisons, or worse, release them back into the community.
sigh at May 29, 2009 5:40 PM
"It's expensive and demeaning to jail someone for life, yet people who won't confine their cat to the house think it's just fine for a person."
Cry me a river on how demeaning it is. And I'm all for killing them instead of jailing them. Yes, even if it's one of my family members. If they're scum, they need to go.
momof4 at May 29, 2009 6:25 PM
sigh:
Because indentured servitude is illegal.
Gog:
You sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf.
If you think that anything you presently enjoy is not secured by the threat of violence, you do not understand society or humanity.
mom:
The problem with that is manifold. First, juries make mistakes. Eventually you'll kill someone who is innocent. Some believe that this has already occurred. And there's no "oops, we're sorry" after you're dead. Another problem is that you have now given the government permission to kill its citizens. This is hazardous because in a panic, legislators can make all sorts of crimes eligible for the death penalty.
If you're going to condemn a man to death, you had better be willing to pull the trigger yourself. Don't ask the government to do it on your behalf, because one day they might decide that YOU deserve to die.
brian at May 29, 2009 7:32 PM
"Why shouldn’t they work and thus earn their keep?"
What? Compete with local businesses, and reduce the income of the law-abiding?
Radwaste at May 29, 2009 7:41 PM
"You sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf."
LOL holy crap that's a lot of posturing.
I know what secures my rights and it sure as hell isn't a high school kid with an M4.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 29, 2009 9:28 PM
> Actually we've got an entire Bill
> of Rights chock-full of righty
> goodness.
Word
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 29, 2009 10:40 PM
Apropos of nothing except it's Friday night and I have a buzz. Awesomeness (my wife also thought it quite enjoyable, so it's not totally offensive to delicate female sensibilities):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvjDr8KKtsE
Cheezburg at May 29, 2009 11:14 PM
Verily, today's rockin' teenage scene is carrying music into some compelling new directions.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 29, 2009 11:39 PM
"I know what secures my rights and it sure as hell isn't a high school kid with an M4."
Wow, Gog, what color is the sky there?
Your rights are protected by people who will kill others to see that you have a say in the voting booth, and when the violent criminal comes to call, you fully expect your 911 call to summon men with guns. Apparently, it has been so long since you did anything inconvenient that you have forgotten that autonomy has that price.
Radwaste at May 30, 2009 5:51 AM
"If you're going to condemn a man to death, you had better be willing to pull the trigger yourself."
I am - and I am aware that if I do, I'm betting my own freedom that it is the right thing to do. Government reserves the power of public violence for itself.
It is another case of American schizophrenia that we feed, clothe and protect the felon from injury once in custody, after she has committed a violent crime in which competent self-defense would have killed or crippled her - and which destroyed the victim.
There are cases in which there is no doubt. Again, somehow, this cannot be admitted.
Radwaste at May 30, 2009 5:59 AM
It's an apparent paraphrase of something said by Churchill, Orwell, and Kipling at various times.
And it's completely lost on you.
Has it ever occurred to you that had our grandfathers not gone and kicked Nazi ass that you (or whatever you turned out to be, because your grandparents might not have made your parents) would speak German now?
No? How about Rad's example, then? If the local cop wasn't ready to shoot or otherwise physically prevent a criminal from continuing his life of crime, you would just be another victim.
You might believe that your rights are protected by a piece of paper. Never forget that those rights were originally secured with the spilling of the blood of men far better than we.
brian at May 30, 2009 6:59 AM
The reason I say apparent is because I acutally looked it up, it being something I saw attributed to him and to Orwell on numerous occasions.
I was rather surprised to find that the quote as written is not at all how it was said, but it captures the essence.
A first pointer can be found here. You have to search the page for it as they don't use section tags: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations
brian at May 30, 2009 7:14 AM
"What? Compete with local businesses, and reduce the income of the law-abiding?"
This is true, that wouldn't be fair. But currently they reduce the income of the law-abiding even more (via taxes) as they are a 100% burden on taxpayers. Moreover, by keeping them out of real work, and doing pointless tasks, they are also less likely to be able to reform into productive members of society, and more likely to start getting up to trouble, like prisoners do now. It seems to me that keeping prisoners productively busy would be more likely to 'keep them out of trouble', help them develop and retain employable skillsets, and be more likely to actually allow them to reform and become part of society (of course, many will never reform, but statistically, some could), and encourage them to earn their keep, and allow them to 'repay their debt' to those they've wronged.
But, merely letting taxpayers pay for them to do productive things (e.g. make furniture) is basically akin to socialism, in that you are creating a de facto government-run and taxpayer-funded manufacturing base, and that also destroys the jobs of legitimate businesses. This *also* seems wrong. Why should prisoners get the job of creating some furniture for some park when some honest businesses should get that work?
So, I've thought a long time about this, and think that the solution should be that prisoners should be allowed, or even forced - on a *limited* basis - to participate in the open labour market (*but* remain confined physically). In other words, they must "get a job", work for private businesses (not government), but only jobs that can be done while being physically confined. So e.g. a furniture manufacturer could contract physical labor to them. This would at least be more fair to other honest workers because they're competing legitimately for jobs, as opposed to getting forced taxpayer 'socialist' handout jobs (because in that case the legitimate furniture manufacturer employee really has no chance - the prisoner would be given an *advantage* over honest people!).
I don't see why prisoners *shouldn't* be indebted when they've wronged someone else. If you knew that you'd have to 'work it off' for years (as opposed to getting a taxpayer-funded vacation obligation-free), you'd be more likely to think twice about committing a crime.
Unfortunately there is no "perfect" solution here - all solutions are unfair in *some* way or another (e.g. you could now argue, why should I even have to compete with a criminal for my job - but fact is, you're paying one way or another). That's just the nature of crime - it will always be unfair because the act of committing a crime *wrongs* others. However, the more you put the burden of *righting* those wrongs on those who commit those wrongs, the more fair the system will be, and the less incentive there will be to commit wrongs in the first place.
Mouse at May 30, 2009 9:43 AM
Gog's right — Your blowing too hard. It's silly. It's like you're screaming the national anthem at a confused child who's sitting in front a birthday cake with four teentsy little fires on it. Yeah, it's a great song and all, but it's not the universally appropriate melody.
Yer swash ain't bucklin' right.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 30, 2009 12:44 PM
"If you're going to condemn a man to death, you had better be willing to pull the trigger yourself."
I'm a texan, so nuff said there, although I prefer to live my life without having to.
momof4 at May 30, 2009 1:47 PM
OK, let's all compare 214's and find out which war was the most inconvenient to each of us.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 30, 2009 4:11 PM
Wutsa 214?
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 30, 2009 6:37 PM
DD-214 is the military discharge paper.
But it doesn't assess the benefit conferred by your service.
I ran the electrical plant on a billion-dollar nuke sub for awhile. We never had to shoot.
This deterred parties who knew we existed from starting anything overt. So, they sat back and fell apart.
I'm afraid there isn't a way to defend against apathy and ignorance on the part of the electorate, though.
Radwaste at May 30, 2009 8:01 PM
> I'm afraid there isn't a way to
> defend against apathy and ignorance
> on the part of the electorate,
> though.
Well, keeping a lid on the enthusiasm and presumption of the armed services is also problematic.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 30, 2009 8:36 PM
And BTW, this one was pissing me off today.
> And while we're at it, I think
> criminals should have to stay in
> jail until they earn money to pay
> restitution to their victims.
This from a woman so proudly attending human nature conferences at comfortable tourist hotels.
There's really nothing I hate more in liberalism –nay, in public life– than the presumption that every bungle of God and man can be set right if we just get our policy together. Isn't that what this means? That criminals should be forgiven, since their debts can be repaid? This is primitive thinking. It's a sentiment as ancient and repellent as the horrors of Islam.
Well, goddamit, no. That ain't how things work.
And speaking of unforgivable crimes, where's the Judie thread?
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 30, 2009 8:54 PM
A timely link to go with the military thing....
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 30, 2009 8:57 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/29/make_crime_pay.html#comment-1651275">comment from Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com]This from a woman so proudly attending human nature conferences at comfortable tourist hotels.
Truth be told, because things are so terrible in newspapers, I was going to stay in the dorms, but Gregg treated me to the Holiday Inn after he heard me mention that. I did bring my own lunch -- a hamburger today and chicken yesterday, both of which I made at home. Does that make you feel better?
People should pay for what they take, use, or do. What is wrong with that? I'm a through-and-through capitalist. You steal my car and fuck it up -- as my car thief did -- why shouldn't you cover your damages rather than I? Why should costs you incur be paid by me -- in any sphere?
Amy Alkon at May 30, 2009 9:30 PM
> Does that make you feel better?
I don't want you to be poor, I want you to be humble. Humility –real humility, the grown-up, scientific kind– is something the sociobio zombies are notoriously bad at... They'll latch desperately onto mundane, passing insights as if they were treasures, like a kid in a orphanage who thinks the visiting plumber is his ticket out.
> Why should costs you incur be
> paid by me -- in any sphere?
Because we're running a civilization here.
There are all sorts of costs that we incur on each other. These can be big and they can be small. Those of us without children are paying for school... Not because we like other people's kids, but because our own lives will be enriched when they turn out as literate adults rather than migrant farm workers. We've had between half a million and a hundred thousand troops in Europe for the last sixty years not because we adore Europeans, but because it's easier to stop their fights from getting out of hand than to go in and break them up once they're fully underway.
People who insist on these personally gratifying descriptions of justice always start that clock at suspiciously opportune moments, just as their own lives have come to deliver adult fulfillments of all kinds. As 9-year-old children, none of us were worth much without the context of our loving families and supportive communities. But golly gee, just a few years later, we're all much fussier about our boundaries....
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 30, 2009 10:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/29/make_crime_pay.html#comment-1651290">comment from Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com]Why should costs you incur be > paid by me -- in any sphere? Because we're running a civilization here. There are all sorts of costs that we incur on each other.
If you are a very poor child, I am okay with paying to send you to school. If you are a destititute mental patient, I'll help pay for your care. If you are a guy who breaks into my house and steals my TV...why should other people pay to support you in jail?
Amy Alkon at May 31, 2009 12:46 AM
I agree with Mouse in that prisoners should be able to work. If prisoners are able to work, I have no problem with them paying a portion of that to cover their costs.
I just don't think it is good for society for prisoners to exit jail with the odds stacked against their reassimilation. If we do that, we shouldn't let them out at all, because we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
Some readers mistake my views for altruism on behalf of the prisoners. It isn't that. It's that ultimately, we want these people to live honest lives when they get out. We shouldn't make it impossible for that to happen.
One problem with prison as I see it, is it sticks a bunch of badly-socialized, immoral people in a situation where the only other people they see are badly-socialized, immoral people, and then they are released.
I'd like to see more punishments that fix the problems they've caused...
You've been caught spraying grafitti? Part of your punishment is to go around town scrubbing or repainting walls.
You've been dealing drugs that fuck people up? Part of your job is to empty bedpans in a hospital for people fucked up by drugs.
You've been shooting people? Part of your job is to work in a hospice for people fucked up by violent crimes. (Maybe not directly with the patients).
In addition to prison time. Because people come out spouting the cliche "I've paid my debt to society", but they haven't actually. They've just sat around in jail.
NicoleK at May 31, 2009 2:35 AM
> ...why should other people
> pay to support you in jail?
First of all, because it keeps me from hurting (or stealing the TV of) anyone who isn't already in jail. Second, because sustaining each other whether we like each other or not is pretty much the point of this enterprise.
OK, the moral arguments aren't happening for you. Let's move to the practicalities.
See the note above about entrepreneurial spirits. Prison is not a place to great things of value, and certainly not in novel and profitable ways. Communications, travel, materials, and capital all have to be carefully (and slowly) managed. So what's left?
License plates. But even then the morality intrudes: Lotta black guys in prison. Does a moral lapse, or even a pattern of villainy, mean we can tell them what to do in order to create wealth for the rest of us? Does that make them slaves? Answer carefully.
Again, this is like the thing about aborting retarded babies and avoiding ugly babies. The impulses you describe aren't new, they've been around since the dawn of human community. But the impulses aren't pursued by civilized cultures because they're ethically horrendous.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 31, 2009 4:19 AM
"LOL holy crap that's a lot of posturing.
I know what secures my rights and it sure as hell isn't a high school kid with an M4."
Yeah, it actually is, that kid and many like him, some of whom are older.
Absent those teenagers, and the men who order them about, men would be divvying up our daughters for sale at the slave market and killing the grown men to prevent an uprising. That was pretty much the entire history of human settlements that failed to protect themselves by force of arms against the lawless, both within and without.
Sure, you could try and explain the significance of Hume to the Goth horde surging over Rome's seventh hill or the Scythian scourge. Good luck with that.
In the end, the reason I will sleep quietly tonight, without fear of a throat-slitting, is because at every level--national, state, local--our society has enough men (yes, it does have to be men, people) who will fight to the death those who would take all that I have, including my life, if given a chance to do so with relatively little risk to them.
Americans live in such a utterly atypical state of personal and economic security relative to 99.9% of human history that we often fail to appreciate how deadly our fellow humans really are.
Spartee at May 31, 2009 8:51 AM
"why should other people pay to support you in jail? "
What are the alternatives? Killing people for most crimes? Making them labor at arbitrarily set prison wages to regain their freedom? Threatening to reincarcerate people for failing to pay sums post-release?
All of those options carry with then practical realities that strike me as worse than the current system.
I don't like having to give three hots and cot to child rapists and Bernie Maddoff. But given the alternatives I see proposed here, I will stick with what we have.
Spartee at May 31, 2009 8:56 AM
I just don't think it is good for society for prisoners to exit jail with the odds stacked against their reassimilation. If we do that, we shouldn't let them out at all, because we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
Exactly. I'm going to forget the moral argument, since presenting a moral argument that favors compassion for horrible people is usually futile.
Forcing people into debt as soon as they are released screws us all over. If I had been living a life of crime, with my skill set being stealing cars and beating people up, and I found myself tens of thousands of dollars in debt, the first thing I would do is start stealing cars and skinning them for parts.
I want prisoners to leave jail with no more debt than what they went in with. I want them to have access to education and books and reasonable health care. Even if I don't care about them as people, I want these things because I don't want them tossed back out into the streets more bitter and hopeless than ever.
MonicaP at May 31, 2009 9:23 AM
And foythamore....
The kind of work you can get out of a labor pool like that is probably the kind that will intrude in the markets those selfsame guys might hope to enter upon leaving the joint (no skills, heavily managed, etc.). And even if not, they'll be taking space from somebody. (Actually not— I'm not a zero-sum guy. But I'd hate to have to convince voters that this isn't a problem, especially voters in those economic sectors.)
Again (and I mean the word again this time and am not just clouding the point by using it out of habit as in the 4:19a comment), charging prisoners for board is not a new idea. It's very obvious to us because it's so emotionally gratifying. It's how imprisonment has worked across the vast panorama of human history across the globe. We don't do it that way here nowadays because we're better than that.
And please please please resist the thinking that everything that's wrong with life –especially the ancient, horrible stuff– can be made ok with a simplistic tweak of policy... Humans can make progress, but not that much, and not that fast. Abject slavery was a pattern across millennia of human life, and only recently extinguished. (And only tenuously extinguished, as we see...)
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 31, 2009 10:05 AM
(That last part is what I mean about humility. We're not that special. If the fixes were as easy as what you propose [and so gratifying to the heart as well] someone would surely have thought of it by now.)
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at May 31, 2009 10:07 AM
"Absent those teenagers, and the men who order them about, men would be divvying up our daughters for sale at the slave market"
Cool. In the post-apocalyptic scenario you've described, my massive cache of liquor, ammo and MRE's will make me a zillionaire and I'll be awash in sweet young booty.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 31, 2009 7:25 PM
Your women - sell them to me.
brian at May 31, 2009 7:30 PM
"Cool. In the post-apocalyptic scenario you've described, my massive cache of liquor, ammo and MRE's will make me a zillionaire and I'll be awash in sweet young booty."
LOL Stay real quiet, though, else you will be the first one the gangs target.
Spartee at June 1, 2009 6:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/29/make_crime_pay.html#comment-1651453">comment from SparteeSergeant Heather recommends buying a few cans of tunafish, etc., that you otherwise wouldn't when you go to the store so you have a stash in case there's an earthquake, etc.
Amy Alkon at June 1, 2009 6:47 AM
"Thoroughly unneeded if society removed predators from the population. "
Well that's all of society. The only humans who aren't prtedators are the chicken-hawking pussies who send other people out to do their killing for them and then stand back and tut-tut about it, like Gog upthread.
"If you're going to condemn a man to death, you had better be willing to pull the trigger yourself."
I'm a texan, so nuff said there, although I prefer to live my life without having to. "
Since you're a Texan, that's enough reason to pull a trigger on you. But I won't. I won't even lock you up and make you work to eat to keep society from violent people like your kind.
Jim at June 1, 2009 9:20 AM
Leave a comment