Don't Just Tell The Judges The Cost Of Prison Sentences
Tell convicted criminals, and then charge them for their prison terms, too. Monica Davey writes for The New York Times that Missouri is informing judges of the cost of various sentences:
For someone convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, for instance, a judge might now learn that a three-year prison sentence would run more than $37,000 while probation would cost $6,770. A second-degree robber, a judge could be told, would carry a price tag of less than $9,000 for five years of intensive probation, but more than $50,000 for a comparable prison sentence and parole afterward. The bill for a murderer's 30-year prison term: $504,690.Legal experts say no other state systematically provides such information to judges, a practice put into effect here last month by the state's sentencing advisory commission, an appointed board that offers guidance on criminal sentencing.
The practice has touched off a sharp debate. It has been lauded nationally by a disparate group of defense lawyers and fiscal conservatives, who consider it an overdue tool that will force judges to ponder alternatives to prison more seriously.
The truth is, some people belong in cages, and if so, they should be in them, but the rest of us shouldn't be paying for their crimes. Prisoners should not only do their time, they should do enough work to see that they pay their way.
I think it would be especially good if the work they did taught them skills that they could then apply to the real world when they got out.
NicoleK at September 19, 2010 11:14 PM
Right on, Amy! I'm tired of paying for people's poor decisions and I'm sure you have more of a bone to pick living in CA. I wrote a paper in college that dealt with the illegal alien population in California prisons, but found a lot of data regarding the cost of housing all prisoners out there, and the numbers were overwhelming. I understand some people need to be in prison, but states really do need to do something about how they are paid for. For instance, here in my home state, if prisoners work on a road crew or some other trustee program, their money goes into their comissary fund to buy pop and candy and cigarettes. Why doesn't it pay for their showers and meals? We as taxpayers look like real suckers sometimes.
Jessica at September 20, 2010 12:58 AM
Because if they have a choice about going to work or not, if the money goes to pay for their showers and meals, they have no incentive to go to work or not.
I guess my concern is, can prisoners earn enough money in prison, doing whatever menial labor is assigned to them, to cover the costs of their care?
NicoleK at September 20, 2010 1:27 AM
I work hard to pay for my own showers and meals and the roof over my head, and I bet a number of you are, too. I don't get to lie on a cot all day, and neither should prisoners. If people actually had to work all day in prison, maybe fewer people would end up there.
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2010 6:08 AM
I like the sound of this, but it isn't going to work.
First, you can't actually make people work. What are they going to do, produce substandard crap or do a half-a$$ed job that requires more supervision than it's worth, or just refuse? Coupled with some sort of reward, like an earlier release, it might be doable. I have my doubts. The people in charge of this are civil servants.
Next, don't we already pay taxes for this? If you're serious about reducing the cost of the penal system, legalize and tax drugs. Get rid of the ATF and the DEA and all the other paramilitary cops. Reserve the long prison terms for violent offenders and corrupt politicians.
Somehow, you have to get past a conviction ending everyone's chance for a productive life or you might just as well lock them up forever.
MarkD at September 20, 2010 6:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/09/20/dont_just_tell.html#comment-1756357">comment from MarkDYou can remove privileges and change their get-out time if they do work.
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2010 6:48 AM
Back in the dark ages, when I grew up, prisoners were put to work building roads, or cleaning up along the roads, or something. (I never stopped to ask.)
This practice helped offset the costs of prisons to taxpayers.
More importantly, it boosted sales of songs about chain gangs, like, "The sound of the men working on the chain gang," and that other song, by the Pretenders.
Walter Moore at September 20, 2010 7:20 AM
Right, Amy, what I'm saying is it would only work if everyone was required to do it. As it stands, I think they can choose to work or not? If they still could choose, why would anyone work if they got to reap the benefits, is what I'm saying. It would have to be obligatory.
NicoleK at September 20, 2010 7:34 AM
Well, um, having several ex-cons among my in-laws...we used to visit every year on family day. They DO work once they are out of the max security holding tanks. In my state make license plates and build some pretty nice desks, and used to work as farmhands also, but too many guys took advantage of being out in the field to escape so that was stopped.
One inlaw learned drafting and the furniture building and any other thing he could pick up while in state prison, but when he got out went to work as a hod carrier in construction. In Texas I went to trade school with a racketeer but I doubt he ever used his TV/electronics diploma.
Prisoners have just as much trouble as anyone else figuring out what the viable trades will be.
carol at September 20, 2010 8:43 AM
I do not think we need to make it any easier for government to increase our prison population. Having the prisoner foot the bill for incarceration is like charging the family of the death row inmate for the cost of the bullet.
If the government wants to lock people up and take away their freedom, it can foot the bill. If you do not like it, stop electing nosy busybodies that want to make everything under the sun illegal.
-Jut
JutGory at September 20, 2010 9:59 AM
The major problem against prison labour are labour unions. They desire to organize the prisoners, have them pay union dues, and ask for union wages. Frankly, the work isn't worth all that much. It's better (for the unions) for prisoners to be idle and the non-felons working getting union wages. Now how that is better for society? Dunno.
Bob at September 20, 2010 10:06 AM
I find myself pretty much in agreement with Jutgory on this issue. There are too many people in prison today for non violent offices, such as drug dealing, with aggravating circumstances such as possession of firearms without any showing of violent behavior. Until the feds and the states end the drug war and find better ways of dealing with non violent offenders, the system needs to stay as it is. Also, I have no idea what kind of calculations they do to come up with these incarceration costs. If they include Union mandated pensions and gold plated benefit packages for the prison employees, I don't think the prisoners should be footing the bill for the state having the backbone of a banana in dealing with their own employees and the unions representing them. Isabel
Isabel1130 at September 20, 2010 10:43 AM
execute all the pricks, regardless of crime. Problem solved
ron at September 20, 2010 10:43 AM
No, this is an idiotic idea. All it will do is put more power and money into the hands of the police/government/prision industry.
I'm all for taking away various amenities (cable tv etc.) or basic grunt labor but making them pay (already have fines they have to pay) for their stay in the prison will create more corruption of the police.
We already have an amendment barring debtor's prisons which the child support industry and gov. ignores, lets not make it worse.
Sio at September 20, 2010 11:02 AM
Amy - do you recognize that we receive value, both real and perceived, from incarcerating criminals? why shouldn't we have to pay for that value?
Also think about what financial incentives have done to asset forfeiture.
Also also, crime is down and the economy sucks. It's becoming apparent that crime is cultural, not economic? Why are you still pretending economic penalty is the way to influence behavior? 504K, might as well just make the fine one million billion dollars. Unreasonable penalties will be ignored just like unreasonable laws are.
I'd like to see this information rolled down to the jury level. Here's what it will cost you taxpaying jurors if you convict, do you still care THAT much that this woman accused of child endangerment let her 10 year old go to the park alone?
smurfy at September 20, 2010 12:08 PM
Think of the uses to which female prisoners could be put, and how profitable it would be for the state. We just have to up incarceration rates for females.
BOTU at September 20, 2010 1:32 PM
Oh BOTU! How heteronormative of you! For the right clientele, well-broken-in male inmates will do just fine!
--
phunctor
phunctor at September 20, 2010 2:32 PM
Forced (profitable or at least cost-zeroing) labor, while tempting for those reasons, also leads to very bad incentives.
Especially if it ever becomes profitable for the State to put more people in prison.
Sigivald at September 20, 2010 3:49 PM
#Isabel: Drug dealers may not be violent offenders, but they sure know how to breed them with the stuff they sell. I lived in a high-crime neighbourhood for four years (during university) and we were broken into four times by addicts looking for money for their next fix. Dealers assist in violent crime, ruin people's lives and, most importantly, profoundly and negatively affect the lives of the children of addicts. Anyone involved in THAT, either directly or indirectly, deserves prison time. Dealers are just as bad as violent criminals, don't kid yourself.
ie at September 20, 2010 5:04 PM
"#Isabel: Drug dealers may not be violent offenders, but they sure know how to breed them with the stuff they sell. I lived in a high-crime neighbourhood for four years (during university) and we were broken into four times by addicts looking for money for their next fix. Dealers assist in violent crime, ruin people's lives and, most importantly, profoundly and negatively affect the lives of the children of addicts. Anyone involved in THAT, either directly or indirectly, deserves prison time. Dealers are just as bad as violent criminals, don't kid yourself."
so just curious ie, do you also blame booze manufacturers and distributors for drunk drivers? How about McDonalds for making people fat? Meth wasn't illegal until the 1970's and the reason that it is now illegal is because the medical cartel makes a shitload off of controlling the distribution of the same kind of drugs such as Ritalin and
Adderall. It is not about the drugs, It is about CONTROL. Read up on how prohibition was the origin of organized crime in this country and how Joe Kennedy made his fortune as a successful bootlegger and then maybe you will start seeing the parallels.
Isabel1130 at September 20, 2010 7:47 PM
I don't think removing cable and stuff like that would help much. Food, healthcare, dental care, medicines, and legal fees for these guys add up to a lot more than the yearly cost of cable, I'm sure. I think they should get an increase in their pay to get just enough to cover their needs at the same cost as it would the state. Maybe give them a small yearly bonus for their candy and pop fund, and only on good behavior. My aunt once said she thinks they should get a quarter an hour to cut the grass with scissors.
Jessica at September 20, 2010 8:20 PM
A quarter an hour ain't gonna cover the cost of ANYTHING.
NicoleK at September 21, 2010 3:29 AM
No, but it was a funny comment when it came from a very even-tempered, forgiving old lady, LOL! I don't think she could have made one of us kids cut the grass with scissors no matter how bad we were. The point is, prisoners are moochers, and the fact they are criminals, in my view, means they have taken enough from society by selling drugs to our kids, raping women, robbing innocent small business owners, whatever the case may be. It just doesn't make sense to spend more money on them to give them better health care and dental care than most law-abiding citizens can get. I was 26 before I could afford cable, but in some states prisoners are required by law to be able to have access to cable TV. I can't think of this guy's name, but that prison warden or sheriff out West that is famous for being tough on his prisoners actually got in trouble for shutting off the cable. He was ordered to have it turned back on, but set all the TVs on parental controls to only access the Disney channel and The Weather Channel. I think he had the right idea.
Jessica at September 21, 2010 5:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/09/20/dont_just_tell.html#comment-1756667">comment from JessicaJessica, I am soo with you!
Amy Alkon at September 21, 2010 5:15 AM
Honestly, as a law abiding male citizen, I am more afraid of the police and judicial system, then I am of the criminals. DA's are more concerned with their conviction records then justice.
My perception is that I'm just a piece of meat the authorities would just a soon toss in jail as look at, simply for expediency. Justice isn't even part of the picture. The powers that be would throw us all in prison, or as many as possible with trumped up charges, if they could come up with a sound financial plan for doing so.
matthew at September 21, 2010 9:03 AM
There was that case in PA where the judges were making money off sending kids to the juvenile center, and started sending them there for such crimes as sassing their teachers.
NicoleK at September 21, 2010 9:12 AM
Has anyone ever watched that prison documentary-style series that shows what it is like in prison? The kind of culture that exists in prison is almost like a different world entirely. Non-violent offenders come in with one mind-set and leave with a significantly altered, highly tatooed other mindset. The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, thanks to three strikes and your out ideology; and, the recidivism is over 70%. We need less criminals in prison. Seriously, what can the average American do about it? With the large scope of government and its untouchable aura, what can be done? Georgia just passed a law making it a felony to get a DUI with a child 15 years or under in the vehicle. Considering that you can get a DUI by drinking ONE glass of wine with dinner, this is ridiculous. It also minimizes the seriousness of what a felony means, which further makes a mockery out of the criminal justice system, and why, like the guy who commented above, a law abiding girl like myself distrusts government more than criminals. But, again, what can the average person do to change this course we are heading down?
kg at September 21, 2010 11:43 AM
This is a terrible idea.
1) We have too many unjust laws in this country, and thus far too many innocent people in prison. Until we fix the fact that well over half of our incarcerated population is made up of people who haven't caused any harm to anyone else, talking about making prison harsher and more painful is just foolishly cruel. Why would you want to heap more suffering on those who are already suffering because of our idiotic laws?
2) Prisons are already horrible places to be. Yes, some of them have cable TV, and some of them have guards who don't violate your human rights. But our prison rape epidemic is out of control, abuse by guards is rampant.
3) Even if our laws were consistently awesome, it's still a bad idea to give the state incentives to put/keep people in prison. It never fails to amaze me how schizophrenic the people on this board can be about government power: most people are spot-on when it comes to pointing out the failings of the state (tendencies towards corruption, incompetence, etc.), yet somehow those problems get forgotten when government authority is being brought to bear on someone who is unpopular in some way. If you let networks of federal, state, and local officials derive monetary benefit from locking people up in jails, do you think those officials will want to put more or fewer people in jail?
CB at September 21, 2010 12:50 PM
I don't think the states should profit from prisoner's labor. They should be paid at a rate that pays for their needs at the same cost that the state incurs for their expenses, no profit involved.
Jessica at September 21, 2010 3:22 PM
No profit involved, eh?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477785,00.html
"Alabama Sheriffs Pocket Meal Payments
The privatization of prison and jail food services began in Alabama. Over 70 years ago, Alabama passed a law that provided county sheriffs with $1.75 a day per jail prisoner to cover the cost of their meals. While the law went into effect in 1939, it is still in use today. Under that system, Alabama sheriffs are personally responsible for paying for prisoners’ food, but are allowed to keep any excess funds if they can feed prisoners for less than the payments they receive from the state.
Not surprisingly, this creates an incentive for sheriffs to skimp on the quality and quantity of meals served to prisoners. “Most of it is like powdered food and the portions are minimal in county jails,” said Rev. Kenneth Glasglow, who visits Alabama jails to register prisoners to vote. The practice has also led to legal problems.
Morgan County, Alabama Sheriff Greg Bartlett was jailed by federal authorities on January 8, 2009, after he admitted to pocketing over $200,000 allocated for meals for prisoners in the county jail. A federal judge found Bartlett had failed to provide the prisoners with “a nutritionally adequate diet.”"
CB at September 21, 2010 4:27 PM
Our government is not altruistic. Virtually no government is. It's force, like fire, government is a dangerous servant and fearful master. There really are no exceptions, because all exceptions will be abused. Oh, well, except if you are rich enough to make it financially painful to convict you. Pitifully few of us are in that position.
Matthew at September 21, 2010 10:27 PM
Screw it all -- legalize all drugs and tax the hell out of them. Restrict the FDA to "Is this drug deadly in normal use?"
Release all the drug prisoners, including those with weapons possession that are non-violent.
Then turn around the rest. You spend your first half of your sentence on hard labor (up to and including you are shoveling snow by hand on local streets.) The next half is getting your GED and moving onto learning a true trade/skill. (Plumbing/electrical/.... for habitat for humanity. Nursing aide at charity hospitals, etc.
The guy/girl comes out with a usable skill -- and from there has a chance to move on. Those who don't want to participate -- they are locked in their cells 20 hours a day -- out only for an hour exercise, breakfast, lunch and dinner. And it reflects on their "good time" for the sentence.
Jim P. at September 21, 2010 10:30 PM
"The truth is, some people belong in cages, and if so, "
And Amy, with everything you know about how things work, do you really expect this level of awareness and competence to be put into action by the so-called authorities? Are you kidding?
Mathew at September 21, 2010 10:42 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/09/20/dont_just_tell.html#comment-1756995">comment from MathewI hope that voters will get so fed up they come to their senses and start doing something about the crooked morons running this country.
Amy Alkon at September 21, 2010 10:58 PM
I agree that we should hope that people get so fed up that we start doing something about the crooked morons running this country. I just don't think "give those crooked morons more incentives to imprison people and violate prisoners' human rights" should be at the top of the list.
Lest anyone think I'm being hyperbolic about prison conditions often resulting in human rights violation, I'm primarily referring to the prison rape epidemic and inmate abuse by guards. Not every American prisoner has his rights violated, but many do, and it seems perverse to try to make thing worse before fixing serious problems like these.
CB at September 22, 2010 12:16 AM
Leave a comment