Should rich prisoners pay their keep?

[August1991]

In the present Quebec election, Mario Dumont and the ADQ have proposed a Charter of Victim's Rights and also argued for making rich prisoners pay for their stay in prison.

Le chef adéquiste a également martelé son intention de faire payer leurs frais de détention aux détenus qui en ont les moyens.

«J'ai jamais compris que la classe moyenne, qui paie des taxes et des impôts élevés, paie leurs déjeuners-dîners-soupers à des gens à haut revenu en prison», a-t-il soutenu.

Journal de Montreal

Depending on the level of security and the use of social services, the annual cost of keeping a prisoner in a federal penitentiary is over $100,000. Ordinary taxpayers (including the victims of crime) pay this. In some cases however, the prisoners have valuable assets and the ability to pay these costs. It seems paradoxical that a prisoner can live (and enjoy special services) at the expense of taxpayers and then leave prison with their assets intact.

At the same time, this cost would be a special fine levied on rich criminals and it could have an effect on other family members. Should we punish such criminals twice?

BTW, this ADQ proposal is in line with federal Conservative policies - although I don't think teh Cosnervatives have proposed this. At the risk of making an incorrect generalization, the typical ADQ voter resembles in some ways the typical Tory voter.

[BubberMiley]

It sounds like a non-issue considering there aren't any rich prisoners.

[madmax]

It sounds like a non-issue considering there aren't any rich prisoners.

But what an incentive to go after them. All the Conrad Black types, the Bre X types, even some CIBC execs could use some time in the slammer. And this could help pay for those who cannot afford to pay for their own cell.

It's sounds perfect for a right wing party to be suggesting that Rich People Pay.

Let me find a slogan for this new Prison Issue.......

hmm

MAKE THE RICH PAY!!!

From the Marxist Lennonist Add Company.

Groucho and John Inc.

[blueblood]

yup to OP, not only that work 16 hrs. a day making things that we'd normally import to fund the prisons.

[Catchme]

No!

[madmax]

No!

Not Even Conrad Black? Couldn't get him to pay before he was indicted. What's wrong with Rich People Paying.

[geoffrey]

Everyone should pay their keep through forced labour when in prison. Chain gangs and all. There is alot of public construction in my province that needs to be done, and the use of prisoners would help fight inflationary pressure.

Plus they'd learn employable skills.

[blueblood]

I think quite a few people who commit first degree murder are financially secure as well. Murder is generally pre-meditated for a variety of reasons.

And to think we as taxpayers have to bankroll TV given to the prisoners. Good Lord it's at the point where it makes more sense for a bum to commit a crime than to be a law abiding citizen as life in jail is now better than life on the street.

[August1991]

Everyone should pay their keep through forced labour when in prison. Chain gangs and all.

Like this?

No chain gangs but it does serve several purposes. One, the roads are cleaner. Two, the prisons have another perk to keep prisoners in line - good prisoners get to walk in the sunshine. Three, thousands of passing motorists are given a visual reminder of what happens if you "go bad".

But I think Dumont's point was less direct. He's merely wondering why people like Karla Homolka, for example, can leave prison with a university degree and no student debt. Or how about the proverbial drug dealer who spends three years in prison and then returns to his house with indoor swimming pool.

[Riverwind]

It sounds like a non-issue considering there aren't any rich prisoners.

It is a non-issue because any prisoner with assets would give them away to friends before they were convicted.

[August1991]

It sounds like a non-issue considering there aren't any rich prisoners.

It is a non-issue because any prisoner with assets would give them away to friends before they were convicted.

By the same logic, the government would not be able to collect income tax either. Rich people would be giving their wealth to poorer people. (Yet, rich people pay income tax rather than give their money away and presumably rich criminals would do the same.)

We punish people with fines and prison time. The ADQ's proposal is to increase this punishment for rich people. In this theory, rich criminals should suffer a greater penalty than poor criminals.

The proposal also has a simplistic sense of fairness. Victims of crime should not have to pay additionally for feeding and housing richer criminals.

And certainly, we don't want a situation where criminals ever perceive prison time as being anything less than utterly abhorent.

In the US, teh government can seize any assets used in or obtained through the commission of a crime.

[Catchme]

Everyone should pay their keep through forced labour when in prison. Chain gangs and all. There is alot of public construction in my province that needs to be done, and the use of prisoners would help fight inflationary pressure.

Plus they'd learn employable skills.

Slave labour? Hardly. You are really laying the foundation for arguing for privatization of of our penal system.

They are already learn employable skills, if they so choose. Unless of course, the CPC government keeps cutting them.

Moreover, there are many many programs here in BC, where inmates do community service projects, or projects for private enterprise, and get paid 3-8 dollars a day or some other equally low amount.

[blueblood]

Everyone should pay their keep through forced labour when in prison. Chain gangs and all. There is alot of public construction in my province that needs to be done, and the use of prisoners would help fight inflationary pressure.

Plus they'd learn employable skills.

Slave labour? Hardly. You are really laying the foundation for arguing for privatization of of our penal system.

They are already learn employable skills, if they so choose. Unless of course, the CPC government keeps cutting them.

Moreover, there are many many programs here in BC, where inmates do community service projects, or projects for private enterprise, and get paid 3-8 dollars a day or some other equally low amount.

Not quite like a sweatshop where the prisoners should be making T-shirts for Nike instead of some kid from bangledesh. They work for 16 hrs. a day and 0 dollars an hour and the money from the products funds the prison food, cells, etc. The staff is gov't employees to reduce the risk of corruption from a private firm.

[madmax]

Everyone should pay their keep through forced labour when in prison. Chain gangs and all. There is alot of public construction in my province that needs to be done, and the use of prisoners would help fight inflationary pressure.

Conrad Black on the Chain Gang.

Nah it will never happen, stop dreaming.

[geoffrey]

Slave labour? Hardly. You are really laying the foundation for arguing for privatization of of our penal system.

Not slave labour, they can sleep outside (within the walls of the prison) and not eat until they die if they so choose. It shouldn't be a free ride. They have a debt to society, in terms of whatever crime they committed on top of the cost to the taxpayer.

If the private sector can do it cheaper, then have at it.

They are already learn employable skills, if they so choose. Unless of course, the CPC government keeps cutting them.

Why does Karla get a free university degree and I pay $5-6k a year for mine? She should earn that by forced labour... or cash, whatever she wants to do.

Moreover, there are many many programs here in BC, where inmates do community service projects, or projects for private enterprise, and get paid 3-8 dollars a day or some other equally low amount.

That money should be seized and used to pay their prison expenses. Again, why do you and I pay for their living?

[Catchme]

Slave labour? Hardly. You are really laying the foundation for arguing for privatization of of our penal system.

Not slave labour, they can sleep outside (within the walls of the prison) and not eat until they die if they so choose. It shouldn't be a free ride. They have a debt to society, in terms of whatever crime they committed on top of the cost to the taxpayer.

If the private sector can do it cheaper, then have at it.

They are paying their debt by being locked up, now you want to penalize them x2.

Private sector cannot do it cheaper, they are there to make a profit.

Why does Karla get a free university degree and I pay $5-6k a year for mine? She should earn that by forced labour... or cash, whatever she wants to do.

Distance education, if you have the time to sit there and do the work and write the tests and pass without any classroom instruction why should you have to pay?

That money should be seized and used to pay their prison expenses. Again, why do you and I pay for their living?

Slave labour is what you asking for. You are paying for them to be locked up to keep you safe. You cannot double penalize someone.

[geoffrey]

They are paying their debt by being locked up, now you want to penalize them x2.

That's because they have two debts, one to society for their crime, and one to you and I for all the tax dollars we pay to look after them.

Private sector cannot do it cheaper, they are there to make a profit.

Which is returned to shareholders like you and I. But oh well, another topic in itself there.

Distance education, if you have the time to sit there and do the work and write the tests and pass without any classroom instruction why should you have to pay?

Because every non-prisoner has to pay. Athabasca university has distance education degrees, and the cost per course is comparable. I know because I take courses through them over the summer as I'm too busy with other things to attend regular classes and I want to wrap things up with my education faster. Selfish for sure, but no different than Karla.

Slave labour is what you asking for. You are paying for them to be locked up to keep you safe. You cannot double penalize someone.

They are responsible for being there, they should pay the costs associated with.

As well, I'm sure the reoffending rates weren't very high for those coming out of the Gulags, not that I'm advocating anything nearly as brutal. Just making these people work instead of sitting on their asses all day.

[August1991]

They are paying their debt by being locked up, now you want to penalize them x2.

Rich criminals should pay a greater penalty than poor criminals, no?

[Catchme]

They are paying their debt by being locked up, now you want to penalize them x2.

That's because they have two debts, one to society for their crime, and one to you and I for all the tax dollars we pay to look after them.

No, they have 1 debt, we are locking them away to keep our society safe. If that is the means we choose to punish criminals, then we have to bear the responsibility of the cost to keep ourselves safe.

Because every non-prisoner has to pay. Athabasca university has distance education degrees, and the cost per course is comparable. I know because I take courses through them over the summer as I'm too busy with other things to attend regular classes and I want to wrap things up with my education faster. Selfish for sure, but no different than Karla.

And after doing some research I find that if a prisoner takes education courses, they must pay for them either through student loans of personal funding. the rates are lower, but one would expect so, as there is no associated costs to the the educational facility for instruction or hearting and lighting space nor use of washrooms etc.

So, really, your complaint they get it for free is off base.

Here is why educating persons in prisons helps society in the long run. Most people in jails are there for crimes of poverty.

There is a compelling logic to provide expansive education and training programs for adults under correctional supervision. In theory, these programs can prepare an underused pool of workers at a time when the nation is facing significant labor shortages. Uniquely, correctional education programs hold the promise of addressing the poor education and literacy skills of a significant percentage of individuals,

http://www.ncsall.net/?id=560

This paper takes as a starting point the need to promote fair, democratic and prosperous

nations in the globalised world economy. It accepts the importance of education and

training in developing human capital. Human capital is important for higher levels of

production and also for a range of non-market and external effects such as better health,

intergenerational effects on children of more educated parents and reduced crime. More

recently education is seen to be a factor in encouraging increased interpersonal relations

as indicated by membership of groups and volunteering. These factors are seen to be

associated with measures of trust and honesty, important for social cohesion, though

some studies suggest that this is only realised in societies that also have lower levels of

inequality of education and income.

http://www.education.monash.edu.au/centres...6nov02burke.pdf

They are responsible for being there, they should pay the costs associated with.

And what if they can't and have no money seeing as how they are there for crimes of poverty in the first place?

As well, I'm sure the reoffending rates weren't very high for those coming out of the Gulags, not that I'm advocating anything nearly as brutal. Just making these people work instead of sitting on their asses all day

Slavery. Chain gangs do not stop reoffending rates if they did the US jails would be empty of reoffenders. Though education does stop reoffending rates. Go figure eh?!

[sideshow]

I have two thoughts on this subject.

One, they should have to work. Preferably they should learn a trade, a skill, or whatever, so that once they are let back into society, they arent just dumped without any skills and end up reverting back to crime and going right back to prison.

Work provides them with what might be the first stable schedule some have ever had. Make them get up at a certain time, make them provide work, pay them a wage, and deduct the cost for their room and board from the wage. This makes them pay for their own upkeep, teaches them a skill, and helps towards future rehabilitation.

If they are rich? Same rule applies. No free rides. Everyone treated the same. If they have the means to pay for their upkeep, well, those monies should be going towards the victims of their crimes on the outside-not to provide for luxuries in prison. But really the vast majority of prisoners are without visible wealth or means.

My second though is on extended education. I don't see anything wrong with prisoners getting an eduction in prison. In fact, it is probably a good thing so that they (once again) have a skill to use upon release. The problem is who pays for it. Well if they have to work in prison and are paid a wage, then they should be able to set some of the money left over (after they pay their keep) to provide for education costs. But they should not be subsidized or get any better shake than the kid busting his hump at a fast food joint in the evenings to pay for eduction.

Just my opinion.

[leonardcohen]

I would also like to see a reversal of a convicts' right to vote

[Wilber]

No, they have 1 debt, we are locking them away to keep our society safe. If that is the means we choose to punish criminals, then we have to bear the responsibility of the cost to keep ourselves safe.

Why, they chose to victimize society. We did not chose to send them to jail, we are just defending ourselves. If they can't show that their assets aren't from the proceeds of crime, they should be used to pay for their keep.

[Charles Anthony]

In the US, teh government can seize any assets used in or obtained through the commission of a crime.

You mean like an eye for an eye?

Charter of Victim's Rights? Rich prisoners pay for their stay? Victimize society?

Why make it so ridiculously complicated?!?!!

I will tell you why: we want votes and we want to create jobs.

I have a simple solution:

Before sending a "rich" person to prison, offer them a chance to buy back some of their time by paying their victims. Let the victims and the criminals negotiate. It is not like victims are getting anything now anyway.

Divide their sentence into two parts: "society" time and victim time

The criminal gets to pay for their violation of "victim's rights" with money. If the victim is dead or unresponsive, tough luck for the criminal: he does both of the times.

[Remiel]

Can anyone say, " Prison Riot " ? That is what you are asking for you if try and force criminals into working slave conditions. Nevermind that you don't seem to account for the fact that not all of the " guests " of the federal prison system have committed heinuous crimes deserving of this sort of punishment. How do you determine if someone actual works off the value of their crime? And if it becomes possible to actually pay for your crime through prison work, how do you reconcile the cost imposed by the system with the expectations of service? If it costs $100,000 to keep someone in prison for a year, how much work is that equal to? Do you create a system that is inherently flawed, so that even the least horrible offender with the shortest and least costly crime is inherently unable to work it off even after 16 hours of work every day? I don't agree with the extremity of many of Catchme's arguments, but how much of that $100,000 is societys to bear for the benefit of keeping the criminals caged up, away from the rest of us? In fact, the only way to determine how much a person should be forced to work is by how much it is worth for society to keep them there, but that creates a system by which it is actually easier for a horrendous criminal to pay off their debt because of the fixed cost of their imprisonment, if you figure that they are responsible for it. The more costly your crime, the smaller the proportion of the cost of imprisonment is, so you would be in fact be expecting lesser criminals to pay more than lifers to get out.

As for the original point... rich criminals... what do you do for rich criminals who make most of their money at honest jobs and have dependants? Do you make the dependants suffer for that crime as well? Hell, what if the criminal is married to someone who makes a lot more money than they do? Because all assets go into the family pool, do you make the rich spouse pay for the crime?

At the core of this issue, there is perhaps an idea worth examining, but it is inherently difficult, because we are talking about law and justice. The costs of auditting such a system so as to make sure it is just could be horrendous.

[Wilber]

I have a simple solution:

Before sending a "rich" person to prison, offer them a chance to buy back some of their time by paying their victims. Let the victims and the criminals negotiate. It is not like victims are getting anything now anyway.

Divide their sentence into two parts: "society" time and victim time

The criminal gets to pay for their violation of "victim's rights" with money. If the victim is dead or unresponsive, tough luck for the criminal: he does both of the times.

This would only be possible if there was an identifiable victim and even then you are basing the length of a persons sentence on their ability to pay. Not a good principle IMO. I do agree that the victim should be compensated before the government takes any share. If the criminals assets are from the proceeds of crime, they should all be forfeit with any identifiable victims getting the first share.

We do have proceeds of crime legislation but of course being Canada, we have made it very difficult to enforce. When they are, the proceeds are often auctioned off, just as often to be bought by other criminals or even the same one.