Should rich prisoners pay their keep?

[Catchme]

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.

Studies have shown that education, while serving time, is extremely beneficial for both society and the person incarcerated.

If they do work while in jail they are paying their keep, 5-6 bucks a day that they get for working 8 hours or more, is NOT getting paid to be in jail.

For example, the City of Nanaimo, has a contract with the medium security detention facility located there. They give the facility x amount of dollars for the contracted work the inmate crews do. The inmates who go out each day, get paid between 5 and 6 bucks per day, while they are working 8+ hours. The facility integrates the difference in monies paid out and received, into their operational costs. And it is a significant amount. So in truth, the workers are paying for their incarceration costs plus, receive pocket money towards when they get out, or to buy personal items within the jail.

Moreover, as I stated above, if the inmate does take skill courses and post secondary education, they must either get student loans to do so, or have a private funding source. The course rates are lower because the inmate is NOT attending the educational facility and thereby is not contributing to the associated costs of direct attending said facility. And I believe that is fair.

[Charles Anthony]

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.

How else should it be? Why is any of your concerns a problem?

Like I said, it is completely voluntary. If the victim and the criminal can NOT agree on a settlement for compensating the violation of "victim's rights" the criminal gets thrown in to do all of the time.

[sideshow]

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.

How else should it be? Why is any of your concerns a problem?

Like I said, it is completely voluntary. If the victim and the criminal can NOT agree on a settlement for compensating the violation of "victim's rights" the criminal gets thrown in to do all of the time.

And to add to this CA, it also puts the victim in a bit of "power" position and allows them some measure of control over the whole issue-something which they currently don't (but should) have.

I like your suggestion.

[blueblood]

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.

Studies have shown that education, while serving time, is extremely beneficial for both society and the person incarcerated.

If they do work while in jail they are paying their keep, 5-6 bucks a day that they get for working 8 hours or more, is NOT getting paid to be in jail.

For example, the City of Nanaimo, has a contract with the medium security detention facility located there. They give the facility x amount of dollars for the contracted work the inmate crews do. The inmates who go out each day, get paid between 5 and 6 bucks per day, while they are working 8+ hours. The facility integrates the difference in monies paid out and received, into their operational costs. And it is a significant amount. So in truth, the workers are paying for their incarceration costs plus, receive pocket money towards when they get out, or to buy personal items within the jail.

Moreover, as I stated above, if the inmate does take skill courses and post secondary education, they must either get student loans to do so, or have a private funding source. The course rates are lower because the inmate is NOT attending the educational facility and thereby is not contributing to the associated costs of direct attending said facility. And I believe that is fair.

That seems all fine and good for someone going through rehab. There is the problem with hardened criminals and repeat offenders, maybe they are just born criminals and won't change. I believe this also sends out a very dangerous message to the poor especially the homeless, it's alright to commit crime; for causing harm to society you will get a warm place to live, guaranteed food, entertainment, lax employment, belong to a society --> there's more incentive to go to jail than to stay out. What's next subsidizing prostitutes for conjugal visits on a regular basis?

I agree that education and all that will help, but it should be provided to the prisoners that truly want to reform and have undergone a psych evaluation. Society should also accept that those who are truly reformed are no longer "bad guys" and should not discriminate against/judge them as that's half the problem.

[Wilber]

How else should it be? Why is any of your concerns a problem?

Like I said, it is completely voluntary. If the victim and the criminal can NOT agree on a settlement for compensating the violation of "victim's rights" the criminal gets thrown in to do all of the time.

A concept that seems to be forgotten is that we put people in jail to keep them from victimizing society. The victim gets the compensation and the criminal the sentence. The criminal does not get to negotiate and he certainly doesn't get to buy his sentence back with the proceeds of his crime.

[Charles Anthony]

The criminal does not get to negotiate and he certainly doesn't get to buy his sentence back with the proceeds of his crime.

I am proposing that he does pay the victim.

Right now, victims get nothing. Congratulations.

[Wilber]

The criminal does not get to negotiate and he certainly doesn't get to buy his sentence back with the proceeds of his crime.

I am proposing that he does pay the victim.

Right now, victims get nothing. Congratulations.

I agree that they should pay the victim. I don't agree that it should be negotiable.

[Charles Anthony]

I don't agree that it should be negotiable.

Why not?

[Figleaf]

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.

This proposal is unacceptable, for exactly the reasons noted... it is an extra punishment applied based on the extraneous element of wealth.

[Figleaf]

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.

Help depress the wages of low income earners, you mean.

[Figleaf]

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

I think we can do that here too.

[Catchme]

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. .

Studies have shown that education, while serving time, is extremely beneficial for both society and the person incarcerated.

That seems all fine and good for someone going through rehab. There is the problem with hardened criminals and repeat offenders, maybe they are just born criminals and won't change. I believe this also sends out a very dangerous message to the poor especially the homeless, it's alright to commit crime; for causing harm to society you will get a warm place to live, guaranteed food, entertainment, lax employment, belong to a society --> there's more incentive to go to jail than to stay out. What's next subsidizing prostitutes for conjugal visits on a regular basis?

I agree that education and all that will help, but it should be provided to the prisoners that truly want to reform and have undergone a psych evaluation. Society should also accept that those who are truly reformed are no longer "bad guys" and should not discriminate against/judge them as that's half the problem.

The reason why persons become hardened criminals is because the are repeat offenders. repeat offenders are usually those who have no education, no ability to become gaiinfully employed upon release, and so return to whatever caused them to be jailed in the first place.

That is why programs are needed for 1st time offenders, either within the jail setting or immediately upon release. When I was going for a degree in social work, I developed a model, that was a private business construct, that was designed solely for 1st time offenders and stopping the system failure that causes repeat offenses. When I changed degree majors, I actually handed the model over to classmates, who are now actively working on implimenting it. Well, actually, they have created the business model and are utilizing it with a good deal of sucess, and they have partnerships with the John Howard society as well to decrease rates of recidivism amongst first time offenders. Our focus should be not creating hardened criminals.

And I agree people should see them as having paid their dues, because they do not, it leaves first time offenders without employment opportunities and to a future of crime, without having support networks. those who do usually do not go on to offend again.

How could the homeless pay for their stay if they were put injail according to your theory? In fact please your thoughts regardless the homeless and jail please, as I do not see where you are coming from.

[blueblood]

How could the homeless pay for their stay if they were put injail according to your theory? In fact please your thoughts regardless the homeless and jail please, as I do not see where you are coming from.

Being homeless in my opinion is hell, no bed, no warmth, no guarantee of food. At least in jail you get these. I'm not surprised more bums don't commit crimes, they'd go to jail, they'd get warm food, a bed, a warm home which in my view is better than living on the street.

There are lots of first degree murderers and organized crime members that education wouldn't help as well. Most murder is pre meditated (for example Paul Bernardo, Laci Petersen case) and for organized crime kingpins --> they made millions, why should they go to a life where they'd make so much less?

But for knocking off a 7-11 when your 14, that's where the education comes in, but what if they reoffend anyway? It would seem that that education was all for nothing.

[guyser]

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

I think we can do that here too.

And that is something that I feel should not be allowed to happen. Far too many times this seizure law is used incoorectly.

BC I think has it , and ONT does as well, but did you know the asset seizure occurs before conviction?

The way most of these asset seizure depts are set up is to be self funded. That in and of itself I feel is wrong in that they will step beyond the right thing to do. I wish my internet skills were better but there was a case last year in I believe Florida, where the town (small town) wanted land that one eccentric nasty sort of rich guy lived . It was reported that the "police" got a tip that he was engaged in illegal actions and with that knowledge a judge gave a warrant to seize the land and gave them a warrant.

The charges were dismissed , but the land was held for years...not sure of the outcome.

It puts a reverse onus on the public. I have to prove to you that I gained this legally? I should think not.

Lets say....you rent a house to your nephew. Good kid by all accounts. But he was a little cash strapped and dabbled in some very low level MJ sales. Would you be happy to see that house gone? The courts have ruled this valid and in their wisdom have said that any crook would put his house or car or boat in his wifes name or other to circumvent this law. Thus the "title" is deemed irrelevant.

Same goes for your car at the border, although slightly different , but if you drove across the peace bridge and someone in your car forgot about a roach in his pocket, the border guards dont care.They will seize the car.

Just to rife for abuse.

[Wilber]

I don't agree that it should be negotiable.

Why not?

You believe convicted criminals should be allowed to negotiate their sentences and compensation? We obviously have very different ideas.

[Figleaf]

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

I think we can do that here too.

And that is something that I feel should not be allowed to happen. Far too many times this seizure law is used incoorectly.

Indeed, the police use it as a way of imposing an extra punishment, and just as you say, the process of getting property released (whether you are ultimately found guilty or not) is arduous and expensive.

[Figleaf]

How could the homeless pay for their stay if they were put injail according to your theory? In fact please your thoughts regardless the homeless and jail please, as I do not see where you are coming from.

Being homeless in my opinion is hell, no bed, no warmth, no guarantee of food. At least in jail you get these. I'm not surprised more bums don't commit crimes, they'd go to jail, they'd get warm food, a bed, a warm home which in my view is better than living on the street.

Do you this maybe, just maybe, this indicates that prison may not be that great an experience after all?

[blueblood]

How could the homeless pay for their stay if they were put injail according to your theory? In fact please your thoughts regardless the homeless and jail please, as I do not see where you are coming from.

Being homeless in my opinion is hell, no bed, no warmth, no guarantee of food. At least in jail you get these. I'm not surprised more bums don't commit crimes, they'd go to jail, they'd get warm food, a bed, a warm home which in my view is better than living on the street.

Do you this maybe, just maybe, this indicates that prison may not be that great an experience after all?

???????

[August1991]

Being homeless in my opinion is hell, no bed, no warmth, no guarantee of food. At least in jail you get these. I'm not surprised more bums don't commit crimes, they'd go to jail, they'd get warm food, a bed, a warm home which in my view is better than living on the street.

If we ignore the cases of homeless people who have psychological problems, I think there are qyuite a few who simply want nothing to do with organized society.

To simply exist in Canada today requires filling out forms, applying for this, that and the other thing. Our welfare system, for example, is phenomenally bureaucratic. Gone are the days when a priest could hand over a few dollars to someone down on their luck, no questions asked.

In short, many homeless people want nothing to do with bureaucratic social workers and their arcane rules, regulations and forms. For these homeless people, prison would be a far worse nightmare. Canada's prisons are even more bureaucratic. In some ways, this is the best deterrent of our prisons - imagine your life dictated 24 hours a day by Ottawa bureaucrats.

[Figleaf]

How could the homeless pay for their stay if they were put injail according to your theory? In fact please your thoughts regardless the homeless and jail please, as I do not see where you are coming from.

Being homeless in my opinion is hell, no bed, no warmth, no guarantee of food. At least in jail you get these. I'm not surprised more bums don't commit crimes, they'd go to jail, they'd get warm food, a bed, a warm home which in my view is better than living on the street.

Do you this maybe, just maybe, this indicates that prison may not be that great an experience after all?

???????

Sorry, the first 'this' should be 'think'. Do you think ... etc.

[blueblood]

In my opinion it sucks, that is why I follow the law, I don't want to go. But it is better than being homeless.

[Figleaf]

In my opinion it sucks, that is why I follow the law, I don't want to go. But it is better than being homeless.

My point is if even the homeless don't want to go to jail, then jail must be worse than being homeless.

Think of it... cramped quarters, violent atmosphere, anal rape, bad medicine, stiffling rules, and worst of all, being at the mercy of a bureaucracy that no-one gives a shit about.

[blueblood]

In my opinion it sucks, that is why I follow the law, I don't want to go. But it is better than being homeless.

My point is if even the homeless don't want to go to jail, then jail must be worse than being homeless.

Think of it... cramped quarters, violent atmosphere, anal rape, bad medicine, stiffling rules, and worst of all, being at the mercy of a bureaucracy that no-one gives a shit about.

Think of this, no home, no warm bed, no food, no tv, no anything, and they are at the mercy of society. I should think one would choose jail over starving to death.

[Charles Anthony]

You believe convicted criminals should be allowed to negotiate their sentences and compensation? We obviously have very different ideas.

Yes, I am. Right now, victims get nothing and "rich" convicts get to keep their money. How could my proposal be worse than what we have now?????

Go back and read my original post #23 above. I am saying that the convict be sentence to two terms: one time period for his Crime Against Society and one time period for violating a victim's rights. If the convict refuses to compensate his victim to his victim's choosing, the convict goes to jail for more time. I suspect you do not grasp this salient point: the victim holds the trump card in my proposed negotiation.

Your only concrete objection that you had was a situation whereby a victim can not be identified to negotiate. That is not a problem at all because the convict would have to do both terms. End of story. No negotiation.

[jester]

You believe convicted criminals should be allowed to negotiate their sentences and compensation? We obviously have very different ideas.

Yes, I am. Right now, victims get nothing and "rich" convicts get to keep their money. How could my proposal be worse than what we have now?????

Go back and read my original post #23 above. I am saying that the convict be sentence to two terms: one time period for his Crime Against Society and one time period for violating a victim's rights. If the convict refuses to compensate his victim to his victim's choosing, the convict goes to jail for more time. I suspect you do not grasp this salient point: the victim holds the trump card in my proposed negotiation.

Your only concrete objection that you had was a situation whereby a victim can not be identified to negotiate. That is not a problem at all because the convict would have to do both terms. End of story. No negotiation.

What crimes would you limit it to,or would it apply for any crime? Say I'm rich and have you bumped off-could I negotiate with your family for how much you are worth to them, what about financial scams- how will you find the money or all the victims? This is an idea from Saudi where you can pay the victims a payment and have your sentence lowered or cancelled, the rich never get time in prison but buy their way out...not very fair and open for abuse, it's simply cash for crime-you pay you go free.....