Should rich prisoners pay their keep?

[Charles Anthony]

That is to say, on what premise is the state purporting to punish someone for it?

There is no moral premise.

So, Charles, I think before we can assess negotiated criminal justice it's necessary to consider the rectitude of the state/criminal concept.

Further exposed in Is "An Eye for an Eye" the best justice? -- Moral & Religious Issues category.

[guyser]

Forgive me if my "chiming in" here comes across as rude...

FTA

No problem , I was hoping you would anyway. And really why look things up when we have you?

Thanks for the link, I will be readin that.

[Wilber]

You have anticipated exactly where this line of analysis leads. If there is no victim, what harm has been done? If no harm can be seen, what makes the act a 'crime'? That is to say, on what premise is the state purporting to punish someone for it? And that leads us directly to the question of 'vice' crimes like recreational drug use or prostitution.

So as long as the guy running the meth lab in his basement doesn't blow up his house and yours with it and you don't care if you are living next door to a toxic dump there is no crime. But the guy breaking into your car to steal a couple of loonies he sees sitting on the consul in order to buy those drugs is committing a crime. Who's the bigger victim, him or you?

[August1991]

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

And yet income tax and property tax are imposed according to wealth. Rich people pay more. Income tax is not only a percentage of income but the tax (progressively) increases as income rises.

Yet a $100 speeding ticket is the same for all. Why? The fine hurts a poor person far more than a rich person.

A fine is a lump sum tax but a prison term approximates a progressive tax system: a day in the life of Paris Hilton is worth more than a day in the life of an ordinary citizen. No wonder Paris Hilton objects to a prison sentence: she's being penalized in a way comparable to ordinary people.

The next step is to make her penalty truly progessive. She should at least pay her stay, or stay longer.

Why?

First, there's a sense of fairness: why should taxpayers pay for the food and lodging of David Radler? Second, there's the incentive: the Paris Hiltons, Conrad Blacks, David Radlers, Martha Stewarts should face a commensurate incentive to avoid criminal activity.

If income tax is progressive, then why not criminal penalties?

----

BTW, IIUC, criminals in California can pay extra to choose their prison of incarceration. The judge in Paris Hilton's case removed that possibility.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

If income tax is progressive, then why not criminal penalties?

We may not all be equal in the eyes of a mortgage broker, but we are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. True justice and social equality can only exist when all people are treated equally, in both the best and worst of times.