States Force Prisoners to Pay for Stay

#27
#27
utvolpj said:
Financial status in who you can hire not in the penalty
Click to expand...
I was just commenting about how it works in real life for most people. In the Smollet case, I would have no problem with the city/state going after him for all the cost of the investigation since it was clearly a fraud. His fraudulent accusations costs tax payers time and money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and SpaceCoastVol
#29
#29
I think they should let the criminals have 3 free criminal acts, after the 3rd one, then you'd be sentenced on the 4th act. That way the prisons will be less filled.
 
#30
#30
utvolpj said:
So you're ok with unequal protection based on financial status?
Click to expand...

The IRS does it all the time with Offers in Compromise. Is it fair that someone who makes $30K a year gets to pay a percentage of a $5K debt but someone who makes $80K pays the full amount?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#31
#31
BigOrangeMojo said:
The IRS does it all the time with Offers in Compromise. Is it fair that someone who makes $30K a year gets to pay a percentage of a $5K debt but someone who makes $80K pays the full amount?
Click to expand...
Again going back to negotiated deals
 
#35
#35
BigOrangeMojo said:
But the IRS the ability to do "means testing" negotiated deals via statutory authority....
Click to expand...
Are you saying prisoners will now be in charge of negotiating their fees from the state? Can we now apply this logic to their race, gender, profession, etc?

The state needs less power, not more
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#36
#36
utvolpj said:
Are you saying prisoners will now be in charge of negotiating their fees from the state? Can we now apply this logic to their race, gender, profession, etc?

The state needs less power, not more
Click to expand...

The State can use their discretion to see who has the ability to pay these jail fees and who doesn't.

The IRS uses their discretion to see who can pay in full and who they have to take pennies on the dollar from.

I dont think going after jail fees makes sense for the state financially but I wouldn't lose any sleep if they went after those with the means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
#37
#37
BigOrangeMojo said:
Playing devil's advocate here. Let's say Jussie Smollet is sentenced to jail for 2 years. He has the means to pay. Is it fair that IL citizens have to pay for the incarceration of a CA resident? What's the difference between recovering jail fees and recovering police overtime?
Click to expand...

Once the state decides that it needs to incarcerate someone it is 100% responsible for their care. IL taxpayers don't want to pay to house criminals, stop sending non violent offenders to prison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#39
#39
BigOrangeMojo said:
The State can use their discretion to see who has the ability to pay these jail fees and who doesn't.

The IRS uses their discretion to see who can pay in full and who they have to take pennies on the dollar from.

I dont think going after jail fees makes sense for the state financially but I wouldn't lose any sleep if they went after those with the means.
Click to expand...
So you're perfectly ok with different sentencing based on a number the state just creates in order to punish someone? The state should be able to simply take money from people based on their financial status? That's what you're advocating
 
#43
#43
hog88 said:
Application of the law.
Click to expand...
But what's being described isn't law. It's just punitive fines based on the size of a bank account the state decided was too large. The example being thrown around shows pretty clearly why this is being advocated
 
#44
#44
utvolpj said:
But what's being described isn't law. It's just punitive fines based on the size of a bank account the state decided was too large. The example being thrown around shows pretty clearly why this is being advocated
Click to expand...

You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm in 100% agreement that charging prisoners for their confinement is bullshot.
 
#45
#45
utvolpj said:
So you're perfectly ok with different sentencing based on a number the state just creates in order to punish someone? The state should be able to simply take money from people based on their financial status? That's what you're advocating
Click to expand...

I am stating there are laws on the books that allow for jail fees just like there are laws that allow for income taxes. I am saying the State (or IRS) has the authority to go after as much of that revenue as efficiently as possible. In the case of the IRS, getting pennies on the dollar from the poor outweighs the costs of constantly garnishing paychecks. In terms of the jails, getting little to no money from the poor outweighs the costs of garnishing paychecks. In the terms of Jussie, in my example, the amount of revenue would outweigh any cost.

If you dont want to pay jail fees, then don't go to jail.

But yes, I don't think the jail fees should be in existence. No enough value in those laws
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#46
#46
BigOrangeMojo said:
Playing devil's advocate here. Let's say Jussie Smollet is sentenced to jail for 2 years. He has the means to pay. Is it fair that IL citizens have to pay for the incarceration of a CA resident? What's the difference between recovering jail fees and recovering police overtime?
Click to expand...
If a fine is assessed by the court to go with the rest of sentence, that is ok. But assigning fees after the fact without sentencing, that is wrong. At least if it's for the same crime.

This is some weird double jeopardy, unusual punishment blend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeMojo and hog88
#47
#47
825VOL said:
we already have that now, it’s called being forced to use a public defender because you are poor.
Click to expand...
If the rich dont have a lawyer they get a public defendant as well. It's not a right reserved for the poor. And actually it's a step up from what they are protecting against, the poor not having any lawyer at all.
 
#48
#48
LouderVol said:
If the rich dont have a lawyer they get a public defendant as well. It's not a right reserved for the poor. And actually it's a step up from what they are protecting against, the poor not having any lawyer at all.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is correct. Maybe they are assigned a public defender but they still have to pay.
 
#49
#49
utvolpj said:
If they apply it consistently and it's written in the laws then it's more palatable. Giving the state the ability to charge defendants at their choosing based on their bank account is ridiculous and likely unconstitutional.

Don't even get me started with the extortion LG described earlier
Click to expand...


Not unconstitutional even if they based their decision on who to collect from based on who could pay. Inmates who can pay versus those that can't is not based on suspect classification, ie race or gender. Thus, the only question is whether there is any rational basis to distinguish between those that can and those that can't.

Spending money to chase an insolvent inmate is stupid. Trying to collect from one who can pay it is reasonable. Ergo it is constitutional to do so.

Your criticism is political,not legal
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top