Utah Jails are now charging convicted criminals 40 dollars a day to stay in prison.

[ddeclue]

This is just outrageous!

If they can't "pay to stay", will they get evicted?

:sarcasm:

[aquart]

1. Are these privatized jails?

[flvegan]

7. County. Link:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12031773

[acmavm]

62. No, but I bet that's next.

Wonder when the law is passed that they get to harvest the fillings from our teeth when we die?

[MadHound]

2. Is that even Constitutional?

Oh, wait, that's right, the Constitution has been pretty well shredded, never mind.

So if you can't pay, what, you stay in there some more to pay off your debt, which incurs more debt, which means that if you're poor and get thrown in jail, you're in for life.

[NYC Liberal]

4. Wouldn't they actually have to hold a trial and convict them of that to keep them longer?

Oh wait, you're right -- the Constitution doesn't matter anymore.

[MajorChode]

9. Where does the Constitution say anything of the sort?

It's not anything new, BTW. Other jails have done it. Most likely it's on a pay-if-you-can basis, just like fines that are imposed.

I see nothing wrong with it personally. If they can afford to pay it, they most certainly should. Not just poor people go to jail and the taxpayer shouldn't be obligated for the cost of incarcerating someone when they were the ones who fucked up. If someone can't afford to pay, you can't very well get blood out of a stone, but I'm sure there are plenty who can.

[varkam]

14. 14th Amendment comes to mind.

Both the due process and equal protection arms of it.

[MajorChode]

27. I don't see what either would have to do with it

[varkam]

32. Well...

it could be considered an unlawful taking as it doesn't seem, from the article, that prisoners are entitled to any sort of a hearing to challenge whether or not they are indigent - that seems to be just a determination that the Sheriff's Dept makes. Considering the rather hefty price (e.g. 14k/yr) I think that would be significant.

Also, could be that it's a violation of the equal protection clause in that two individuals in similar situations would be treated much differently under the law (if one prisoner can "afford" to pay it and the other can't) - but I'm less sure on that one.

In addition, the ex post facto clause might be at play if they're applying it across the board (e.g. even with inmates who were already incarcerated when this went into effect). But I'm guessing that they would do some hand-waving and say that it's not punishment (even though that seemed to be what the councilman was getting at) - and I'm further guessing that the courts would let them.

[MajorChode]

37. Similar situations already exist

If you can afford a lawyer, you don't get a free public defender in most areas. And who says they don't get a hearing? You can request a hearing on just about anything the state demands that you pay and you have appeal rights all the way to the USSC. I wouldn't expect anyone to get very far with that one though for the reasons previously mentioned.

As long as everyone is treated equally, there is no equal protection violation. In other words, if the state is demanding that everyone who has over X amount of worth pay, there is no equal protection problem.

The ex post facto is another bag of worms and without knowing the specifics of the policy, it's not worth even speculating about.

[varkam]

39. I'm not saying that the challenges would be successful...

I'm just saying that there's certainly language in the Constitution that might raise an issue.

[MadHound]

15. Umm, if you can't pay a fine, you go to jail

I'm sure that this is some sort of mandatory fine/fee and if you can't pay it, yes, I can see you going back to jail because you couldn't pay it. They might let you out to work initially, and garnish your wages, but if you lose your job or skip town, whoops, there you go, back in jail, for forty bucks a day.

While some well off people go to jail, the vast majority who are in prison are poor people, and this is just another way to squeeze some more money from them. Think of it, you get a five year sentence for pot possession, and along with the fine dictated by law, and the minimum mandatory time dictated by law, you now have to pay $73,000 dollars or your ass is going to go back to jail. Where are most people going to get that kind of money coming right out of jail? Oh, yeah, back to more crime. So much for rehabilitation:eyes:

Furthermore, this is simply the prison system double dipping. Our tax money pays for the prisons, the guards' salaries, the facilities, the food, everything. Yet the prisons want forty bucks a day per warm body on top of that? Sorry, but that's bullshit, and probably not Constitutional.

[MajorChode]

31. That situation exists all over the US

A fine is in lieu of jail in many instances. Refuse to pay a speeding ticket and see what happens to you.

I have plenty of sympathy for the poor, but very little for those who choose to break the law. While it may be true that many who are in prison are poor people, it is not true that the majority of poor people are criminals. Furthermore those poor people pay taxes. So you think it's OK to squeeze law abiding poor people for more tax dollars, but it's not OK to squeeze those who screwed up in the first place? Sorry, but that's bullshit. If they can pay, they should pay, and unless you have some persuasive argument that says it's not Constitutional, I'm not buying it. Good luck with that one because the same and similar policies have been implemented for years in other areas and I don't think anyone has been successful proving otherwise.

[varkam]

33. Let me ask you a question...

do you think that there's some sharp dividing line between the people in that jail and any of us?

[MajorChode]

35. I can't speak for everyone else

But as far as I am concerned, I choose not to break the law. I'd say that's probably the biggest difference.

Now what does your question have to do with anything that's not tangential to the topic?

[varkam]

36. It's just that you seem to think that...

there's some great divide between "them" and "us". Further, I am almost certain that you and everyone else here has broken the law at some point or another - whether or not you did it with the intention of breaking the law is a different matter entirely (but, as far as statutes go, that doesn't really matter). The fact is a lot of people in jails aren't evil or scum - they're people who fucked up. That's not to say that they shouldn't be punished or that they shouldn't pay for their crimes - but it does have to stop somewhere. It just seems to me that trying to distance "them" from "us" as far as possible is just a means of trying to justify ever-increasing punishments because they broke the law.

[MajorChode]

40. Actually most that are in jail are scum

But all of this discussion is tangential. The only thing that's worthy of discussion is who you think deserves to pay to incarcerate someone who "fucked up"? Do you think all of that burden should fall on the taxpayer (some of which can hardly afford it), or do you think at least some of that responsibility should fall back to the person who "fucked up"?

In many areas, prisoners get released simply because the public can't afford to pay to keep them in jail. When they get released and re-offend (as many do), who do you think they are ripping off the most? Do you think they are ripping off affluent communities or poor communities? Even if you approach this argument from a poverty angle, it still doesn't change the fact that someone has to pay somehow to punish those who "fucked up".

[varkam]

44. I see.

The only thing that's worthy of discussion is who you think deserves to pay to incarcerate someone who "fucked up"? Do you think all of that burden should fall on the taxpayer (some of which can hardly afford it), or do you think at least some of that responsibility should fall back to the person who "fucked up"?

Is that "the only thing that's worthy of discussion?" I doubt that very much - but paying the price for public services is part of what we do to live in a civilized society. Just because someone has committed a crime doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want with them (well, I suppose if they're "scum" then you can).

In many areas, prisoners get released simply because the public can't afford to pay to keep them in jail. When they get released and re-offend (as many do), who do you think they are ripping off the most? Do you think they are ripping off affluent communities or poor communities? Even if you approach this argument from a poverty angle, it still doesn't change the fact that someone has to pay somehow to punish those who "fucked up".

Prisoners are also being released due to Cruel and Unusual Punishment concerns. In fact, in CA, that was one of the rationales for the release that they're planning because of prisoner overcrowding. If you want to talk about recidivism, let me ask you a question: why do you think that is? Is it because they're "scum"? I would think that one of the big reasons for recidivism is the fact that jails are mostly warehousing operations with little to access to educational, job-training, or mental health programs. When you toss all the fun consequences of a felony conviction and a 14k debt on top of that, it makes it hard for some people to try and get back on their feet.

Or, we could keep thinking that they're all "scum" like we have for the past twenty years. And where has that gotten us? 66% recidivism rates and more people incarcerated than any other place on the planet? Maybe we should re-think the way that we're dealing with our criminals if we're really concerned with public safety and not just political posturing. Several trial programs in restorative justice around the country that treat the inmates like human beings (sorry, not like the scum that you say that they are) and focused on making amends to victims has shown promising results (such as chopping recidivism rates in half). See, you say that your attitude is not worthy of discussion, but I disagree: it goes to the very heart of the problem and reflects an overly simplistic view of both human behavior and the criminal justice system.

[MajorChode]

47. Nice try, but I'm not going there

I have a lot of opinions regarding crime and punishment, and many of those probably parallel yours, but that isn't what I'm discussing here as much as you wish it were.

You keep trying to steer the topic to something else. If you want to stay on topic and address my assertions directly, feel free, but I'm not going off topic on this one. If you can find someone else to play those games, more power to you.

[varkam]

48. You're the one who brought up recidivism - not me.

If you don't want to talk about it, then don't bring it up. If you don't like the points that I make, then address them - don't try to hide behind your pronouncements from on high as to what is worthy of discussion and what isn't. If you can find someone else to play with who you can try to control what they talk about, more power to you.

[MajorChode]

51. Still not going there

My assertions are regarding whether criminals should share the cost of their incarceration. My mention of recidivism related directly to that discussion. You want to focus on that entirely. I'm not going there regardless of how much you wish I would.

I've already gone a notch or two past my usual absurdity limit. Stay on topic or have your tangential discussions with someone else. Those are your choices. I'm done here.

[varkam]

53. Well have fun on the "discussion" board, then.

I did address your question:

(P)aying the price for public services is part of what we do to live in a civilized society. Just because someone has committed a crime doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want with them (well, I suppose if they're "scum" then you can).

Maybe I should have spelled all that out a bit more clearly for you, but what you should take that to mean is that taxpayers are supposed to support governmental services, like jails. That, as I wrote, is just part of the price of living in society. If you don't like that, I suppose there's probably somewhere in the world you could move to where you don't have to worry about that sort of thing. I have no problem with charging inmates nominal fees, but there comes a point when it stops being nominal and starts being burdensome. I don't know exactly where that line is, but 14/k a year strikes me as burdensome - especially seeing as how the majority of people in jails don't make that in a good year (esp. not after getting out). You might think that it's a feel-good political measure, and it is, but rarely do feel-good political measures and public safety line up. IMO, it's just going to fuel a cycle of crime and suffering that serves no one. But, then again, that assumes that people care more about preventing crime than about getting their pound of flesh (which, as I'm inferring from this discussion, is an assumption that I shouldn't make). Ooops! Did I go too far off the beaten path of your mental road map for what this discussion should be about? Sorry! Well, could you even try to address the parts of my post that you feel dealt directly enough with your assertions? I guess not, since you're "done here."

And, again, if you don't like the points that I made then you should try to address them - I mean, that's generally what a discussion board is about, right? Personally, I really don't care whether or not you continue this discussion because I really don't think you were here for discussion to begin with.

[MajorChode]

56. Finally you manage to get back on topic

Well almost anyway.

I really did enjoy your clever recycling of the old "love it or leave it" line. I heard that one a lot back in the 60's and 70's and regarded it as bullshit back then too. But thanks for regurgitating it here as it's always good for a chuckle.

As far as governmental services go, how those services are paid for is up to the voters and elected representatives to determine. Hundreds of government services are at least partially billed. So unless you have a Constitutional argument against it (and even you admit that argument had little merit), then you don't have a leg to stand on as far as how it's "supposed" to work. If you don't like that, well I guess you can take your own worn out advice, no?

Furthermore you state you apparently have no problems with the fees, but just the amounts. I clearly stated that my opinion was that if someone had the means to pay, then they should, so if you had actually taken my assertions in the context clearly stated, all of your "burdensome" comments pretty much are nothing more than you pecking on the keyboard for the sake of reading your own thoughts.

Finally for your other tangential "points" about what you think of the justice system in general, it has nothing to do with whether I want to discuss them or not or whether I agree with them or not or whether I give two shits about them or not or even if they are correct or not. It has to do with whether I'm going to accept them as refuting my assertions. I'm not because they have absolutely nothing to do with them. They were simply ignoratio elenchi and I'm not going to play those fruitless games. I don't have a problem with discussion, just those who want to do so by trying to use fallacies in hopes that others won't notice. So either you have a problem with those who won't accept your evasiveness, or you're simply too ignorant to know you're trying to pass it off as valid rebuttal. Either way I'm not playing and if you don't like it, find someone closer to your own level of intellect to have what you think passes for "discussion".

[varkam]

58. I thought you were done here. Lucky me.

Well almost anyway.

I guess that shows how close you're reading my posts, given that my "on topic" comment was a few posts back. But no matter.

I really did enjoy your clever recycling of the old "love it or leave it" line. I heard that one a lot back in the 60's and 70's and regarded it as bullshit back then too. But thanks for regurgitating it here as it's always good for a chuckle.

Uh. Sure.

As far as governmental services go, how those services are paid for is up to the voters and elected representatives to determine. Hundreds of government services are at least partially billed. So unless you have a Constitutional argument against it (and even you admit that argument had little merit), then you don't have a leg to stand on as far as how it's "supposed" to work. If you don't like that, well I guess you can take your own worn out advice, no?

Well, actually, nowhere in that funny document called the Constitution does it say that voters shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. That's pretty much up to Congress. Sure, voters elect representatives, but the power to do that isn't in the voters' hands.

And I actually didn't "admit" any such thing. I merely said I wasn't commenting on the merits. You had said that the Constitution "said no such thing" to a post raising Constitutional issues - which is wrong. There are several avenues through which one might raise a Constitutional issue with this.

Furthermore you state you apparently have no problems with the fees, but just the amounts. I clearly stated that my opinion was that if someone had the means to pay, then they should, so if you had actually taken my assertions in the context clearly stated, all of your "burdensome" comments pretty much are nothing more than you pecking on the keyboard for the sake of reading your own thoughts.

So...you think there's no difference between say a 20 dollar booking fee and charging inmates 14/k a year for the privilege of being guests of the state? I think that it still becomes an issue regardless of one's ability to pay, because I think eventually you're going to get into 8th Amendment territory esp. since they're not applying it to people in pre-trial detention (which kind of lends itself that it's being utilized as punishment and not just as a regulatory / cost-cutting measure).

inally for your other tangential "points" about what you think of the justice system in general, it has nothing to do with whether I want to discuss them or not or whether I agree with them or not or whether I give two shits about them or not or even if they are correct or not. It has to do with whether I'm going to accept them as refuting my assertions.

So am I to take it that when you him and haw about something being off-topic, that means you're not taking them as refuting your assertions? Assuming that you made cogent assertions to begin with and assuming that the points that I have made were in an attempt to rebut those, why not just say that? Why, instead, do you just yammer on about how topic X is off-limit to discussion?

I'm not because they have absolutely nothing to do with them. They were simply ignoratio elenchi and I'm not going to play those fruitless games. I don't have a problem with discussion, just those who want to do so by trying to use fallacies in hopes that others won't notice. So either you have a problem with those who won't accept your evasiveness, or you're simply too ignorant to know you're trying to pass it off as valid rebuttal. Either way I'm not playing and if you don't like it, find someone closer to your own level of intellect to have what you think passes for "discussion".

Aw, come on. If you're going to start using ad hominems, at least make them creative!

And if you're going to make assumptions, try not to be sloppy with them. This whole S/T you've been bitching about how I'm not talking about anything that's on topic when the whole time, in my first response, I responded to your argument (which you seem to have happily ignored until I pointed that out to you).

So, are you "done here" now?

[MajorChode]

61. You should have quit while you were behind

Well, actually, nowhere in that funny document called the Constitution does it say that voters shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. That's pretty much up to Congress. Sure, voters elect representatives, but the power to do that isn't in the voters' hands.

We're not talking taxes, we're talking about funds that pay for services which may or may NOT come from taxes. Try and keep up. If you're saying voters never vote on issues of how funds are collected, there are hundreds of examples of exactly that. Furthermore in your zeal to make some irrelevant point you conveniently ignored the underlying fact that it's up to the people either directly or indirectly to determine how government services are paid. So again we have more evasion and less substance from you. I can't say I'm surprised as you've already proved you have little ability to argue in any linear fashion.

And I actually didn't "admit" any such thing. I merely said I wasn't commenting on the merits.

If it has no merit, then why bring it up at all? Unless you just enjoy rambling on incoherently and I'm starting to think that's a very plausible explanation in your case.

So...you think there's no difference between say a 20 dollar booking fee and charging inmates 14/k a year for the privilege of being guests of the state? I think that it still becomes an issue regardless of one's ability to pay, because I think eventually you're going to get into 8th Amendment territory esp. since they're not applying it to people in pre-trial detention (which kind of lends itself that it's being utilized as punishment and not just as a regulatory / cost-cutting measure).

"8th Amendment"??? You're shitting me, right? Please tell me you're not trying to comment on Constitutional issues by making such a ridiculous statement. The standard set by the USSC on the "excessive fine" clause is "gross disproportionality" and the cases argued successfully under that clause are almost nil. So perhaps if someone were in jail for a year for stealing $10, then they might have a "excessive fine" case, but the chances of them doing 1 year in the pokey for stealing $10 in the first place are about the same as you have of making a coherent argument.

So am I to take it that when you him and haw about something being off-topic, that means you're not taking them as refuting your assertions? Assuming that you made cogent assertions to begin with and assuming that the points that I have made were in an attempt to rebut those, why not just say that? Why, instead, do you just yammer on about how topic X is off-limit to discussion?

I did "just say that" and no less than 3 times. Of course I assumed your comprehension skills were at least at the functionally literate level and that now seems to be a very poor assumption.

Aw, come on. If you're going to start using ad hominems, at least make them creative!

You just proved you have no clue what "ad hominems(sic)" are. So naturally ignoratio elenchi is well above your understanding as well, which verifies the 2nd option of my suspicions regarding your evasiveness.

And if you're going to make assumptions, try not to be sloppy with them. This whole S/T you've been bitching about how I'm not talking about anything that's on topic when the whole time, in my first response, I responded to your argument (which you seem to have happily ignored until I pointed that out to you).

You didn't respond to my argument. You continually tried to steer it into other unrelated areas and you finally gave up when I wouldn't play your childish game, so let's not pretend otherwise, OK?

So, are you "done here" now?

I am now. Feel free to have the last word as I'm sure such things are greatly important to you.

Have a nice day.

[varkam]

75. Yawn.

We're not talking taxes, we're talking about funds that pay for services which may or may NOT come from taxes. Try and keep up. If you're saying voters never vote on issues of how funds are collected, there are hundreds of examples of exactly that. Furthermore in your zeal to make some irrelevant point you conveniently ignored the underlying fact that it's up to the people either directly or indirectly to determine how government services are paid. So again we have more evasion and less substance from you. I can't say I'm surprised as you've already proved you have little ability to argue in any linear fashion.

You do know what a tax is, right? I guess you don't. I'm also not saying that "voters never vote on issues of how funds are collected" - but thanks for setting up that nice easy straw man for you to knock down.

If it has no merit, then why bring it up at all? Unless you just enjoy rambling on incoherently and I'm starting to think that's a very plausible explanation in your case.

Do you not know what words mean? I did not say that it had no merit, either. Try reading for a change. It's fun!

"8th Amendment"??? You're shitting me, right? Please tell me you're not trying to comment on Constitutional issues by making such a ridiculous statement. The standard set by the USSC on the "excessive fine" clause is "gross disproportionality" and the cases argued successfully under that clause are almost nil. So perhaps if someone were in jail for a year for stealing $10, then they might have a "excessive fine" case, but the chances of them doing 1 year in the pokey for stealing $10 in the first place are about the same as you have of making a coherent argument.

I did "just say that" and no less than 3 times. Of course I assumed your comprehension skills were at least at the functionally literate level and that now seems to be a very poor assumption.


I smell a fallacy. So since the cases that have been argued are "almost nil" that means that the argument isn't coherent? Uh-huh. Seems like in your rush to ad hom me to death, you're making a few mistakes yourself - especially since you yourself admit that an 8th Amendment challenge is possible.

I did "just say that" and no less than 3 times. Of course I assumed your comprehension skills were at least at the functionally literate level and that now seems to be a very poor assumption.

Owie! My poor feelings!

You just proved you have no clue what "ad hominems(sic)" are. So naturally ignoratio elenchi is well above your understanding as well, which verifies the 2nd option of my suspicions regarding your evasiveness.

:rofl:

You didn't respond to my argument. You continually tried to steer it into other unrelated areas and you finally gave up when I wouldn't play your childish game, so let's not pretend otherwise, OK?

But I did respond to your argument. Feel free to click up a few posts. In fact, when you responded that I "finally" got back on track, I merely quoted what I had written in that post.

I am now. Feel free to have the last word as I'm sure such things are greatly important to you.

Have a nice day.

Okay - so now you're done? We'll see about that, I guess. If you do come back, I hope you come with some better ad homs - yours are quite boring.

[Gormy Cuss]

45. Actually, most people in jail aren't scum.

Jails, as opposed to prisons, are short term facilities , usually for those waiting for trial or convicted for less than a 1-2 year term.
They're at worst petty offenders or substance addicts or both, and if they came from families of means chance are good that they'd never spend a week in jail. That's the difference that having money makes in our justice system. Charging inmates for their involuntary lodging just makes it more like that they'll never dig out of the hole they're in.

[MajorChode]

49. The article specifically said

It would only charge sentenced inmates. And just because someone is a "petty offender" doesn't mean they aren't scum. It also doesn't mean that those who don't do time aren't scum either.

[Gormy Cuss]

57. Calling them scum may make it more palatable to some, but

the reality is it will disproportionately affect those who have the least resources (not quite indigent, but not exactly middle class) and dig a deeper hole for them when they get out.

From the article:
Yet Winder's proposal could run into resistance in Salt Lake County, where some council members fear the policy would prove too burdensome for inmates already strapped financially. Bill dodgers wouldn't have to serve more time for not paying, but they could face collections.

Swell. Get out out jail and have an even harder time getting back on your feet. That's a good plan.

[MajorChode]

71. It's just being realistic

If they aren't scum then who in your book qualifies? If you take the view that most who wind up in jail are just a victim of circumstance and nothing is ever their fault, then I suppose you could hold such a view but I don't. There are plenty of people in poor circumstances that don't wind up in jail. I'll save my respect and sympathy for them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

63. Varkam, the part of your brain circuitry dedicated to empathy and humanity is working well.

And that is good. :thumbsup:

[orleans]

72. 1:55

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoa_sK-YMXY

[stillcool]

38. Things are never that black and white...

I don't know the details of how Utah treats its prisoners, but there is something radically wrong with the prison system in this country. But I guess like everything else, it doesn't matter, as long as it isn't you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=927120

[MajorChode]

41. And I didn't suggest otherwise

I just preferred to stay on topic. So I'll thank you not to infer something that I didn't in any way imply.

[stillcool]

42. I read downthread that you have never..

broken the law, and you see nothing wrong with charging people for their jail cells. Did you read the link I provided? Children being sentenced to jail? Should they pay for their jail cell? Did you see how many foster kids end up in jail or on the street? We have more people incarcerated than any country on the planet. Why is that?

[MajorChode]

46. Then you need to go back and read what I wrote more closely

And I'm not going to engage in some tangential discussion that in no way even comes close to being relevant to my assertions, much less refutes them.

[Texasgal]

3. link?

[Junkdrawer]

5. I googled this...

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10103104&nav=menu554_1_1

[ddeclue]

6. On Lou Dobbs..nt

[dysfunctional press]

43. and if lou says it- it must be true.

100%.

:eyes:

[Dogmudgeon]

8. DU is an irony-laden place

Half of the DUers are outraged at charging prisoners rent, and the other half are prison rape enthusiasts.

Whodathunkit?

--d!

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. I'd say more than half are prison rape fetishists

Maybe 70%.

[MADem]

10. No, they can work it off.

The policy is hardly novel in Utah, where several counties already have tapped prisoners' pocketbooks to ease the jail's financial burden on taxpayers. The Box Elder County jail started charging inmates for the first time last month. Jailers in Cache, Weber, Davis, Utah and Washington counties have adopted the practice as well.

The Salt Lake County Council voted unanimously to let Sheriff Jim Winder pursue the pay-to-stay program. Just one condition: In six months he will have to report to the council on its success.

"There is something good about holding people accountable for the costs they incur on society," Councilman David Wilde said.

Even so, some council members remain wary of placing too heavy a financial burden on an already-struggling jail population.

"I'm not fully convinced that, in six months, we will be in a position that we would want to continue," Councilwoman Jenny Wilson said. "There are a lot of unknowns."

So here is how the program works: The jail will charge inmates $40 a day while serving out their sentences, a bill that comes due only after their release. Although inmates may settle up their accounts with cash after leaving the jail, they also can reduce that bill during their stay by attending Alcoholics Anonymous groups, parenting classes, drug-treatment courses, life-skills workshops or any number of rehabilitation programs.

So what if those inmates don't pay the bill? They may get a few letters asking them to pay up, officials say, but they won't serve additional jail time and won't see a collections officer on their doorstep.

"Once they leave," Carver said, "we are not going to chase them down."

Instead, the Sheriff's Office could garnishee money inmates have in jail accounts (dollars deposited by friends and family for personal purchases) when they leave or recoup it from them if they return. The pay-to-stay policy will not apply to state and federal inmates or to people the Sheriff's Office deems indigent.

......

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12039621

[varkam]

12. It just says that it reduces that amount that they have to pay...

it doesn't say by how much. Something tells me the economic incentive is going to be minimal.

[MADem]

17. It also says they won't chase them for it. They'll just empty their little jail bank accounts when

they leave.

[varkam]

20. Yeah - I'm not so sure that passes the straight-face test.

We'll see how well that part works out.

[MADem]

23. I did a fast google, and this isn't all that new.

Different counties have been doing this in Utah for a few years now. This looked like the priciest per-day cost, though...!

[varkam]

25. That's another thing that bugs me - the whole race-to-the-bottom aspect of it.

40 dollars seems like a shit-ton of money to me, but it seems to me that any place where things like this happen, county by county, prices are going to get steeper and steeper until someone launches a constitutional challenge against it. Due process, equal protection...hell, if they're applying it to everyone in custody then you might even make an ex post facto claim.

The other thing is that if this were passed onto the tax-payer to support the operational costs of the jail, there would be hell to pay. Some might say it's only fair that we force the inmates to pay for it, but I think that's just part of the price that we all have to shoulder in order to live in a civilized society. I'm all for punishing people who commit crimes, but the whole "can't do the time" canard only goes so far. When you start putting people in debt to the tune of 14k/yr, giving them a felony conviction, and then you expect them to pay you back things have gone a wee-bit off course. And, as I said, I'm not sure the "we won't do anything more than just send you a letter" thing passes the straight face test. If you don't pay supervision costs or court fees, they'll issue a warrant for your arrest. I'm not sure what makes this any different.

[Evoman]

68. Not only that, but it seems sort of like slave labour.

You pay the inmates to work, and then you take all of their money "for rent".

There you go, free labour.

It's fucking gross.

[varkam]

76. But they "broke the law" so I guess it's okay.

:crazy:

[surrealAmerican]

60. It sounds like it's set up to fail as written.

Right now they're saying they won't hunt down those who don't pay, but in a few years when they find out how many haven't paid this "debt", there'll be an outcry to collect this money that's "owed to the state". Then they'll send in the collection agencies.

[varkam]

11. 40 bucks? That seems like an awful lot to me.

About 14k a year if my maths is right. I don't know about others, but something about this just screams unlawful taking to me.

[Last Stand]

66. It's $54 in MA. They go after you for it upon release.

[angstlessk]

13. hell I can stay at a motel 6 for less per night...no bologna sandwitches for lunch...grantcha

but free coffee and sometimes a donut or buns at the front desk for breakfast!

[varkam]

16. Yeah, except you get to leave and don't have to worry about getting shanked by the other...

"guests".

[angstlessk]

21. there ya go..bein all downtrodden and all!

:sarcasm: in case you did not know!

[varkam]

22. ?

Ok...

[Hawkeye-X]

18. So if the inmates pay to stay, how the hell are they going to do it at 12c an hour

or something like that?

That is one of the most idiotic moves by the Sheriff. If the prisoners can afford to pay $40/day, what do they get in return? Better accommodations? Less nasty mattress? More attention from the guards (or less attention, depending if you're using contraband)? Better food? What the hell do the inmates get out of this deal?

As far as I know, in the fed pen, the inmates can work up to $1.37 (or something like that) an hour skilled labor working for the prison industry that churns out shit for other prisons. Unskilled labor like janitors gets about 12c or so an hour.

Also, they are limited to $120/MONTH in the commissary, so my question stands: How the hell are they going to pay for it? The only way to do this is bring it up to federal minimum wage, which I know prisoners are exempt from.

Having being a previous guest in a federal pen, I have some insight here. Granted, it was only for 3 months and was released back to society.

Hawkeye-X

[petronius]

50. I'd be somewhat OK with prisoners being charged at 'real world' rates

if they were being paid 'real world' wages. Conversely, the charges that are applied could be scaled down in the same way the wages are...

[MADem]

67. Apparently, they get "credit" for attendance at "self help" seminars.

Go to an AA meeting, your rent is free. Go to an Anger Management class, your rent is free...that kind of thing. At least that is how the article spells it out. AND, if you don't pay, they'll clean out your little bank account when you leave, they'll ask you to pay, but if you don't, they'll let it go.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Here's a better solution... stop putting people in jail for minor offenses

It's really that simple.

[sam sarrha]

24. just do what Mexico does... dont feed them

[varkam]

26. Yay human rights!

:puke:

[sam sarrha]

28. just comparing each side of th boarders cost cut'n methods.. least here they can declare bankruptcy

when they get out..

[varkam]

30. And that'll make it *much* easier for them to find a job, get an apartment, get a vehicle...

so on and so forth which really makes a whole life-of-crime outlook much less appealing.

[sam sarrha]

54. i really have no idea what you intend.. i am very aware of the problems, enriching corporate

contractors in an out of control failed system, $100 billion yr for profit industry.

i was a Parole Officer, I really dont need more of your attude, i taught Meditation in the prison, but there are a lot of just evil people, just mentally ill and just damaged lost souls... yea there are a lot of people there shouldn't be there, but, there are Psychopaths that also shouldn't ever leave..

the Right wing has fucked everything up, it will take at least 2 generations to start to straighten things out. if we become a true effective Socialist country. if not the rich will continue to get richer and things worse for us.. till it all falls into a Dark Age like never seen before.. ZARDOZ

[varkam]

59. I humbly submit that you are not very aware of the problems.

Or, rather, you're just aware of those problems that you're comfortable with being aware of.

i was a Parole Officer, I really dont need more of your attude, i taught Meditation in the prison, but there are a lot of just evil people, just mentally ill and just damaged lost souls... yea there are a lot of people there shouldn't be there, but, there are Psychopaths that also shouldn't ever leave..

So let's just not feed the lot of them! How very Buddhist of you. Let me ask you a question - do you think you're qualified to determine who is "evil" and who isn't? I've worked with prisoners too, and the biggest lot of them seem like decent people who have made a mistake (sometimes a very big mistake) - though, admittedly, there are some who probably should stay in there, but that doesn't make them "evil". Of course, I went into those interactions with the belief that they were people - not monsters. I have a friend who was a Parole Officer in New Orleans, and her perspective on things is not nearly as bleak as yours is - so save your argument from authority for someone who will be impressed.

the Right wing has fucked everything up, it will take at least 2 generations to start to straighten things out. if we become a true effective Socialist country. if not the rich will continue to get richer and things worse for us.. till it all falls into a Dark Age like never seen before.. ZARDOZ

?

[sam sarrha]

70. Please... QUIT.. reading your foolish misconceptions into what i wrote, i know it makes you feel

self righteous and superior but you don't get it.. you cant have a conversation that way, get counseling please, not my problem it's you.. the anger comes from YOU. NOTHING I CAN SAY WILL CHANGE YOUR MINDSET. you reiterate things i tried to explain.. so you aren't paying attention.

why am i taking the time to try to explain this to someone in an Apriori Loop... :shrug: you will come to the same conclusion regardless of what or where a reply is made.. there is nothing anyone can do to help you, your only hope is to become involved in art, music/actually learning to play an instrument with a teacher, repetitious exercise/jogging/bicycle distance riding daily/etc, or Meditation. meditation is the easiest

good luck.

[varkam]

74. Have you considered the possibility that...

nothing you can say will change my mindset because nothing you can say is at all persuasive? No - it must be that I'm mentally ill since your positions are so obviously...superior.

there is nothing anyone can do to help you, your only hope is to become involved in art, music/actually learning to play an instrument with a teacher, repetitious exercise/jogging/bicycle distance riding daily/etc, or Meditation. meditation is the easiest

That seems pretty self-righteous and superior coming from someone bitching about others being self-righteous and superior. There's a word for that...irony? No...not that one...

Oh, yeah. It's hypocrisy.

Good luck.

[liberalmuse]

29. I think they're overcharging.

The prisoners could get a much better deal on a room with carpeting, a queen-sized bed and a private bath on Priceline. :eyes:

Instead of trying to make a profit on prisons and human misery: if prisoners can come up with $40 a day, why wouldn't they be paying restitution to their victims instead of lining some corporate asshat's pockets?

[L. Coyote]

52. In Utah, some motels are sill cheaper than that.

However jail comes with food and medical! Were to stay tonight? :rofl:

[ConcernedCanuk]

55. I read the whole thread - "scum" is sorta a broad brush for everyone incarcerated methinks.

.
.
.

There are many in jail for minor offenses.

Many are also innocent.

I spent 8 days in jail for an unpaid fine in the early 80's.

10 people in my "block" - some I liked more than others, but none I would refer to as "scum".

Same thing in the yard, out of a few dozen of us in the yard at any one time, I never met one that I could refer to as "scum"

Nasty word that - "scum"

I discovered that my landlady thinks men are scum

I'm a man,

maybe that's why we do not see eye to eye . .

. . :freak: . .

[Evoman]

64. Geez, it's not enough that people are getting raped in prison and having the crap beat out of them.

Now you want to charge them for it, and leave them in debt once they get out of prison.

The U.S. is one fucked up country...no wonder you guys have so many problems.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. You know what I think? They detected a residual probability that a convict may yet have a life

after they get out of prison, even after the many forms of scarlet letters they throw at them.

And we can't have that, can we?

Punishism is a mental disease. A dangerous, nasty one.

[ljm2002]

69. Neat twist on debtors' prisons...

...since it's unconstitutional to put people in prison for debt, just enslave them with debt after they've been imprisoned.

[GreenArrow]

73. If they can't keep people

on the money provided by taxpayers, then they simply have too many people in jail. It's simply a wrong idea in every particular, and yet more evidence of how screwed up and skewed this country's priorities are.