[E's Lil Theorem]

County Wants To Charge Inmates For Jail Stays
Lowest Rate Would Be $6 A Night

JOLIET, Ill. -- Officials in one Illinois county want to change state law so they can bill criminals for their stay in the county jail.

The Will County Board has asked its lobbyist to push for the change so all counties can try to recoup jail costs.

The county auditor proposed the plan after hearing about its success in a county near Detroit. He said taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for criminals' room and board.

Officials said they'd likely charge inmates on a sliding scale based on ability to pay -- with the lowest rate being $6 a night.

Critics argue inmates are already paying by losing their freedom. And a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said the state has a "moral obligation" to care for the people it's incarcerated.

Linkage.

I agree with the "critics" who say the inmates are already paying by losing their freedom, but that's just me.

[BRussell]

I consult for an institution that holds prisoners under a kind of house arrest where they're allowed out to work. But we charge them room and board. The state loves it because it's not as costly.

The problem with doing this in prison is that it is quite expensive to pay for the facilities and guards and all that. It's probably a lot more expensive than simply renting an apartment, for example. And of course the inmates aren't working, so it's hard to expect them to pay. It's not like most of these folks have savings.

[Millennium]

At $6/night, that's over $2000/year. That gets prohibitive for many prisoners very quickly, and what are you going to do when they can't pay? Send them to jail, when that's what they couldn't pay for in the first place? Fine them, which is counterproductive given that they already don't have enough to pay for the stay?

I could see something like this working for people with short sentences, no less than a couple of months. But for long-term prisoners this is absolutely unworkable. Furthermore, the sliding-scale method -punishing people extra simply because they can pay more- is unconscionable, a case of treating people unequally under the law.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
At $6/night, that's over $2000/year. That gets prohibitive for many prisoners very quickly, and what are you going to do when they can't pay?

Kick them out on the street!

And what happens in the case of wrongful arrest? Or detention for someone awaiting trial who's not guilty? Do they get their money back?

Originally posted by Millennium:
Furthermore, the sliding-scale method -punishing people extra simply because they can pay more- is unconscionable, a case of treating people unequally under the law.

Totally agree. Our government has suggested doing the same thing here with various fines (driving offences, etc.) - it didn't go down too well with the public at all.
Not to mention that it'd entail the government breaching the EU Charter of Human Rights (which guarantees equal treatment regardless of race/sex/etc/property/wealth).

[OldManMac]

If they didn't commit crimes, they wouldn't have to worry about coughing up money for cell space.

[Millennium]

As an alternative for short-term prisoners, one might work out a system such as this. The first night in prison in a term costs $128, the second costs $64, the third costs $32, and so on, until the seventh day costs $2. After that, it's $1/night.

The end result of this is that a seven-day stay in prison costs $254, which would take 43 days under the $6-per-day idea that most prisoners would undoubtedly face under the alternative proposal. It takes 51 days -almost two months- before this plan actually brings in less money than the proposal. The result is that even though all people are treated equally by being charged the same rates, the burden is shifted towards people with shorter terms, and the total bill increases slowly enough for long terms that it can be managed.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Kick them out on the street!

Wonderful; so you can get out of prison simply by not paying.

Please understand, my opposition to this particular proposal isn't so much out of altruism as out of pragmatism: there is little meaning in knowingly billing people in amounts that you know most of them won't be able to pay. You'll spend more money administering the program and dealing with bankruptcies and defaults and such than you'll ever take in.

And what happens in the case of wrongful arrest? Or detention for someone awaiting trial who's not guilty? Do they get their money back?

Another problem. Certainly someone who is wrongfully imprisoned should not be charged for the stay, or entitled to a full refund if payment has already been submitted. Sliding scales can make the refund aspect very difficult if not impossible, but carefully constructing the rates based on length of stay can make it quite simple to make sure that someone who wrongfully pays gets back everything they're owed.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Please understand, my opposition to this particular proposal isn't so much out of altruism as out of pragmatism: there is little meaning in knowingly billing people in amounts that you know most of them won't be able to pay. You'll spend more money administering the program and dealing with bankruptcies and defaults and such than you'll ever take in.

Absolutely. If this plan had been dreamt up here, the fact that it contains a sliding scale according to ability to pay would mean it'd been envisioned by "the left" parties (because "the right" would never advocate punishing the rich more simply because they happen to be rich). This would probably mean that it hadn't been thought through properly, because "the left" parties never think anything through properly and tend to simply react to public opinion in the fastest, sloppiest way they can.
I don't know if it's the same over there and this is from Dem-leaning people, but this would be the case here.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Another problem. Certainly someone who is wrongfully imprisoned should not be charged for the stay, or entitled to a full refund if payment has already been submitted. Sliding scales can make the refund aspect very difficult if not impossible, but carefully constructing the rates based on length of stay can make it quite simple to make sure that someone who wrongfully pays gets back everything they're owed.

This raises an additional problem...
We all know that government departments are hyper fast at demanding money yet slow to pay out. What if some guy has been arrested on false information and jailed for a week yet didn't do it? That week not working and having to stand out of that $254 could seriously affect his life. If he's a low-income guy, that $254 waiting in the county purse (and thus not available to him to buy food/pay bills) could break him.

Also, how exactly are the county going to get paid? Install cash machines in their prisons? Take cheques? VISA? Gain direct access into your bank account? Anything involving direct government access to my bank account tends to worry me more than a little.

[mitchell_pgh]

Most people don't spend much more then a few months in a county jail. It's only temporary before going to a state/federal prison.

Unless you are set free.

[OreoCookie]

If you take an inmates ability to earn money, how are they supposed to pay for it. What about people who are wrongfully convicted?

Just populist bs, because it is practically not feasible.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
If you take an inmates ability to earn money, how are they supposed to pay for it. What about people who are wrongfully convicted?

Just populist bs, because it is practically not feasible.

Its line when they put people in jail for not paying child support. How is that going to help? Make them work in shlters or soup kitchens instead.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
If you take an inmates ability to earn money, how are they supposed to pay for it. What about people who are wrongfully convicted?

Just populist bs, because it is practically not feasible.

I don't know that I think this is a good idea from a policy point of view, but:

First, according to the article, this county is considering it because another county has done the same thing successfully. So obviously, it is feasible.

Second, a lot of people in jail do have assets. They pay for other things -- lawyers, filing fees for appeals, and so on. They sometimes have rights to obtain those things for free if they are indigent, but if they have the money, they pay. In principle I don't see this as all that different.

Note also, those lawyer's bills etc are not refunded if you are aquitted or the charges are dropped.

Note additionally it isn't uncommon for fines to be assessed as well as jail sentences. It seems to be that this is essentially a fine.

Third, prisoners pay for certain personal items in jail or prison. Prisons have commissaries.

Fourth, people in jail aren't automatically exempted from all of their living expenses. For example, child support. In practice that usually falls into arrears, but AFIAK, it doesn't just go away. I don't see a fundamental difference between one living expense and another.

Fifth, people in jail often earn a small amount of money through prison employment.

As I say, I don't think this is a great idea from a policy point of view and there may be constitutional arguments I haven't thought of. But I don't think that your particular objections are valid.

[nath]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Linkage.

I agree with the "critics" who say the inmates are already paying by losing their freedom, but that's just me.

Hmm. In the UK we only charge them if they are freed on appeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2004843.stm

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't know that I think this is a good idea from a policy point of view, but:

First, according to the article, this county is considering it because another county has done the same thing successfully. So obviously, it is feasible.

Second, a lot of people in jail do have assets. They pay for other things -- lawyers, filing fees for appeals, and so on. They sometimes have rights to obtain those things for free if they are indigent, but if they have the money, they pay. In principle I don't see this as all that different.

Note also, those lawyer's bills etc are not refunded if you are aquitted or the charges are dropped.

Note additionally it isn't uncommon for fines to be assessed as well as jail sentences. It seems to be that this is essentially a fine.

Third, prisoners pay for certain personal items in jail or prison. Prisons have commissaries.

Fourth, people in jail aren't automatically exempted from all of their living expenses. For example, child support. In practice that usually falls into arrears, but AFIAK, it doesn't just go away. I don't see a fundamental difference between one living expense and another.

Fifth, people in jail often earn a small amount of money through prison employment.

As I say, I don't think this is a great idea from a policy point of view and there may be constitutional arguments I haven't thought of. But I don't think that your particular objections are valid.

Paying for your accomodation in prison does not compare to -- say -- child support. In particular, at least in Germany, if your income is below self-sufficiency, you don't (or rather: can't) pay child support. So (at least from a German perspective), a guy in jail would probably stop paying child support, unless he has other substantial assets.

Also, AFAIK, prison employment pays far below minimum wage. Another point is that the inmates (indirectly) pay for the prison (at least partially), if they work there, because of their low hourly wage.

So, in conclusion, I think my points still are valid.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Paying for your accomodation in prison does not compare to -- say -- child support. In particular, at least in Germany, if your income is below self-sufficiency, you don't (or rather: can't) pay child support. So (at least from a German perspective), a guy in jail would probably stop paying child support, unless he has other substantial assets.

Also, AFAIK, prison employment pays far below minimum wage. Another point is that the inmates (indirectly) pay for the prison (at least partially), if they work there, because of their low hourly wage.

So, in conclusion, I think my points still are valid.

Well, here we go again. This county is in Illinois, not Germany.

Besides, you said yourself: "unless he has other substantial assets." Some inmates in a county jail undoubtedly have assets to pay the expenses (and fines) I outlined above. In principle, this is no different.

I don't agree that inmates pay for prison through cheap labor. Minimum wage laws have to do with the cost of living for productive citizens who have to pay living expenses. Minimum wage laws simply don't apply in this context. Prisoners are given work to do principally for rehabilitative reasons. It teaches them skills, and keeps them busy and sane. They are also allowed to earn what amounts to pocket money to buy small amounts of personal effects and luxuries.

The enormous cost of prisons and jails is paid for by productive citizens through their taxes. It's not paid for by stamping a few license tags. AFAIK, In most states and in the federal system, prison employment is lossmaking.

I don't personally like the idea of charging for incarcarating people. It just doesn't sit right to me. But I can't put my finger on any principled reason why the idea is wrong given all the other things that prisoners with assets already pay for. I certainly don't find any of your objections remotely persuasive.

[Wiskedjak]

I think if the cost of getting caught committing a crime goes up, people might think twice about committing that crime. Obviously, the threat of jail is not enough for some. And then there are the people who committed crimes with the sole purpose of getting shelter and food for the winter.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think if the cost of getting caught committing a crime goes up, people might think twice about committing that crime. Obviously, the threat of jail is not enough for some.

I think it's pretty clear that for many people, the costs of getting caught do not enter into their thinking at all.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I consult for an institution...

What do you do, anyway, BRussell? I think I've learned that you have a secretary, and that you're dangerous when armed with statistics software. But beyond that I have no idea.

Oh, and this idea is just bizarre. They could make them work at piddling little jobs, and consider that their rent I suppose, but extracting money for prisoners is nuts.

And Wisked, I think BRussell is spot on. The Rockefeller drug laws and "three strikes" rules have shown, I think, that people generally pay little attention to sentences when committing a crime. After all, most people committing a crime do NOT think they will be caught.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Mithras:
And Wisked, I think BRussell is spot on. The Rockefeller drug laws and "three strikes" rules have shown, I think, that people generally pay little attention to sentences when committing a crime. After all, most people committing a crime do NOT think they will be caught.

I agree. Obviously the thought of spending time in prison is not much of a deterrent. Perhaps a hit to the pocket book might have an impact on their thoughts.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Mithras:
What do you do, anyway, BRussell?

I'm a librul psychologist indoctrinating witless university students into anti-American leftist thinking while doing Godless research that if Bill O'Reilly knew about it the taxpayers would demand that my funding be withdrawn. But I'm thinking of becoming a conservative commentator - I hear they make more money.

The consulting thing is just "pro-bono" work, but I really believe in what they're doing. They do make people pay their way (partially), but believe me, they'd much rather be there than in prison.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Millennium:
At $6/night, that's over $2000/year. That gets prohibitive for many prisoners very quickly, and what are you going to do when they can't pay? Send them to jail, when that's what they couldn't pay for in the first place? Fine them, which is counterproductive given that they already don't have enough to pay for the stay?

I could see something like this working for people with short sentences, no less than a couple of months. But for long-term prisoners this is absolutely unworkable. Furthermore, the sliding-scale method -punishing people extra simply because they can pay more- is unconscionable, a case of treating people unequally under the law.

I think you might be confusing jail and prison. A county jail is for short term incarceration (ie. less than a year, usually misdemeanors), while a state prison is for long term incarceration (felony convictions, sentences are more than a year in length). Although I don't have any stats, I would feel confident in saying that a large majority of prisoners in county jails are there for six months or less.

Here in New York, inmates that work in prisons do receive a wage, although it is a very small one. I don't know what it is now, but it used to be somewhere in the range of $.15 an hour. A state corporation called Corcraft sells the products they make, and the money goes towards supporting the correctional system. All state agencies must by available products from Corcraft before putting it out to bid from private vendors. So, at least indirectly, the inmates in New York State are contributing to their own costs. Remember those little chairs with the built in desktop in high school? Loving built at Ossing Correctional Facility (aka Sing-Sing).

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I think you might be confusing jail and prison. A county jail is for short term incarceration (ie. less than a year, usually misdemeanors), while a state prison is for long term incarceration (felony convictions, sentences are more than a year in length). Although I don't have any stats, I would feel confident in saying that a large majority of prisoners in county jails are there for six months or less.

Here in New York, inmates that work in prisons do receive a wage, although it is a very small one. I don't know what it is now, but it used to be somewhere in the range of $.15 an hour. A state corporation called Corcraft sells the products they make, and the money goes towards supporting the correctional system. All state agencies must by available products from Corcraft before putting it out to bid from private vendors. So, at least indirectly, the inmates in New York State are contributing to their own costs. Remember those little chairs with the built in desktop in high school? Loving built at Ossing Correctional Facility (aka Sing-Sing).

that's precisely what I said... most of them are there for 3-4 months... many are just there for a week or whatever... people that can't pay bail etc.

[ThinkInsane]

Sorry about that Mitch, I must have glanced right over your post.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, here we go again. This county is in Illinois, not Germany.

Besides, you said yourself: "unless he has other substantial assets." Some inmates in a county jail undoubtedly have assets to pay the expenses (and fines) I outlined above. In principle, this is no different.

I don't agree that inmates pay for prison through cheap labor. Minimum wage laws have to do with the cost of living for productive citizens who have to pay living expenses. Minimum wage laws simply don't apply in this context. Prisoners are given work to do principally for rehabilitative reasons. It teaches them skills, and keeps them busy and sane. They are also allowed to earn what amounts to pocket money to buy small amounts of personal effects and luxuries.

The enormous cost of prisons and jails is paid for by productive citizens through their taxes. It's not paid for by stamping a few license tags. AFAIK, In most states and in the federal system, prison employment is lossmaking.

I don't personally like the idea of charging for incarcarating people. It just doesn't sit right to me. But I can't put my finger on any principled reason why the idea is wrong given all the other things that prisoners with assets already pay for. I certainly don't find any of your objections remotely persuasive.

Well, at least we share the idea that it's not a good idea to charge people for their time in prison.

For me, it would feel like a shot in the foot. The inmates' personal freedom have been taken away, as was most luxury they enjoyed, including the ability to earn more than minimum wage.

To charge them for their time there, they would have even more difficulties to start a `new' life. This point is IMHO even more important since poor persons are far more likely to end up in jail.