|
I think this is rare to non-existent unless (a) your debt was the result of fraud; (b) you can pay but refuse to after a court order; (c) you owe a fine to the state.
It's pointless to put someone in prison if they legitimately can't pay. It's easier to garnishee their earnings. And if they get a bad credit report, it becomes very expensive, or even impossible, for them to get credit. Even the government will do other things to make life difficult, such as not renewing your driver's license or license plates.
|
|
|
|
|
I would assume that this varies a lot with the jurisdiction - and with the age. It wouldn't surprise me the least if it varies from state to state in the US of A.
In the old days in Norway (I think we need to go back to the 1800s), you could be thrown in jail for not paying your debt. But in those days, you were then forced to do hard work in prison - chain gang style - until the pay covered your debt.
Today, you are punished for crimes, not for being out of money. If you are fined for some offence, in principle, you can 'pay' by going to prison for a few days (I am not sure that this goes for all sorts of fines), but it is not really a 'pick your choice' thing: It applies only if there is no way that you can dig up the money in any foreseeable future. I doubt that it has been the case in any case for the last fifty years in Norway, but the paper rule still exists.
Rather, Norwegian law gives the authorities the right to demand that any future employer withholds a certain amount of your pay (similar to holding back income taxes) until your debt is paid. Some people may for the rest of their lives see only a fraction of their 'real' pay in their bank account. If the debt is not paid when the person dies, his heirs may accept to inherit the debt, and retain full control over the heirlooms - or they may escape from the debt but loose all rights to anything that the deceased person leaves behind. (In practice, they will always be allowed to keep things that have minimal values to others, such as photo albums, hand written material etc.)
In Norwegian prisons, even today you are obliged to do some work/activity, not to earn money to pay your debt, but to keep you from sinking into a mental black hole of nothingness, as a psychological sort of treatment. It might as well be taking classes at a university offering internet lectures. That is quite different from paying your debt.
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Shaw wrote: Of course, most of what they save is coming out of the public coffers (taxes) to support them.
Charge money for being in prison. Don't we do that already?
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: Charge money for being in prison. Don't we do that already?
We do. But it's charged to the taxpayers, not the individuals in prison.
Well, those individuals are probably also taxpayers, but what they pay individually doesn't even come close to covering their own costs.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why those individuals are billed in addition to taxed.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: That's why those individuals are billed in addition to taxed.
I must admit I'm not familiar at all with the prison system correctional services, but I've never heard of such a thing. At least not around here in Canada. Nor have I done any research on this topic.
But given that (as I remember some article from years ago) it actually costs more than $100K per year per inmate to keep someone in a jail, I can't really see someone being charged for their own costs.
|
|
|
|
|
The US version at least is called "pay-to-stay". In NL it was going to be called "eigen bijdrage" (own contribution) but that law didn't pass the senate, it would have been (initially) €16 per day which is less than 10% of the cost. Of course the obvious way to fix that bug is to increase the amount charged, which I have no doubt would have happened - merely changing the amount would have been easy after the principle had been established.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that info. I have heard about that in the past and it makes sense. It would help mitigate at least some of the cost.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
Nowadays in the US of A, with those profit-oriented, commercial prisons: Aren't prisoners rented out as working slaves to big industry as slave workers? According to the reports I have heard about this business, the prisoners are "paid" for their work - typically less than USD 4/day.
I have my doubts that the "employers" (i.e. the big businesses buying the slave workers) get away with paying USD 4 for a day's work. The commercial prison most likely is paid a lot more. So you could very well say that the prisoner pays for his stay, by the true value of his work less USD 4/day.
One of the my sources tell that since this "Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program" was instated in 1979, the number of inmates have increased by more than a factor of seven - from 300.000 to 2,2 million. That certainly does not reflect the crime being 7+ times higher today. Actually, the level of crime hasn't increased very much at all; it is just used far more as an eyecatcher for selling news reports.
It is worth noting that Penal labor in the United States - Wikipedia[^] includes this is article in a series on slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm of two minds. On one hand, if people are deserving to be in prison, why not put them to work. I don't see why they should get paid for it. They're otherwise not going to be productive anyway, and that's not useful to anyone.
On the other, when the prison system gets so twisted they have an actual incentive to keep more people incarcerated - then the system isn't working.
|
|
|
|
|
It depends, if the investigation proves that one can pay the debt but is willfully not doing it then it's a fitting punishment. If the person simply can't, it depends on which kind of debt it is and how it was incurred - i.e. if the debts are due reparation to the victim of a debtor's crime or not.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
The question you rise is far more general. When does prison punishment make sense? Does it ever serve as a cure to the root of the crime, leading the prisoner away from his way of behavior?
Does anyone seriously believe that the way to make a burglar stay away from future burglary is to put him closely together with a hundred other burglars for a year or two?
What about a dope peddler? Let him meet other dope peddlers, the most important thing they have in common is to talk about how they have managed to stay out of the hands of the police for a long time, and discuss what went wrong so they were caught?
Drug users thrown in prison, how many of those ended up as clean after their sentence? How many learned even more about how to use different drugs?
Putting a lot of political extremists together behind bars, like a boot camp - do they end up as moderates? (Mentioning Guantanamo bay at all is politics, but I dare it: Who thinks that the inmates could ever be released from their cells after 15-20 years and appear as a fierce warrior for Western culture?)
For 'moral violence', such as touching another person's skin in ways we have ruled unlawful: A great majority of such cases result from a lack of skin contact. In our culture, we deny any sort of body contact unless both bodies are covered by at least two layers of cloth (except hand-to-hand contact) unless the two are recognized by law/church as 'lovers'. Look at 'primitive' cultures and our closely related species to see how 'natural' such restrictions are, and how much we can expect the real cause to be addressed by completely isolating the offender - the person seeking physical contact with others of his own species - so that he will have no opportunity to cover basic biological needs? It is like a starved man breaking into a bakery for a loaf of bread, trying to treat his urges for food by putting him in a cage and denying him any food!
Imprisonment serves a single purpose: Revenge! Vengeance!
Oh well ... Sometimes prison oppression may succeed in completely breaking down a human, making him an obedient, submissive slave of the demands of the society, deprived of any pride. But in the great majority of cases, or main goal is revenge, vengeance and 'keep that guy away from me'. It has very little to do with bringing the person back as a fully functional member of society.
The US of A has certainly not been in the forefront of trying alternate forms of treatment with the goal to really cure the underlaying problem and bring the offenders back to society. Other countries can point to treatment programs with far higher success rates in bringing offenders back to society as ordinary citizens.
Tying this up with the original issue: Even if you for the rest of your life have a third of your net income confiscated to cover your debts, but you can keep on in your ordinary job, that is far better than having to serve in a prison chain gang for several years.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with a large part of what you're saying. For one, marijuana use was made legal in Canada a few years ago, certainly not so much to "allow people" to start using it, but to decriminalize its possession and use. That's an argument a lot of people seemed to be missing when it was still at the discussion stage. I never agreed that it was fair for a kid caught with pot ending up with a criminal record, which automatically disqualified him from many types of jobs for the rest of his life.
trønderen wrote: Imprisonment serves a single purpose: Revenge! Vengeance!
That I disagree with. Off the top of my head - it's enough to act as a deterrent for many people who otherwise might give into a life of crime, and - perhaps most importantly - it's about protecting the rest of society from a potentially dangerous individual. Some people need more than a slap on the wrist.
Ultimately it's all about the severity of the crime, which really has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I'm a rather opinionated guy, and I could write a lot on this topic (both agreeing and disagreeing with some of what you wrote) but for brevity's sake, I'm just gonna leave it at that. 
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with everything you said on the subject.
As for marijuana, it should not have been listed as a schedule one drug, like heroin, in the first place. Back in the day, the US federal government had to go all out with the propaganda machine in order to convince enough states to sign on to that ridiculous idea. People stoned on marijuana do not change into drug crazed maniacs, as per the propaganda at the time. They are more likely to zone out and forget what ever is was they were planning to do. Studies back then and since then has shown that alcohol is ultimately worse, and some of those people actually do become maniacal.
Question:
What's the difference between a drunk person and a stoned one?
Answer:
The drunk may blow past the stop sign at the intersection like it is not there. The stoned person will stop and wait for it to turn green.
One of those will get people killed. The other is just annoying to the rest of us.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Shaw wrote: What's the difference between a drunk person and a stoned one?
I remember the argument actual police forces were trying to make when the law had passed, but was not yet into effect - claiming that it was being rushed, they weren't ready, and they did not have the equipment or training needed to catch someone driving stoned.
WTF? Some people have been driving stoned long before the law came into effect...were police forces admitting they couldn't catch those people then? To that end, the law didn't change anything - it was illegal to drive stoned before, and it still is after. What was there to get "ready" for?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, that makes no sense. A officer with any experience at all can tell when somebody is stoned. As for stopping someone, the first sign is the strong odor eliminating from the vehicle.
When the state of Colorado made it legal, they obviously were not prepared either. Because all they did was modify their existing laws to include being stoned. More accurately they just decided that being stoned was the same as being drunk and applied the same laws. Which goes to show, that they had no idea what the difference was.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Only those who are dangerously violent belong in prison. The courts should focus on restitution to whatever extent possible. And if there's no one to make whole, there wasn't a crime, so good riddance to all victimless crime laws.
|
|
|
|
|
When a person is convicted of a crime, the common options available for society are shaming, restitution, correction, prevention, and vengeance.
Shaming is no longer practiced in most modern countries (you don't see people in the stocks very often these days).
Restitution is appropriate for crimes involving money (theft, burglary, damage to property, embezzlement, etc.). In other cases (assault, bodily harm, etc.) restitution may be part of the punishment but should not be all of it.
Correction is appropriate when the "root cause" of the crime is known. It is the "Holy Grail" of criminology, but despite many theories being propounded and much money being spent, we are no closer to understanding the "root causes" of crime than we were in the distant past, to say nothing of finding a cure.
If all else fails, we can, at least, keep the criminal away from the rest of us, which is the purpose of prisons.
Finally, let's not ignore the role of vengeance in human affairs. It is probably better to let the Law mete out a measured amount of vengeance to a criminal than have people start blood feuds that can go on for generations.
Our legal systems are far from perfect, but most Western countries are at least trying to make the punishment fit the crime.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you.
I once read about a law somewhere that required a burglar, or monetary thief, to pay the victim 2 or more times the amount they stole from them. That sounds like a reasonable punishment punishment to me.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
That is the Biblical law (Exodus 21 verse 37 - Exodus 22 verse 3).
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Shaming is no longer practiced in most modern countries (you don't see people in the stocks very often these days).
National Geographic had (maybe still has) a TV series called "Taboo". In one of the early seasons, one episode addressed "Justice", and one of the case studies was from Huston, Texas, where you could be sentenced to walk up and down along the highway, carrying a big sign: "I did so-and-so". You can't deny that this is explicit shaming, humiliation. (I guess that denying that Huston, Texas, lies in a "modern country" would be unacceptable politics in the Lounge... )
It looks like this Taboo episode was produced in 2003, so it is almost 18 years old. Maybe the practice has ended today. But 18 years ago, it was practiced, and in the episode, there are some strong defenders of it. So it probably didn't disappear immediately after the publication of the NGT TV program.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm aware of similar cases, which is why I wrote most modern countries.
Shaming can be very effective - if done in the correct forum. There was a case of a man who had the nasty habit of exposing himself in public. His sentence was reported in the local paper (read by about 100,000 people), but as he had a common name, he could ignore it. When it was reported in the newsletter of his professional association, read by only a few hundred people personally known to him, he became suicidal.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Our legal systems are far from perfect, but most Western countries are at least trying to make the punishment fit the crime.
There's still a long way to go in that respect. Compare time served by mere hackers against rapists and murderers.
Heck, does Ed Snowden deserve to live a life of exile? Julian Assange?
|
|
|
|
|
A rapist or murderer does extreme damage retail. A "mere hacker" does (mostly) small damage wholesale.
A hacker can also cause major damage wholesale. For example, how many people would die if a hacker brought down the electrical grid in your area, or if a hacker published sensitive data regarding ongoing intelligence operations?
I won't comment on specific cases, as that would be verging too closely to "politics in the lounge".
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand your line of reasoning, but how many actual, real-life instances have there been of hackers affecting people (on a large scale, as you're suggesting would be possible) in the same way a murder affects one person (and that person's social circle)?
But then, I remember an article from the BBC a few months ago in which the NHS mentioned people have died on an operating table because some ransomware prevented staff from accessing hospital records. Now that, I have no problem sending those responsible with the rapists and murderers.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
