The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Make people pay for their own prison term?

ANTVGM64ANTVGM64 Registered User regular
edited July 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
This is kind of cool.



To summarize, a New York lawmaker wants to make rich people who are convicted of various crimes, pay for their own prison stay, the example for the article was Bernie Madoff.

I think it's a pretty cool idea.

ANTVGM64 on
«1345

Posts

  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tedisco's bill will charge white-collar criminals on a sliding scale based on the amount of assets they have. Inmates with $200,000 or more in assets must foot the entire bill, while those with a net worth of $160,000 to $200,000 pay 80 percent of the tab. Those whose net worth is below $40,000 would not be required to pay anything.

    Some immediate concerns that come to mind:
    -How does the bill define 'white-collar criminals'?
    -Someone who owes $50,000 on his $100,000 house and supports a family of five is already in enough trouble if sent to prison. This seems kind of ham-handed.

    TL DR on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Why not just add a fine?

    Quid on
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Didn't we already take all of Madoff's money? I mean I assume that all the people he scammed have divided up everything that is left by this point. I mean sure, if Bill Gates shoots a guy I could see something like this but Madoff seems like a poor example.

    Neaden on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    Why not just add a fine?

    this is a fine that goes to a certain place, pretty much

    Medopine on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Neaden wrote: »
    Didn't we already take all of Madoff's money? I mean I assume that all the people he scammed have divided up everything that is left by this point. I mean sure, if Bill Gates shoots a guy I could see something like this but Madoff seems like a poor example.
    His wife is actually keeping a few million.

    Quid on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Tedisco's bill will charge white-collar criminals on a sliding scale based on the amount of assets they have. Inmates with $200,000 or more in assets must foot the entire bill, while those with a net worth of $160,000 to $200,000 pay 80 percent of the tab. Those whose net worth is below $40,000 would not be required to pay anything.

    Some immediate concerns that come to mind:
    -How does the bill define 'white-collar criminals'?
    -Someone who owes $50,000 on his $100,000 house and supports a family of five is already in enough trouble if sent to prison. This seems kind of ham-handed.
    You should probably read the whole article.

    Thanatos on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Tedisco's bill will charge white-collar criminals on a sliding scale based on the amount of assets they have. Inmates with $200,000 or more in assets must foot the entire bill, while those with a net worth of $160,000 to $200,000 pay 80 percent of the tab. Those whose net worth is below $40,000 would not be required to pay anything.

    Some immediate concerns that come to mind:
    -How does the bill define 'white-collar criminals'?
    -Someone who owes $50,000 on his $100,000 house and supports a family of five is already in enough trouble if sent to prison. This seems kind of ham-handed.
    You should probably read the whole article.
    Someone with an expensive house could easily have a net worth over $200,000 and still owe a lot of money on his mortgage.

    Pi-r8 on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Tedisco's bill will charge white-collar criminals on a sliding scale based on the amount of assets they have. Inmates with $200,000 or more in assets must foot the entire bill, while those with a net worth of $160,000 to $200,000 pay 80 percent of the tab. Those whose net worth is below $40,000 would not be required to pay anything.

    Some immediate concerns that come to mind:
    -How does the bill define 'white-collar criminals'?
    -Someone who owes $50,000 on his $100,000 house and supports a family of five is already in enough trouble if sent to prison. This seems kind of ham-handed.
    You should probably read the whole article.
    Someone with an expensive house could easily have a net worth over $200,000 and still owe a lot of money on his mortgage.

    Thanatos on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I very much get the sense that the spirit of this is a desire to punish people further, like adding additional days to a person's sentence of forcing them to pay a bit more in fines just for the hell of it. I can't say I agree with that.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I very much get the sense that the spirit of this is a desire to punish people further, like adding additional days to a person's sentence of forcing them to pay a bit more in fines just for the hell of it. I can't say I agree with that.
    When it comes to rich, white collar criminals, we absolutely need to punish them more. I don't really care whether it's out of a spirit of justice or spite, they do not get anywhere near the sentences they deserve, and the outcome is correct, regardless.

    Thanatos on
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    White collar crime is just a drop in the bucket isn't it?

    is this supposed to reduce our enormous prison cost?

    Casual Eddy on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    nevermind

    Pi-r8 on
  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Tedisco's bill will charge white-collar criminals on a sliding scale based on the amount of assets they have. Inmates with $200,000 or more in assets must foot the entire bill, while those with a net worth of $160,000 to $200,000 pay 80 percent of the tab. Those whose net worth is below $40,000 would not be required to pay anything.
    Some immediate concerns that come to mind:
    -How does the bill define 'white-collar criminals'?
    -Someone who owes $50,000 on his $100,000 house and supports a family of five is already in enough trouble if sent to prison. This seems kind of ham-handed.
    You should probably read the whole article.
    Someone with an expensive house could easily have a net worth over $200,000 and still owe a lot of money on his mortgage.

    Relevant bit here:
    The asset bracket does not include the value of an inmate's home or any equity found in it, and is calculated after deductions for an inmate's mortgage payments, tax bills or payments for child or spousal support.

    This just seems like a fancy fine dressed up to take advantage of Madoff's case.

    Sarksus on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    As much as my blue-collar rage wants to "fuck yeah!" and fistpump over the idea of rich assholes funding the system they're being held in, other more rational parts of my brain find this a somewhat worrisome development.

    Not on it's own, I guess. Just the possible extrapolations that lead to "bullet fees" and such.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • LachoneusLachoneus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    thats a decent idea.

    or we could just not pay inmates for the jobs they do in jails. that would save us money (obviously not a ton). but why are we paying them? anyway...

    Lachoneus on
    "No women. No kids."
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ANTVGM64 wrote: »
    This is kind of cool.



    To summarize, a New York lawmaker wants to make rich people who are convicted of various crimes, pay for their own prison stay, the example for the article was Bernie Madoff.

    I think it's a pretty cool idea.

    If the sentencing isn't harsh enough, and their treatment within correctional facilities is too lax, why not push to make sentencing and prison guidelines more harsh rather than tacking extra fines and shit on more broadly? It's not double jeopardy like some 'tough on criminals, grrr!' crap, but it seems like it's attacking the leaves of a problem rather than its root.

    moniker on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    tubaloth wrote: »
    thats a decent idea.

    or we could just not pay inmates for the jobs they do in jails. that would save us money (obviously not a ton). but why are we paying them? anyway...
    Because slavery is wrong?

    Not to mention that usually what they're getting paid just goes towards their restitution, that is usually so much that there's no way a convicted felon will ever be able to pay it.

    Thanatos on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Tedisco's bill will charge white-collar criminals on a sliding scale based on the amount of assets they have. Inmates with $200,000 or more in assets must foot the entire bill, while those with a net worth of $160,000 to $200,000 pay 80 percent of the tab. Those whose net worth is below $40,000 would not be required to pay anything.

    Some immediate concerns that come to mind:
    -How does the bill define 'white-collar criminals'?
    -Someone who owes $50,000 on his $100,000 house and supports a family of five is already in enough trouble if sent to prison. This seems kind of ham-handed.
    You should probably read the whole article.

    Or even the very paragraph after the one I quoted. Well, this is what happens when I get distracted in mid-post and come back to finish without reviewing my position.

    TL DR on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I very much get the sense that the spirit of this is a desire to punish people further, like adding additional days to a person's sentence of forcing them to pay a bit more in fines just for the hell of it. I can't say I agree with that.
    When it comes to rich, white collar criminals, we absolutely need to punish them more. I don't really care whether it's out of a spirit of justice or spite, they do not get anywhere near the sentences they deserve, and the outcome is correct, regardless.

    Frankly, I don't think all white collar criminals are created equal, and as such they don't all merit the same penalty tacked onto their sentences just because they happen to be in the same tax bracket.

    Second of all, this extra penalty has less impact on white collar criminals with more money. To a millionaire, this would be a drop in the bucket.

    If you really want to save money, push for fewer prisoners rather than forcing a small subset of prisoners to fork over several thousand dollars. If you really want to hurt these guys more, push for stiffer sentences, not this petty shit that the worst of them won't even feel.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I very much get the sense that the spirit of this is a desire to punish people further, like adding additional days to a person's sentence of forcing them to pay a bit more in fines just for the hell of it. I can't say I agree with that.
    When it comes to rich, white collar criminals, we absolutely need to punish them more. I don't really care whether it's out of a spirit of justice or spite, they do not get anywhere near the sentences they deserve, and the outcome is correct, regardless.

    So why not push for a bill making various white collar criminal acts that much worse? Either through mandatory minimums (though I rather hate those) or by changing sentencing guidelines to make it represent the truly deplorable, premeditated, and truly cold blooded reality of white collar crime and the lives it destroys? I can't think of anyone (outside of people currently perpetrating wire fraud) who wouldn't go 'fuck yeah!' to that.

    moniker on
  • LachoneusLachoneus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tubaloth wrote: »
    thats a decent idea.

    or we could just not pay inmates for the jobs they do in jails. that would save us money (obviously not a ton). but why are we paying them? anyway...
    Because slavery is wrong?

    Not to mention that usually what they're getting paid just goes towards their restitution, that is usually so much that there's no way a convicted felon will ever be able to pay it.

    meh... i dont see it as slavery. they dont pay for their food, education, health care (other then like a $5 co-pay), water, electricity, sewage, cable, etc...

    aslo. i didnt know it went the their restitution. still doesnt change my opinion.

    Lachoneus on
    "No women. No kids."
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I very much get the sense that the spirit of this is a desire to punish people further, like adding additional days to a person's sentence of forcing them to pay a bit more in fines just for the hell of it. I can't say I agree with that.
    When it comes to rich, white collar criminals, we absolutely need to punish them more. I don't really care whether it's out of a spirit of justice or spite, they do not get anywhere near the sentences they deserve, and the outcome is correct, regardless.
    Frankly, I don't think all white collar criminals are created equal, and as such they don't all merit the same penalty tacked onto their sentences just because they happen to be in the same tax bracket.

    Second of all, this extra penalty has less impact on white collar criminals with more money. To a millionaire, this would be a drop in the bucket.

    If you really want to save money, push for fewer prisoners rather than forcing a small subset of prisoners to fork over several thousand dollars. If you really want to hurt these guys more, push for stiffer sentences, not this petty shit that the worst of them won't even feel.
    I think all white-collar criminals are created equal, and that people in high tax brackets who commit crimes should get harsher sentences.

    If I shoplift because I can't afford to buy food, the penalty is actually more in many states than if I shoplift an expensive suit just because I want the thrill, but can afford to buy it. That's fucking ridiculous, and the opposite should be true; need should be a mitigating factor for a crime, not an aggravating one.

    Thanatos on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    tubaloth wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tubaloth wrote: »
    thats a decent idea.

    or we could just not pay inmates for the jobs they do in jails. that would save us money (obviously not a ton). but why are we paying them? anyway...
    Because slavery is wrong?

    Not to mention that usually what they're getting paid just goes towards their restitution, that is usually so much that there's no way a convicted felon will ever be able to pay it.
    meh... i dont see it as slavery. they dont pay for their food, education, health care (other then like a $5 co-pay), water, electricity, sewage, cable, etc...
    Neither do slaves.

    Thanatos on
  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I very much get the sense that the spirit of this is a desire to punish people further, like adding additional days to a person's sentence of forcing them to pay a bit more in fines just for the hell of it. I can't say I agree with that.
    When it comes to rich, white collar criminals, we absolutely need to punish them more. I don't really care whether it's out of a spirit of justice or spite, they do not get anywhere near the sentences they deserve, and the outcome is correct, regardless.

    Frankly, I don't think all white collar criminals are created equal, and as such they don't all merit the same penalty tacked onto their sentences just because they happen to be in the same tax bracket.

    Second of all, this extra penalty has less impact on white collar criminals with more money. To a millionaire, this would be a drop in the bucket.

    I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a punishment and just a way of paying for someone's incarceration.

    This bill is pretty stupid, though. If your assets amount to at least $200,000 then you must pay for your entire sentence. At the $70.75 cost per day quoted in the article that would mean if you actually had $200,000 available you would only be able to finance approximately seven years of your sentence. What happens after that?

    Sarksus on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    tubaloth wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tubaloth wrote: »
    thats a decent idea.

    or we could just not pay inmates for the jobs they do in jails. that would save us money (obviously not a ton). but why are we paying them? anyway...
    Because slavery is wrong?

    Not to mention that usually what they're getting paid just goes towards their restitution, that is usually so much that there's no way a convicted felon will ever be able to pay it.

    meh... i dont see it as slavery. they dont pay for their food, education, health care (other then like a $5 co-pay), water, electricity, sewage, cable, etc...

    aslo. i didnt know it went the their restitution. still doesnt change my opinion.
    Are we going to count them as 3/5 of a resident in the census as well?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If I shoplift because I can't afford to buy food, the penalty is actually less in many states than if I shoplift an expensive suit just because I want the thrill, but can afford to buy it. That's fucking ridiculous, and the opposite should be true; need should be a mitigating factor for a crime, not an aggravating one.

    ...that's what you just described. Did you mean to say that stealing the suit nets less of a penalty than stealing a loaf of bread?

    moniker on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If I shoplift because I can't afford to buy food, the penalty is actually more in many states than if I shoplift an expensive suit just because I want the thrill, but can afford to buy it. That's fucking ridiculous, and the opposite should be true; need should be a mitigating factor for a crime, not an aggravating one.
    ...that's what you just described. Did you mean to say that stealing the suit nets less of a penalty than stealing a loaf of bread?
    I said exactly what I meant.

    Thanatos on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I think all white-collar criminals are created equal, and that people in high tax brackets who commit crimes should get harsher sentences.

    You don't think some white-collar criminals are worse than other white-collar criminals?

    Cuz that's what I meant.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    As has been said already, it seems that a more effective measure would be to drastically increase the penalties associated with 'white-collar' crimes, so that someone who steals $40,000 is looking at orders of magnitude more punishment than someone who shoplifts some CDs.

    All in all, reducing the number of people in prison should be a top priority for the nation.

    TL DR on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Aside from Madoff, when's the last time a really wealthy person went to prison for long enough to make this kind of legislation feasible? Even really extravagant embezzlement charges only seem to get them five years or so.

    The Enron scandal probably yielded a few, but all I can remember from that was the guy who had an oddly fortuitous heart attack just before sentencing.

    Rust on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If I shoplift because I can't afford to buy food, the penalty is actually more in many states than if I shoplift an expensive suit just because I want the thrill, but can afford to buy it. That's fucking ridiculous, and the opposite should be true; need should be a mitigating factor for a crime, not an aggravating one.
    ...that's what you just described. Did you mean to say that stealing the suit nets less of a penalty than stealing a loaf of bread?
    I said exactly what I meant.

    Then what you said makes no sense. It is "fucking ridiculous' that a starving man who steals a loaf of bread receives a slap on the wrists of a prison sentence while a rich klepto like Winona Rider is actually penalized?

    o_O

    moniker on
  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If I shoplift because I can't afford to buy food, the penalty is actually more in many states than if I shoplift an expensive suit just because I want the thrill, but can afford to buy it. That's fucking ridiculous, and the opposite should be true; need should be a mitigating factor for a crime, not an aggravating one.
    ...that's what you just described. Did you mean to say that stealing the suit nets less of a penalty than stealing a loaf of bread?
    I said exactly what I meant.

    So it is "fucking ridiculous' that a starving man who steals a loaf of bread receives a slap on the wrists of a prison sentence while a rich klepto like Winona Rider is actually penalized?

    o_O

    He's saying that the penalty for stealing food is higher than the penalty for stealing a suit and that the opposite should be true. I believe his argument stems from "the poor and the minorities get fucked by the justice system and the wealthy get a slap on the wrist".

    Sarksus on
  • LachoneusLachoneus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tubaloth wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tubaloth wrote: »
    thats a decent idea.

    or we could just not pay inmates for the jobs they do in jails. that would save us money (obviously not a ton). but why are we paying them? anyway...
    Because slavery is wrong?

    Not to mention that usually what they're getting paid just goes towards their restitution, that is usually so much that there's no way a convicted felon will ever be able to pay it.
    meh... i dont see it as slavery. they dont pay for their food, education, health care (other then like a $5 co-pay), water, electricity, sewage, cable, etc...
    Neither do slaves.

    oh my. you're ridiculous. the treatment that inmates get, from their cable to their health care is nice. its not crap.

    its nothing like slavery.

    Lachoneus on
    "No women. No kids."
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Sarksus wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If I shoplift because I can't afford to buy food, the penalty is actually less in many states than if I shoplift an expensive suit just because I want the thrill, but can afford to buy it. That's fucking ridiculous, and the opposite should be true; need should be a mitigating factor for a crime, not an aggravating one.
    ...that's what you just described. Did you mean to say that stealing the suit nets less of a penalty than stealing a loaf of bread?
    I said exactly what I meant.

    So it is "fucking ridiculous' that a starving man who steals a loaf of bread receives a slap on the wrists of a prison sentence while a rich klepto like Winona Rider is actually penalized?

    o_O

    He's saying that the penalty for stealing food is higher than the penalty for stealing a suit and that the opposite should be true. I believe his argument stems from "the poor and the minorities get fucked by the justice system and the wealthy get a slap on the wrist".

    Except that the exact opposite of what his words mean and apparently my trying to correct him was out of bounds.

    moniker on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    tubaloth wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tubaloth wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tubaloth wrote: »
    thats a decent idea.

    or we could just not pay inmates for the jobs they do in jails. that would save us money (obviously not a ton). but why are we paying them? anyway...
    Because slavery is wrong?

    Not to mention that usually what they're getting paid just goes towards their restitution, that is usually so much that there's no way a convicted felon will ever be able to pay it.
    meh... i dont see it as slavery. they dont pay for their food, education, health care (other then like a $5 co-pay), water, electricity, sewage, cable, etc...
    Neither do slaves.

    oh my. you're ridiculous. the treatment that inmates get, from their cable to their health care is nice. its not crap.

    its nothing like slavery.

    Hell yeah brah those convicts really have it good, wish I was a convict

    Rust on
  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If I shoplift because I can't afford to buy food, the penalty is actually less in many states than if I shoplift an expensive suit just because I want the thrill, but can afford to buy it. That's fucking ridiculous, and the opposite should be true; need should be a mitigating factor for a crime, not an aggravating one.
    ...that's what you just described. Did you mean to say that stealing the suit nets less of a penalty than stealing a loaf of bread?
    I said exactly what I meant.

    So it is "fucking ridiculous' that a starving man who steals a loaf of bread receives a slap on the wrists of a prison sentence while a rich klepto like Winona Rider is actually penalized?

    o_O

    He's saying that the penalty for stealing food is higher than the penalty for stealing a suit and that the opposite should be true. I believe his argument stems from "the poor and the minorities get fucked by the justice system and the wealthy get a slap on the wrist".

    Except that the exact opposite of what his words mean and apparently my trying to correct him was out of bounds.

    Actually, re-reading what he wrote, you're right.

    Sarksus on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    tubaloth wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tubaloth wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tubaloth wrote: »
    thats a decent idea.

    or we could just not pay inmates for the jobs they do in jails. that would save us money (obviously not a ton). but why are we paying them? anyway...
    Because slavery is wrong?

    Not to mention that usually what they're getting paid just goes towards their restitution, that is usually so much that there's no way a convicted felon will ever be able to pay it.
    meh... i dont see it as slavery. they dont pay for their food, education, health care (other then like a $5 co-pay), water, electricity, sewage, cable, etc...
    Neither do slaves.

    oh my. you're ridiculous. the treatment that inmates get, from their cable to their health care is nice. its not crap.

    its nothing like slavery.

    How is not being compensated for the labour you perform not the very definition of slavery? What, are they interning for course credit at Mafia U?

    moniker on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Besides the many ethical reasons not to, not paying the prisoners would help drive down the wages of those who aren't slaves/prisoners. There are also the historical abuses of using prisoners as slaves.

    We probably shouldn't make prisoners hate society any more than they already probably do.

    Couscous on
  • SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    You realize that how well someone is treated has nothing to do with whether they are a slave, correct?

    Sarksus on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    It's slavery.

    Capturing someone and making them work is slavery.

    Incenjucar on
Sign In or Register to comment.