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?
Posts
I think his argument boils down to: "B-b-but socialism/communism/liberals!"
Let's just flip the idea.
Instead of "punishing" rich white collar offenders, we can "offer" them the chance to serve out their sentence at a minimum-security Club Fed for a substantial fee, as opposed to serving in a higher-security prison. Hey, if you want to stay at the Hilton it's going to cost more than Motel 6. The more rich offenders willing to pay, the higher the fee - supply and demand.
If you want to serve your sentence at a Club Fed like Nellis in Las Vegas with it's air conditioning and billiards tables, or Allenwood in New York with its music classes and taxpayer-funded instruments, it's going to cost you. Otherwise you go into the system like everybody else and maybe you end up owned by some dude from the Aryan Brotherhood.
Safe to say that you're in favor of mixing those convicted of violent crimes with nonviolent offenders? If it weren't for practicality, I'd prefer to isolate inmates who pose a significant risk to other inmates as much as possible. I believe that we, as a society, have a responsibility for providing for the safety of the people we incarcerate, and that means not putting murderers in with drug dealers and fraudsters.
Same here, is this not the case?
Unless this is a mistaken believe, we are discussing the punishment of wealth.
Then don't go to prison.
I'm actually pretty sure that's the entire idea of this, to use it as a deterrent for committing crime. Not only will you be paying with time, but a massive fine.
(yeah I know that rhymes)
All monies in your estate (aside from those that can be explicitly claimed by your spouse/kids/whatever) are subject to confiscation in order to pay for whatever fines &c. that come up in the process of getting convicted and sentenced.
Which is good because it's kind of hard to discern what money was ill-gotten, which money was earned but with undue influence from the ill-gotten wealth, &c. Given the pretty light sentences that white collar crime generally entails it's hard to say whether or not some illegal money managed to survive the trial in the Caymans.
I did not see that distinction in the article. If you convict somebody to prison and prove they gained wealth through criminal activity their assets would be forfeit in almost every case. If the assets are not gained through illegal means, why is additional punishment a good idea?
Edit: I was hoping the thread would be about setting actual industries in prison and the moral implications of having a working prison economy btw....This would be pointless for almost any other country, but with the actual US prison population it's almost worth discussing.
I am unaware of any case of fraud, embezzlement, bribery, tax evasion, &c. which did not result in personal gain for whoever did it.
Additional punishment for white collar crime is a good idea considering the lax punishment that is currently doled out and the cold blooded, premeditated, continually reaffirmed manner in which white collar crime occurs. This is a stupid way to do that, but sentencing guidelines currently suck pretty bad.
Most people would happily bankrupt themselves to avoid prison time. You really think adding on the whole "we're also taking all your money" is gonna really be a deterrent?
Not to mention your whole "Then don't go to prison" argument is absolutely idiotic. If someone suggested castration for all prisoners, would that still be your argument?
Yes, but whether or not you have the money doesn't determine whether or not a fine is applicable, and all money which can be proven to have been acquired through illegal means is forfeit irregardless of the punitive fines. To me, this is a good system because it only punishes what it can prove and people are treated equally in the eyes of the law. If the current sentencing guidelines don't fit the crimes, then make them more stiff.
Justice, however, should be blind. You shouldn't receive a different sentence just because of the amount of money you have in your bank account. This swings both ways.
People who go to prison for stealing (unoccupied) cars don't get to go to Club Fed. People who drive getaway cars don't get to go to Club Fed. People who smoke crack don't get to go to Club Fed. None of those are violent offenses. If they get shanked by Johnny Murderer, taxpayers have to pay their medical bills too.
Why should non-violent white collar offenders get more consideration than non-violent blue-collar? Or rather, why should they get that consideration for free?
I agree, that's more or less the point I've been making since page one.
Here I don't, however. There should be mitigating circumstances which are taken into account as well as aggravating. Of those how much money you have in your bank account (or indeed if you even have a bank account) should be a factor. It's back to the prototypical 'starving man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family' aspect. If you're sitting on 6 figures that defense is going to ring hollow since you could have just as easily paid for the bread.
My disagreement with your proposal that white collar offenders should be locked up with violent criminals doesn't suggest that I believe that nonviolent blue collar criminals should. In fact, I believe the drug dealers would probably qualify as non-violent blue-collar workers, and I explicitly said that they should not be placed with violent offenders.
I agree that perhaps my platitude was a bit too broad. I think that necessity should be a consideration when determining the leniency of a sentence. I don't think that it implies that the further away a person gets from necessity should factor into creating a harsher sentence (not that you're saying this).
Also, I'm of the mindset that harsher sentencing would be a better alternative to making someone pay for his/her stay. Seems more manageable as well. Seems like there is a lot of room for extenuating circumstances and gray areas with the proposed set-up.
Damnit, if it weren't already in a couple of quote trees I could smite that mistake out of existence. It's a word that I know is stupid and superfluous and catch myself using often anyway.
For all intensive purposes the two words exist as synonyms so it doesn't really matter. English is a mongrel language, that's one of its strengths. Learn to love it.
Winner winner chicken dinner!
Not really sure how anyone expects this law to pass a 14th Amendment challenge. Punishing someone more for the same crime just because he has more money seems like it would fail any form of equal protection standard.
Intents and purposes!
Sorry.
EDIT: Are you fucking with me?
I'm not sure I follow... I may not be up-to-speed on my shoplifting law.
I suppose it comes down to implementation and application.
Could you give us an informative link Than? I'm not familiar with this either.
Well really it has nothing to do with slavery. We pay them for a very practical reason.
We pay prisoners so that in the event they are released they have some money in their pocket while they try to get their acts together and don't have to immediately relapse into crime to survive.
We punish people more (or less) for breaking the same law all the time. This is why there are sentencing guidelines, but ultimately the decision of just how fucked you are is left up to the judge. Except in the case of mandatory minimums, which is a whole 'nother thread.
Necessity as a mitigating factor to me seems like a binary option. I think that applying degrees runs counter to necessity as a concept.
Going with the ongoing stolen bread example, neither the man with a hundred thousand in his account nor the man with a million in his account had necessity to steal the bread, so they should both suffer the same punishment.
Well, if the penalty for going to prison was castration I would never, ever break the law.
Ever.
Yeah, but it's the rationale behind it. Property ownership is a fundamental right. Codifying different punishments based on how much property you own is different that having flexibility in the sentencing of criminals.
That's what Congress is for... it's in the Constitution.
??
Honest question, but... where do you draw the line? Let's stick with say, stealing $100 worth of food from a grocery store.
A) Husband, and father of three Mark Jones is down on his luck. Can't make the mortgage, barely able to keep the power turned on in his house, no cable, no hi-speed internet, only the basics. Desperate to provide for his loved ones, Mark Jones steals $100 worth of food to feed his family.
C) Steven Morgan, CEO of Totally Fuckin' Awesome, Inc. Has everything he wants in life. Fast cars, seventeen gorgeous girlfriends, and a big ass house. Steve decides he's bored, and steals $100 worth of food from the local grocery store because he's bored, and figures the thrill will spice things up a bit.
Now, I'm totally okay with letting A off easy, because hey, I might do the same thing if times were really that bad and had exhausted all other options. Now, B is your normal everyday guy. He should probably get the standard penalty. But should C really get an extra penalty because he has money?
I'd just like to point out that if you let A off easy, then technically B and C are already getting an extra penalty. If B's penalty is more harsh because he is middle class and thus has more money than A, why shouldn't C's penalty be even more harsh if he is rich and has more money than B?
I don't equate punishing a guy more just because he is rich to mitigating the punishment for someone truly desperate and in need.
Especially in the example given, we're talking about one person in need and two doing it "for the Hell of it". The two latter examples are equal in that sense, to me, regardless of the individual's income.
Edit: I should have redacted the first post. I'm half asleep and trying to stay awake by reading this forum right now. I had understood that the example given was trying to not paint examples B and C together in motive. I am guessing I was wrong on that at this point. (Otherwise, I don't see the point in the examples given.)
Well it depends if we're talking about financial status based punishment or motive based punishment.
You don't equate the two scenarios because you're basing your consideration on the different motives.
If we're looking purely at financial status then giving a person with less money a lesser punishment is the same as giving a person with more money a greater punishment.
Right, but I'm denying financial status-based punishment altogether.