Prisoner saves $11,000 -- but state wants it to cover jail stay

reply to post by StigShen


he told me he was not allowed to call his own witnesses or submit evidence in his defense. in other words, he was guilty already and the trial wasn't even over. apparently when they are trying to meet quotas, some legal protections are alot less available. . dunno if they give prosecutors more power in those cases or what. but how do you explain what happened to you? were they head hunting for people who commit or supposedly commit crimes like the one you were accused of?

in that guy's case, he had married a lady who had a daughter from a previous marriage. she wanted him to buy her a car, but he couldn't afford it so he said no. she got mad and decided to take matters into her own hands. she accused him of inappropriately touching her as an act of revenge and now, for the rest of his life, he can't be anywhere near children, nor watch disney movies (even though it was an 18 year old female that he supposedly inappropriately touched), he has to be so many feet away from parks, schools, and other public venues where children might be and neighbors who had looked at the sexual offenders list online, demanded that he move because he was too close to their house (he wasn't, but people get scared, can't blame them but sheesh, it's getting way out of hand now).

reply to post by undo


I have been falsely accused of DV, which is very much like being accused of a sex crime when it comes to how you are treated by the police and the courts. I'll get into that some other time maybe. I'm getting ready for some sleep here.

But in the case where I was beaten and tased, I really was at a total loss. Everything was civil and orderly, we were having a calm discussion, then the larger officer's mood changed suddenly. Next thing I know I'm on the deck being stomped and tased.

The second officer, a smaller guy, I actually conversated with him for a bit while I was in the holding tank, and I asked him flat out why they did that to me. You know what he said? Because they were afraid of me, because I am such a big guy.

They were investigating a case of vandalism, and had grounds to arrest me on that, but I was not in fact guilty of vandalism. And if they had bothered to investigate properly rather than jumping to conclusions, they could have found a more productive way to spend their night when they found that no crime had actually been committed.

reply to post by StigShen


No trust me I'm all set with uncle sam putting the nuckle on our hard earned cash.

We bust our asses to try to earn a decent living this is just another case of them going after ourt money. I understand what your talking about and agree.

reply to post by doobydoll


I understand. The system is fubar. I agree. The hole system needs a flush and a do over. Murders and small petty crimes do not deserve the same punishment.

reply to post by Apollumi


Not trolling I am entitle to think what ever I want. That is my freedome to have my own belief correct.

No trolling here.

If I wanted to troll I could goo way off.

I just dont think people should be working in prison. You want to work for the better of man kind.

Get out on the streets and pick up the garbage. I would except a buck a day for pay i'm fine with that. An they get to get some fresh air.

Where is sheriff Joe Aprapoe when you need him ...He is on to something down there. Just ask some of the prisoners. He is fair and treats them all equal. They step out of line he takes care of it in an ethical manner.

I know I should have never enter this thread because there are alot of people who know people who are in jail.

Yes well they are not innocent. That is why they are there.

Like I said do the crime and pay with time.

reply to post by StigShen


Granted it's no where near as extreme as your and other examples, but a sibling of mine had a vaguely similar situation. She was at a wedding reception, she only had one drink early in the evening (cash bar ). Near the end of evening their was a situation with a bouncer, who also happened to be a cop in the town. Long story short, the cop is currently being sued for breaking a guys back and fracturing his skull. The limo driver caller the cops on the bouncer and when the cops got there they started arresting the guests instead of dealing with actual situation.

My sis ended up sitting in jail for the night and being charged with public intox. Here's the kicker though, they said she was not under arrest, so they didn't have give her a phone call, and there is not proof of a public intox, no breathalizer, no urine, no blood, nada, just the officers word against yours. She ended up having to pay $2000 to get out of it, eventhough she was not publicly intoxicated (not to mention it was private property, but that another thing). I just couldn't believe how ridiculous it was, so basically if the cop wants to be a jack ass and hull you in, all they have to do is claim public intox, without proof mind you, and that's it.

Originally posted by searching4truth

I have never heard of a prisoner having to pay for their prison stay. The case will be heard in the Illinois Supreme Court.

www. chicagobreakingnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

My brother was arrested as a minor and sent to CYA for fighting and tagging -- he didn't kill anyone though -- and my mom had to pay for him. So it happens.

As for this guy, if he's a murderer, I can't say that I'm sorry for him. Taxpayers are paying for him -- even the $11K he "worked" for, so why shouldn't he pay it back? It'd be different if it was a minor, nonviolent crime or his conviction was in serious question (and it may be -- didn't bother to check). But murder? Yeah, I'm not shedding any tears for this guy because he can't keep his money. He should've thought about that before he went and killed someone (and if it was self defense, he wouldn't be in jail).

reply to post by searching4truth


Another one that cops use all the time is disorderly conduct. Such a vague, blanket charge that police can use it to arrest anyone they want, any time they want. It also establishes probable cause and opens the door to other charges, however weak those charges might be.

But at the end of the day, so many of these cases come down to that. The word of the officer, over the arrestee. You take that in front of a jury, and you wind up with a few "tough on crime" sort like a few that have shown up in this thread, and next thing you know you're doing five years in the state can because you got wise with a cop when he tried to write you a ticket for something you didn't do.

The same ones that will scream to high heaven about taxes, and about how the prisoners are too well fed, are the same ones who will put you behind bars at first glance.

reply to post by Rocky Black


The prison system, law enforcement, the courts, all of it is a profiteering scam.

It has also prevented a revolution in this country. As the jobs have gone away in the past fifty years or so, prison population has gone through the roof, welfare has reached all time highs. This is the march of Communism. The boiled frog syndrome. Instead of taking responsibility for the mismanagement of our economy, the leadership imprisons the people. They create the criminals. Yes, even murderers. I would be willing to bet that I could find a financial element at the root of the crime for a good 90-95% of the people in prison today.

Originally posted by Nameless Hussy
... He should've thought about that before he went and killed someone (and if it was self defense, he wouldn't be in jail).

Barry Gibbs framed for murder by "Mafia Cops," NYPD Detectives who worked as contract killers and informants to the mob.

www.innocenceproject.org...

reply to post by StigShen


I'm gonna reply to you, but really it's for everyone. Try googling the stats on innocent Illinois prisoners released. There have been quite a few released from death row, because they were actually innocent. There is also a huge criminal case going on right now with our (Chicago) former police commander Burge, he tortured mostly black men into false confessions.

I'm not posting this because I think Hawkins is innocent, I have not seen anything were he made such assertions and I'm not going to go making false claims. My point is that the system here in Illinois is known to be highly corrupt and this is simply another example of that. Due to the high level of known corruption, I have zero reason to give the state any power whatsoever to seize the accounts of anyone for any reason. There are already laws and procedures in place that allow government to freeze accounts and assets, and I do believe that they need anymore power in that regard.

Originally posted by StigShen

Originally posted by Nameless Hussy
... He should've thought about that before he went and killed someone (and if it was self defense, he wouldn't be in jail).

Barry Gibbs framed for murder by "Mafia Cops," NYPD Detectives who worked as contract killers and informants to the mob.

www.innocenceproject.org...

Barry Gibbs isn't the man in question. I also said in the same post you only bothered to half cite:

It'd be different if it was a minor, nonviolent crime or his conviction was in serious question (and it may be -- didn't bother to check).

And you know what? Even if he is imprisoned by mistake (which I doubt -- it's so much rarer than some of you are making it out to be -- yeah, the justice system is screwed and mistakes are made, sometimes on purpose, but the percentage of determined wrongful convictions is rather low), he's still incarcerated and therefore I don't think he should be given the right to save money, and yes, the state should be able to take that money from him. He wouldn't have been able to save those "wages" in the first place were he not in jail where room and board and every single living expense was provided at no cost to him, all he had to do was kill someone.

reply to post by Nameless Hussy


But nameless hussy the point is that this will not effect only violent criminals it will effect all criminals.

Here, what about this example. Growing up, I was fortunate enough to have my parents set aside money for me for college, the account was in both my father and my name because for much of the time I was minor plus he wanted to have some control over it even after I was 18. Let's say I had been a devious little child and ended up in juvenile hall for stealing a car or whatever. Because my name is on that account the state could potentially move to seize my college account (or whatever of it they say it costs to cover my stay). That is the precedent this would be setting.

If the state wants to charge for the housing of criminals fine, but they do not need the ability to seize those funds. They can send a bill after I'm released or work out some method with their existing prison work program, because as it is the state of Illinois can garnish those wages 3% which they have already done. The are trying to overstep their legal limits which is why it is now in court.

reply to post by Nameless Hussy


So who gets to decide what a minor crime is? Who gets to decide what convictions are "seriously in question?" Who gets to decide, "well this guy did kill someone, but I really don't blame him, I would have done the same thing in that case."

But then you even fgo on to say you really don't even care if they are innocent are not, they are still obligated to pay for their jail cell. You are a disgusting person to say something like that. And I will not feel bad for the likes of you when the camps open.

I'm going to go ahead to put up this article I found, it is dated March 2009, but I think it is important because so many seem to think that prison is a cake walk or some wonderland that those with the lack of desire or inability to succeed in society can run to and have all the charms and modern pleasures of life, with none of the financial responsibility.

illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com...

The United States Attorney executed a 17 month investigation of Cook County Department of Corrections for Civil Rights Violations and concluded it is a terribly deficient institution where medical care is denied resulting in death, hygiene is non-existent, illegal gratuitous violence is the norm, (against inmates by officers and gang control pitting inmate against inmate) and there is a culture of corruption. Unfortunately the officers are improperly screened so that many bullies and sociopaths get hired and abuse inmates as well as violate law.

The 98 page letter to the Cook County Commissioners which describes in detail the torture, medical neglect, excessive force, and unsanitary conditions including amputation of an inmates leg because the CCDOC staff withheld antibiotics when his leg was in a cast until pus was oozing from the cast and murder of an inmates by officers who knocked out his teeth, bashed in his head resulting in a skull fracture, and then left him to die without medical care locked in a cell,

There are more fantastic examples of the top notch care and treatment inmates receive in the IL prison system. I really do wonder why we all just don't shun the responsibility of our daily lives and chill in prison, I mean it really does sound better than Disney World, doesn't it?

Here's a little something else found. www.prisonterminal.com...

The article I linked cites the Christian Science Monitor, although I have not found their original work yet (I will post it if I find it).

Charging inmates for their own incarceration - also known as "pay-to-stay" fees - is a trend that began about 20 years ago in Alabama, and soared in popularity around the country under the "tough-on-crime" policies of the Reagan and Clinton eras. By 2004 about one-third of the county jails in the United States had policies charging inmates for their own incarceration. During that same time period more than 50% of state correctional systems also had pay-to-stay fees. Some of these fees were collected through the inmate's bank account during incarceration and others through civil litigation aimed at a prisoner's estate or properties once they were released.

So prior to complaining about how it is your tax dollars paying for inmates to live the high life, maybe you should see if they actually do.

Originally posted by StigShen
reply to post by Nameless Hussy

 

So who gets to decide what a minor crime is? Who gets to decide what convictions are "seriously in question?" Who gets to decide, "well this guy did kill someone, but I really don't blame him, I would have done the same thing in that case."

But then you even fgo on to say you really don't even care if they are innocent are not, they are still obligated to pay for their jail cell. You are a disgusting person to say something like that. And I will not feel bad for the likes of you when the camps open.

edit on 3/17/11 by StigShen because: (no reason given)

Wow, I'm a disgusting person to say that? Really? Whatever. Your logic is lacking. I think a murderer is a disgusting person, so... As for what I said, yes. If you are incarcerated and you make money during or as a result of that incarceration, then yes, that money should go to reimburse the taxpayers/state for footing your bills for however long you were locked up -- whether truly "innocent" or not, because if you are actually imprisoned, that means a judge and/or jury decided there was enough evidence to suggest otherwise. And you may really be innocent, and yes there's corruption and extenuating circumstances and mistakes do happen, and yes that all sucks. But you're making it seem like the vast majority of people locked up are innocent, and that just isn't the case. Sure, they all say they are, but it's highly unlikely. We could argue that point back and forth forever (I'm not going to, because "arguing" with you would be like arguing with an emotional brick wall, but we could) because the only people who ever really know if someone is innocent or not are the actual perpetrator of the crime and any victims or witnesses that may be present. Judicial systems are created to deal with that fact. Systems by their very nature are imperfect, and even in the best, least corrupt system someone will be wrongly imprisoned and people will fall through the cracks.

As for your other questions, the judicial system already has determinants in place regarding what is and is not a minor crime, so this question is pointless, because I was talking about our system as it currently exists. Also, please note I specified NONVIOLENT crime. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a criminal lawyer to know which crimes are or are not nonviolent. As for this nonsense: who gets to decide "well this guy did kill someone, but I really don't blame him, I would have done the same thing in that case." -- anyone can decide that for themselves. But, in a court of law, with enough evidence, you'd still be found guilty of murder unless it was self defense (unless that's what your meandering question meant to address? In which case, it'd be the same people who always decide if a crime worth prosecuting was committed: the DA and to a lesser extent cops).

Furthermore, since this is my last post in this thread, I just wanted to say the arguments here are so ridiculous. Someone mentioned paying fines for speeding tickets, and you said this case isn't like that at all, blah blah. Well, I agree - it's worse! Why should someone have to pay a fine for speeding -- a usually victimless "crime" with no financial burden on the state, while someone who commits an actual murder and is then housed, clothed, fed and given the opportunity to earn and save $11K -- something many non-convicts aren't given -- all to the tune of $400K+ shouldn't be held responsible for paying back as much of that as they're able? This makes no sense to me.

(P.S. that was a rhetorical question -- I don't expect an answer. I know one will be provided anyways, but just sayin)

Edit to add to searching4truth: your hypothetical example of the college fund started by your dad being seized is not the same as the case in question -- here, the guy earned and saved the money as a result of being in an inmate work program. Two totally different things. And I'm sorry, but I absolutely think any money earned in an inmate work program should be fair game when it comes to redressing the costs incurred to care for them while they did their time.

reply to post by Nameless Hussy

Edit to add to searching4truth: your hypothetical example of the college fund started by your dad being seized is not the same as the case in question -- here, the guy earned and saved the money as a result of being in an inmate work program. Two totally different things. And I'm sorry, but I absolutely think any money earned in an inmate work program should be fair game when it comes to redressing the costs incurred to care for them while they did their time.

It is the same, because both accounts (my hypothetical and his actual) are both personal accounts. The state is attempting to claim that they have the right to seize a prisoners bank account. Does a boss have the right to seize the accounts of their workers? No. If the state is given the right to seize the assets of inmates and is given the power to claim their personal accounts do you honestly think that they will restrict themselves to money earned while incarcerated? No, they won't. As in one of the links I posted, I believe it was in the OP, they have attempted to seize peoples personal injury settlements, various other settlements, inheritances, etc. What I find interesting is that the article does not state if they were successful in those attempts, only that attempts were made. (I know journalism like that irks me why not back up the claim in the article, but the tribune is no ats )

I would agree that money made while in prison/jail/etc could or maybe even should be used to pay for personal usage. However, that is not currently the law or how the work program works. If the state whats to change that and have people work for their keep, fine, but then they need to change the program and not attempt to overstep their legal limits. While in the lower courts the judge did order Hawkins to pay for the cost of his stay ($455,000+) but prevented the state from seizing his account because of this very issue we are debating. Both sides appealed and here we are at the supreme court of Illinois.

I am not arguing that people should or shouldn't be able to have "paying" work while in prison. The program already exists and under both the law and the program guidelines the state is attempting to dramatically overstep their legal limits. That is my only point, the actual as it exists law. What should be or changing existing laws is a matter for the state legislature.

I also find it curious that over the past eight years the state has only gone after about 200 current and former inmates. That right there raises a red flag to me, because if we truly are a "pay to stay" state, then every inmate should have received a bill ( approximately 50,000 inmates currently). Why do some and not others? I find it difficult to believe that in 8 years they only managed to come up with 200 people with assets in excess of 10,000 dollars.

Originally posted by Nameless Hussy


Wow, I'm a disgusting person to say that? Really? Whatever. Your logic is lacking. I think a murderer is a disgusting person, so... As for what I said, yes. If you are incarcerated and you make money during or as a result of that incarceration, then yes, that money should go to reimburse the taxpayers/state for footing your bills for however long you were locked up -- whether truly "innocent" or not, because if you are actually imprisoned, that means a judge and/or jury decided there was enough evidence to suggest otherwise. And you may really be innocent, and yes there's corruption and extenuating circumstances and mistakes do happen, and yes that all sucks. But you're making it seem like the vast majority of people locked up are innocent, and that just isn't the case. Sure, they all say they are, but it's highly unlikely. We could argue that point back and forth forever (I'm not going to, because "arguing" with you would be like arguing with an emotional brick wall, but we could) because the only people who ever really know if someone is innocent or not are the actual perpetrator of the crime and any victims or witnesses that may be present. Judicial systems are created to deal with that fact. Systems by their very nature are imperfect, and even in the best, least corrupt system someone will be wrongly imprisoned and people will fall through the cracks.

If you have a problem with people earning $2 a day behind bars, fine. Ban the practice. But don't let a man work for 20 years, earn his keep, earn that money, and THEN take the money from him. That is breach of contract at the very least, and certainly morally unsound. As I said before, just because someone is a drug dealer or a prostitute does not give the police the right to steal all the money from their pockets and then go raid their bank account.

It really doesn't matter at all whether they are innocent of the crime they are serving time for. Even if they are guilty, it in no way justifies victimizing them in a criminal manner. If someone murdered my mother and gets paroled, do I have the right to go to their house and rob them at gunpoint?

Originally posted by Nameless Hussy
As for your other questions, the judicial system already has determinants in place regarding what is and is not a minor crime, so this question is pointless, because I was talking about our system as it currently exists. Also, please note I specified NONVIOLENT crime. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a criminal lawyer to know which crimes are or are not nonviolent. As for this nonsense: who gets to decide "well this guy did kill someone, but I really don't blame him, I would have done the same thing in that case." -- anyone can decide that for themselves. But, in a court of law, with enough evidence, you'd still be found guilty of murder unless it was self defense (unless that's what your meandering question meant to address? In which case, it'd be the same people who always decide if a crime worth prosecuting was committed: the DA and to a lesser extent cops).

Actually, you also specified "minor" crimes. But regardless, there is no provision under these statutes that exempt a non-violent offender. As far as I'm concerned, a non violent offender should never be incarcerated. Well, at least a non-violent offender who did not pose a threat to the community anyway. (Bernie Madoff certainly deserves prison, if for no other reason than to keep his hands off Wall Street.)

Originally posted by Nameless Hussy
Furthermore, since this is my last post in this thread...

And, that's where I stopped reading.

reply to post by searching4truth


Reading your OP article more closely, it does indeed state that under Illinois law private bank account funds are forfeit in order to pay for their prison stay.

I say we stop paying taxes to support prisons then. Hey, they can battle it out in civil court with the inmates to recover the costs. Not the taxpayers problem anymore.

Do the taxpayers subsidize me if I lose my leg in a drunk-driving accident? Do they "cover" the settlement/award until the defendant comes up with the cash?