Prisoner saves $11,000 -- but state wants it to cover jail stay, page 15

privacy

Pages: << 12 13 14 15 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 28 times

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 08:32 PM by NuclearPaul

What is the standard procedure for this? I mean, If someone spends time in jail and has $50 saved when they are released, are they allowed to keep it?

If so, this is just greed. The only reason they want to keep the money themselves is because they saw all those zeros. Standard procedure should apply here. Otherwise they will end up wanting your tax return too if its attractive enough.

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 08:36 PM by StigShen

reply to post by NuclearPaul

From what I gathered in OP's article, any prisoner in Illinois is open to civil liability for incarceration costs. But as a matter of administration, they will only go after prisoners who have ten-grand or more.

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 09:02 PM by searching4truth

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
What is the standard procedure for this? I mean, If someone spends time in jail and has $50 saved when they are released, are they allowed to keep it?

If so, this is just greed. The only reason they want to keep the money themselves is because they saw all those zeros. Standard procedure should apply here. Otherwise they will end up wanting your tax return too if its attractive enough.

Yes they are allowed to keep it, the state doesn't come after them until they have $10,000 in assets. Which is probably why so many excons work under the table. Now, while in jail the state takes 3% of their wages automatically to pay back the prison. 3% will not cover the costs, as in this case the inmate made 2 dollars a day, the prison estimates he costs them 57 dollars a day so.....if he dies in prison (which is likely to happen given his scheduled release date) the state will never recoup those costs.

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 09:23 PM by searching4truth

Originally posted by StigShen
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?

They can begin legal proceedings, I didn't see that anyone actually had their accounts seized though, or their legal settlements for that matter. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, I just didn't see a success/failure rate in the article and based on the wording it seems they haven't had much success.

Two out of three appellate judges ruled in favor of the Corrections Department in June. The dissenter, Judge Tom Lytton, said there is a conflict in state law governing collections proceedings against prisoners. If a prisoner's only asset is wages earned behind bars, then the state is limited to the 3 percent deduction, Lytton said.

Hopefully, there will be a ruling soon, I keep checking the Illinois Supreme Court website, but nothing yet.

The thing that really gets me is that if he had spent all the money, or even just enough to keep him under $10,000 the state wouldn't be seeking anything. It seems they are begging people to scam or spend.

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 10:20 PM by StigShen

reply to post by searching4truth

The way I see it, if they can sue you in civil court for wage earnings, then the state is obligated to pay you the Federal minimum wage.

OR

Make it cleat that this is mandatory labor without pay, which is legal under non-ratified Constitutional amendments.

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 10:22 PM by StigShen

reply to post by searching4truth

They wouldnt be doing this if they lost 200 cases.

But you are absolutely right, they will now launder funds to keep it under the ten grand mark

So this man is being fined for being stupid.

Usually, laws are there to protect people that are stupid, from being exploited by the more powerful.

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 10:26 PM by searching4truth

Originally posted by StigShen
reply to post by searching4truth

The way I see it, if they can sue you in civil court for wage earnings, then the state is obligated to pay you the Federal minimum wage.

OR

Make it cleat that this is mandatory labor without pay, which is legal under non-ratified Constitutional amendments.

Agreed.

Furthermore, by using that standard the state owes him over half a million dollars, which after they deduct what he owes still leaves at least 50 grand to sent to his daughter

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 10:28 PM by searching4truth

reply to post by StigShen

They didn't win them all, the lawyer representing Hawkins has dealt with these cases and has had the entire fee thrown out for many of his clients. It just didn't say how many he won, or how many the state did.

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 10:40 PM by StigShen

reply to post by searching4truth

Its just scary that he lost any.

reply posted on 18-3-2011 @ 10:57 PM by StigShen

This guy who lived up the road from me just got 18 months for robbing Robert DeNiro's father out of $120 million. You think Bob and his family will ever see that money? 120 mil and he gets 18 months?! You hold up a liquor store for 50-bucks you get 20 years.

www.poughkeepsiejournal.com...|newswell|text|News|s

reply posted on 19-3-2011 @ 12:17 PM by searching4truth

reply to post by StigShen

Yep......sounds reasonable huh

.

www.cantonrep.com...

Even if the items are found, chances are the De Niro's will have to either buy them back, or attempt to get the evidence back from the state and spend more money in doing so.

reply posted on 23-3-2011 @ 02:52 PM by babygirl27

reply to post by StigShen

i know what he did was wrong but i want to know why he did it in the first place and what maid him do it