It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:25 AM
How much was he being paid per hour? Let's say X.

Whatever work he is doing though is definitely not worth X, it is worth Y per hour.

I humbly submit that Y-X is enough bloody profit for the assholes running the system to remove any justification for garnering the pittance he has managed to save.

The individual has worked and paid his way and that is the first very important lesson in his rehabilitation process. Then the State decides to steal the proceed of his toil, which is legalized theft they will never be punished for if they get away with it.

Thus, he learns another very important lesson , which may be summed up as 'screw you'.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:16 AM
I think most people disagreeing here are missing the big picture: This man, like other prisoners similar to him, probably had to pay back his daughter because he borrowed from her to pay for necessities, such as toilet paper, soap, a toothbrush, toothpaste, etc. Taking the money from him that was going to pay back his daughter would be stealing from a perfectly innocent party.

What you don't get is that most of the money that prisoners have in their accounts don't come from their jobs in the prisons, it does come from their family members, who are innocent parties. It's not the prisoners who pay here, it's the families. It's not fair. Screw the idea that this has anything to do with restitution and rehabilitation. This is about the government screwing over families for being related to those who have been convicted of a crime, whether the convict is actually guilty or not.

And to those who say it would be best to just kill the prisoners, humans are not perfect, and therefore our justice system is not perfect. Innocent people are convicted of major felonies every day. There are many innocents who are wrongly sentenced to death. Some innocents have actually had that sentence carried out on them! How would you like to be framed for a crime you didn't commit, and put to death for it? That's why our system here in the US states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That's the reason I'm against the death penalty: because you never really know whether someone is or isn't truly guilty.

However, I don't believe that this will pass. Check out this link, about how courts in Ohio have had to pay back what they've taken from prisoners' accounts via their "pay to stay" system, which has been ruled against: "Pay To Stay” Prison Program A Miserable Failure

edit on 16-3-2011 by MoonChild02 because: to fix the link

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by syncelebrity

A good chunk of that cost is rehabilitation and the safety of the prison guards. Im sorry but the government criminalizes the lower classes and then people say that 'they are lucy they are let out their cells'. To live on the minimum wage is almost impossible and for people who grow up with nothing whilst being bombarded with images telling them they they must have money, they must have this car that house etc how can they be suprised when the poor who have nothing break the law in order to have a lifestyle above the bare minimum.

If you had for example older family members out of work and unable to support you and your family would you just accept homelesness and starvation for your family?

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:26 AM

Originally posted by StigShen
reply to post by VictorVonDoom

Actually, it works right here in America. We have a larger prison population than China or Russia. And China has over a billion people, and still they have about a half-million fewer prisoners than us. So who's the real police state?

That would be China. China has less prisoners in their State prisons because they have prison towns, which don't count as State prisons. If they don't like what one person is saying in the town, and that person is an influential person in town, they put the whole town on lock-down. Nobody in, nobody out, until that one person dies, and their ideology along with them. One such town is on lock down simply because one man, an old, blind, lame man has stated outright that he is against forced abortion. In other words, speak out against the Chinese government, the town becomes a prison town.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:50 AM
Jesus Christ, surely his debt to society has been paid by being locked up for 20 years. A prison job is part of rehabilitation. It instills in the prisoner's mind a work ethic, however small the wage. You work, you get paid. What incentive would prisoners have to work if they knew the cash was going straight back into the prison's coffers?

What we must remember is that prisons are not only there to punish, they're there to rehabilitate offenders and make them feel part of society, not build even more resentment FFS.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
All prisoners should be required to work in some way that benefits the community they harmed to pay for their own mistakes. Or we just kill them.

I used to think it was just our government that was something to be changed and hated.

I am finding that the people are just as bad if not worst. We have become one of the most bootlicking countries in the world. So many have lost empathy and have become these heartless things that
I dont want to live with anymore.

God I wish I had better skills to offer another nation, I would expatriate with no second thoughts.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:16 AM

Originally posted by nunya13
Here's my two cents:

He did something bad. He went to jail for it. He worked in jail to earn money.

In the real world, you earn money to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly.

In prison, you have a roof over your head and food in your belly. You are there because of something YOU did. If you are earning money while there, then the money you earn should go toward the cost of OTHERS to keep that roof over your head and food in your belly as well as some meager supplies.

I am not saying every single prisoner should pay back every single dime that went to their housing (otherwise, how would they be contributing members of society? You've already doomed them to repeat the cycle if you do take every penny they earn while free). I am saying they shouldn't get to keep every dime the earned while in prison and receiving room and board.

Many prisons are RAN by the labor done by the inmates. What you are suggesting is forced labor for no pay, which will not work. It would become a Russian gulag or the inmates simply would not work. Who do you think washes all the clothes, makes all the food, takes all the trash, and cleans all the bathrooms? If not the inmates, then workers would have to be hired, costing the states more money. Did you know that in North Carolina the MOST an inmate can make is $1.50 a day, but that most jobs only pay $.40 a day? Shampoo while I was in there was about 4 dollars.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:41 AM
He is paid for making furniture for 20 years.

Who has made the profit selling that furniture?

How much money was made from that furniture?

If he losses his money,
other prisoners may then refuse to do ANY work in prison

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:02 AM
Are you kidding people! Any one ever knew that have been in jail has to pay for there stay there. Maybe the laws are different from state to state, but he put himself there and made himself a burden on the tax payers. Absolutely 100% he owes the tax payers some reimbursement.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:35 AM
I just see the state punishing this dudes daughter here, you make only 11k after 20 years of work they have profited off of you enough, and maybe he wants to spend that 11k he worked so hard for to help his daughter go to college and make something of her life unlike he did, but it looks like the state would rather steal his money and hope his daughter ends up in jail to replace him as a worker.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:37 AM

Originally posted by syncelebrity
reply to post by Unity_99

Half the people in prison shouldn't be there in the first place I agree. There are way better options than jail to punish and rehabilitate criminals. I have spoken to a psychologist that works for the federal pen. and he has said that the prison systems once new people come in they leave even more criminally influenced (majority). In basics he is saying that when someone goes to prison thy come out even worse.

This is about as true as it gets and one only needs to look at the concentration camps from WWII Germany as what will be the template of prisons for the future.
Prisons are already being privatized for certain inmates as we speak.

That means that the people running the prisons are doing so for a profit.

A slight conflict of interest can come into play when say.... a certain congressman owns stock in a company like Halliburton, who builds for profit privatized prisons.

Will that congressman be willing to create more non-violent, victimless commercial codes in order to house as many people as possible in the for profit prisons in order to create more profit for said congressman?

This is a slippery slope that will lead us straight into the concentration camps of the 3rd Reich. Initially, they were not extermination camps as all the psy-ops try to convince the world. They were work camps. The laborers worked for tokens in which they could by certain goods at the commissary. They were run, initially, exactly as we run prisons in the US. They did not want to make the prisoners smart enough to rebel, but happy enough to keep them working.

They needed their work for the war effort.

That was the reason for Prescott Bush and the ba-jillion other US business interests who supported the rise of Hitler initially.
Free corporate labor that was created merely by enacting laws against social behavior, not laws that include a victim, are the uber-wet dream to these blood sucking leeches that masquerade as businessmen.

Victimless Crimes Are Not Laws. They are codes or statutes. HUGE DIFFERENCE

I do not want to get off on some Jew concentration camp non-sense. I want to keep this within the bounds of the OP. The only reason for my comment was to make a comparison between then and now.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:51 AM
I can't understand why prisoners shouldn't have to pay for their stay? They are costing tax-payers money; money which ends directly with the prison/prisoners.Tax-payers shouldn't have to cover the cost of others who break the law. It's not hard to understand (even from an early age) that when you break the law you WILL be punished. Emphasis on punished. Working for money (even for a murderer) is a luxury and I don't think anyone being punished should be able to profit off their imprisonment. Whilst it is indeed sad that it is the family left to foot the bills, I see it as an extenuation of punishment. Not only have they inflicted pain and suffering onto the Victim's family, but their own. It's an ironic two-way street. Punishment shouldn't be flexible.
edit on 06/03/2011 by introverted because: word change

edit on 06/03/2011 by introverted because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555 one is calling his PUNISHMENT slavery....He is already being punished. That was handed down by a judge. He's serving it by being in prison. The judge didn't say "oh yeah....and if you manage to make any money to send home to your daughter we will take that too as part of your punishment"....if he had, then I'd have no problem. He didn't. The slavery part comes from him working to make personal money WHICH IS ALLOWED in that state while he is in prison and then having the money taken away. That's extra punishment not handed down by a judge and is not (or at the very least SHOULD NOT) be legal. It doesn't matter what he did.....if you think it does then you are missing the point and reacting in a knee jerk emotional way, without seeing the larger implications of a ruling like this.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555

do you really believe that if you cant make it in america that you cant make it anywhere?? america is pretty much a third world country at this point. no jobs. huge debt that will never be able to be repayed unless the Martial law scenario came into play.

here is an article to read.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by introverted
I can't understand why prisoners shouldn't have to pay for their stay? They are costing tax-payers money; money which ends directly with the prison/prisoners. Innocent people shouldn't have to cover the cost of others who break the law. It's not hard to understand (even from an early age) that when you break the law you WILL be punished. Emphasis on punished. Working for money (even for a murderer) is a luxury and I don't think anyone being punished so be able to profit off their imprisonment. Whilst it is indeed sad that it is the family left to foot the bills, I see it as an extenuation of punishment. Not only have they inflicted pain and suffering onto the Victim's family, but their own. It's an ironic two-way street. Punishment shouldn't be flexible.

What you don't seem to understand is the difference between law and statute and code.

Punishment for those who commit a crime that involves a victim is law.

Punishment for those who engage in victimless crimes of social behavior are statute and code.
Statute can take the form of law, but when a victim is not involved then the statute is called a "commercial charge".

Being "tough on crime" has a two fold purpose.

1) It creates a feeling of safety among the voters and is used by politicians to gain support; however ironically, all empirical evidence points to "tough on crime" measures being an utter and complete failure.

2) It creates a monster that feeds on itself. The more "tough on crime" a city, the more bonds must be sold at auction to pay for the building of jails, the building of courthouses, pay police officers, judges, etc... The money to pay back these bonds does not come from violent crime, which is the only real type of crime in my opinion, but the money comes from victimless social behavior codes that when broken, might lead to jail time, but ALWAYS leads to fines. These fines are then used to pay the interest on the bonds that were auctioned to create the "tough on crime" state. That is why they are called "commercial charges".

Notice that "tough on crime" municipalities have the same rates as any other city when comparing VIOLENT crime, which involve victims. These people are of no use. They will usually wind up with lengthy sentences that result in an institutionalized individual who will never pay into the system. They are usually forever broken.

Now those same "tough on crime" cities ironically seem to have incredibly HIGH rates of crime regarding non-violent victimless crimes. (drug charges, improper licensing charges, tickets, etc... you get the picture).

The reason for this is because these "criminals" are not true "criminals", but are individuals with problems that can be exploited for monetary gain. This gain winds up in a fund that is used to pay for the "tough on crime" bonds.
This is a monster that will eat its own tail.

Making someone do jail time while paying them a pittance and then releasing them with a huge bill that can never be repaid along with a conviction that will never leave their record essentially makes them completely worthless to the system.
They will never be able to find a job suitable enough to pay back the debt and they will eventually wind up back in jail supplying more free labor due to a debt that can NEVER be repaid.

This is a really, really, really, really, really, really bad idea.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by syncelebrity

You do also know that many people incarcerated are innocent victims themselves of a corrupt system in which the people serving justice are more criminal than the people serving and they themselves should be in there. Besides of the many people who made the mistakes and committed a petty crime, this is a life changing reality check for which they are serving more time or just as much as people who've committed worse.

And yes for people whove committed atrocities of murder (not in self defense) and child molesters and rapists ...they should be executed themselves but I wouldn't want to be the one who condemned them to death and found they were innocent and yes, many people have been exhonerated.

I'll tell you what..since you're an expert because you have "friends in the system".......why don't you run it?
I've been wrongly convicted and to be able to work is a privelage to the system themselves as it saves them millions that they plunder from the taxpayers. I've seen how corrupt the officers are while I worked with them all the way up to the deputy warden.

I got one better for all the scared taxpayers who don't want to waste money.....stand up to your corrupt officials who rob you daily and their justice is never served.Me personally, I would rather take matters into my own hands and take the chances of protecting my family myself which is what I do anyway because after all the police only come to either arrest you for what you did (even in self defense) or take you away in a body bag.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by searching4truth

If you take all his money he will just end back up in jail..... let him use it to sart lilfe over and that just might save that state several more $455000 yearly costs for this man.

When prisons throw people back on the streets with less than $100 to thier names no wonder they end up coming back. He could have used that money to nake his life a lot easier in prison but he chose to save it for himself and his daughter, I say it's a small price to pay if he never comes back to jail.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:10 AM
What's interesting is the people advocating this person losing his money and also advocating that people 'pay their way' in prison have failed to address a major issue.

What happens in that scenario? Do you think the moral and just corporation that is holding these people is going to charge the Government less money when they start collecting it from the prisoners? No. In fact, IMO, I think the corporation wants to set this precedent to guarantee themselves future business.

You should know that the country's cost of housing will not go down. A few marks on the books and suddenly everything became more expensive, all the while they are bankrupting anyone who gets out of jail, nearly ensuring them a return stay.

People think that these people are a drain on society, but newsflash, in the old days there were not nearly the same amount of crimes. The types of things you can go to jail for nowadays is ludicrous. As someone else mentioned, victimles crimes people go to jail for are statutes and codes. Not real law. Morality law. If you had a rational system there would be less people in jail and the cost would be irrelevant.

Lets look at morality law and its effect on serious crime: How many real crimes (ones with victims) are committed and what is their cause? How many are related to black market trade? When the state seizes assets or illegal goods no matter if it is against the law, that creates debts for other people. So when the state seizes money, goods and keeps that money, some schmoe owes that to someone on the street. Causing a cascading effect of violence.

In essence, the laws create the crime. When was the last time a drug dealer went into litigation because he had unpaid accounts? The government can seize his assets and his stock and then acts as though the issue is solved. -Hello?- That is real debt. That is money that is owed to someone, that money has to get paid!

This creates real crime.

Remember the US and Britain were pretty complacent in the drug trade throughout their history Opium Wars. So if the forefathers couldn't be stopped, what makes you think your sons and daughters can be stopped?

Once again, this has nothing to do with supposed morality and all to do with politics.

The indignant stance that 'these people are costing me money' and 'they need to pay their own way' is failing to address the cause of the situation. The cause is the indignation. You want people to live in your bubble of world, than you need to pay for it. You cannot jail people for crimes that have no victims. You are just sending a message to your countrymen that they need to live under your rule, and behave according to you. The government and its supporters have become final authority on how people should function in their lives.

Absolutely insane.

edit on 16-3-2011 by boncho because: +info

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:38 AM
One of the reasons offenders wind up back in prison multiple times is because they can't find a job on the outside. Most employers won't hire ex-cons. Since they have to survive somehow they often go back to their old illegal ways and get sent right back. If a prisoner has a little cash to help him eat and sleep until he can find employment it seems to me that would be good for society.

Most prisoners use the tiny amount they make at prison jobs to buy things like snacks and soft drinks at the commissary. They don't get any "luxuries" free. This small amount is apparently allowed him. I'm guessing the prisoner in question never spent his money on anything and that's why he could save.

People on welfare and other government benefits also cannot have any savings beyond $2,000. Since savings are vital to lifting people out of poverty, people should be ENCOURAGED to save, not penalized.

There is no way to live in this society without money. Penalizing people for having a little savings is a way to guarantee they never get themselves out of their destitution and continue costing the state money.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by Josephus23

Ahhh, thanks for the reply. It was nice not to be patronized, but instead, offered insight into an economic area I truthfully have no factual opinion (or idea) about. It makes a lot of sense.

But then again, in this man's case (and in general) I believe it would be a lot simpler just to use the death penalty (also not sure on the economics of that either). Morality aside, I'm a very eye-for-eye / tooth-for-tooth sort of person and believe that as life is a human right, when you take someone elses away, you in a sense give up yours (but that's a completely different tangent to this thread and comes down to opinion etc)

Still.... very interesting when reading all of these replies - as well as being a newbie here.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in