View Poll Results: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 17.65%
  • No

    22 64.71%
  • Other with explanation

    6 17.65%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

Thread: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

  1. #21
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,894
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by TDZ View Post
    So tell me, why should we pay for their demands when they don't pay for our demands?
    You're the one that wants them locked up in the first place, why should they pay for it?
    How about this:

    We pay for their demands because it keeps us safe. They in turn pay for our demands because it keeps us happy.

    **F*ck them, they commit a crime and are convicted, seize their assets and sell 'em off. Use the money to support the prison systems and if there is any left over give it to the taxpayers as a bonus to their refund. Profit sharing anyone?
    So peoples families should suffer for something they had no involvement in? People should come out of prison with no recourse but crime to support themselves?
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  2. #22
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    why don't we just kill them? problem solved.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  3. #23
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Why should taxpayers have to pay for O.J. Simpson's incarceration? Martha Stewart's? Your own when you're thrown in jail for drunk driving? I say that if one has personal assets to cover their own incarceration costs, that should be part of the punishment. If they don't have the assets, no harm. But why should taxpayers pay to incarcerate someone who's broken the law?

    Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?
    That's done in some places actually and I think it's terrible. We pay taxes to run these things, they don't need to steal more money from people they throw into jail. I think it's a bit ridiculous to charge people rent for being in prison.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #24
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    05-01-11 @ 04:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    65

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That's done in some places actually and I think it's terrible. We pay taxes to run these things, they don't need to steal more money from people they throw into jail. I think it's a bit ridiculous to charge people rent for being in prison.
    I'm baffled here. How is it stealing if we are simply charging them the cost of their incarceration while they are there? Please, explain this to me, perhaps at a level my 5 year old can understand because at 40 I don't get it. What I do get is this:

    1. I purchased a home in 2004
    2. I took out a loan from a bank to purchase that home.
    3. I must make my loan payments each month or the bank will foreclose on the home and eventually sell it to someone else.
    4. When the roof leaks I must fix it or pay someone to fix it.
    5. When the furnace goes out it's on me.
    6. I must pay the utility companies if I want utilities in my home.
    7. I must purchase appliances and furniture if I want those things in my home.
    8. I must purchase food if I want to cook in my home or go out to eat or hunt and plant a garden or somehow come up with food.

    So, now your saying, if I go out and hold a gun up to some guys head and take his money, rape his wife, kill his dog, burn his house, drink his liquor and diddle his cat that I won't have to pay for those things for as long as the judge thinks I should be in jail and that I should receive all those things and expect them as being obligatory simply because I have committed however any crimes it took to get my own self locked up?

    Let's review a lesson all of my children know:

    1. Every action has an equal & opposite reaction. Yes, physics applies to raising my children.
    2. If you commit a wrongful act then you will punish yourself. It is not me grounding them, it is not me placing them in the corner, it is not me smacking their behinds, it is them. I am only the tool that is delivering the punishment.
    3. This is called accepting personal responsibility for your actions.

    Now, if my kids are grounded does that get them out of their chores or pulling their "fair weight" around the house? Nope, they still gotta do it.

    So, why then when someone commits a wrongful act against the general public do we reward them with tons of free stuff and no obligation whatsoever to pay for anything? This is your argument.

    I had a guy back in 2002 break into our home (my oldest daughter was 8 months old at the time) while we were home. These guys basically committed a home invasion in all senses of the crime. When we did our research and discovered they owned 2 homes, 1 paid in full and the other over 1/2 way to paid off we went after their arses. Why? Because they deserved it.

    The judge sentenced them to prison for burglary and home invasion. We followed up with a nice little civil suit and cleaned them out of the houses. Do I care that the one guy was married and his wife was homeless when we got done with them? Nope, because he should of thought about that when he broke into my house without caring about my family. In the end, I am not the one who made her homeless, he is, through his own actions. I was simply the tool used to carry out the final steps necessary to make it happen.

    If people don't want to be resonsible for the cost of incarcerating their spouses then get a divorce.

    Personally, I think this idea should go further. We should also make them pay when they get out, if they can't afford it then they have to get a job and make payments with interest until it is paid off.

    When you commit a crime I am not making a contract with you that gives you the right to have everything for free. I am not agreeing to loan you the money to live a life that is free of having to pay bills. These guys can work in prison, make it a requirement. Seize their pay until the entire bill is paid off.

  5. #25
    Educator shintao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    10-19-13 @ 11:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    994

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by TDZ View Post
    I'm baffled here. How is it stealing if we are simply charging them the cost of their incarceration while they are there? Please, explain this to me, perhaps at a level my 5 year old can understand because at 40 I don't get it. What I do get is this:

    1. I purchased a home in 2004
    2. I took out a loan from a bank to purchase that home.
    3. I must make my loan payments each month or the bank will foreclose on the home and eventually sell it to someone else.
    4. When the roof leaks I must fix it or pay someone to fix it.
    5. When the furnace goes out it's on me.
    6. I must pay the utility companies if I want utilities in my home.
    7. I must purchase appliances and furniture if I want those things in my home.
    8. I must purchase food if I want to cook in my home or go out to eat or hunt and plant a garden or somehow come up with food.

    So, now your saying, if I go out and hold a gun up to some guys head and take his money, rape his wife, kill his dog, burn his house, drink his liquor and diddle his cat that I won't have to pay for those things for as long as the judge thinks I should be in jail and that I should receive all those things and expect them as being obligatory simply because I have committed however any crimes it took to get my own self locked up?

    Let's review a lesson all of my children know:

    1. Every action has an equal & opposite reaction. Yes, physics applies to raising my children.
    2. If you commit a wrongful act then you will punish yourself. It is not me grounding them, it is not me placing them in the corner, it is not me smacking their behinds, it is them. I am only the tool that is delivering the punishment.
    3. This is called accepting personal responsibility for your actions.

    Now, if my kids are grounded does that get them out of their chores or pulling their "fair weight" around the house? Nope, they still gotta do it.

    So, why then when someone commits a wrongful act against the general public do we reward them with tons of free stuff and no obligation whatsoever to pay for anything? This is your argument.

    I had a guy back in 2002 break into our home (my oldest daughter was 8 months old at the time) while we were home. These guys basically committed a home invasion in all senses of the crime. When we did our research and discovered they owned 2 homes, 1 paid in full and the other over 1/2 way to paid off we went after their arses. Why? Because they deserved it.

    The judge sentenced them to prison for burglary and home invasion. We followed up with a nice little civil suit and cleaned them out of the houses. Do I care that the one guy was married and his wife was homeless when we got done with them? Nope, because he should of thought about that when he broke into my house without caring about my family. In the end, I am not the one who made her homeless, he is, through his own actions. I was simply the tool used to carry out the final steps necessary to make it happen.

    If people don't want to be resonsible for the cost of incarcerating their spouses then get a divorce.

    Personally, I think this idea should go further. We should also make them pay when they get out, if they can't afford it then they have to get a job and make payments with interest until it is paid off.

    When you commit a crime I am not making a contract with you that gives you the right to have everything for free. I am not agreeing to loan you the money to live a life that is free of having to pay bills. These guys can work in prison, make it a requirement. Seize their pay until the entire bill is paid off.
    I don't agree with charging criminals for their stay, against their will. Sounds to much like debtors prison. Lets say a guy is jailed for back child support in this economy, and lacking a job. Should he be charged to stay? And when he can't pay, then what? He stays in prison until he can pay? And why should the rich criminals pay, and not the poor ones?

    Sorry if this gets off topic.........

    However I give you thumbs up for taking their property, like they were going to do to you.: applaud: rock: agree: thumbs: That should be a law for any crime against a person, maybe handled by victim-witness, and these bums might think twice. Either that, or they would smoke you so you couldn't collect. What do you think about the retaliation possibilities from other gang members or these two when they get out?

    IF YOU WOULD, start a thread in the "Off-Topic Discussion" on your experience. Thank you.
    Last edited by shintao; 04-25-11 at 01:42 PM.
    One Tin Soldier Walked Away..................

  6. #26
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by TDZ View Post
    I'm baffled here. How is it stealing if we are simply charging them the cost of their incarceration while they are there? Please, explain this to me, perhaps at a level my 5 year old can understand because at 40 I don't get it. What I do get is this:

    1. I purchased a home in 2004
    2. I took out a loan from a bank to purchase that home.
    3. I must make my loan payments each month or the bank will foreclose on the home and eventually sell it to someone else.
    4. When the roof leaks I must fix it or pay someone to fix it.
    5. When the furnace goes out it's on me.
    6. I must pay the utility companies if I want utilities in my home.
    7. I must purchase appliances and furniture if I want those things in my home.
    8. I must purchase food if I want to cook in my home or go out to eat or hunt and plant a garden or somehow come up with food.

    So, now your saying, if I go out and hold a gun up to some guys head and take his money, rape his wife, kill his dog, burn his house, drink his liquor and diddle his cat that I won't have to pay for those things for as long as the judge thinks I should be in jail and that I should receive all those things and expect them as being obligatory simply because I have committed however any crimes it took to get my own self locked up?

    Let's review a lesson all of my children know:

    1. Every action has an equal & opposite reaction. Yes, physics applies to raising my children.
    2. If you commit a wrongful act then you will punish yourself. It is not me grounding them, it is not me placing them in the corner, it is not me smacking their behinds, it is them. I am only the tool that is delivering the punishment.
    3. This is called accepting personal responsibility for your actions.

    Now, if my kids are grounded does that get them out of their chores or pulling their "fair weight" around the house? Nope, they still gotta do it.

    So, why then when someone commits a wrongful act against the general public do we reward them with tons of free stuff and no obligation whatsoever to pay for anything? This is your argument.

    I had a guy back in 2002 break into our home (my oldest daughter was 8 months old at the time) while we were home. These guys basically committed a home invasion in all senses of the crime. When we did our research and discovered they owned 2 homes, 1 paid in full and the other over 1/2 way to paid off we went after their arses. Why? Because they deserved it.

    The judge sentenced them to prison for burglary and home invasion. We followed up with a nice little civil suit and cleaned them out of the houses. Do I care that the one guy was married and his wife was homeless when we got done with them? Nope, because he should of thought about that when he broke into my house without caring about my family. In the end, I am not the one who made her homeless, he is, through his own actions. I was simply the tool used to carry out the final steps necessary to make it happen.

    If people don't want to be resonsible for the cost of incarcerating their spouses then get a divorce.

    Personally, I think this idea should go further. We should also make them pay when they get out, if they can't afford it then they have to get a job and make payments with interest until it is paid off.

    When you commit a crime I am not making a contract with you that gives you the right to have everything for free. I am not agreeing to loan you the money to live a life that is free of having to pay bills. These guys can work in prison, make it a requirement. Seize their pay until the entire bill is paid off.
    If you want a house, you pay for it. If you want criminals jailed for your protection, you pay for it. It's pretty simple. As far as any of the extras they get, they usually get jobs in prison and pay for them with the money they earn.

    Your suggestions of making them pay when they get out and get job or else are based in revenge and distaste for criminal behavior. Unfortunately, such demands offer little as means of improving our security. Your revenge/distaste based actions would likely inspire people to stay in their patterns of criminal behavior since they would obviously see no chance of building a better life for themselves.

    Also, they are not being "rewarded". They are in jail. That is the punishment and whatever fines that get are also punishment.

    Like I said, if you want criminals jailed for your protection, you pay for it and that includes taking care of their basic needs.

  7. #27
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Why should taxpayers have to pay for O.J. Simpson's incarceration? Martha Stewart's? Your own when you're thrown in jail for drunk driving? I say that if one has personal assets to cover their own incarceration costs, that should be part of the punishment. If they don't have the assets, no harm. But why should taxpayers pay to incarcerate someone who's broken the law?

    Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?
    Yes in a sense that they should do hard labor or some other work for the tax payers as a means of repaying their debt to society. They should not actually pay for it with cash nor should they be paid cash for any labor done while in prison seeing how they owe society a debt.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 04-25-11 at 01:57 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  8. #28
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by TDZ View Post
    I'm baffled here. How is it stealing if we are simply charging them the cost of their incarceration while they are there? Please, explain this to me, perhaps at a level my 5 year old can understand because at 40 I don't get it. What I do get is this:

    1. I purchased a home in 2004
    2. I took out a loan from a bank to purchase that home.
    3. I must make my loan payments each month or the bank will foreclose on the home and eventually sell it to someone else.
    4. When the roof leaks I must fix it or pay someone to fix it.
    5. When the furnace goes out it's on me.
    6. I must pay the utility companies if I want utilities in my home.
    7. I must purchase appliances and furniture if I want those things in my home.
    8. I must purchase food if I want to cook in my home or go out to eat or hunt and plant a garden or somehow come up with food.

    So, now your saying, if I go out and hold a gun up to some guys head and take his money, rape his wife, kill his dog, burn his house, drink his liquor and diddle his cat that I won't have to pay for those things for as long as the judge thinks I should be in jail and that I should receive all those things and expect them as being obligatory simply because I have committed however any crimes it took to get my own self locked up?

    Let's review a lesson all of my children know:

    1. Every action has an equal & opposite reaction. Yes, physics applies to raising my children.
    2. If you commit a wrongful act then you will punish yourself. It is not me grounding them, it is not me placing them in the corner, it is not me smacking their behinds, it is them. I am only the tool that is delivering the punishment.
    3. This is called accepting personal responsibility for your actions.

    Now, if my kids are grounded does that get them out of their chores or pulling their "fair weight" around the house? Nope, they still gotta do it.

    So, why then when someone commits a wrongful act against the general public do we reward them with tons of free stuff and no obligation whatsoever to pay for anything? This is your argument.

    I had a guy back in 2002 break into our home (my oldest daughter was 8 months old at the time) while we were home. These guys basically committed a home invasion in all senses of the crime. When we did our research and discovered they owned 2 homes, 1 paid in full and the other over 1/2 way to paid off we went after their arses. Why? Because they deserved it.

    The judge sentenced them to prison for burglary and home invasion. We followed up with a nice little civil suit and cleaned them out of the houses. Do I care that the one guy was married and his wife was homeless when we got done with them? Nope, because he should of thought about that when he broke into my house without caring about my family. In the end, I am not the one who made her homeless, he is, through his own actions. I was simply the tool used to carry out the final steps necessary to make it happen.

    If people don't want to be resonsible for the cost of incarcerating their spouses then get a divorce.

    Personally, I think this idea should go further. We should also make them pay when they get out, if they can't afford it then they have to get a job and make payments with interest until it is paid off.

    When you commit a crime I am not making a contract with you that gives you the right to have everything for free. I am not agreeing to loan you the money to live a life that is free of having to pay bills. These guys can work in prison, make it a requirement. Seize their pay until the entire bill is paid off.
    This is about the dumbest argument ever. You're essentially saying it's ok for the government to convict someone and take all their money. This is STUPID. It's essentially debtors prison and that was done away with for a reason. Also we already pay taxes to cover prisons. Done and done. Already paid for. Taking more money isn't going to alleviate what we have to pay anymore. They're just taking it. That's theft. You may sit there on your high horse you somehow balanced on your soap box and talk down your nose at people, but what we need now is intelligence, reason, and restraint. You may feel happy you "cleaned them out"; but that's just revenge and a sign of what's wrong with our system (BTW, you broke your rule 1 here. If you take more than what was taken from you, that is not a equal reaction. Jesus). You should be able to recoup your losses and that's it. Beyond that is unreasonable and the reason why little old ladies can get millions for spilling coffee in their laps.

    There are limits to punishments we should be allowed to put onto people. Reasonable punishments are fine; anything beyond that only goes to break the system down. It's time for us to exercise proper constraint and reason with law enforcement; not go off the retard cliff. We've indulged ourselves well too much on that front and it's time to cut back.
    Last edited by Ikari; 04-25-11 at 01:52 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #29
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    05-01-11 @ 04:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    65

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    This is about the dumbest argument ever. You're essentially saying it's ok for the government to convict someone and take all their money. This is STUPID. It's essentially debtors prison and that was done away with for a reason. Also we already pay taxes to cover prisons. Done and done. Already paid for. Taking more money isn't going to alleviate what we have to pay anymore. They're just taking it. That's theft. You may sit there on your high horse you somehow balanced on your soap box and talk down your nose at people, but what we need now is intelligence, reason, and restraint. You may feel happy you "cleaned them out"; but that's just revenge and a sign of what's wrong with our system (BTW, you broke your rule 1 here. If you take more than what was taken from you, that is not a equal reaction. Jesus). You should be able to recoup your losses and that's it. Beyond that is unreasonable and the reason why little old ladies can get millions for spilling coffee in their laps.

    There are limits to punishments we should be allowed to put onto people. Reasonable punishments are fine; anything beyond that only goes to break the system down. It's time for us to exercise proper constraint and reason with law enforcement; not go off the retard cliff. We've indulged ourselves well too much on that front and it's time to cut back.
    Rule 1 you allege I broke: For every action there is an equal and opposite reactin. How did I break it? Because the monetary value of what they were forced to pay by the courts was greater than the monetary value of the items they destroyed/stole? Let's look at what they stole/destroyed.

    In the sense of stole, very little. We were home, fight ensued and many things in the kitchen were destroyed. What they stole was our sense of security, my family's ability to feel safe in their own home, they took a sense of well being, a sense of pride. They invaded our home and stole from us things that can not be given back in a criminal court. They stole those things from my family.

    What did I receive from the courts in the end? I took their sense of security, I took their sense of pride and self-worth. I took away the security of them owning a home. Is it exactly equal? No. But wait, I took nothing when you think about it. They took it from themselves by breaking into my home. How can you not see that?

    When you break the law then you are subjecting yourself to whatever the consequences are voluntarily. Noone is forcing you to break the law (with the exception of very rare circumstances) This is done of your own volition, free will. Go ahead and argue drug users, I triple dog dare you to argue that one.

    Now, moving forward. How is it theft? Please answer the question without resorting to just standing their ranting that it's theft and we pay taxes. Please, answer the question. And while you do, pay attention to this argument.

    Is it theft if you get you are out driving drunk, run a red light and kill 3 people. In the aftermath you are arrested for OVI and taken to jail. Your car is taken to police impound and you fail to get it out because you can't make bail so thereby eventually the towing yard sells it at auction as an attempt to recoup their costs? Is that theft?

    After all, the car doesn't belong to the wrecking yard does it? It legally belongs to you doesn't it? But your in jail because you killed 3 people and can't make bail so time passes and it's assumed to be abandoned.

    Moving on. Can you please show me where I, TDZ, personally agreed to cover the living expenses of criminals? I would like to see any contract signed by me that says I will go to work and pay for them to watch tv all day. One contract where I agreed to give them food in exchange for my work. One contract where I agreed to work to buy them clothes. Please, show me this document.

    If anything, their sitting in prison on their arses collecting free room, board, food, clothes, cable, ping pong tables and so on is nothing more than organized crime against the tax payers. These scumbags know that if they go to break the law and go to jail they don't have to work and we will be forced to take care of them. Is it theft? Yeah, your dang right it is. Only you got it backwards who the victims are.

    I say, take their money, assets and whatever they earn in prison. Then, when they get out make them keep payin' with interest until the tab is paid in full. Then refund that money back to the taxpayers who put it up in the first place.

  10. #30
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    This is about the dumbest argument ever. You're essentially saying it's ok for the government to convict someone and take all their money. This is STUPID. It's essentially debtors prison and that was done away with for a reason. Also we already pay taxes to cover prisons. Done and done. Already paid for. Taking more money isn't going to alleviate what we have to pay anymore. They're just taking it. That's theft. You may sit there on your high horse you somehow balanced on your soap box and talk down your nose at people, but what we need now is intelligence, reason, and restraint. You may feel happy you "cleaned them out"; but that's just revenge and a sign of what's wrong with our system (BTW, you broke your rule 1 here. If you take more than what was taken from you, that is not a equal reaction. Jesus). You should be able to recoup your losses and that's it. Beyond that is unreasonable and the reason why little old ladies can get millions for spilling coffee in their laps.

    There are limits to punishments we should be allowed to put onto people. Reasonable punishments are fine; anything beyond that only goes to break the system down. It's time for us to exercise proper constraint and reason with law enforcement; not go off the retard cliff. We've indulged ourselves well too much on that front and it's time to cut back.
    Debtors' prison is entirely different. You're kept in jail until you pay your debt. (Until your family pays your debt.) That's not what's being discussed here...at least not my intention in the OP. I applaud TDZ for winning in civil court. It's done all the time and rightly so.

    I'm surprised so many people don't think that Martha Stewart should have to pay room-and-board...or O.J...or any of the myriad of people with assets who find themselves in jail. It seems a no-brainer to me. OJ's pension is estimated at $400,000 a year. He'll spend at least nine years in prison, costing the taxpayers prolly something like $175,000. He gets out in nine years with a tidy $3.6 million bank account and the taxpayers foot the bill for his incarceration. If a criminal has assets, the taxpayer ought to be able to recoup his room and board, in my opinion. If he doesn't have assets, then so be it -- because to assess someone money they don't have does turn it into debtor's prison.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •