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 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54

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

  1. #31
    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
    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.
    To a degree, yes. To recoup losses from crime, it is fine. Making a profit on it, however, is not. When you use the courts to take away people's homes when they stole your TV; that's a bit over the top. There must be limits to everything, particularly the use of government force against the individual. That's ultimately what you're talking about. And you want to force them to pay for the government force used against them? That's ridiculous. You cannot do that. We make the laws, we have to pay for the enforcement. We have to pay and train the police, we have to build jails, we have to pay to maintain a prison population. This is for OUR benefit. You can't throw people in jail and then claim that they owe a ton of money because of it. This sort of revenge style "justice" is incredibly idiotic and toxic.

    If someone breaks into your home, you have the right to recoup the losses caused. But if you get the courts to take his home when he didn't burn yours to the ground is too much. That is theft itself, it's no different than the criminal. Only he used a gun and the others use the courts. But its still force applied against the individual and if you aren't getting just compensation, then you're a thief and nothing more. While there are proper laws and punishments, we must be careful not to be too stupid and tread off the path of justice. If we start emotionalizing the system and going off of revenge, then we will destroy the system. It's then no longer a system of justice, but a system of revenge tactics where one merely steals from another but uses the courts instead of a gun. Force is force, there's no way around it. We use it against others a lot, and in ways which are supportive of justice and in ways which are against it. We must be intelligent enough to see the difference. We must call for rational restriction to what can be forced.

    Gun or government, it's the same in the end. Just compensation is fine; profit is not. You can't take a man's home if he didn't take yours. If all he steals is a TV then you are entitled to the monetary value of that TV and nothing more. If we become unreasonable, we lose it all. And you can see that happening right now as the court system spirals seemingly out of control. Ignorance and emotion will bring ruin to justice. That's a fact.
    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."

  2. #32
    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
    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.
    Oh my god. You're gonna cry about "security". For pete's sake, buy a f'n gun. No, you are trying to excuse your gross use of government force against someone by making up namby pamby crap like "boo hoo hoo I feel so unsafe now". You took from them well more then they ever took from you. You just used the courts instead of a gun; that's the only difference. Equal and opposite means you get compensated for what was physically stolen or destroyed. Not made up emotional terms so that you can feel better about your own theft.

    What leftist BS this argument is. Jesus we're turning into the French.
    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."

  3. #33
    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
    Oh my god. You're gonna cry about "security". For pete's sake, buy a f'n gun. No, you are trying to excuse your gross use of government force against someone by making up namby pamby crap like "boo hoo hoo I feel so unsafe now". You took from them well more then they ever took from you. You just used the courts instead of a gun; that's the only difference. Equal and opposite means you get compensated for what was physically stolen or destroyed. Not made up emotional terms so that you can feel better about your own theft.

    What leftist BS this argument is. Jesus we're turning into the French.
    It's actually not a leftist argument, quite the opposite actually. In addition, it's not theft in any sense of the term. So, how about we give you a free lesson in English. Go ahead, grab your dictionary....


    It's there to the left...

    Yeah... 2 shelves up...

    Yeah, the big red book with lots of words and a few small pics in it...

    That's it...

    Oh, you need a ladder to reach it?

    Take your time... We'll wait.

    Great, glad you got it.

    Now, use it to look up this word:

    Punitive

    Now use it to look up this word:

    Damages

    Can you use them together? Say it with me:

    Punitive Damages

    That's it, now just keep repeating it to yourself. The reason that we have Punitive Damages is to punish an individual for doing wrong to someone else. A criminal court can sentence you to a prison term and that is punitive. The criminal court can order you to pay "restitution" which is replacing the item you destroyed. However, they can not order you to pay "Punitive Damages" in a monetary sense, that is why we have "Civil Courts" to order the payment of "Punitive Damages".

    Have you ever been in a car accident? One that wasn't your fault? Did you take the money the insurance company offered you for pain & suffering? If you did, then under your definition of theft, you committed theft because the pain & suffering are "intangible".

    Moving forward, you keep talking about debtor's prisons and keeping people by force who can't afford to pay. Who's screaming Leftist talk now?

    Oh my god, the TP'ers wanna keep Billy Bob in jail 'cause he can't afferd da pay for dat dere toilet paper he used last week. We betta git Rev Sharpton to protest dis dere injustick.

    Noone is talking about that scenario except for you. Read our posts. We're clearly stating that those who have the money should be forced to pay. Others, like myself are clearly stating if they don't have the money then they should still pay by getting a job after they get out and pay it back with interest.

    Is this to difficult for you to comprehend?

    If they are out working a job then how are we forcing them to stay in prison beyond their original sentence for the original crime they committed?

    Come on now, help us out here. How is that happening? Are you listening to the 9th voice in your head again? We told you he's an insane sociopathic transgender already. Ignore him. He doesn't know what he's saying.

    Again... How is this a debtors prison if they are NOT being held for inability to pay a debt?

    **And as far as your statement that I took more from them than they took from me, your right. But, do you really think they intended that to happen? We can all rest assured that they intended to take from me and give nothing in return. So, I switched the tables on them. It takes a real man to break into a house that has an 8 1/2 month old baby in it, takes a bigger man to defend that baby. Maybe when they get out they will think twice about breaking into someone else's home. And if they come back to mine, I'll be judged by 12 and they will be dropped by 6. Need I say more?
    Last edited by TDZ; 04-25-11 at 04:35 PM.

  4. #34
    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?

    No wonder things are going down the tubes. Emotionalize retribution and revenge are actually thought of as legitimate excuses for theft. It doesn't matter what people "intend" to happen. What matters is what happens. There are legitimate forms of force to use against others, but then using the government to grab more because you feel entitled to id or "you're turning the tables" is the same as someone robbing you at gun point. Force is force. Punitive damages are a form of force as well, and as with any form of force there are reasonable methods by which to exercise it and unreasonable methods. Anything that goes beyond that which was actually damaged or destroyed is unnecessary force. The point of punitive damages is to recover what was lost. I've been in a car wreck, nailed from behind. I went through the insurance company and recovered the damage to my car; that was it. That's what was broken. If I were injured in a measurable way, I could get compensation for hospital bills; that's it. This extra crap people keep putting on about "emotional damage" and other crap is just things people say when blinded by the dollar signs in their eyes. It breaks down justice. The courts aren't supposed to be there to enforce revenge, they're their to enforce justice.

    Now the jails are paid for, taxes are collected for that. The police officers are staffed and trained, taxes go for that. Running the prison system is paid for, taxes are collected for that. This system is for society at large, it is we who benefit from it and thus we who need to pay for it. Charging people for being in jail is just another form of sponsored theft. You're using government to take from people again, and for what? A system which is paid for, money which will never come back our way. There should be NO profit in justice. No extra force, no extra stealing, none of it. It's simply justice. You break into someone's home, you go to jail for awhile. You have to pay for what you've taken. That's the proper punishment. You don't say "Well now you owe use 15,000 for room and board...but don't worry we'll only keep adding interest onto that and jacking up what you owe. As a felon you should just go get a job somewhere to pay this off". That's just idiotic, particularly considering we've already paid for the system. Jail isn't to benefit the criminal, it's to benefit the rest of us who aren't. You just are taking this idea of revenge against the criminal to a level which cannot be supported in a true and free Republic.

    Is this too difficult for you to comprehend?
    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."

  5. #35
    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?

    I'm curious Ikari... Did you have to forfeit some property through a court action because of your own personal actions?

    In your car wreck, did you only collect what you paid for the car minus a depreciation and personal use deduction? After all, the car was no longer worth what you paid for it due to additional mileage, wear and tear. Or did you go after the full book value the insurance company offered you?

    And no, punitive damages are not to replace what was stolen/destroyed. That is called "restitution" my good friend. Do we need more English lessons for you?

    Punitive Damages are just like the word says: To Punish one for doing wrong. If you punch someone and only have to pay their medical bills what does that teach you? Not a dang thing in my mind. But if you punch someone and have to pay the medical bills and fork out a few grand of your hard earned money to the guy then it just might make you think twice about punching him again.

    Punitive Damages are not part of our laws, they're a part of what's called "Common Law" that dates back to England and then on back to the Roman Empire. It's a way of teaching people to conform to the rules of society or pay the consequences. It's amazing, the only ones arguing against Punitive Damages are the ones who are getting killed in Court with huge legal awards against them for wrong doing.

    In addition, you claim the jails/prisons are paid for. Are they? Take a look at how many Sheriffs' departments are laying off deputies. How many prison guards are out of work. How many inmates are being freed due to jail overcrowding. Ohio has to take benefits away from state employees in an effort to balance the budget because we have to take care of cry baby prisoners who broke the law and continue to steal from honest citizens because we can't afford to meet all the needs the law requires jails/prisons to meet.

    So, if we take the step of making them pay rent to the jail and additional costs that the prison incurs for keeping them there then maybe we can start to balance the budget a little. Then the prisons will be paid for by those who actually use the prisons. The prisoners. If they still don't like the type of treatment they get maybe they can escrow their rent with the courts then. Until then, STF up and take your medicine like a big boy. Be glad we don't make you all live in tents.

  6. #36
    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?

    It's funny you want to keep bringing up my car wreck. They paid to have my rear bumper and trunk repaired, that was it. That's what was broken, that's what was fixed. I had no desire to milk it for anything more than replacing that which was damaged.

    It's also funny you bring up the current layoffs of law enforcement. The current layoffs are due to strain on the economy from the last bout. There's an overall decrease in money and the ability to properly budget city concerns. It's not limited to prisons; places like higher education certainly have taken harder hits. This is what happens when the system breaks, but it is not an indication of how it operates under normal circumstances. Still, there is a fundamental problem with making it profitable for government to put people into jail; and if you can't figure that out then there is little hope. The government is the one which is restricted, and the People are meant to be free. The use of prison isn't limited to those who use it. In fact, the biggest benefit to prison is not to the prisoners, but to ourselves. We reap the most benefit, we need to pay for it. There's no such thing as a free lunch. While there are reasonable uses of force, government force in particular must be limited to reasonable means. Stealing from the thief is not reasonable, it's revenge. Justice is best served without it. If there were no jail, then big punitive settlements may be the only route to go; but jail itself provides the punishment so outside restitution; nothing else is needed. Less one is greedy and trying to morally objectify their greed.

    This revenge style of "justice" is nothing close to actual justice. It's a sick perversion of the ideal and meant only to satisfy the gluttony of the holier than thou who sit outside and condemn people for their actions with no regard to proper punishment and proper roll of government force. Government should never profit from justice. It's fundamentally flawed to make it so. Once there is more incentive for the government to have more people in jail, you destroy the objectivity of justice.
    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."

  7. #37
    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?

    Did they use a new bumper for the Ikari? Did that bumper have any knicks or scratches in it like the one that was hit (prior to the accident) as we are all positive it did. What about the trunk? Was it exactly as it was prior to the collision? If not then you got "MORE" than what you had coming to you and you thus milked the system.

    As far as your statement on the economy goes, if chargining inmates to stay in jail/prison helps to balance the budget and teach them personal responsibility then so be it. It's for the common good. You still have yet to explain how anyone is stealing anything from the inmates. Can we finally have that answer or are you trying to find a way still to twist that perspective into a somewhat rational thought?

  8. #38
    Professor
    Alfons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    10-31-17 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,460

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

    No, otherwise a particular state can throw most of citizens to prisons and make a fine busines.
    Rom 6:23:For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  9. #39
    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
    Did they use a new bumper for the Ikari? Did that bumper have any knicks or scratches in it like the one that was hit (prior to the accident) as we are all positive it did. What about the trunk? Was it exactly as it was prior to the collision? If not then you got "MORE" than what you had coming to you and you thus milked the system.

    As far as your statement on the economy goes, if charging inmates to stay in jail/prison helps to balance the budget and teach them personal responsibility then so be it. It's for the common good. You still have yet to explain how anyone is stealing anything from the inmates. Can we finally have that answer or are you trying to find a way still to twist that perspective into a somewhat rational thought?
    The trunk mostly works as it did before. Gotta slam it sometimes to make it latch though. The back bumper wasn't in bad condition when it hit. But these sorts of things when damaged are typically bought from a general provider and thus you never find a bumper which is scratched up less you are going to spend extra money in search through a junk yard. If you were being intellectually honest, you would understand why you aren't providing actual argument for "milking" the system. Had I claimed my front dash was the result of the accident and had them replace that; then there would be argument since I would have lied about it in order to get more than that which was damaged. But my trunk and bumper were damaged, and the trunk and bumper were what was fixed and charged to the person's insurance. Plain and simple.

    Stealing is money taken in force. You forcibly take money from someone after you forcibly sent them to the place you are now trying to charge them rent for. The services provided are services which are to be provided by the tax payer and we are taxes accordingly. It's a bit insane. Not only so, but you give government profit for throwing people in jail; which is not really a circumstance we should have. You are using government force to remove money from people they earned through their labor. You try to justify it by saying they were in jail and had to pay that. But we put them there, we used force to do so. You can't then say that they have to pay you for it. It's like kidnapping someone and expecting that they pay your rent while they stay bound up in your basement. We have to be careful with the forms of government force we authorize and how much we allow them to take and for what reasons they get to take it. It's all part and parcel with a constrained government. You can't throw people into jail then demand that they pay for it and then if they can't say "that's ok, just get a job when you get out and we'll charge you interest on this and make you pay more for having been thrown in jail".

    There are reasonable uses of force, and unreasonable uses of force. Stealing money from people you put into jail is not reasonable. It's not rent, they didn't get a rental contract and agree to it. They were thrown in jail through the use of government force. You can't then charge them for that. Not only is it morally questionable, but it adds incentive to the State for throwing people into jail which shouldn't exist. Their only concern should be justice and proper punishment; nothing more.
    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."

  10. #40
    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 Alfons View Post
    No, otherwise a particular state can throw most of citizens to prisons and make a fine busines.
    I don't often agree with you; but you've nailed the primary reason as to why this shouldn't be allowed.
    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."

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •