• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    33
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.
 
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:
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
No, otherwise a particular state can throw most of citizens to prisons and make a fine busines.
 
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.
 
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.
 
-- Should people in jail have to pay for their incarceration if they have the means?

No because they are wards of the state meaning the state is responsible. I support the state going after the proceeds of crime and similar funds if gained through crime though.
 
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?

make a mo fo pay rent on his cell.
 
No because they are wards of the state meaning the state is responsible. I support the state going after the proceeds of crime and similar funds if gained through crime though.

I think that too needs to be restricted because it can be used for property theft pretty easily. It's pretty much what goes on with drug crimes, they'll take anything they can and I'm not sure the carte blanch property confiscation is necessarily good things. And you have to make sure people aren't outright stealing.
 
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?

No way. People should not have to pay for their own incarceration. Most laws are bad to begin with. We don't need to give the justice system even more of a reason to imprison people - to take assets they may have paid with via honest money.
 
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.

Let's take your rental contract scenario here Ikari. When did we sign a contract stating that we would not rape, pillage or plunder? Can you point out to me the contract that says we will go to prison for it if we do those things? Curious where this contract is since you bring it up.

Oh, there isn't one is there. That's because it's called the "Law" and it's written down and enforced after being passed by either our elected officials or a majority vote on a public ballot. Pretty simple concept actually.

Now, if they pass a law that says everyone convicted after such and such date will have to pay rent while they are incarcerated for a crime they are convicted of, then that is the law. People know before hand that they will have to pay if they break the law and as such are subject to said law. No rental contract needed.

As far as your concept of theft goes, since it's beyond your cerebral comprehension skills to get it, let's try looking at it another way.

Let's say that guy who rear ended you did not have insurance and you had to take him to court to get him to pay. Obtain judgement and he still doesn't want to pay. You discover where he works and garnish his check. Are you stealing?

Come on Ikari, are you stealing?
 
Let's take your rental contract scenario here Ikari. When did we sign a contract stating that we would not rape, pillage or plunder? Can you point out to me the contract that says we will go to prison for it if we do those things? Curious where this contract is since you bring it up.

Oh, there isn't one is there. That's because it's called the "Law" and it's written down and enforced after being passed by either our elected officials or a majority vote on a public ballot. Pretty simple concept actually.

Now, if they pass a law that says everyone convicted after such and such date will have to pay rent while they are incarcerated for a crime they are convicted of, then that is the law. People know before hand that they will have to pay if they break the law and as such are subject to said law. No rental contract needed.

As far as your concept of theft goes, since it's beyond your cerebral comprehension skills to get it, let's try looking at it another way.

Let's say that guy who rear ended you did not have insurance and you had to take him to court to get him to pay. Obtain judgement and he still doesn't want to pay. You discover where he works and garnish his check. Are you stealing?

Come on Ikari, are you stealing?

The contract is the Constitution which establishes the government. It authorizes it, though limited, to create law and work for the rights and liberties of the individual. All government obtains legitimacy through the consent of the governed. You agree to the Constitution, the limited powers granted to the government, and the government created by it by not revolting. That is the agreement, we established the government and allow it to operate so long as it does so within the boundaries of the Constitution. Should it no longer serve that purpose, it is our right and duty to do away with it and create a new government. That's the contract. There is no contract for people in jail because they are put there involuntarily. We force them there for our sake.

By your logic the government can say that everyone arrested after such and such a date will not have access to public attorneys, that would be fine and dandy to you as well. But the key here really is that the government is only given restricted powers; there are things it cannot do. There are proper ways to use its force against others, and improper ways to do so. The fact is as soon as we convict a criminal and send him to jail, he's our responsibility; ward of the State. We sent him there, we used force to do so, and thus we have to support him while in his time out. That's the way it is. There cannot be incentive for the government to have more and more people in jail. If they make profit off of it, there is a clear conflict of interest and justice suffers. But that seems to be beyond your cerebral comprehensions skills to get.

As for your example, it could be seen as an example of legalized theft. I'm would be using government force against another individual. However, there is contract when you accept your drivers license, and part of that (for better or worse) is the legal obligation for one to obtain insurance. If one does not, they have broken the law; to which government force can now be applied. It would be reasonable and proper force up to restitution, and unreasonable and improper afterward. But this is all in some form of car accident. The real thing here is that you want to try to twist things around and engage in intellectually dishonest debate to make your position seem more favorable. Well that's fine, it's a free country. But a car accident wherein there are requirements for insurance in order to pay restitution in case you cause an accident, and charging criminals you throw into jail rent are two very different things. You don't agree to pay rent while in jail, in fact it's absurd to think that it's ok to do so. Who sets the rent? What's the "interest rate" once someone gets out? Do you account for the fact that you've pretty much made it impossible for some criminals to obtain jobs right off the bat, and what they will be paid is too low to be able to pay back rent on jail? Are you going to throw them in jail again if they can't pay and charge them for rent again? Can you honestly, with all your smarmy condescending tone pretending you're intellectually superior, not see the problem and conflict of interest in that?
 
What Amendment is that again that deals with debtor' prisons? I'll let you look it up.

Now, one more time, to help you out here Ikari, I realize this is really difficult for you to follow, but you need to concentrate real hard. Read it slowly:

If it is part of the law, then the law is what is ordering them to pay rent.

Now, in many places across the United States they already charge inmates for jail. When an inmate is booked into any jail they are given an "indigency kit" that contains things like toothpaste, toothbrush, deodorant, shampoo and such. If they have money to pay for it then they pay for it. If they are truly indigent with no funds then they get it for free (not really, there is a bill awaiting them if they ever come back) and that is that.

As far as them agreeing to it goes, in addition. If it's part of the law and they break the law then they are agreeing to it by their actions. It's their problem to pay the bill. What do I care if they can't find a decent paying job or not, it's not my problem. I did not break the law, I did not get myself sentenced to jail, I did exactly what society has expected of me. I grew up, went to college, got married, had kids and yes I even opened my own company and I ensure the continued employment of several individuals at a decent salary through the hard work of all of us.

So tell me, how is it my problem that a whiney little pervert kiddie diddler or a theif or a junkie or whatever can't find a job? What do I care if he lives on the street? My employees and I pay our bills, we do what were supposed to do. That's how it works.

You say they are a ward of the state and forced into prison. Your 100% wrong. No one forces anyone into prison for a criminal act. They choose to go to prison voluntarily by the actions they have committed. If you don't like prison and feel like you've been forced there, then let me give you a news flash Ikari:

Don't break the law and you won't go to prison!

The rest of the world knows that one. I stand by my opinion that all who break the law and are convicted of breaking the law need to pay rent, food, security and so on to the prison institution that they are incarcerated in. If they can not pay this while they are in then they need to start paying it once they get out. As far as the amount goes, whatever it cost to keep them there and the interest can be governed using T-Bills as an Index with a modest margin on them for example.
 
Listen up, one more time, to help you out here TDZ. I realize this is really difficult for you to follow, but you need to concentrate real hard. Read it slowly:

The government is limited in the type of force it can use against the individual. Prisoners are wards of the State because we have put them there through due process of law. The government cannot make any law it wants, and then that's the end all be all. A law must be Constitutional and use only the power granted to the government.

But hey, I'm glad you avoided all my questions; shows exactly how principled and how much integrity you actually have. Good job with your intellectually lazy and dishonest form of debate.
 
Listen up, one more time, to help you out here TDZ. I realize this is really difficult for you to follow, but you need to concentrate real hard. Read it slowly:

The government is limited in the type of force it can use against the individual. Prisoners are wards of the State because we have put them there through due process of law. The government cannot make any law it wants, and then that's the end all be all. A law must be Constitutional and use only the power granted to the government.

But hey, I'm glad you avoided all my questions; shows exactly how principled and how much integrity you actually have. Good job with your intellectually lazy and dishonest form of debate.

How long have you been in solitary confinement now Ikari? Way to long it appears. Since at least the '90's jails have been chargining convicted inmates for their stays. It is Constitutional to charge them. Your the one swearing that the gov't will just put everyone in jail to make money, go look at your previous posts if you've forgotten already.

And while people may be in jail via due process of the law, it is still a fact that were it not for their own actions they would not be in jail. IE: Don't break the law and you don't go to jail. Thereby if your in jail you put yourself in jail, not the cops, not the prosecutor, not the jury and not the judge. You! It's called taking responsibility for YOUR actions.

Do we need to have a discussion on how a sense of entitlement is guaranteed to lead you to a life of failure too?
 
How long have you been in solitary confinement now Ikari? Way to long it appears. Since at least the '90's jails have been chargining convicted inmates for their stays. It is Constitutional to charge them. Your the one swearing that the gov't will just put everyone in jail to make money, go look at your previous posts if you've forgotten already.

And while people may be in jail via due process of the law, it is still a fact that were it not for their own actions they would not be in jail. IE: Don't break the law and you don't go to jail. Thereby if your in jail you put yourself in jail, not the cops, not the prosecutor, not the jury and not the judge. You! It's called taking responsibility for YOUR actions.

Do we need to have a discussion on how a sense of entitlement is guaranteed to lead you to a life of failure too?

So you can't address questions, all you can do is insult and deflect eh? Well internet's full of folk like you.

You want to say that government won't put people away if they can profit. We have the HIGHEST incarceration rate of all the industrialized countries. 1/5 adults will be in jail at some point. You didn't do anything for your case.

You can talk about entitlement, but I'm not the one that feels entitled to another man's property if said individual broke the law. Before you run off at your mouth you may want to spend some time and think about what you're saying. I know it's hard man, but you should do it as a matter of practice. Helps to avoid putting your foot in your mouth.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom