|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 6, 2011 18:38:51 GMT
Look at this article. A prisoner in Illinois managed to save $11,000 dollars from the weekly wage paid by the state during his incarceration, which began in 1982. I can't find any follow-up articles on this. It appears the guy is still in prison. Since he was give the same amount as all the other prisoners, the rest of whom presumably spent theirs, why is he being told to give his back? Seems wrong to me. |
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Apr 10, 2011 10:39:54 GMT
Cuts both ways, I suppose. There's an argument for paying proper wages to prisoners, so that they can provide some sort of recompense to their victims and support for dependants, as well as provide for resettlement into (one hopes) a law-abiding and productive life on release. How do they treat prisoners who don't save it up (and how come they don't save it up?).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2011 10:51:31 GMT
I think that the junk food and tobacco lobby is behind this to make sure that prisoners spend every spare penny they have on crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 10, 2011 15:12:20 GMT
To me it seems very black and white. The state GAVE him that money. That means it was his to do with as he pleased. The fact that he seems to still have most of it is no reason for them to snatch it back.
Obviously an argument could be made that prisoners landed themselves in prison, creating a situation wherein they are supported by the state, thus should not receive wages while incarcerated. However, as Patrick points out, there are valid reasons to pay wages to prisoners. One reason, I would think, would be as a way to train many of them who started out as youthful offenders into the idea of working for a living.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2011 16:20:58 GMT
There should be some rule that would allow them to keep a percentage of the money (I would say 50% in view of how meager the wages are) -- the rest could go to a compensation fund, and when I rule the world, if the victim was a bank or an oil company (just to name the first two on my list of many hundreds), they would not be eligible for compensation.
|
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Apr 13, 2011 20:25:14 GMT
so the state wants him to give back the money to pay part of the cost of keeping him in prison? but then, if he is supposed to pay for the cost of imprisonment, shouldn't he be paid a normal wage? because otherwise i would think the 75 dollars or what it was, is just basically what is left over after deducting his own part of the prison-cost...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 20:50:07 GMT
I agree. What a bunch of hypocrites!  |
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Apr 22, 2011 10:56:14 GMT
Shouldn't he be working for free anyway?
Though I do agree that if he gets a salary, and he saves it, he should keep it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 22, 2011 17:03:13 GMT
As far as I know, prisoners earn the right to have prison jobs through good behavior and maybe some other indications that they wish to do something other than just serve their time. The salaries they get would be far less than would have to be paid to a regular worker, so theoretically the prisoner is saving the state money, in that sense.
Of course that brings us full circle to whether prisoners should have to be working off their time in prison, to defray the cost of keeping them. But then, which prisoners can be trusted to do the work and not turn the tools and time to criminal means? The ones who can be trusted are working, and the untrustworthy ones are doing nothing, so the working ones should be compensated, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Apr 23, 2011 7:15:14 GMT
The untrusworthy ones should be on a chain gang breaking rocks while the trustworthy ones should be peeling potaters in the kitchen. If I was the prison director  |
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 23, 2011 18:07:14 GMT
... should be on a chain gang breaking rocks ... You left out "in the hot sun".  |
|
