While there may be a case to made for lowering these fees, comments lecturing us on our lack of compassion for people who commit crimes are not making them. I've been a victim of crime many times. I reserve my respect and compassion for people who don't break into my car, don't put a gun in my ear and haven't stolen my purse.
1
The problem with this opinion piece is the author’s sense of entitlement - that society is obligated to bear the cost of his crimes and the crimes of others, that he should be fed, housed, have access to opportunities to educate and enrich himself that others have to pay for.
The logic behind eliminating these fees is defensible and has a solid rationale - it’s to reduce the odds of recidivism and provide a better chance for criminals to reintegrate into society. There’s a strong argument that this benefits society.
At the same time, it’s not your right to have society bear the cost of your crimes - these costs are borne by your victims and by law abiding citizens. Maybe recognising that is the first step towards reintegrating back into society.
1
The cruelest fee I have read about occurs in Arizona, and that is charging the families of prisoners to visit the prisoner. The families already have the burden of travel, often long distances, and often by public transportation. Further, family visits are one of the few (or perhaps only) things to which a prisoner can look forward with pleasure, and can have a civilizing impact on a person living in a brutal prison environment. It is the only ray of hope in a dark, dark place.
The second is the fact that public assistance of any kind is denied to former prisoners: food stamps, Medicaid, rental assistance, and so on. Is it any wonder that the recividism rate is so high in this country? When you remove a person's ability to improve his or her life, is any surprise that many return to their former lives?
And to anyone who feels that a lifetime of punishment is warranted and deserved, please stop calling yourself a Christian right now, because lifelong punishment is not the way in which Jesus Christ told us to live our lives.
"[1] Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matt.7. [1]
Easy. Don't do the crime. Don't bother with the but buts...
In a civil society, there would be opportunities in prison for prisoners to learn a trade, get a degree, or other things that would prepare them to re-integrate into society. Instead, we seemingly dump them on the streets when they have served their prison term.
1
Americans are into punishment, revenge, hypocrisy and cruelty as a way of life. This "lifestyle" is pushed by the corporate rich PROFITEERS, their Republican politicians and their minions. They who will squeeze every drop of blood out of you when you are already weakened. Good luck trying to make a country survive at all on THAT malignant basis.
How can you require someone to wear an ankle monitor and then charge them for it. That's absurd. Immoral.
The criminal justice system is really screwed up in this country.
Vindictive punishment seems to be the norm. Whatever happened to rehabilitation? Not everyone is beyond hope.
The system is broken and must be fixed. This initiative to stop charging fees appears to be a step in the right direction.
1
To answer the stated question: "Because weak and frightened people hate and fear you. They elect politicians who make you appear to be an existential threat with ever-escalating rhetoric (rinse and repeat with re-election. These weak and frightened voters would rater have you put to death, but cannot because of Constitutional law." It's related to why prison rape is still permitted, it's actually considered "part of the punishment" by the police, the prosectors, and ultimately by those same voters. So your eternal suffering gives the citizens, and their politicians, the illusion of power and control, all the while helping keep their taxes down a little bit.
Oh, that was a rhetorical question? My bad. Never mind then.
how much more punishment do poor excons have to go through? If the State still deems them not ready for freedom the State has an obligation to continue to protect and serve and not charge these people for their partial freedom. Rehabilitation should come with a job, not bills. Another case of poor people getting nickel and dimed.
1
Anyone with such debts cannot have a bank account, cannot work for a salary, and cannot save for retirement. The State will garnish wages and confiscate any money in a bank account.
1
As a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor this author begins with a faulty premise and ignores another critical issue.
The premise that their entire debt is paid upon service of a prison sentence is wrong. Consider parole or mandatory supervised release which still remains. Consider that while serving this sentence this person paid (virtually no money) even though the cost of housing them was thousands of dollars. The inmate has likely failed to repay restitution to the actual victim. Second, incarceration is punishment, not merely meant to rehabilitate.
As for the missed point, why should law abiding taxpayers have to pay to house criminals. Statistically once a person goes to prison they will continue to commit other crimes. These crimes are choices, but society has to pay the consequences.
2
I would agree that the approach of post incarceration fee collection is ineffective at keeping the public safe. However, what bothers me about the entire conversation about post prison rights, is the presumption that there is a moral expunging of the damage a person has done to their victims or society by virtue of finishing their sentence. The entire concept of “wiping the slate clean” has now gone to restoring voting, eliminating employers and fellow workers from knowing people are criminals and in general extending the concept of a debt having been paid. It trivializes the commission of crime, it presumes that to victims a simple trade of a sentence (inclusive of incarceration or simply monitoring by the state) is any way or shape vaguely adequate. For perspective, the sentence for kidnapping is as little as 1 year, sexual assault (federal) 2 years and so on. Further we absolve people of their heinous crimes with simply the passage of crime (e.g. thousand of Priests). A drug dealer is no simple merchant, he (yes more likely) has dealt hooked, caused robberies and assaults. The impact of crime on victims and society is far greater than simply a jail sentence or worse monitoring. So, our 1st, 2nd, 3rd priorities need to be law abiding citizens, NOT the perpetrators.
4
This is news to me. It seems counter intuitive to bill someone on release from jail for admin costs. They've either fully discharged their debt to society or they haven't. If they haven't, keep them incarcerated until they have, rather than stick them with a hidden add-on to their sentence, when they leave.
2
The state is responsible for the care of an inmate during his stay,therefore any and all expenses are on the state.
1
About two weeks ago, the Florida legislature voted to impose a "poll tax" on people that can't pay their court fines and fees.
An impoverished person unable to pay court fines imposed for a speeding ticket or an ex-felon unable to pay for court-ordered electronic ankle surveillance (Florida forces the person to pay) gets their basic voting rights stripped. Florida can waive court fines for the impoverished, but not for the for-profit money-making surveillance costs.
91% of Florida's felons are black. Given that Florida loves locking up Blacks, and that would be difficult for a lot of ex-felons to vote if they fail to keep up on the payments for the money-making surveillance costs in addition to paying for basic living costs, Florida is dutifully ensuring that Blacks have no rights to vote. Ever. Again.
1
There are many misconceptions being spread about prison convicts/parolees/felons. For one thing, there are very, very few falsely convicted inmates in prison, despite what many here and in the rest of the media keep repeating. I've been in there, and I have NEVER met anyone that didn't admit freely, boastfully, what they were locked up for. I'm not sure of the percentage, but a pretty good indicator of how someone will do when they are released, is what they did for a living before getting locked up. I met a whole bunch of people in there, that had never had a real job. They've been scamming and stealing for their entire lives, and chances are, they'll do it as soon as they get out. Someone that had a career before their dope charges, domestic violence, tax issues or whatever, is much more motivated to stay out of prison, and has a greater ability to pay back any fines than someone who has been busted 9 times for selling dope and has never had a job. Jobs. There is also some misconceptions about felons getting jobs, even people saying that nearly all can't find a job. Many employers are also ex-cons/felons, and will give a guy a chance. They probably won't hire you to count money at the bank, but roofers and laborers are in demand.......
4
Many branches of government seek'other' sources of'moneys' while also raising taxes. A taxpayer pays $500 fees to retrieve a stolen vehicle, a traffic violation fine for $50 has $150 in 'fees/costs 'with it. The root cause is simple; inefficient bloated unionized bureaucracies where salaries/benefits are vastly higher than the average taxpayer they purport to serve, civil service bureaucracies have more political power than the taxpayer. Saddling released prisoners with debt is but one hideous example of such administrative excess we have in Calif were Democrats run everything.
1
Okay, you genuinely surprised me. I would not have imagined that someone could twist themselves into such a pretzel shape that they blame the problems of released prisoners on unions! Unions, for pity's sake. That's ridiculous.
1
First a disclaimer, I recognize the odds are stacked against former inmates re-entering society; and there has to be a better way.
However, the article begins with a false premise. "I've paid my debt to society". I say not true. These folks have not paid their debt in full as of yet. Yes, they completed their incarceration, but not the other sanctions placed upon them. To extend the author's hospital analogy - imagine you have medical treatment. You pay for the hospital for your surgery, but now the anesthesiologist comes for their money. "but I paid the Surgeon", why do I have to pay again?
5
Mr. Martin objects to the burden incurred by administrative fees charged to released convicts. He neglects to mention the continuing costs borne by the victims of crimes committed by those convicted criminals. Those continuing non-dollar costs include a lingering or perhaps perpetual fear of future violations from other criminals and real damage to life, limb, property and serenity. Those damages are immeasurable and chronic. Administrative fees and other monetary damages Mr. Martin finite and can be overcome quickly.
3
Saddling indigent defendant’s with crippling “court costs” while Facebook handily sets aside $3 billion for an expected fine shows just how out of whack our system can be.
Fines and court costs can be just as cruel and unusual, and thus unconstitutional, as a lengthy prison sentence for a menial crime.
4
I'm currently watching the PBS production of Les Miserables (an excellent show, btw). Not much seems to have changed in 200 years except that nowadays, Inspector Javert is the government and not just one police officer.
2
Thank you for bringing this to light.
I think that excons should not be behind upon release, however, forgiving the debt and placing the cost on taxpayers is wrong.
The excons should have to "work" to earn credits at minimum wage in order to not be financially burdened.
The program should be flexible, but firm.
Perform meaningful public works, based on each excons ability, is the right approach.
*Elderly / infirm companions
*Cleaning, sweeping, hauling trash (aka (DOE fund: https://www.doe.org/)
*Public speaking
*Peer counseling
*Graffiti removal
*mentoring
*tutoring
*etc.
You get the picture. This will also give purpose and self-esteem. Can be done, as I said, around the excons schedule and ability.
WORKING off your debt is honorable and sets the tone for going forward.
5
Another possibility is to create work programs while inmates so there are no fees at the end of their incarceration.
5
I will always be TeamVictim and believe efforts and money need to be spent on why so many millions of American men in every generation are violent and choose a predatory life, harming helpless victims and society...believing they are entitled to do that. Victims, society and taxpayers never get time off for good behavior or are ever considered to have "served their time", which never ends in any municipality, state and the nation.
It does make sense that criminals not re-enter society with administrative fee debts they cannot do not want to pay. As the article states, imposed restitution for crimes committed is a whole other matter and ought not be ever waived.
This is just another mild expose of shady, skeevy fine print in the contract one MUST sign, regardless of the sentence you received from the judge, to get out of prison.
Very little of an offender's true punishment is clarified in the judge's determination. Everything else beyond the number of months one does in incarceration is tacked on by low-level politicians who see an easy way to get more milk from disenfranchised ex-offenders--most of whom are milkless after years of imprisonment.
When it comes to the handling of convicted criminals, the United States is a sad, sad example.
4
@Mensabutt
simple: don't be a 'convicted criminal'. Many people aren't.
1
I concur with any and all efforts designed to make "paying a debt to society" mean something. Maybe a 2020 candidate or two will elevate this to a visible concern in the coming months. If we're really serious about rehabilitating it would be a heck of a lot easier if societies foot was placed squarely on the neck of the ex-incarcerated. I think in many non-violent crimes the ex-incarcerated should be given a literal "get out of jail free card" so they can have a chance at landing a decent job and provide for their families for a chance at a better generation. The way things are stack against them now...is there any wonder why the recidivism rate is so high??? People need money to live. If they can't find a job what exactly are they supposed to do?
20
@David You should include violent crimes in your assessment. Statistically, the biggest predictors of recidivism (excepting for sex offenses) are, sobriety, education, employment and financial stability, not the nature of the offense. Put simply, the vast majority of people just don't commit more crimes if they are sober, safe and secure. Want to prevent recidivism? Make prisons into colleges and trade schools for living wage careers. The recidivism rate for those who earn a college degree in prison is less than five percent, in some studies less than one percent. The rates are similar for individuals making 120% of CPI or more, homeowners and those over 50.
3
@David
Didn't you mean to say "if society's foot was NOT placed squarely on the neck of the ex-incarcerated"?
1
Why aren't there more stories about people who are victims of these crimes? Put the problem into its appropriate context.
One idea I cannot tolerate; That is the idea that serving prison time is fulfilling one's "debt to society." In no way, shape, or form does prison time repay a debt. It is a punishment, pure ad simple, to stop people from incurring debts they can never repay.
7
If a decent society insists certain people must be incarcerated for its safety, it is up to that society to prove the need, demonstrate effectiveness and house those incarcerated in safe, comfortable quarters at its cost.
Unfortunately, we incarcerate to punish, to inflict pain and suffering on those found guilty of transgression for the simple reason that we are into revenge, punishment and inflicting pain - why not inflict life-long pain as part of the punishment?
Nobody’s ever demonstrated, in any way, that punishment for revenge does anything but hurt the individual and society as a whole.
It is time to get off the let’s beat him some more answer to elimination of crime by: legalizing true victimless acts and developing a strategy for reducing crime based neither on imprisonment or mind control.
We might want to consider feeding people who steal for food, treatment for those committing crime to buy addictive drugs - and giving those addicted due to improper self-medication to deal with anxiety, depression or poverty either psychiatric treatment or employment/money/housing - and to make this treatment free to people faced with problems they cannot cope with before they turn to street drugs.
We might want to torn to Facebook and other infotheft companies and close them down, retrieving and distributing to those whose data is stolen, all corporate assets and the stolen information.
That’s the way to deal with corporate crime guaranteed to work.
1
"I Served My Prison Time. Why Do I Still Have to Pay?"
Because you live in the Prison Capitol of the World. That's why.
4
Department of Collections, I guess.
But why are people of color predominantly charged these fees, and not white prisoners too? I can't believe this is legal.
3
European Americans are also charged, but fewer of them are in prison in the first place. This is widely suspected to be a result of societal biases and economic factors.
3
In many ways I suspect this is just another "poll tax." I know it is in Florida where a referendum and then constitutional amendment was overwhelmingly passed restoring voting rights to those who had served their sentence (excepting murder and sexual crimes). Now I hear our State Congress has essentially overturned this by adding huge taxes before any restoration of voting rights as was passed. In Florida you can read this loud and clear as "since you are probably a brown or black person in our private prison system" politicians will never give you back your rights. Even against rightfully passed law.
9
Whatever fees are to be paid should be part of the sentence handed down by the judge.
They should not be in addition to the sentence.
5
It’s too bad San Francisco doesn’t offer the same financial relief to its own law-abiding citizens for things such as graffiti repainting, sidewalk tree care (it’s illegal to remove trees on your property and the city has transferred ownership of public trees to private citizens), fees for retrieving your car after it’s been stolen, etc. I guess the wealthy don’t feel as guilty about gutting the middle class as they do the poor.
8
Don't forget all the innocent people who plead guilty because they cannot afford to make a defense, or cannot afford to wait months to years for a trial.
They have to face this mess after they serve time just for being poor or a minority or part of any other target group. I fear that we are no longer a just country.
7
Ex Offenders are not responsible for fees or admin costs not included in the original sentence. Get used to it, or better yet, let’s see people’s tune is when for no known reason, they get a $500. mandatory fee for traveling back into a state.
In 1996 a close friend of mine (since high school in the 1960s) was wrongly imprisoned after a judge sentenced him to a suspended 6th month sentence for contempt of court, not attending a compulsory course in child rearing, because he and his wife were divorcing. His children ages 15 and 19 were being cared for by their mother and the husband was ordered out of his home as the wife alleged abuse by her husband. All the charges were unfounded (as later determined) but nevertheless the husband was ordered to take the courses. And pay for them too! The husband refused to take the child rearing courses and was found in contempt of court. When a court officer found out the man did not attend he was hauled into court and remanded to the custody of the sheriff for testing. The sheriff had no experience in "testing" and so incarcerated the man in the county prison where he was held for more than 10 days. Then he was released to a psychiatric hospital for further examination.
When all was said and done the man was handed a bill for incarceration at the county prison and for the stay at the psychiatric hospital. He was also charged fees for medication for a urinary/prostrate infection from which he was severely ill.
The bills were hundreds of dollars. Fortunately his insurance paid for the health care and he had enough money to pay the county prison fees.
My friend survived, went on to prosper and retire financially secure. He was lucky. The system was corrupt and broken.
4
@Jay a fifteen-year-old does not have a fully myelinated brain, and teenagers can be profoundly affected by parental divorce. Most states have statutes that mandate classes for divorcing and/or separating parents of minor children. When I hear of someone who thinks that he is above obeying the rules and laws that normally apply to us mortals, and who thumbs his nose at court orders, I think "hmmm, it sounds like this guy might have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder." Someone who refuses to play by the rules sounds like an abuser.
1
@Andrea olmanson
In PA the Judge Jeanie Turgeon who ordered the counseling of parents with children who were divorcing to attend counseling on how to raise children was ordered by the legislature to rescind her order. Many parents believed that the court order over stepped the bounds of the court and exceed Judge Turgeon's power. She was rightly accused of legislating law from the bench. In the case of my friend he did not understand why he was compelled to attend counseling when that counseling class was directed to parents with children under the age of 12. And he was not the only parent who said "Why am I here?".
The cost of classes and the imposition it imposed on parents who's jobs required them to work evenings and Saturdays was not considered. The Court, Jeanie Turgeon abused her power and did more damage than good. The intent was well meaning but it was a disaster in execution. Judge Turgeon resigned soon after her order was overturned. I attended a law class given by Judge Turgeon. She was bright, intelligent and caring and well versed in the law. But, in this case she just went off on the wrong track. She meant well.
1
Did the author serve prison time? If so, how come she doesn't mention it in the article? If the headline was written with artistic license, it should have be within quotation marks. Otherwise I'm in general agreement -- except for economic crimes. It seems silly to waive criminal justice fees for a fraudster who deliberately ripped-off people off in the first place.
4
If the fees are to recoup administrative costs, then why should the taxpayer be burdened with them?
No one drops the administrative fees on regular citizens' business, say at the DMV, city hall etc.
This is just another one of liberals' cruel policies against the law abiding middle class, who will of course have to pay for all this.
6
What's next? Forcing inmates to pay rent for their time in prison? If you commit a felony you lose your right to vote, which is crazy. The idea of rehabilitation is to help former inmates develop the skills to find a job and become a part of the community. One way to do that is to allow them to vote. I am baffled by Americans who want to deny voting rights to released prisoners. In Canada people with criminal records are allowed to vote and we even set up polling booths in maximum security prisons. Participating in elections is a part of being a citizen. Oh wait, a majority of inmates are people of color, a demograph that skews Democratic. Now I get it.
12
@Tom Barrett
The majority of inmates, ex-convicts, poor, unemployed, and under educated are of the majority but the proportion of minorities in these categories are over represented, a lot.
@Tom Barrett
Cynicism also applies to the Democratic attempts to expand their base by enfranchising felons, lowering the voting age to 16 and undermining immigration law enforcement.
Because we are a vengeful, christian nation ... until we get religion out of our political and justice systems, we will maintain our cruel and usual forms of punishment ...
10
These fees need to be eliminated. Simple!!!
10
One can avoid all of these fees by avoiding crime.
7
@Left Handed
Here, Here!!! Amen to that, brother,
Yet another shameful example of the US prison complex. As if ex-cons don't have it hard enough. I'd no idea that after getting out of prison, that many ex-cons were slapped with 'administrative fees'??
No matter what crimes they committed...no matter how we may feel about ex-cons.... so long as many of them are returned to our neighborhoods, what would we rather have.... ex' cons who are struggling to get a job...to make ends meet...who feel like society has tossed them aside? Or do we want 'new neighbors' who can start off with a clean slate, who aren't burdened right off the bat with ridiculous fees/debt.... who are provided assistance and training for meaningful employment, etc?
It is in our own Selfish interest to do whatever we can to empower ex-cons so that they can be well-adjusted, contributing members of society and our individual neighborhoods. To do otherwise is foolhardy.
36
@Lisa WRONG. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the prisons or the prison system. It is the COUNTY Supervisors and only the County Supervisors that are imposing these fees.
2
@CAtaxman
That may be true in California. In some places ex-prisoners are billed for room and board for the time incarcerated. In some places sheriffs collect fees and use them at their discretion.
1
@Lisa: To do otherwise is immoral. And this is a very real example of the for-profit prison industry; earning money from the punishment and suffering of others.
1
The fees were counter productive not depraved. Even though these people finished their sentences, until they actually live constructive lives they are not even. There is no doubt that most people who go to prison are not well socialized adults and some are predators. When they leave they are far from ready to be considered just like everyone else.
2
"The most common fees are monthly probation fees and fees for electronic monitors."
Which by definition only apply to people who have *not* "paid their debts to society".
Society is doing these criminals a favor by letting them stay out of jail, in exchange for them agreeing to use and pay for an electronic monitor.
4
I have looked at dozens of cases in clerk of courts websites that show where indigent people who owe court fines or fees - and were savvy enough to understand how the system works - wrote the judge and asked for an extension or a waiver. I have never once seen one denied. This is not for rich or white defendants/convicts. This is for anyone. The letters are usually handwritten, sometimes on ruled paper. Sometimes they explain the circumstances. But ask and you shall receive. Refuse or ignore and its a different story.
6
There needs to be a class action lawsuit against the federal and all state governments brought by all incarcerated people to end the profiteering from prisons. Then there needs to be a legislation passed by both houses which makes it illegal to profit from prisons.
5
Whose idea was that? In California, greedy democrats. local officials all over the country have been greedy like that inventing all sorts of ways to bilk money out of the citizenry.
2
Those evil greedy Republicans!!!
Oops California. Sshhhh don’t say it but pretty sure it’s Liberals.
2
This is not that much different than Saudi Arabia where you can be executed and the government then bills your family for it.
5
The surest way to eliminate these burdensome fees is to not commit crimes and stay out of prison.
11
Talk about Jim Crow!!
4
There should be a link to the first article!
Whaaa, whaaaa! “If you can do the time....”
2
Dont do the crime, if you aint got the dime..
2
"Penny wise and pound foolish" is exactly what describes this kind of thinking. And as for the rationale that "well, we paid for your room and board" - you just can't fix stupid, can you?
4
Yeah that’s why they try to fine them as well. :). JO
There is merit here, and nonsense. The idea that convicts are victims is always questionable as it is a mix. The idea that convicts work really hard to better themselves is pretty much nonsense, if you know a lot of convicts. If you do not and you have imaginary concepts about criminals you can buy into this without a second thought.
So it's a mixed bag. One bottom line is that if a convict has money to pay back certain costs, they should. And it's not a matter of race, the worthless stalking horse of all NYT articles on social justice.
6
Prisoners are squeezed of every dime that can be wrung out of them.
A prison phone monopoly charges them ten times what a regular call costs, commissary items are 5 times the street price, some jails now require visits to take place on video monitors for which they charge $10-$25 per visit.
Like room service at a fancy hotel, but for indigents.
There's an opportunistic for-profit ankle bracelet industry that stings users with a $250 set up fee and $3-600 in monthly costs.
You cannot pay, you stay in jail. How is that justice?
Americans want convicts to be crushed, and crushed again, dumped out of cruel prisons to the streets like trash.
Why would a sane society want that?
We should want inmates to leave prison in good psychological and physical health, having received good counseling, and obtained high school degrees and job training during their incarceration, ready and capable of contributing.
Do we want an ex-convict to be homeless, traumatized, and unskilled, a few days after release, surrounded by filth, mental illness, criminality, and drugs? And in debt?
Or do we want to earnestly welcome them back with forgiveness, help them get on their feet, so that they can get to work and start contributing and paying taxes?
84
This is all true and I had no idea until a relative recently was incarcerated in North Carolina for a crime that was not even a felony. The cost of toiletries like toothpaste and deodorant are 3-4 times what they'd cost in your local CVS. In order to put $100 into his prison account to put toward a phone card or to buy coffee I'm charged a $14 fee for the "privilege " of using the greedy system. Oh, and his family may only visit via a video monitor but they must drive two hours to the prison to use it. And prisoners are let out of their cells only 4 hours a day with no outdoor options for any type of exercise.
Cruel and unusual punishment. And then we wonder why prisoners re-offend after they're released.
14
@Eric
At least part of the reason that we "Americans want convicts to be crushed, and crushed again, dumped out of cruel prisons to the streets like trash" is our Calvinist ethos and mindset, which helps to explain not only the rapaciousness of our oligarchs but the treatment of the poor; the former are presumed to be worthy of favor, the latter, not.
While many have forgotten the religious underpinnings, it's hard to explain our treatment of those less fortunate without a good look into this mentality. If you are a "criminal", you are not a member of the Elect, just as the poor are not members; God has not smiled on you, you are not worthy of heaven, and as such not worthy of compassion or help in this life, either--providing you with resources would just be a waste and keep them from going to those who've shown they "deserve" them through accumulative behavior.
With this ethos, we continue to uplift the already uplifted, and continue to stomp on those already stomped down--it's merely what each has coming.
2
There is no way prison time is paying a debt to society. It certainly doesn's make the victim whole. Governments should stop asking for these fees, not because inmates think it is right, but because it is not cost effective. I have very little sympathy for a criminal's complaining that society isn't being fair to him. He should have thought about that before he committed the crime in the first place.
18
@S.L.
Beware of the "one-size-fits-all mentality" you might be next the person lumped-in with others unlike you, but there you go.
14
@S.L.
You’re making the assumption that “justice” in our system is applied appropriately and that common criminals are deserving of whatever sentence they are given.
Consider 2 recent cases in the news;
1) A woman of color in Texas accidentally votes in the last presidential election after being given conflicting information from poll workers and being confused on the technical term of her voting eligibility and is convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
2) A white male school bus driver is found guilty of and admits to providing alcohol to and raping a 14 year old girl and receives probation because “there was only 1 victim.”
Both incidents happened in Texas. There are thousands of examples just as egregious (The Brock Turner rape case in CA comes to mind). If this doesn’t demonstrate the vast discrimination in the application of justice in our country I don’t know what does.
The problems are complex. Trite “they get what they deserve” attitudes reinforce and strengthen deeply broken systems and give some a sense of moral superiority.
I suggest we consider having some grace and empathy. True it’s not always warranted but neither is always condemning the incarcerated as “getting what they deserved.”
4
@S.L. Should is the most useless word in the English language and I'm sure it's equivelent in other languages is just at worthless. Should have, should be, should.
2
So it didn't occur to these justices that other countries don't have an explicit constitutional requirement that a census provide an "actual enumeration", that THEIR non-citizens may have no reason to fear answering, and that since both are so HERE, it may violate OUR Constitution?
Hopefully, there already are plans to file a lawsuit arguing exactly that, should the Court allow the question--for whatever reason.
Ms. Martin: In advocating for the elimination of the payment of prison fees, you assume, and quote others who say, that once a prisoner has finished serving his/her prison time he/she has in fact fully repaid his/her debt to society. Says who? Just because the law permits a prisoner to leave jail after a particular period of time does not necessarily constitute a determination that the debt to society has been fully repaid, let alone repaid the debt to any victim of the crime. It means only that for various reasons the law has determined that it is better for the prisoner to be out of prison rather than remain in prison. So I see no "moral" basis for dispensing with the obligation of a prisoner to pay appropriate fees. In any case, if the prisoner can't pay those fees he/she has an option available to all citizens who can't meet their financial obligations - file for bankruptcy.
11
@Jay Orchard in Miami Beach. Sir, I have the privilege of working with a group of mentally ill HIV former jail inmates here in our home county. Each of these men have thousands upon thousands of dollars in back court fees and probation fees. All grew up in impoverished neighborhoods, experienced violence and neglect as children, and did not attend quality schools on the Beach. None can afford market rate housing in our community. To suggest formerly incarcerated people like this should hire a bankruptcy attorney (legal aid doesn't do this) and then pay the Bankruptcy Court Fees (cannot be waived by law) appears to show a deep misunderstanding of this issue.
11
Sir, you are doing the work of the angels. I can’t imagine how discouraging this must be. We treat people so terribly in this country, sometimes from birth.
3
If you don't want to pay these fines and costs, don't break the law. Why should my tax money pay for your ankle monitor?
10
Simple answer- because the ankle bracelet is far cheaper per month that the monthly incarceration cost. If NOBODY would pay for it you can bet the government would be glad to pay versus housing them longer.
Good government is about reasonable and efficient overall outcome for society not some undefined measure of fairness in each and every case. Spending $100 to recoup $90 is idiocy from society’s point of view but you can bet there are plenty of middleman contractors who are happy enough to provide that service if society is dumb enough to ask for it.
"Los Angeles County is expected to go the way of San Francisco. The county’s fiscal case is a no-brainer: In 2017, it spent $3.9 million to collect $3.4 million in fees."
This is immoral and also doesn't even help the tax payer. The article also makes the distinction between fees and fines. The fees are purely administrative that came after the boom in the prison population. We need a fair system that creates a better society. This does not accomplish that
6
So, immoral is the new catch term. The wall is immoral. Requiring prisoners/convicts to pay the fine they agreed to, to get out of prison is immoral. Requiring ID to vote is immoral. Expecting people to follow the laws that society has agreed we need, but apparently can't because they grew up poor, is immoral. And probably racist, too.
1
"If you can't do the crime, don't do the crime" ignores how innocent - or relatively innocent - people can be targeted by the criminal justice system; how opportunistically parasitic, how maliciously suspicious, how venally ideological it can be.
8
The simple answer is don't commit a crime. No crime, no fees. Also it is pathetic to compare administrative fees to a hospital bill.
8
Let me pose another question: I didn't break any laws but I already paid taxes to house, guard and feed those who did.
Why should I also pay whatever administrative costs you accrued?
And, by the way, I find your attempt to ratchet up the sympathy factor by throwing in the line "mostly people of color" highly offensive. People who end up in prison because of their criminal behavior should be seen as individuals, not as a racial stereotype.
12
It is as much a societal and individual problem as it is a systemic and governmental problem.
No one likes to admit it, but most people want nothing to do with Ex Convicts. That's why theyre rarely hired again for work and why their prospects in life are horrible after they have paid their debt.
People would rather convicts continue paying for any criminal offense for their entire lives than have an ex con living next door or working in the next cubicle.
It is quite sad.
1
@david I have absolutely no problem stating I'd rather not hang out with someone with a conviction for robbery. I'm not sure why that makes me sad rather than a normal human. Ex cons are rarely hired because we all know they've not exactly demonstrated the kind of qualities that make for a good employee or next door neighbor.
Prison was originally invented by kings and other tyrants as a method of getting annoying people out of the way. Later it was often replaced by humiliating and demeaning punishments such as putting people in the stocks (the prisoner being fixed in a public place by hands and feet and then spat upon, pelted with rubbish etc. ) Meanwhile some rulers had people thrown into holes, where they were either forgotten and left to die or on occasion fished out after a while.
The idea of prison with sentences given according to a sort of rule book came later. Draconian fines which drove people into financial ruin followed. The main point they had in common was that none of these punishments really seemed to change very much, which was not surprising, seeing that most people had turned to crime because they saw no other way out. In the US most criminals tended to be poor and black, in other countries just poor.
Putting people in jail rarely achieves anything: once released, the ex-convict cannot find his way back into society and in many cases sees only further crime as his way out. Very few can hope to become President of the USA ...
1
Recent experience would seem to show that you can lead a life of crime and become president, if you haven’t gotten caught (yet).
3
Why should tax payers pay for your mistake?
6
I thought being locked up was the punishment, why are we charging people for it?
3
The feds just spent multi-million on hillary & trump's investigations. Should they each pay?
2
If you can't pay the fine don't do the crime!
3
Ms. Martin this is why Jeff Bezos is worth $160 billion and Amazon pays no Federal Taxes, someone has to pay the bills.
1
There is a fundamental problem in a society when human beings of any ilk for any reason are seen primarily as a 'revenue source' first and foremost.
48
@NYer
Then you had better be self-employed.
2
@Eli This whole fee thing is crazy. The costs of running a government and its penal system are the responsibility of us taxpayers. Our convicts pay their debt to society by staying behind bars. If anything the convicts were supposed to earn small change manufacturing license plates. That way they would have some money in their pockets when they were released,
What a mess we have created.
Mark
3
Maybe prisoners should have to work in the prison and be given a value for the work which should cover the fees. I agree in part that prisoners are provided with room and board that they would have otherwise had to pay outside of prison so they should have to work extra in prison to help offset costs. And it should make a difference based on the crime.
21
@Kelly many DO work in prison ~ for pennies/hour, waving the prison considerable money. These negligible wages go towards medical visit co-pays, personal hygiene products, coffee (which is not served in many facilities), phone calls, etc. etc. etc. If prisoners want to take college classes, they pay top dollar for the credits. We ask people to improve themselves, be fiscally and morally responsible yet create barriers that are high and wide.
30
@Kelly
And it follows quite logically that if these deadbeat prisoners can't pay the costs of their imprisonment, that they be tossed out of prison tout suite!
After all, we're not running charity prisons here.
Right?
9
@Kelly How much should you have to pay to share a room with eight anti-social people?
5
Anyone who thinks that these fees are appropriate and fair should read the article about Amazon and others paying zero taxes.
144
@JJackson
Paying no taxes on $11,000,000,000 in profit last year ain't exactly cementing the public good.
Wealth creation isn't the objective. An equal and just society is. Heck, 38% of our wealth belongs to the 1% of our people. Not good. Not good at all.
A healthy society is one in which the chances for social mobility are high and levels of inequality are low. "Wealth creation" does nothing by itself to advance either.
By the way, look at the longevity gap between our richest and poorest citizens and tell us all how wealth creators are neither felons nor killers.
10
@UH Our government makes the rules on who pays and how much. Blame your Representatives and Senators. I am sure you don't pay more than you have to now.
@JJackson
You are mistaken. Amazon is a bunch of tax cheats and spongers who pay dirt wages for miserable jobs in their warehouses.
As the editorial states, more than 4/5 of the assessed fees are never collected. The fees merely remind prisoners that they cost the public $75,000 a year. They are just a reminder. Collection doesn't happen. Keep the fees or eliminate them, it doesn't matter. They're a meaningless entry on the dotted line.
1
The common thread in the lives of those in prison is a childhood filled with abuse neglect violence alcohol and drugs . If you could read the histories of their childhood it would curl your hair and perhaps deprive you of a good nights sleep for the next week. Eventually it might dawn on you that punishment is not the answer. Incarceration? yes, but not as a punishment. Paying damages? yes if they have the funds because it might not only help those they injured but might serve to appropriately reduce but not eliminate feelings of guilt.
The criminal must be helped to understand how they came to their sorry state and that growing and healing emotionally may be possible for some but probably not all.
It is also important for us to accept the fact that many crimes are committed by educated "privileged" adults (even a president or2) & that their crimes are often far more grave.
9
@Bunbury . . . totally agree. Obama and Clinton both have the means and the responsibility to pay damages for the lives they cost and the treasure they squandered. Thank you for this post.
1
Wow. I continue to be fascinated by the right wing propaganda rants in these comment pages. I am curious as to the factual basis of any of these claims?
As a side, George Bush is the president who sent an insufficient number troops into a war of choice based on intentionally miss-represented intelligence with no clear mission to complete much less a plan to complete it. This decision cost us several trillion dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and made us less safe. Read the book Cobra Two about the invasion if you feel like getting really mad at the actions leading up to the invasion.
3
@Chris Thompson
Too clever by half but Bush Jr., as wealthy as he is, could not cover the worth of even one person killed in Iraq. At the time I thought He was our best president since Jefferson Davis and I have seen no reason to change my mind.
Sorry, not sorry.
If you can’t do the time ... don’t do the crime and that includes court fees and fines.
See no reason for law abiding and tax paying citizens to continue to pay for others mistakes.
7
@alec . . . I agree with you Alec. I think the point of this article, if you know ex-cons, is that they are virtually unhirable. When hired make minimum pay and probably part time. Are saddled with enormous debt and need to pay the state for various security devices that they rent, live a cloistered life from work to AA to bed, halfway houses that are more expensive than normal rental property... On the one hand it makes perfect sense to hold them accountable for the damage they've done. On the other hand, if they cannot unbury themselves from their tether to the state, they live virtually life sentences, sometimes deserved, sometimes not. I think it's worth taking a serious look at what outcome do we want, if not for them, then for society as a whole... Just sayin'.
5
@alec You can feel that way until the end of time but it won't change the fact that most people coming out of prison don't have funds nor access to funds to pay these fees. If as a society we want people who are convicted of crimes to pay for the rest of their lives then we can continue what we are doing. If we want to rehabilitate people and get them back to being productive members of society then we have to change what we are doing. I prefer the latter. It is more humane and is cheaper in the long run.
3
What would anyone expect from a broken system, where in most instances, hell bent on relentless punishment as opposed to reform education. Spending $3.9 mil to collect $3.4 should raise an alarm; thank goodness some one noticed in California! Any sort of reform to any legislation or governmental system has been met with incredible resistance for decades. I am sure there are other horror stories out there, fit for movies and episodic series worthy of high profit for an entrepreneurial Southern man … or woman.
7
I mostly agree, which is the reason that I suspect that society exploits this as a way of continuing the punishment in moderated form, like “graduated freedom”—when there is no formal probation.
3
Why should those who haven’t committed a crime pay the costs for those that have through higher taxes? I don’t want a speeding ticket, so I don’t speed. I don’t want a parking ticket, so I park where I’m supposed to. I don’t want to spend time in jail and pay fines/fees, so I don’t commit a crime. What am I missing here? Oh, the race card? Or is it the poor card this time? Or the just plain stupid card? How about we have education sessions from kindergarten through high school on the ramifications of not following the law. That you can spend my taxes on.
13
@Melanie I'm assuming you know the disparities that exist in sentencing when it comes to race. Furthermore, I believe that being locked up separated from society and having to endure violence and isolation are enough punishment. These fines do nothing but hold people back from starting productive lives. If you really care about the bottom line, maybe don't imprison people for minor offences. You have to realize people go to jail for a speeding tickets they can't pay. Baltimore gave out more tickets in poor predominately black neighborhoods. Should we really be imprisoning people for being poor when their are other alternatives?There is more information to consider.
5
@Melanie This assumes that people don't make mistakes. If you never have then congratulations. We all pay for other people's mistakes one way or another. Educating kids from kindergarten through high school is an excellent idea. People are still going to make mistakes and we as a society will pay one way or another. How long do you want to pay for the other person's mistake seems to be the question. If you want to pay only long enough for society to be protected and the person rehabilitated, then we need to change the system. The system makes it more likely that people who make mistakes can't be rehabilitated and continue to cost society money. I don't know why we want to do that unless it is to be punitive.
1
>>> "What am I missing here?"
You're missing reality, Melanie. You believe that criminal behavior is a free choice and that everyone is just as capable of deciding not to violate the law as you feel you are. That's not true.
I absolutely assure you that, if you had lived the life that many/most of the offenders we're discussing have lived, you would *not* see the world as you do. Indeed, given the lack of opportunity, and the effects of the environment on character, it's not all that likely that you would have ended up as the model citizen you are telling us you are.
The arrogant failure of so many to understand the -- rather obvious -- forces that shape the lives of the offenders they so despise, and for whom they have so little compassion, is really very depressing. It's also just as dumb as a box of really dumb rocks, because it contributes to cycles of suffering and recidivism that persist through generations.
"To destroy an offender cannot benefit society so much as to redeem him."
~L. Frank Baum
3
"Anne Stuhldreher, the first director of financial justice for the City and County of San Francisco"
What, pray, is financial justice? Can anyone explain?
2
@Dr. Steve:
https://sftreasurer.org/financialjustice
Prisoners are easy scapegoats, so states treat them like chattel while crowing trite aphorisms about "if you don't like the punishment, don't do the crime."
Dostoevsky rightly said that a society can be judged how it treats its prisoners. Our society has much work to do.
We Americans like to believe that everyone reaps what they sow, and that people should be punished unceasingly if they commit a crime. We practice hypocrisy of the highest order. Who among you has not broken the law?
20
@RS I've Jay walked before, but I just didn't get caught. I think most of us have some minor infraction like jay walking or speeding somewhere and just didn't get caught.
@RS
Let me check. Yep, I'm still felony free. Thanks for asking.
1
@Letitia Jeavons - you don't go to jail for
j-walking
1
Society pays an enormous cost for incarcerating people, and then for all the post release and re-entry programs, etc.. But there is a huge segment of society that makes their living off off this system, including probation and parole officers and the like. If you want to talk about a huge waste of taxpayer money, don’t forget to include them.
5
And lest we forget criminals who make a good living off the system.
"disproportionately impacted " ?
impacted means something that has been struck phyisically with great force.
1
@Peter Piper:
That's one of the definitions of "impact." For another, one that was properly used in the article, consult a dictionary. No purchase necessary; there plenty online.
1
Here is an idea. Don’t break the law in the first place. That way, you don’t go to jail and get out with bills. Problem solved.
14
So your world would be one of Retribution rather than Redemption. How very nice, I'm sure its a great place to live.
1
Hope to see someone commenting in defense of this system.
5
@Ron
Well, this system makes a lot of money in "for profit" prison systems. Which is very good money for someone and a very nice example "Capitalism without all those burdensome regulations"
3
@Ron
Criminals need to pay and if this is what it takes to relieve the taxpayers for paying for their crime then so be it.
If you can’t do the time......well, you know the rest.
Do corporations and businesses pay similar court costs when they sue each other?
8
Yes they do. It’s quite expensive at least in Crook County Illinois.
2
Honestly? This is just more overreach by the government, which would charge fees for breathing if it could get away with it. And to all the big government advocates, I would ask, "Where do you think the government money comes from?" From the people.
3
@AACNY
The gov't, state and local, get their money from honest hard working folks like myself. Sorry if I don't have any sympathy for those that break the law.
2
So you broke the law been incarcerated for it and have had room and board medical care possibly even dental care cable tv all on tax payers dime. what else did you get?? While victims are possibly unable to work get no help from the state or government with their health insurance food or cable costs. More directly they get zero help from any state agency or do gooders if say a criminal hits them in the head or runs them over. They live with those cost and consequences the rest of their lives why must the criminal be able to just move on?
I am tired of hearing about prisoners rights and the rights to restore voting privileges and expunge records.
Yes you paid your time but fundamentally a rapist a narco a killer a multiple case drunk driver etc etc are different than those who are not. I feel it’s a right to know if the guy or girl working next to my wife raped killed slashed held hostage maimed or robbed those around them.
Victims live on forever with the cost and consequences and mental anguish of perpetrators actions. Compounded by the grinding slow judicial system that really does not care about them. When we have assistance and programs set up to help them then ask for money and forgiveness for those who choose to do harm.
17
@P L: "I am tired of hearing about prisoners rights and the rights to restore voting privileges and expunge records. "
In short, every sentence should be a life sentence.
13
Yes. You forfeit your right to society’s benefits permanently. Crime is a choice and it has consequences.
13
Wow Really!!! Sorry to inform you Not being able to vote is not a life sentence it’s a consequence of your actions. Not being able to hide the fact you raped or maimed your co worker is not a life sentence. It’s a protection for those who have not chosen to do that. Life is hard especially when you choose to try and make it easier on yourself at the expense of all those around you. O
1
I’m watching “Les Miserables” on PBS and all I can say is we have not evolved.
35
Well, Jean Valjean didn't come out of jail looking like Charles Atlas. No fitness centers in the old days.
2
These sort of fees, similar to "sin taxes", traffic violation surcharges in addition to penalties, and generally anytime you charge someone associated with a wrongdoing are preposterous. Mainly because the majority of arguement for them revolve around, "if you didn't commit the crime/sin you wouldn't have to pay". And likely the only ones passionate about their removal are the wrongdoers, a small minority without much sympathy. Which seems like easy prey for our bureaucracies.
We should instead be asking, "would I want to pay this, or feel this is a fair charge if I was in their position". Instead of using condescension to deem them responsible for these.
Honestly, for all the money we spend on incarceration, through taxes, to rid our societies and selfs of these criminalized people we don't want in our lives, we can probably pay a few extra $100 to process their release + admin fees.
2
I suppose the easy answer is to avoid crime and stay out of jail. We might also tell debtors to eschew excessive borrowing, or unemployed people to henceforth seek to make themselves necessary to their employers by being productive workers, etc. What's the common bottom line here? Self-responsibility! Anathema to liberals. Their great goal is responsibility-shifting through forgiveness, excuse-making, cost transference. Who should take the blame, pay the extra social costs? Self-responsible people--why not? They've already shown that they're good, productive workers so it shouldn't hurt them to work a little harder, pay a little extra tax to float the responsibility-shifters, should it? On the left that's known as 'social fairness'; on the right it's called working two jobs to support your family and pay tax, too.
4
@Ronald B. Duke No, self-responsibility is not anathema to liberals. What is anathema is burdening those with no resources costs that hamper their ability to make that fresh RESPONSIBLE start after serving their time. Aunt Becky and Charlie Kushner can afford to pay those costs; many in poverty cannot. Do you realize how many poor people who are innocent are sitting in jail because they cannot make bail and end up taking a plea deal because they can see no other way to get on with their lives?
8
No I don’t know how many but neither do you. I have a very good suspicion it’s quite a lot less than the majority of those in jail that commit the crime and cannot afford.
Come to Chicago “innocent” 3-4-5 time gun offenders are out on no bail shooting 2 year olds at family gatherings.
1
There is some logic to making those who break the law partially financially liable for the cost of dealing with their crimes. They did not have to break the law and along with jail time this is part of the consequence. That said, it is counterproductive to try to collect such fees when they are first released. It would be fairer to hold the charges pending the former criminal’s obtaining a job with an income that permits payment, possibly over time. But then, the cost of trying to administer that could well be more than the debt. Probably best to let such charges go.
6
Most of the fees are unconstitutional because the imposition of them violates the requirement of due process through bypassing the judiciary and forcing bureaucratic fiat. States and locales know this, but they don’t care, until the shoe drops in their lives. Indigent offenders say nothing for fear the authorities will throw them in jail again. This is nothing less than outright, in your face, blackmail. And people wonder why America incarcerates more people than anywhere.
27
Here in Florida the State House has created a bill that prevents ex-felons from ever voting until all court fees are paid. In Florida judges are not paid anything; the only way they can put food on the table is to shake down the prisoners. Consequently the court costs are extreme. The Republicans actually passed a law to prohibit judges from waiving court fees for indigent prisoners. The money test will cleverly distinguish between Republicans who will have their voting rights restored and and Democrats who will be permanently disenfranchised, and may tip the balance of power in the next election.
12
Not paying judges seems like an instant recipe for judicial corruption. What a crazy system! Either the judges pretty much have to be independently wealthy, or on the take.
11
Where did you you get the idea that FL state judges are not paid ?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/03/15/a-much-bigger-payday-awaits-florida-supreme-court-justices/?template=amp
1
These post-incarceration or probation fees are a way to raise revenue without raising taxes. Same thing with tack-on fees to traffic tickets. Because good citizens don’t do crimes or traffic violations, right? But the net result is that these fees just punishes the poor extra (like losing their drivers license if they can’t pay traffic ticket fees).
If we as a society want to have these services, to monitor ex-prisoners and make sure they can become productive members of society again, we need to pay for this from taxes.
13
And the family of the "President" is suing to prevent disclosure of their financial crimes.
23
Once again, thank Reagan.
7
Fees make sense because, you know, America! Freedom! Personal Responsibility!
Correction -- Fees make sense because they keep minorities down after being released. Is there anything more American than that?
45
When I get a speeding ticket I have to pay court/administrative fees. Why shouldn't prisoners have to pay these kinds of fees as well? If they don't have the means to pay these fees, let their families pay them or let them work out a payment schedule. Of course we want people leaving prison to become productive citizens but that doesn't justify waiving the fees anymore than it dictates that every released prisoner receive a check for $5,000. The bottom line is if you can't pay the fee, don't end up being a parolee.
10
@Jay Orchard - You are asking the wrong question. Maybe you should NOT have to pay all sorts of court & administrative fees for a speeding ticket. The fine should be the penalty. What is to stop local authorities from hiking those extra fees into the stratosphere, with no accountability? Where is the justice in that?
34
Aristotle said it best: "Poverty is the parent of crime." If someone goes to jail for robbing a gas station because they don't have money for food, how on earth would they pay the administrative fees?
Fees that target desperate people are always going to increase crime rates, because they're already desperate. Saying "If you can't pay the fine, don't go to jail" is just a snarky way of saying that you don't care about poor people.
14
@Jay Orchard You don't have to pay court fees that are more than you make in a year, and you don't have your right to vote taken away if you can't afford them.
10
Why don't they work off their incurred debt while in prison?
18
We do. We pay 55% of all the monies that we worked for or receive from our families.
18
It would take a while, given that prison labor pays 86 cents an hour (before taxes) -- Talk about criminality. The prison labor system is as close to slavery as the modern US government can get.
41
@Russian Bot
Because they get paid five cents an hour.
3
It cost honest taxpayers money to apprehend,try, and incarcerate criminals. The least the wrongdoers can do is pay a small part of the cost.
12
@Wayne E. They paid for these costs with their freedom. C'mon. How much is your freedom worth?
12
They weighed It was worth nothing to them or worth the amount when they did the crime. It’s only real value apparently is when they get it taken away.
1
@newyorkerva Enough that I don't break the law. And I'll match childhood tales of woe with any of the jailed miscreants in the author's circle.
2
I am astonished at the number of responses that reflect a lack of empathy for people caught up in the criminal justice system. But since any appeal to the better angels of their nature seems doomed to failure, maybe a more practical approach will work.
The fees are NOT part of any sentence imposed by a judge. They are attempts to impose the costs of the system on the people who can least afford to bear them. The taxpayers should pay the costs because they benefit from the greater safety they enjoy as a result of the prison system.
But imposing fees on people who can't afford them contradicts one of the stated goals of the criminal justice system, which is to reintegrate into society those who have served their time in prison. To claim, as heyomania does, that these fees do not contribute to recidivism defies common sense. Any rules or policies which make it harder for former inmates to find jobs that will pay them a living wage (and fees reduce take home pay) will increase the likelihood that an individual will return to a life of crime.
The self-interest of the citizenry should convince us that these fees are not only unfair but also stupid.
123
@James Lee. The vast majority of convicted criminals did not get “caught up” in the criminal justice system. They were not forced to commit their crimes but knowingly and wittingly did so.
Convicted criminals are not victims; those they harmed are the true victims here.
How about a discussion of compensation and reparations for the real victims?
10
The majority of poor people do not do crime. The fact you assume all criminals are poor is naive and self serving to your argument. In doubt the system picks out poor people to pay the fine and let’s people with resources not pay the fines and fees.
1
@James Lee
Where's your empathy regarding the victim?
3
This article is part of the NYT's ongoing effort to make it seem as if criminals are victims. Not so--it is the victims of criminals who are the true victims.
Why isn't the NYT calling for compensation and restitution for victims as part of criminals' sentences?
Virtually no criminals are forced to commit their crimes; there is such a thing as free will.
It's simple: Just don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
27
@Mon Ray
Here's something else that is simple, an exploding prison population once prisons were privatized and those corporations re-wrote policies and laws so that your tax dollars feed their profit. There is nothing in here about feeling bad for criminals before they commit their crimes. That's your agenda. And if you are gonna say "no one is forced to commit their crimes" then please look at the ding-dongs who caused the 2008 financial crises or the flint water disaster and consider their (lack of) of punishment. What you mean is that you would not commit the crime you imagine people in jail commit.
44
@Mon Ray
But they HAVE done their time. That's the point. Once they have done their time, they should not have to continue to pay - financially, socially, or otherwise.
59
@Mon Ray So are you fighting for restitution for people who are incarcerated and later exonerated? They'll never get back the years they spent in prison. How about the people who are pushed into plea bargains for crimes they didn't commit because they can't afford a good defense lawyer and their overworked and underpaid public defender and the prosecutor immediately default to a plea bargain? They end up with a criminal record that automatically keeps them from many employment opportunities once they're released.
12
I think people who serve time in prison should pay all appropriate fees, pay for their incarceration costs, and prosecution fees. Basically, a criminal who choose to commit a crime should be responsible for all costs, and in addition to complete restitution to the victim.
I also believe that anybody who was wrongly imprisoned should be able to recoup full costs from the State. Too many States have unrealistic caps for people who are released because of later being found innocent.
In the end, don't do the crime, if you cannot do the time and pay for the criminal offense in total. Why should I, somebody who has never committed a crime, pay for your incarceration, fees, and the prosecution costs. You did the crime, not me. Server your time and pay all costs regarding your criminal offense.
10
@Eaton Dolittle
They HAVE done their time. You (and I) have to pay for their incarceration because that is how we, as a society, decided it should work. Just like we pay for wars in other countries and subsidize corporations even when we don't want our tax money to go to those types of things. Incarceration, ostensibly, paid these individuals debt to society. They should be done paying.
16
Completely agree about need to repay ALL costs of wrongful imprisonment.
1
@Alexandra Hamilton. How about full restitution and compensation for criminals’ victims?
5
So who should foot the bill, the usual suspects, the law-abiding taxpayers? Keep in mind, we just got through paying $31,000 - $60,000 (depending on the state) for each year the inmate was in prison. It's a simple question. If the convicts don't pay the fees, who will?
9
Who will? We will. You will. You do and we do, already.
Want to pay more? Here's an idea: Make it nearly impossible for an ex-prisoner to live a successful life in the community. Then, you and your neighbors will have the privilege of "paying" as victims of the new crimes that person is driven to commit. And, if you're "lucky," you may be privileged to pay for yet another prison sentence.
71
No one leaving jail should owe the government anything. Their time locked up is payment. Anything else is cruel (but clearly not unusual) punishment. The idea of a fine and imprisonment is shameful. If citizens want folks locked up in jail, then citizens should pay for the jails. If citizens want probation monitoring then they should pay for that. Blind (in my mind) military supporters and 2nd amendment types often point out that Freedom isn't free. Yeah, apparently it isn't, even if you've paid a debt to society.
18
Probation is a sentence carried out in lieu of jail time and parole is when a portion of your sentence is served under close supervision following a period of incarceration. Both are alternatives to actually being locked up. They are a huge break for the person convicted.
7
@newyorkerva
"if citizens want folks locked up in jail, then citizens should pay for the jails."
So let's just quit paying for jails and let the criminals monitor their own behavior. I'm sure we can trust them to do the right thing.
"If citizens want probation monitoring then they should pay for that."
Another cost saving opportunity! Let's just do away with probation and keep criminals in prison without any parole system.
3
@From Where I Sit and a break for taxpayers, as probation costs far less than incarceration.
2
We don't care about actual rehabilitation in this country. When we send someone to prison we just want revenge.
68
@Gunnar
We don't want revenge. We want deterrence -- examples to would-be criminals what awaits them when -- not if -- they get caught. And we want protection; a violator can't continue illegal acts while incarcerated.
4
@Gunnar. It’s called deterrence; you know, showing others that it’s a bad idea to commit a crime.
3
Sadly, you are correct.
The more and more I read about the United States, the more I am shocked and horrified.
28
@Joe
I feel the same way when I read about London censoring the internet and banning knives. I used to think America had one of the stronger nanny-states in the world...
9
@Joe Me too. and I live here.
3
We are a punitive society. I know of one man, in his 50's, who served 6 months in jail, the latter part as a Trustee. There were several fines to be paid, one fine for almost a thousand dollars. His parents paid the fines. This man came from a good family and they had the money to do this. What about the hundreds of thousands of prisoners who do not come from well off families? I consider them to be lifers as they will never, never be able to pay their fines. When somebody tells me we are a Christian nation, i want to gag.
39
Right on!
Prison is the carefully carved colored exception to the 13th Amendment's abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude.
That is why while only 13% of Americans are black like Ben Carson, about 40% of American prisoners are black African American. Because blacks are persecuted for acting like white people do without any criminal justice consequences.
The purposes of prison should include deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation and release. Once you have served your sentence then you should be able to return to society with all of the full rights of citizens.
25
So you don't think that white drug dealers, burglars, rapists, and shooters don't end up in jail. Ever read newspapers from predominantly white areas of the United States? The mug shots are of Caucasian guys -- and I have to say, they're a fine pasty-faced lot.
If more black men are incarcerated, it is because large urban areas have large black populations whose young men commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
In my old predominantly white Brooklyn neighborhood, the few crimes we had were committed by our own white local talent.
Of course, Donald Trump comes from Queens, so there we are.
2
@B.
The Sackler family owned Purdue Pharma is among the biggest opioid makers and dealers in America. Oxycontin was and still is their drug of choice. But they get a white European American Jewish pass from any criminal prosecution..
Opioids, marijuana, meth etc. should all be legalized and treated like potential health abuse problems akin to alcohol and tobacco. Educate, regulate and tax in order to deter and limit their use.
Take the profit out of organized drug dealing. Or prosecute all drug dealers and send them to prison.
Heath Ledger and Phillip Seymour Hoffman might be alive if they were treated like black males and sent to prison for their drug use. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama were all illegal drug users and prosecutors.
White people make the rules.
1
Another failing of American law! More "social" countries not only look to prison for rehabilitation, they help the newly released with dealing with job, home etc.
8
I'm guessing the cost that taxpayers spent on incarcerating a prisoner is just a wee bit more than the $600 in fees cited in the second paragraph.
6
"I Served My Prison Time. Why Do I Still Have to Pay?"
Because if you're on probation, you're not done paying your debt to society. You still need to prove yourself -- hence "probation."
If you'd rather spend that remaining time in prison and avoid paying for an ankle monitor, go right ahead. But if you want to roam the streets freely while the justice system still deems you a risk to society, you can pay for your own ankle monitor.
14
Why do you guys insist on following policies that clearly do not work? Does spending 3.9 million to collect 3.5 million make any financial sense?
I’m sure that you would approve sending those who were stupid enough to pay that 3.5 million another bill to cover the cost of them paying.
Penalties for being convicted of a crime should come from the courts, not from some bureaucrat sitting in a corner office somewhere. And the courts need to factor in ability to pay, as a key component.
8
@Thomas
Seriously?! Two people commit the same exact crime, but you want one to be charged more than the other? Lawyers would have a great time with that. My client is poor, so you can’t send them to jail, nor charge them any fees. Better yet, my client is black, so I’m going to play the race card and argue that they shouldn’t have to go to jail at all or pay any fees. Free crime wave for anybody poor and/or black. Where is the incentive to not commit any crimes?
3
There is one rule in America and, most likely, in many places around the world: the poor get slapped down the hardest. Those lowest on the totem of economic well being and political power (they have none) are tasked again and again with paying the heaviest price for their low status.
Prisons create and sustain poverty. The husband or wife who is jerked out of civilian life not only cannot provide care and protection for a family, they can't make any money. On emerging into the sunlight, their prospects for financial survival are, at best, dim. So, hey, let's put a lot of fees on them! That'll be fun.
We are a punishment nation, tied to ancient concepts of wrong followed by retribution. It doesn't work most of the time but we keep doing and doing it. In fact, it backfires, creating more poverty, more desperation, more family separation. When senator Phil Gramm of Texas was running for president in the 1990s, he came off sounding like he wanted to build more prisons than there were McDonalds in America.
This fee system is a rather extreme perversity: we took away your ability to earn money, now you are going to have to pay us, the state, for the privilege.
49
@Doug Terry,
I always appreciate your common sense every time I come across one of your comments.
Thanks for being sane.
Orwell said that we carry on the human tradition by staying sane.
You do your part to help save our nation, and there are people out there who appreciate that.
1
If these fees are so important, then the agencies levying the fees should provide temporary employment that would allow the convict to pay the fee. Preferably the convict could perform the work while still incarcerated. This would benefit the agency by getting them their precious fee and benefit the convict by allowing them to start their transition of living outside of prison by having at least one resume item.
Otherwise the "fee" is just a hook for involuntary recidivism.
15
But if prisoners do the ‘work’ others will be ‘deprived’ of a job.
Prison is a SYMPTOM of underlying social problems - lack of fair opportunity, greed eg by the ‘sickness care’ and the money-lending systems, etc. TAX the ‘fruits’ of greed so much that it is ‘suppressed’.
1
The headline led me to believe this was going to pitch voting rights for ex-felons, because they had paid their debt to society. I was going to ask whether they had also fulfilled all other conditions of their sentence, like restitution, fines and fees, possibly ongoing child support. It's not really possible to argue that the debt to society is fully paid if these items have not been taken care of.
So, this piece argues against the fees. Next up, restitution and fines.
I don't think the vast majority in America is quite ready for all that.
5
This, to me, speaks to the larger structural problems with criminal justice. To be clear, I don't count myself among those leading the de-incarceration charge as I don't think society is helped by putting more criminals on the streets, but we absolutely need to reform our prisons to make them as much about rehabilitation as punishment.
To me, that starts with paying prisoners fairly for their labor (minus some amount that should be deducted with their knowledge via a paystub for housing and food). It absolutely shouldn't be on the general public to pay the costs associated with criminals.
However, the author is right to point out that the nature of saddling people with fees as soon as they're released is counterproductive. So let's teach people trades while they're "inside." And teach them money management by using that time and money to pay down both their moral and financial debts.
10
@JP Why shouldn't the general public pay for the costs of criminals? Our society produces the conditions that lead to incarceration -- at multiple levels. We are always trying to outsource the cost of our cultural values and choices onto the individual.
8
@spiderbee
Your comments are an insult to everyone in society, particularly the overwhelming majority of those people who live an underprivileged existence yet are excellent, law-abiding citizens.
We are trying to link (outsource??) value and choices onto the individual WHERE THEY BELONG! The downfall of society and order is rooted in an overgenerous system that rewards bad choices/behaviors.
Freedom is not easy.... it comes with tremendous responsibilities. Perhaps the USSR or North Korea is what you prefer- society is to blame for all ills there because society controls everything.
1
@spiderbee You're kidding, right? My neighbor was carjacked and then shot in the head. Who EXACTLY in our society is responsible for that? The animal who killed my neighbor left three kids without a mom. Explain to them why they should pay a single dime for the man who slaughtered their mother. Your response would be greatly appreciated.
2
Unless you personally know or have helped anyone who has been through our criminal justice system, your replies are unrealistic. Perhaps California is different but my state is not "Felon Friendly" which means a released prisoner is unable to find employment in few companies and seldom for more than minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. A murderer in my state usually receives a life sentence and repayment is impossible. All drug and alcohol criminal offenses they lose their drivers licenses after prison release for one to 10 years depending on the crime. That makes finding a job more difficult with poor to no available public transportation. Prison isn't life in a dormitory; it is dangerous, crude and many return to society as hardened criminals, drug addicts or with PTSD. I doubt our society wants to return to the Debtors Prison model of the Victorian Era after a criminal has been released from state or federal corrective prison. We need our tax money for education to prevent our youth from choosing a life of crime, not to increase more punish those who have already served their time.
29
No one ever really escapes the mistakes of their past. Prison is the government's punishment. Society's judgement can be even harsher.
9
@Mhevey: And society's "reward" for endlessly punishing people after release is . . . guess what?
If someone has served the sentence they were given, that should be it. Otherwise, make all those fees part of the sentence and not a surprise that one is handed on the way out the door.
43
I agree but that’s the only leg this argument has to stand on.
So a judges sentencing needs to say “5 years and any applicable fees and fines associated with cost of incarceration.”
That is fine by me.
@P L I totally agree about the idiocy of charging people, who have no way to pay, fines. But if you're going to do that, make it transparent.
They didn't necessarily pay their debts to society. If a murder or rapist was jailed, he should then have to pay fees, because society paid for his food, health care, and other expenses.
9
@Ginger: Burying ex-prisoners in unmanageable debt and impossible requirements, in a society that mostly refuses to give them good jobs and living wages virtually guarantees that they will turn, again, to crime.
What part of this is so hard for so many to understand?
84
@Ginger The cost of those things is paid for by incarceration. Simple. fees and fines are cruel. Simple.
8
No you are absolutely wrong those fees and fines are not covered by time in incarceration. Those fees and fines are part of the expanded prisoners rights and privileges.
Jail does not need to be in humane but just being incarcerated does not necessarily mean a hardship.
You lefties can’t have it both ways if you are poor and hungry sleeping in a gutter and have liver disease and need some dental work a prison stint might be a lot better than staying on the outside where society has no mandate to shelter feed help and heal you.
Taxpayers had to fund your prison stay. We are literally paying for criminals, many of them violent, to have a place to sleep and food to eat and entertainment such as TV. We don't guarantee our law-abiding citizens any of that.
So maybe stop complaining about the fees.
13
Please give the article a good read, think about it, and then decide whether your opposition makes sense. Many are already paying restitution. Most jailed people are already working in prison industries for the purpose of generating income to help pay the costs of incarceration. In fact, it’s probable that prison industry has a negative impact on local wages and benefits.
31
@Kate Many criminals are not violent. And they aren't exactly staying at the Ritz Carlton.We need to worry about vindictiveness and think more about rehab.
10
@Kate
Hopefully you'll remember this the next time you're about to complain about repeat criminals.
If you hamstring offenders the moment they leave jail, you greatly increase the likelihood that they'll commit another offense and end up back there. At which point, you'll get to complain about paying for their place to sleep, food and entertainment all over again.
Enjoy.
10
These fees seem like something invented to line a politician's pockets. There's no specific service associated with them, and even if there was it would just be something a government employee is paid to do already in their salary, which comes from tax dollars. The fines and fees aren't part of the inmate's sentence, there's no reason at all they should be levied on them. It smells like graft. Get rid of it.
32
I have read that the justification for these "administrative" fees (not just in California) is that criminals, scofflaws, accused criminals, etc are the "customers" of the justice system, and should pay for the "services" they receive.
But this is exactly backward, economically and logically: the actual customers of our justice system are those law-abiding citizens who want wrongdoers punished and kept where they can do no more harm.
48
I wonder whether it might cost more for the jurisdictions to attempt to collect these fees, or to process the parole violations that arise from non-payment, than they collect from those who pay up. It seems like a zero sum game.
4
@Passion for Peaches You don’t have to wonder; it’s right in the article. They spent $3.9 Million to collect $3.5 Million. Cf NK billing us $2 Million for “treating” Warmbier! Or old Stalinist-style billing victims’ families for the bullet used to execute their loved one!
Serving "your time" is only part of what is owed to society for an inmates actions that led them to be incarcerated.
The fees imposed on the inmate upon release come no where near what it cost society to support the inmate until such time as they can act as a functional human in society.
But I do think that fees imposed on the inmate at release should be able to be worked off by community service. And I mean doing actual work in the community, not handing out hot meals in a church basement.....maintaining parks, etc..
6
@Doug R I like your idea very much -- that working some of the fees off with community service might be a good way to thread this needle, assuming we don't get rid of the fees entirely. I'm not sure I understand how "handing out hot meals in a basement" is not service, though -- do you mean unless it's physical labor it's not service? This division seems to privilege traditional "men's work" over traditional "women's work." I actually think both could qualify.
1
@Doug R But wouldn't requiring community service that is not part of the original sentencing be illegal? I think this is another logical reason to reduce jail time or eliminate incarceration for minor crimes like drug possession, etc. The truth is we have too many people in our prison system than need be.
6
>>> "And I mean doing actual work in the community, not handing out hot meals in a church basement . . ."
I don't want to live in a community where that isn't considered "actual work in the community."
"We sure gots us lotta mean folks in America, Mary."
4
This is what happens when legislators at any level make decisions based solely on data provided by and reports prepared by staff. When one removes the human face, it’s much easier to justify the “fee” … and the resulting potential revenue stream looks mighty good to any legislative body.
12
@Michael They might save money by legalizing pot and spending less on policing and locking up non violent potheads. Legislators might get further revenue by taxing that legal pot. Just look at Colorado.
I'm not completely insensitive to the added burden of imposed fees, but it's tough for me to find compassion for someone who has made terrible choices to begin with. These same fees were never imposed on me. Know why?
12
>>> "I'm not completely insensitive to the added burden of imposed fees, but it's tough for me to find compassion for someone who has made terrible choices to begin with."
You shouldn't be proud of that.
>>> "These same fees were never imposed on me. Know why?"
I know one important reason: You've been lucky, so far, probably starting with the circumstances of your birth. I'm sure that you think your crime-free life is entirely the result of your own fine character, but I assure you: you're wrong.
27
@S. Gossard
I suggest that you take into consideration that the bulk of their "terrible choices" are constituted by their skin color.
For example, it's a well-established fact that Caucasians and African Americans use marijuana to the same extent. And yet, black people are incarcerated for it at nearly four times (3.73) the rate as Whites.
Funny how the consequences of "terrible choices" are imposed at a far lesser rate on White people.
I wonder why . . .
14
@S. Gossard it sounds like you ARE insensitive to the added burden of imposed fees. Many people make horrible mistakes - especially when they're young. Getting out of prison awash in debt is ludicrous. These people are going to have a hard enough time putting their lives back together without the government dumping debt on them right at the start.
10
Crimes are rarely if ever a mistake. People know the rules and chose to break them. In an era where social services are perhaps far too plentiful, there is no excuse whatsoever. The focus on rights for lawbreakers (criminals as well as illegal immigrants) is an insult to the vast majority of society who are law-abiding. Simply going to prison does not pay a debt to society. Prison is punishment Paying financially and never doing it again is how one pays their debt.
Instead of focusing on the cost to the released prisoner, how about the enormous amount of taxes we pay to lock criminals up where they belong?
11
@Ny Surgeon Going to prison does not pay a debt to society? I always thought the purpose of prison was to pay a debt to society. After the debt to society, prison time, is paid we definitely should be concerned with a person's rights.
7
People commit crimes for a variety of reasons, and I’m sure it is often a result of desperation, background, socio-economics, and other factors. What constitutes a crime is also in many cases arbitrary in my opinion. Enforcement and sentencing is extremely uneven, and we know that the more money you have the less likely you are to face punishment. Minority groups get harsher treatment. Many public officials, the very ones meting out punishment and levying these fees are themselves part of near-criminal operations. And these fees are minor for some people, but an enormous burden for others.
If you’re really a surgeon your moralizing is a little hypocritical and sanctimonious. The health care system in this country is criminal, and that makes you a participant in a criminal enterprise.
5
@Richard L
Let's see where you go Richard when you get sick.
There is fraud, but we are the highest regulated profession in the country. I am sorry you believe that we are criminals. I believe that 99.9% of us are excellent, responsible people. And we deserve high salaries. Do you say the same about lawyers, bankers, car repairmen etc?
2
Here in Oregon people out on probation have to pay a fee each time they meet with their probation officer. So of course a big percentage of probation violations are failure to pay the fees. It's like credit card debt, but in these cases it can lead people back to jail. In Florida, the legislature wants people who have been released from jail to pay all their fees before they can regain the right to vote. Simply stated, keeping people in debt is not consistent with providing a chance at redemption.
116
@Padfoot
At least, in Florida we know why it is. The politicians are Republicans and the ex-felons are (they fear) likely to vote Democratic.
1
It's part of our society's continuing effort to eternally punish criminals whether their crimes were horrible or not. And it's another way to keep on having them pay and pay for their crimes.
35
@hen3ry
It might be more accurate to say it's part of society's effort to eternally punish some criminals - the ones who ain't white, it seems.
3
The reason for charging prisoners amounts they can't pay upon their release is self-evident: those who impose the charges want to keep prisoners who have completed their sentences from voting. It is a way of making sure that they are disenfranchised for longer period than their sentences would allow. A state--like Florida--can thus claim that it allows people to vote once their sentences are completed, while at the same time preventing those people from voting. The government(s) in power in such states don't want minority voters, because they would probably vote against the Republicans who disenfranchised them in the first place.
88
@Barbara8101 @Barbara8101 And don't forget for-profit prison lobbies!
Time in jail is just one of several punishments for criminal activity. The real answer is not to start down that path by not committing crimes in the first place.
22
@Amy: For a long time, I was amazed that so many of my fellow Americans have neither compassion for people who have run afoul of the law *nor* enough common sense to recognize the rather-obvious costs to society of endlessly punishing those people.
Now, I'm just disgusted.
120
@Amy I agree with you totally. But let's also punish those who have avoided prosecution in the first place. Look at all the IRS fraud that goes without investigation. If not for the Trump / Mueller investigation, Manafort's crimes would have continued unnoticed. How many more are out there?
All should pay their time, and all costs for their crimes, but let's also remove all barriers for going after white-collar criminals.
9
The punishment for committing a crime is that which the court has adjudged appropriate per the law following a trial by jury of ones peers. Anything beyond that a betrayal of our system of justice.
24
It just doesn't make sense to spend more trying to collect fees than you take in.
How about focusing on the one thing these guys should do instead, Child support.
5
Gee, I would have thought that the one thing we should focus on (if only one is possible) is to make sure "these guys" have stable home and work/economic situations. That might help the child support problem, dontcha think?
44
@Douglas
No Douglas, I don't. Kids always come first.
2
@Wabi-Sabi
How about paying these people to NOT have children?
1
The points made by the author are cogent. Released inmates should be able to function without having the state charge impose charges for the time spent in prison. However, one of the many downsides of breaking the law is that the state may impose excessive sentences coupled with the fillip of a financial penalty, upon release. Apart from a few criminologists and social workers, and, of course, a coterie of leftist/liberal college professors and activists, no one, in the real world, cares about the extra burdens, whether probation or parole or financial penalties, the state extracts or imposes upon its released prison population. Recidivism is hardly the product of an unwelcome fees or fines. Suggestion: pay what you owe and get on with your life.
5
@heyomania
Read the article.
What they "owe" upon release is arbitrary from county to county: "Fees.......are purely administrative — developed by counties and other entities to recoup costs.
38
@heyomania Well, you made me look up "fillip". How erudite of you. On a more serious note, of course financial burdens are a roadblock to re-establishing a normal life on the outside. It's easy to tell from the comments who has and hasn't had to struggle financially in their life.
How I wish we, as a people, weren’t so compelled to use others’ crimes (which are, of course, often terrible) to vent all our needs for the satisfaction of revenge and moral indignation. I wish we could temper this with some compassion and a larger rational view of bringing those who did their time back into our midst as productive citizens.
145
@Dagwood "Everybody loves to see justice done...…. on somebody else". An old Bruce Cockburn lyric.
1