The jails throughout our country cause financial hardship for a local governments and a sense of tension with our communities. People are angry that felons are getting meals and a roof over their heads when law abiding citizens can barely pay their mortgage. There is a way to solve these problems.
I like to call it Pay-To-Stay. Catchy I hope. Here’s the idea, calculate the average cost to incarcerate a person per year (this will vary depending on security level and geography). Next, figure out the amount of years the person is supposed to serve. Charge the incarcerated person the cost it would be to keep them in jail for the amount of time they stay there, thus the Pay-to-Stay Jail Program.
Now let me clarify some details, which will make Pay-To-Stay work. First, allow the incarcerated person to perform community service at minimum wage to work of the cost of their jail time if they so choose. They can also pay this amount with their own money.
If they don’t perform community service and they don’t pay for the amount they owe by the end of their jail term the state will provide two options. If the person has a job lined up there wages can be automatically garnered to pay of their dues to the state. There can be a window of say three months to get this job. If they don’t get a job, then the state has the right to re-incarcerate them or to claim assets worth the fair market value of what is owed. The other option is the convict can choose to stay in jail to finish the required community service if they show a reasonable drive to do so. So they can choose to go look for a job or stay. In order to ease restrictions on releasing these prisoners, you can set a percentage threshold as to the amount still owed where they will be allowed parole.
In addition to community service, a convict could be hired by a company to do minimum wage work while still in the jail through specialized work programs meeting certain criteria. For instance, a small Nike shoe factory could be setup in proximity to the jail to help these people Pay-to-Stay. The jail would be compensated for the labor provided while the convicts would pay their dues. This would not be an option for high security convicts.
A nice benefit on top of community service incentives is that when an inmate pays of the amount they owe than any additionally work they do (community service or factory work) will be paid back to them upon the time they finish their term. This will give them a kickstart to jump back into society with their feet firmly underneath them.
How Can They Pay?
- Community Service (Minimum Wage)
- Contracted Factory Work
- Out of Pocket
- Garner Wages (After They Leave)
- Post Incarceration Community Service
Benefits
- More community involvement
- Extra work above the cost of their stay goes back to them
- Reduces financial strain on the state
- Helps with reintegration
Now you might ask, how this program will fit into the community service already required of some criminals as a part of their sentence? It is essential to keep these two programs separate since they serve two different purposes. One is punishment and the other is paying to eat and have a roof over your head. The community service of these kind will be in addition to the community service the convict will already have to do.
The Pay-To-Stay Program would greatly reduce the cost of running our jails, add community outreach and reintegration, bring added value to our jails, and create a greater reason for convicts not to become re-incarcerated.
Vote for this solution with the star ranking above, share it with your friends, and subscribe to Political Verve to promote progress and the American dream.
This is an awful idea. I’ve never heard anything that would encourage two separate legal systems for the rich an the poor like this.
This isn’t two separate legal systems. Nothing of the sort. This is just simply a way to make sure convicts don’t go to jail for free.
Generally, I like the old idea of prisoners working to “pay back” to society for their crimes. So some elements of your idea could be implemented.
But as Donovan states, what you present potentially sets up two separate legal programs. The wealthy, or at least those who have access to “more,” can pay for their incarceration much more easily. An individual in poverty, however, is likely sentenced to overwhelming debt or more imprisonment simply because he/she is unable to cover the costs attributed to his/her crime(s).
For example, let’s say that prisoner 24601 is sentenced to 5 years of prison and that it is estimated his debt will be $45 per day (based on consumption of food, water, electricity, toiletries, and so forth, plus the amount needed to pay guards to watch him, doctors to care for him, and numerous other incidentals associated with his incarceration). The current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. For one 8-hour shift, he would earn $58.
So far, so good, right? But that income is before taxes, reducing the amount he actually “receives.” Of course, for the sake of the argument, let’s argue that politicians decide to let prisoners be tax exempt so that they can effectively pay their societal debt. At this point, prisoner 24601 is able to pocket $13 each day, above and beyond the amount he owes.
Unfortunately, this scenario does not yet account for weekends and holidays. To be generous, let’s assume prisoner 24601 is going to be paid for holidays. But weekends are another matter. Factor these in and he is now -$25 per week. After five years (and 260 weekends) he would emerge from prison $6,500 in debt.
True, if he had employment, that amount could be garnished from his paychecks. Problem solved? Maybe. Hopefully there is no interest applied. Hopefully cost of living increases were made to his pay to keep up with the inevitable annual rise of expenses. He might be able to pay off that $6,500 in about 12 years.
Still, the reality is that finding work is difficult enough. Finding it after emerging from prison is even more difficult. What does the state do to recover its losses? It tries to confiscate property equal to the value of the debt. Uh oh. 24601 doesn’t own anything. So, he goes back to prison where he is told that he can work off that $6,500 in 112 days. Except, he will also be expected to pay for the 112 days in prison, too. Plus the weekends where he is not paid at all and. . . apparently his perpetual debt will keep him in prison far longer than anyone anticipated.
Obviously, the scenario I just described takes a lot of liberties. But I think it illustrates the simple point that many contingencies have to be considered to implement your idea. Otherwise, wealthy criminals leave on time and poor ones. . . probably never leave.
Scott,
As for your concern of burdening individuals who couldn’t easily pay the cost of his/her stay, the system would require a means for any inmate to be able to work off their dues while still incarcerated if they so choose. Additionally, if they work more than what they owe, they will leave with a nice check helping them get started back into life outside the prison.
You are definitely correct that every possible contingency must be considered. The hourly wage of inmates would have to be adjusted so that if they worked forty hours a week they would come out of prison with no debt. If they worked any time beyond that they would be leaving with a nice check to help them transition to their new lives.
Again thank you for your comments. I have a lot more posts in mind. I just need to find the time to write them.