Prisoner saves $11,000 -- but state wants it to cover jail stay

reply to post by pianopraze


And when that day comes I am one of the ATS members who firmly believe in my 2nd amendment rights, as many of us do think one day that might happen.

I just don't think that day is here just yet, this man is a murderer he was not innocent, you are throwing this "innocents" argument into this discussion when he's not, so let me have my straw man you can have your false points on innocents incarcerated.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by searching4truth

 

He murdered an old man and attempted to kill two others. Whether he deserves whatever he gets is moot as he does deserve it. The money should go to the victims family though and not the State. No Murderer should ever be able to profit or save money while in jail.

Of course in Illinois they may make him Governor before it's over.

You are not judge, jury and executioner here. You do not know the specifics of this man's mental health or why he did what he did. All you know is he was convicted of it, and we are finding out more and more now that just because you are convicted does not mean you are guilty. In my state the state bureau of investigations has been falsifying evidence and refusing to submit samples that could prove some men innocent! This man worked for his money whether or not you like it, it's his.

reply to post by benrl


Oh contrair. And this has nothing to do with 2nd amendment rights

My argument is that if they set a precedent with a guilty man they will then impose it on us all. There is a long history of this. I in no way defend this man or his actions.

It's a very slippery slope.

reply to post by searching4truth


Okay, besides this case, Forget this man and his innocents or not.

The core of what the state is doing is setting a precedent to bill the cost of incarnation to the prisoners assets (its a bank account) IF they are successful this could allow the State to seize other assets in the name of the prisoners (houses, businesses etc.)

So say a successful businessman is sent to jail, the state would have legal precedent to pursue his personal assets and wealth to pay back for his incarceration.

Now to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if we see this all over now with states hurting budget wise, its a smart business move on the states part.

I would say this is bigger than just this case, and Id like to see how far the appeals go and what groups come out to fight for this guy in court.

reply to post by pianopraze



Okay, ill bite.

How are they going to inact this on the rest of us?

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by searching4truth

 

Okay, besides this case, Forget this man and his innocents or not.

The core of what the state is doing is setting a precedent to bill the cost of incarnation to the prisoners assets (its a bank account) IF they are successful this could allow the State to seize other assets in the name of the prisoners (houses, businesses etc.)

So say a successful businessman is sent to jail, the state would have legal precedent to pursue his personal assets and wealth to pay back for his incarceration.

Now to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if we see this all over now with states hurting budget wise, its a smart business move on the states part.

I would say this is bigger than just this case, and Id like to see how far the appeals go and what groups come out to fight for this guy in court.

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!

The article states that the state of IL is able to pursue inmates for the cost of their incarceration and the threshold is $10,000 in personal assets. We have had a number of high profile people in our state get sent to the slammer and I would dare to say they had over $10,000 in their bank account and I have never heard of the state going after them for the cost their prison stay. And you're right, what else will they be able to seize if this is allowed to pass, the article did state that they have gone after people's inheritances and personal injury settlements, but it didn't say if those were successful.

This guy participated in a program that was run by the prison and the state, he followed the rules and did what he was expected to do. Had he spent more money they wouldn't be pursuing him, and to me that is wrong. I don't care why he's in jail, this is program he was eligible for and participated in, and he should be able to reap the rewards of that. If they don't like it, then get rid of the program.

This guys money should not be able to be taken away...

They are trying to save face, make it look like they
are trying to help the state out by stealing this guys money.

Why don't they work on the union thugs before working this guy over...

I could possibly go along with this if someone charges Richard Hatch for that first season of Survivor!

Or maybe if all the incarcerated Illinois politicians are charged for their corruption.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by searching4truth

 

He murdered an old man and attempted to kill two others. Whether he deserves whatever he gets is moot as he does deserve it. The money should go to the victims family though and not the State. No Murderer should ever be able to profit or save money while in jail.

Of course in Illinois they may make him Governor before it's over.

I was watching a show on nat geo I think it was last night about prisoners in Ohio. They profiled three. One of the guys was running his scam selling coffee from the commissary with money he had gotten and he was the BMOC for a while till he got a letter saying any money in his account would go to his victim. He was crying and howling about how its not fair etc. He killed somebody. Tell the family and see if they feel the same way about the fairness he dished out on theirs.

I am amazed at the defense of this criminal on this thread by some. Makes me very disturbed at best.

reply to post by searching4truth


To be honest I don't know if I really care either way and Ill admit I don't know enough about constitutional law and prisoner rights to speak intelligently on if this is legally right or wrong. It is clear the goal of this case has broader implications.

Perhaps its not just a finanical issue either for them, Prison is often not deterrent enough for some criminals, (corporate to petty street thug) but if the thought wasn't "oh no ill go to prison" but "oh no ill go to prison and be penniless, and when I come out ill be in-debt forever."... again Not the most productive environment for rehabilitation...

Like i said, this will be interesting to watch.

Originally posted by syncelebrity
reply to post by StigShen

 

They get tv's, heated rooms at 70 degrees, beds( those who cant sleep can request memory foam), Huge meals that are fresh prepared (most of the time), phone calls, any medical attention they ask for, some get tobacco, Junk food, free lawyer representation to be used against the doc and state as well as co's. The list go's on and on.

Wow a TV. That's real luxury for ya. So then I suppose it's better to let the prisoners go insane staring at the walls. Or maybe doing other things with their time like figuring out how to kill a few CO's and bust out. Also, in most prisons, prisoners don't get their own TV, there is one TV on the tier or in a day room that they all have to share.

Heat and air conditioning is a basic human right. Torturing and killing prisoners is not justice. Besides, would YOU want to work in a prison that didn't have heat or AC, trying to control prisoners under those conditions?

Huge meals that are fresh prepared? Now I know you don't even have a clue what you are talking about. It's minimum government standard institution food.

Phone calls? Why shouldn't they get phone calls? You're telling me that just because someone goes to prison, their little girl can't talk to them, their wife? Can't talk to their lawyer?

Medical care, again, a basic human need. Or should we just let prisoners die, infect other prisoners and CO's with deadly diseases. Create a public health risk? Maybe we should just execute all prisoners.

Tobacco? Not in most prisons anymore. And they aren't "given" tobacco in any prison.

Junk food? How do you define junk food? Peanut butter and crackers from the commissary, that they have to pay for?

Lawyers. This may come as a surprise to you, but even prisoners have rights. If CO's or the prison are doing something illegal, well gee, then they are no better than the prisoners anyway then are they? And what about people who are innocent, working on an appeal? Screw them too, right?

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


If the victims had brought a civil case against him and won a settlement, I'm sure his money would go to them. But that's not the issue.

Yes, we all agree that murdering another individual is bad. But the nature of his crime is irrelevant, they are simply attempting to seize the assets of a prisoner. A person does not need to serving time for murder, it could by any lesser charge and they would be able to site this case and seize the persons assets, no matter whether they were attained through crime (which are typically taken) but all assets. To me that is scary.

reply to post by benrl


As soon as they set a precedent they can then enact it on everyone. That is how precedents work.

I can't find it, but there was a female coast to coast guest who wrote a book about her imprisonment for whistle blowing.

I found this looking for it:
link

Richard Fine, who holds a PhD in international law and served as an anti-trust prosecutor at the Department of Justice in Washington D.C., has been in jail in the L.A. County Jail for over a year in solitary confinement. He never had a trial, there has been no conviction, nor any sentence to keep him there. Sheriff LeRoy Baca claims he does not know why Fine is in jail, yet he keeps him there and failed to answer Fine’s Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Now this man, if released who was never convicted could be forced to pay for his stay. This is an increasingly common story.

I researched it. He was originally in for "contempt of court" and held for a year to a year and a half.
CNN

"I ended up here because I did the one thing no other lawyer in California is willing to do. I took on the corruption of the courts," Fine said in a jailhouse interview with CNN.

For the last decade, Fine has filed appeal after appeal against Los Angeles County's Superior Court judges. He says the judges each accept what he calls yearly "bribes" from the county worth $57,000. That's on top of a $178,789 annual salary, paid by the state. The county calls the extra payments "supplemental benefits" -- a way to attract and retain quality judges in a high-cost city.

I'm sure members here at ATS could come up with more people than I could who have gone to jail for petty or no crimes. If they set the precedent with this guilty man from the OP they will apply it to all. What a way to get money. Trump up a charge with increasingly easy to do patriot act, then cease assets to pay for the incarceration.j

If you can't see the pertinent dangers, and realize the need to resisted such actions, I don't know if any amount of my words can help.

A very slippery slope.

reply to post by benrl


Very interesting to watch indeed, but somehow white collars criminals never seem to go penniless. Furthermore, by taking assets from the already poor doesn't sound to me like a way to get them out of a life of crime.

reply to post by StigShen


actually on about half of what you have said is wrong. Food is high quality,,,they have a contract with whole foods here for fish, produce, and grains. TV is absolutely living good. Yes the phone calls should be given but only once in a while like hmm once a week not three times a day. In my state they dont pay for the commisary. They have tokens they are given for not getting in trouble. Is your opinion biased due to the fact that youve been to prison or have a close one incarcerated

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by StigShen

 

Technically he would not be able to do that job if he had not done the crime, so in a very technical definition he is indirectly profiting from his crime, and i am sure the state will use that argument in the court case.

Then the state should shut down their furniture factory, its slave labor.

reply to post by pianopraze




Point 1. HE is in contempt of court, has had no trial, and is not convicted of a crime. = Not relevant to this case.

Point 2. He is paying yearly fines for not bowing down to the court, which is his MORAL choice, and a right he is exercising.

Ill give you this much (I know of this case already) it is a heinous abortion of justice but does not relate to this case at all.

But ill tell you what, Ill give you what I originally asked for and you failed to provide.

Lets say the Riaa gets its way, and the court starts to go after all the people who pirate legally(in criminal court not civil), once they are found guilty (and this case stands and is a precedent) they could in theory take peoples houses and assets to pay back the RIAA, Court cost, Jail time, ETC.

But again thats a long way from in acting this or it being placed on every one like you suggested.

Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by HoldTheBeans

 

If the victims had brought a civil case against him and won a settlement, I'm sure his money would go to them. But that's not the issue.

Yes, we all agree that murdering another individual is bad. But the nature of his crime is irrelevant, they are simply attempting to seize the assets of a prisoner. A person does not need to serving time for murder, it could by any lesser charge and they would be able to site this case and seize the persons assets, no matter whether they were attained through crime (which are typically taken) but all assets. To me that is scary.

Why should taxpayers foot the bill for his 3 hots and a cot? Just like these meth dealers running around cooking that # up in their labs. When they're caught you gotta bring all this Hazmat teams in to clean the mess up at the cost of the taxpayers. I'd make the bum clean his own mess up before he goes to prison.

Yes the nature of his crime IS irrelevant. All those bums in prison should be out working on chain gangs cleaning the city or roadsides or whatever and every penny they have should go to the state they commited their crime in. That would show them crime does NOT pay. They don't like it don't commit crimes that will put you there. Simple until folks start whining about how it's not humane to work hard or to not have a TV or how they gotta have a bag of chips or whatever. Its ridiculous. Work em till they're too tired to do anything but sleep till they get back to their cells. Hell let em break rocks for all I care.

All I see on prison shows is guys lifting weights sitting aorund in their cells wondering whose gonna rape em next or beat em up or what gang they need to be in etc whining about how horrible it is. They out working their butts off all that goes out the window.

I think he should pay for it. I pay for it..u pay for it..why shouldn't he?? I think they should make them work while in jail and not for pay. Jails too cushy. Maybe if it were a little less comfortable there wouldn't so many repeat offenders. There's one prison in AZ where the prisoners actually sleep outside in tents and are put to work everyday, mostly community service stuff but they still work. Why should they have '3 hots and a cot' without earning it? I have to work for mine, isn't that the least they could/should do.

reply to post by benrl


Yes the state will be able to bill every prisoner that was ever there. But if they can bill the inmates why can't the tax payer bill the state the same?