Riverside county board votes unanimously to charge criminals for their stay

[Sigz]

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/us/in-riverside-california-a-plan-to-charge-inmates.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A one-night stay in this city’s finest hotel costs $190, complete with sumptuous sheets and a gourmet restaurant. Soon, a twin metal bunk at the county jail, with meals served on plastic trays, will run $142.42.

With already crowded jails filling quickly and an $80 million shortfall in the budget, Riverside County officials are increasingly desperate to find every source of revenue they can. So last month, the County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve a plan to charge inmates for their stay, reimbursing the county for food, clothing and health care.

 Prisoners with no assets will not have to pay, but the county has the ability to garnish wages and place liens on homes under the ordinance, which goes into effect this week.

 As the county supervisor who pressed for the ordinance, Jeff Stone, likes to put it: “You do the crime, you will serve the time, and now you will also pay the dime.”

 While a few other local governments have tried similar ideas, Riverside is by far the largest to enact what many call a “pay to stay” plan. Mr. Stone estimates that about 25 percent of the county’s prisoners would be able to pay something and that the county could collect as much as $6 million a year.

 But the county attorney cautioned that the move was unlikely to bring in significant revenue, because many inmates were destitute and because convicts would be expected to pay restitution and other fines first.

 Like all counties in California, Riverside is in the midst of accepting a new influx of inmates who would have normally gone to state prison. Faced with an order from the Supreme Court to shed 30,000 prisoners from state prisons over the next two years, the Legislature approved a plan to shift thousands of prisoners to local jails.

 Many local leaders and law enforcement officials are skeptical of the plan and say the state is unlikely to cover the counties’ costs for the new inmates. In many counties, including Riverside, the jails are already near capacity, and officials worry about being forced to release some inmates before their sentences are complete.

 Under California law, counties are allowed to collect money as a condition of probation, but only after a judge determines that the inmate can afford to pay. And counties are the last in line to get money from a convict.

 A similar plan has been floated in Kern County, north of Los Angeles. But the sheriff there, Donny Youngblood, has opposed the idea, saying it could cost more than it would bring in.

 “I’m not against it, believe me. I think in a perfect world, if all of them could pay, I would be in favor of it,” Sheriff Youngblood said. “It’s not so much that I am concerned about the fairness, although there is an aspect of that. It’s simply not a road I think is worth going down right now.”

 But, he added, “If it’s successful, there will certainly be others who follow, because we are all looking for more money.”

 With five jails spread throughout the county, Riverside, which is east of Los Angeles, has already reached 93 percent of its capacity, up from 85 percent before the state began moving prisoners in October. Those inmates have much longer sentences — they will stay in county jail an average of two years, more than double the length of stay for typical county inmates.

 “Overcrowding is one of my top concerns,” said Jerry Gutierrez, a chief deputy at the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department who oversees the jails. “You have an overcrowded facility, and it just builds up the tensions. It becomes a longer wait for the showers — not everybody is going to get in there. There’s less time outside of cells, and it demands more resources we may not have.”

 The effects of the state’s transfer plans are not limited to the jails. For years, the state has relied on inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes to join crews that fight wildfires across the state. But because of the shift of so many prisoners to county jails, the firefighting force will begin to shrink this year. (Counties can send prisoners to the fire camps, but the state will charge those that do about $46 per prisoner per day, reducing the incentive.)

 Mr. Stone, a Republican who has been so critical of the Democratic-controlled Legislature that he has called for the secession of the eastern part of the state, said the state’s plan amounted to a “partially unfunded” mandate. Riverside officials have said they were getting enough money from the state now, but they worry about next year, when the guarantee for a financing source expires and voters will be asked to approve tax increases to ensure that services do not erode.

 “We need to be looking for revenue wherever we can for ourselves,” Mr. Stone said. “There are people who have the means and who get into trouble with the law. Why should the citizens of this county with other struggles be forced to pay for that? The Lindsay Lohans of the world can certainly pay for it themselves.”

 Sharon Dolovich, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the county faced a “tremendous blood-from-a-stone problem” and called the plan an “illogical, ill-thought-through response” to the state transfer of prisoners.

 “If our goal as a society is to rehabilitate people who have been in jail, then burdening them with another thing to pay when they are released is not the way to do it,” Professor Dolovich said. “It could also create an incentive to deny bail just so that the county could be bringing in more money.”

 For now, most neighboring counties are watching what happens with a skeptical eye.

 “Sometimes you attack the absurd with the absurd,” said John M. W. Moorlach, an Orange County supervisor. “We’re all messaging to Sacramento that the state has do more than just take our money and download prisoners to us. We’re all finding different ways to scream.”

[yeshaberto]

other than the fact that it will make it harder for them to get back on their feet, I am surprised we aren't already doing this.  I guess I figured the multiple fines they pay was going towards it.

[El Barto]

Aside from the point I've made in the past about imprisonment needing to be an expensive last resort,  I suspect there's a legal issue with only charging the wealthy.  You can't go around setting different punishments for people based on their income.

[kirksnosehair]

Aside from the point I've made in the past about imprisonment needing to be an expensive last resort,  I suspect there's a legal issue with only charging the wealthy.  You can't go around setting different punishments for people based on their income.

Game/Set/Match

[jsem]

Btw, I have a brilliant idea regarding violations that give tickets. Fine people as a percentage of their income instead. It's much fairer.

[kirksnosehair]

Btw, I have a brilliant idea regarding violations that give tickets. Fine people as a percentage of their income instead. It's much fairer.

[lordxizor]

I remember seeing a story a couple years ago about a rich dude from some European country getting like a $100k speeding ticket or something because they fine based on income.

[jsem]

Btw, I have a brilliant idea regarding violations that give tickets. Fine people as a percentage of their income instead. It's much fairer.

I'm completely serious about it though. I mean, if a Wall Street executive gets pulled over for speeding, he has no problem paying the fine. But for an average Joe thinks it's a true pain to have to pay up. If instead a fine is given as a percentage of income, the higher income people will be less inclined to break the law like that.

[kirksnosehair]

Btw, I have a brilliant idea regarding violations that give tickets. Fine people as a percentage of their income instead. It's much fairer.

I'm completely serious about it though. I mean, if a Wall Street executive gets pulled over for speeding, he has no problem paying the fine. But for an average Joe thinks it's a true pain to have to pay up. If instead a fine is given as a percentage of income, the higher income people will be less inclined to break the law like that.

We can't fine or incarcerate people based on their income.   You can't punish people just because they're successful. 

[Rathma]

You can't punish people just because they're successful.

tax

[jsem]

Btw, I have a brilliant idea regarding violations that give tickets. Fine people as a percentage of their income instead. It's much fairer.

I'm completely serious about it though. I mean, if a Wall Street executive gets pulled over for speeding, he has no problem paying the fine. But for an average Joe thinks it's a true pain to have to pay up. If instead a fine is given as a percentage of income, the higher income people will be less inclined to break the law like that.

We can't fine or incarcerate people based on their income.   You can't punish people just because they're successful. 

You're not punishing them more than anyone else. It's actually fair. Applying your logic to taxes, everyone should pay a set amount of money as a tax every year whatever their income is.

[kirksnosehair]

Btw, I have a brilliant idea regarding violations that give tickets. Fine people as a percentage of their income instead. It's much fairer.

I'm completely serious about it though. I mean, if a Wall Street executive gets pulled over for speeding, he has no problem paying the fine. But for an average Joe thinks it's a true pain to have to pay up. If instead a fine is given as a percentage of income, the higher income people will be less inclined to break the law like that.

We can't fine or incarcerate people based on their income.   You can't punish people just because they're successful. 

You're not punishing them more than anyone else.

That statement is inconsistent with the fabric of reality.

[jsem]

Relatively speaking.

Why won't you be consistent and apply the same to tax rates? Everyone should pay an equal amount of MONEY regardless of their income level according to the same logic.

My proposal is just very draconian, I agree, and I'm not sure it would work - but there's some degree of fairness in it. You need incentives. Plus, you're a liberal and actually in favor of progressive taxation I presume, so why wouldn't you be in favor of this?

[kirksnosehair]

Relatively speaking.

Why won't you be consistent and apply the same to tax rates? Everyone should pay an equal amount of MONEY regardless of their income level according to the same logic.

My proposal is just very draconian, I agree, and I'm not sure it would work - but there's some degree of fairness in it. You need incentives. Plus, you're a liberal and actually in favor of progressive taxation I presume, so why wouldn't you be in favor of this?

I am liberal and I do believe (mostly) in the "fairness" of progressive taxation, but I do not believe that fines for breaking motor vehicle codes should be applied progressively.  I don't like the precedent it sets because I don't think people who earn more money should pay a higher fine for the same violation. 

Speeding is speeding.  The fine should be identical regardless of the income level of the person who gets busted doing it.  Same goes for felonious crime.  Just because a person has money, it does not mean they should be able to buy their way out of jail time, you see, it cuts in both directions.

[jsem]

The same violation could be said about being successful in business. Government fines you more as a percentage for the violation of being a productive member of society. How's that for fairness.

[El Barto]

Btw, I have a brilliant idea regarding violations that give tickets. Fine people as a percentage of their income instead. It's much fairer.

I'm completely serious about it though. I mean, if a Wall Street executive gets pulled over for speeding, he has no problem paying the fine. But for an average Joe thinks it's a true pain to have to pay up. If instead a fine is given as a percentage of income, the higher income people will be less inclined to break the law like that.

In some ways I really like it.  I agree about the fines not being a deterrent to the wealthy (although the loss of driving privileges would be).  There are far too many problems, though.  For example,  if you're a cop,  are you going to pull over the guy in the 09 Maserati, or the girl in the 79 Celica hatch back?  Who do you think your superior will be pushing for you to look for?

[jsem]

Huh. I didn't think about that, those unintended consequences. That situation would actually be horrible.

It's still a fun idea though, there has to be some way to come up with a fair system. Because some people are hurt more by fines than others. Some people don't care, it doesn't bother them.

[lordxizor]

It really depends on what you're trying to go for: an equal fine or an equal punishment. They are not necessarily the same thing. A $500 fine for me is going to sting, more an rich guy it's nothing, for a lot of people it means they go without food for a week. I would be all for progressive fines based on income for repeat offenders. A first ticket isn't a big deal and isn't worth the time and effort for the courts to research income and determine an appropriate fine.

[El Barto]

We shouldn't be fining people at all.  Law enforcement and public safety should not be a for-profit enterprise.  There are plenty of different options that would be far more effective than the current model.  As it stands now,  speed enforcement is merely a cash grab.  If you remove that aspect from it,  then cops can actually tend to the things that really are dangerous.