Should convicted criminals be charged rent in jail?

I understand we bill illegal Immigrants and those refused entry at airports for their time in detention, so why aren't we charging convicted criminals rent instead of paying them 'pocket money' for doing a bit of work in jail?

Should this apply also to and especially to corporate theives who see an often small jail term, if they get jail at all, as an acceptable risk for rorting consumers and investors out of millions of their money?

Well, that would just be one more thing for them to stress about ... & potentially hinder their rehabilitation?

The fact that a portion of their life / freedom is being taken away, is already "retribution" for society, not to mention the fines they often receive as well.

Illegal immigrants, & tourists - are not citizens. Criminals are, simple as that.

"Revenge" does not solve anything, it doesn't help these people get back on their feet, it doesn't help them to stop the criminal behaviour, nor does it get to the root of the problem. People aren't simply born good / evil, there's a reason criminals are criminals; they commit crimes for specific reasons. We need to address those reasons, & help these people ... as opposed to locking a shoplifter in with a convicted murderer.

I don't have a firm opinion on this yet and I can't particularly fault what you say, Nyden.

I also agree we should not be locking a shoplifter or traffic offender in with a convicted murderer.

But for me it's not about revenge or punishment, but responsibility. We all have to support ourselves in good times and bad, even when ill in hospital. Uni tudents have to support themselves to lean a profession. Why should professional/career criminals get free food and board?

Does that not give them a soft choice to avoid their responsibility by spending a few months in jail literally free food and board instead of paying fines.

Wouldn't paying for your own jail time be a deterant for criminals, especially petty criminals, all the break and enters and bag snatchers, cereal traffic offenders etc. If they default on the fine they go to jail. Just extend that to include more jail unless 'jail rent' is paid.

From what I hear from the police service many criminals, especially petty criminals continually re-offend, spending short periods in jail between getting caught.

I've personally been broken into a couple of times and the police often say they know who it is but don't have the resources to spend on many of the more petty crimes and particularly when they get such light sentences.

The typical line I hear is keep good security devices and insurance. Often I sense that the police heiracy attribute a certain amount of blame to victims for not spending enough on security, while these career petty criminals get free food and board... ie if the police can get enough resources together or the will to even go after them.

Why should the average joe have to wear responsibility for the cost of security for their food and shelter, while career criminals get it for free. The more I think about it the more the logic escapes me.

They are paying rent via the slave wages they are paid,also prisoners on work release pay rent...did you know that??...

If I don't pay the rent then I would get evicted. Hmm sounds like a good idea!

stevo

Rehabilitation bit gets on my nerves.
I hardly ever see a success story of crim breaking out from parasitic and recidivistic lifestyle.

As said above career crims, just use our rehabilitation soft spot to the max.

To the point that jurors don’t even know about past convictions, because supposedly every crime is judged separately, so jurors don’t even know that somebody is little bit harder to rehabilitate or in other words made crime her-his career.

You don't hear about the majority of prisoners who do sucessfully go through rehab programs because they don't fit with what the media want to portray. The same reason why you don't hear about the 95% of sentences that don't get appealed, it isn't considered news worthy.

It costs 10x more to keep a criminal in jail as it does to have them doing community service. Rather than have people sitting in jail doing nothing, it'd be better for the community as a whole to have them working off their debt to society doing something positive.

Want a good example of rehabilitation???

the guy running the education department...coutts-trotter(dont agree with his PC rubbish)hey done good this guy no doubts about that...tb

over in the UK you got a guy name john mcvicar(roger daltry played him in the movie,love to get it)hes done real good,there are good results you just gotta know where to look...

It would be a hard task to achieve with regards to the criminal elements nowdays , most have possesions and bank accounts siezed under the Proceeds of Crime Act .

It's even harder when prisoners are paid wages for work undertaken whilst incarcerated , these are subject to confiscation as well , if the prisoner has fines to pay as well as the sentence recieved .

Putting prisoners to work for those that are deemed not to be a security risk is a solution that has hit a concrete wall each time it has been put forward , as most of the ideas would take away gainful employment for the public that conform to our laws .

But having them cleaning up litter and clearing rural roads of overgrowth could always be a opening to such an undertaking .

But under Westimster law , a person being sent to prison is the punishment and secondary punishments are in contradiction to accepted International standards .

My view is , do the crime do the time , but for that crime where they have taken advantage of the law abiding public , it is also my view that they should be giving something back .

You can't take what isn't there in most cases , but you can place the onus of debt to society back on the prisoners , by having them repay society with tasks unaccounted for by the workforce in general .

We must remain humane in our views or we would look like everyone wanting their pound of flesh . Better to have them pick up things like litter , that is discarded in our rivers and roadways .

Here found this on john mcvicar...http://www.johnmcvicar.com/biog.htm

& this..http://www.northeasthistory.co.uk/the_north_east/history/echomemories/durham/405/071205.html

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2005/januaryfoi/default.htm

http://www.weht.net/WEHT/John_McVicar.html

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081144/




love to see the movie again...done real good this guy...tb

If it is good enough for students to pay HECS it should be perfectly all right for inmates to pay HOLDECS or REHABILITECS.

If it costs $35,000 to $60,000 a year to keep unlucky crim in, this is how much the mentioned schemes could cost them.

Whiskers said:

I understand we bill illegal Immigrants and those refused entry at airports for their time in detention, so why aren't we charging convicted criminals rent instead of paying them 'pocket money' for doing a bit of work in jail?

Should this apply also to and especially to corporate theives who see an often small jail term, if they get jail at all, as an acceptable risk for rorting consumers and investors out of millions of their money?

Click to expand...

How would you decide between those that have assets and those that don't as to who pays rent?

Also i think as has previously been mentioned, assets are usually confiscated if it can be proven that the assets in question were from illegal gains.

Cheers markcoinoz

Blood from a stone??? most crims aint got 2 cents to rub together,thats why they get into crime in the first place...

draw a circle around the 5 most areas with the highest crime rates...

let me know when you get to vacluse,seaforth,bellvue hills...etc

99% of crime is in socioecnomically poor areas...

make that to rub together...tb

The pay-rent-in-jail proposal could add a new dimension to the death penalty debate.

Markcoinoz said:

How would you decide between those that have assets and those that don't as to who pays rent?

Also i think as has previously been mentioned, assets are usually confiscated if it can be proven that the assets in question were from illegal gains.

Cheers markcoinoz

Click to expand...

Why discriminate! How about every convicted criminal be charged rent. A seperate issue from the proceeds of crime. The proceeds of crime is more to do with confiscation of the proceeds of crime, ie their illgotten gains, taking the stolen property off them. Why should it matter if they have any assets or not? if they are incarcirated for a crime they be charged rent ie be responsible for their maintaince and shelter like everyone else.

If they decide to work off some of it in jail, OK. Anything outstanding goes to an ATO debt and collected out of any tax return, centrelink benifit etc the same as HECS debt, child support debt, overdue income tax, PAYG debt, BAS debt etc and bar them from holding a visa to travel outside the country until it's paid... which I think is the case for some debts for ordinary citizins.

For a convicted criminal the criteria be made tighter so that if they don't rehabilate to honest working members of society to pay off their debt, and offend again the jail time increases exponentially.

Three strikes and your out, or permenantly in jail, in this case and literally doing hard labour to earn their keep.

I think we all have heard about cases where people have been convicted of theft and the money is never found, burried in a paddock somewhere waiting until they get out.

Better still, make the unrecovered proceeds of crime added to their tax debt too.

I wonder how many would think twice about crime if they knew that the proceeds of crime and the cost of their up-keep in jail would stay on their ATO debt record and prevent them from getting a visa until they pay it off or die.

Yes fantastic Idea, Incur a debt with the ATO , work it off inside or pay it off via a system similar to HECS when out.

I think this thread has the makings top grade politicians in it

tigerboi said:

Blood from a stone??? most crims aint got 2 cents to rub together,thats why they get into crime in the first place...

Click to expand...

Lots of poor people don't commit crimes. It's about attitude, personal responsibility. Many criminals are poor and become criminals because of the 'poor' choices they make, not because they live in a certain area. Like minded people then tend to congregate in the same area. The cost to career criminals of spending a bit of time in jail free carried is considered a better and cheaper option than earning an honest living. Assuming they are not habitual criminals who aught to be lock up anyway, they are clearly making the decision to re-offend because the reward outweights the 'cost' to them.

That's the jist of my suggestion that probably they ought to be held more responsible for their 'poor' choices, so a little more effort and discipline to make better honest choices is more attractive than the never-go-away rent and proceeds of crime debt.

numbercruncher said:

Yes fantastic Idea, Incur a debt with the ATO , work it off inside or pay it off via a system similar to HECS when out.

I think this thread has the makings top grade politicians in it

Click to expand...

Yer think we're onta something numbercruncher.

We'll set up the Criminals pay rent in jail political party. :

Whiskers,

While I can see your point, I honestly feel the debt incurred would only add to the overall dysfunction of the individual. Presently we regard the jailing of someone as final punishment for whatever they are deemed to have done wrong. Then when they are released they come back into society with a paltry $200 or $300 to make a new start. Many have no family or other support. Many have become institutionalised as a result of their imprisonment and find it immensely difficult to start a new life again.

Just think about it: if you came out of jail with, say, $300 how are you going to find accommodation for a start? You need four weeks' rent as a bond for rental accommodation plus two weeks rent in advance. Your $300 isn't going to go too far is it? So where do you sleep? No family to help you. You are going to sleep on the street.

Particularly for alcoholics/drug addicts it's just so easy to slip back into substance abuse. That $300 will buy you a bit of an escape for a few hours. Then what?

And how much success do you think you will have getting a job? No fixed address. Jail record. No real skills. Not much chance of a leg up there.

So, really, although I agree entirely in general about people needing to take responsibility, in a purely practical sense with prisoners, paying rent just wouldn't be feasible.

I would like to see much more victim/offender conferencing. A lot of crime is committed by perpetrators who never give the slightest thought to their victims. Take the example of an addict needing money. He doesn't care who he robs or assaults to get the money. If, however, he is brought face to face with the person whose life he has turned upside down, and who is given the opportunity to explain the devastating effect his actions have had, then there is at least a chance he might undergo some change of attitude.

I really don't think people just wake up one day and say "I think I'll become a criminal". If we could address some of the reasons and look at the backgrounds it would be a start. That, however, should not be a cop out for avoiding taking responsibility.

Julia, you make some valid points.

We don't want to further exasperate the disadvantaged or unfortunate.

As someone pointed out earlier it costs heaps of money to maintain people in jail, so one would think a bit more thought, effort and resources would go into targeting rehabilitation resources including victim/offender conferencing to weed out the serial (I got the right serial this time) and serious offenders. A classic example would be the town drunk, homeless even drug addicts.

I recall somewhere once that jail was supposed to be used to protect society from offenders not as punishment. The line seems blurred these days. However, the cost to society would surely be less if better resources were put into rehabilitation programs such as everyone cinvicted with an offence be given the option to commit to rehabilitation including victim/offender conferencing, which if sincere remorse and restitution were offered and demonstrated, these prisoners could get fast tracked, like paroled out earlier.

However, for the serial and repeat serious offenders who refuse to rehabiliate I would think charging rent would send the message that in an increasingly user-pay society, that these people pay for the resources that they cause to be needed and consumed on them.

It will probably need some redrafting of laws, but where we have serial and repeat serious offenders who refuse to engage in rehabilation programs, that could be taken as a 'lack of remorse' as in the current system, but ought to be extended to a 'jesture of intent' to recomit an offence (not too unlike the anti-terrorism laws) and pass some of the cost of their upkeep back to them to have the debt work against them to cause them to be detained for longer. Not unlike someone who refuses to pay the phone or electricity bill, you will not get the service connected until you pay. That for me is imposing responsibility onto these people better than we are doing now.

A good example are paedophiles where the evidence increasingly suggests that they will reoffend unless they commit to intensive rehabilation and monitoring, which few do. Also corporate theives who pass the millions into their partners name, serve a relatively short jail term, then continue to enjoy the fruits of their crime. If they knew that the valuables for their crime and the cost of their rent in jail, unless returned or recovered, will stay on their personal ATO debt to prevent them from getting a loan, holding a job in a public company and exclude them from getting a visa etc, I would imagine that would weigh heavily on the minds of those of weak moral conviction to cause them to become better citizens.

As you say many don't decide to become criminals, they just lack the moral conviction or responsibility to make sure they are doing the right thing. I'm thinking by reapportioning the consequences v reward, the incentives to not offend will be much more attractive than the puny consequences for many career criminal and the moraly deficiate as well.