Fines vs. Imprisonment

[The One and Only...]

Am I the only one who thinks that many of the crimes we send people to jail for could simply be substituted with a fine?

Now, before you go and say that it favors the rich, we could make it proportional to your income. Kinda like a non-progressive tax.

When you really put things into context, it makes a lot of sense. Putting drug offenders is jail is idiocy; actually, making drugs illegal carries it's own problems, but I won't get into that with this thread. Wouldn't it be better to just say something like you must pay 10% of your yearly income over five years?

This could help get the government a bit of money and get people out of our prisons, many of whom don't deserve to be there. Obviously, some things wouldn't carry a fine: I'm just talking small things here. Where we draw the line, I'll leave it up to you to decide. I'm aiming at non-violent crimes for the most part with this.

There is only one major problem I see with this: what happens if the offender is unemployed? Perhaps the answer is not to base it off of current income, but off of the total value of everything you own and all the money you currently have saved. This would seem to be a much more balanced approach to the issue.

However, that does leave the question of what happens to the poor thief who has so little that he loses virtually nothing. I suggest having an alternative sentence that the judge could assign if he sees it fit: for example, 60 hours of community service, or the like.

Opinions?

[Big Papa Goat]

Now, before you go and say that it favors the rich, we could make it proportional to your income. Kinda like a non-progressive tax

Don't you mean a progressive tax?

[ScruU2wice]

i think going to jail has a certain ring of fear in it that deters some people. Its really not as scary to lose 10% of you income as it is to be thrown in to a brick room fitted with steel bars. If i would be scared of anything in jail is the fact that id be staying with some one who did something far worse than i did.

Another problem that you addressed is people with no income. What if some one has spent there life selling crack or picking pockets? this might be a really narrow minded view of what people actually go to jail for, but still how much money would they have to give up...

i think theres always some problems in these types of systems that people look over and it results in grave consiquences

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Don't you mean a progressive tax?

No. If it's 10% of Farmer Joe's income, it's gonna be 10% of Bill Gate's income.

To do otherwise really wouldn't be justified, particularly in the case of breaking the law. Hell, the government would be more than satisfied with 10% out of a rich man's pocket.

I already addressed those without any property that would amount to anything/can't afford it. Alternate punishments would be given that would still benefit the people more than just sticking these folks in jail (i.e. community service, etc).

It should also be noted that many who pay such fines should have a parole officer, and that continued offences should eventually lead to jail time.

[Immortal Goat]

I actually think this idea would be a good one. It would free up space in prisons, and it would be less of a burden on the taxpayers' paychecks, but I think we should take it one step further. I think it should be 10% base fine that goes to the government, but then there should be an ADDITIONAL fine that is proportionate to the crime committed that goes to a federal fund that gets sent back to the taxpayers at refund time.

[Perndog]

I think if the offender's income is below a certain amount (read: the offender is completely destitute) the sentence should be regular community service until the offender raises his income to the baseline and a fine to be paid at that point.

That's the most realistic thing I can think of. Ideally, I'd prefer that anyone too poor to support himself who is also a criminal (and I don't consider drug users or dealers criminals in this ideal country) should be publicly executed or deported (whether or not he was born in the USA).

[Big Papa Goat]

You could have just said a % of income, since saying "non progressive tax" next to "proportional to income" and saying something about it not favoring the rich is kind of contradictory.

[punkgrrrlie10]

they already do this for first time offenders and low ladder misdemeanants. The problem lies in convincing legislatures to do it for the drug crimes.

[Big Papa Goat]

And its hard to tax a % of a drug dealers income, since his income will be laregly undeclared. Its a similar situation with other criminals, like rackateers etc.

[The One and Only...]

Hence why I suggested that we make it proportionate to what they own, since that would also clarify as to what happens to people who aren't working.

[ScruU2wice]

regardless, giving up a certain amount of money is far less dettering the spending a certain amount of time in jail. I think that your less likely to repeat a crime if you spent time in the slammer then if you had to pay a fine no matter how big it is. Plus as i said before there are certain flaws that we in systems like these that could only recognized in heinsight.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Hence why I suggested that we make it proportionate to what they own, since that would also clarify as to what happens to people who aren't working.

How do you know what a drug dealer owns if they keep their assets in the Caymens?

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by ScruU2wice

regardless, giving up a certain amount of money is far less dettering the spending a certain amount of time in jail. I think that your less likely to repeat a crime if you spent time in the slammer then if you had to pay a fine no matter how big it is. Plus as i said before there are certain flaws that we in systems like these that could only recognized in heinsight.

Obviously, this is true. That is the tradeoff in the system. However, this is why it is, for the most part, only extending to minor non-violent crimes.

How do you know what a drug dealer owns if they keep their assets in the Caymens?

You don't, but I'm not even sure if I would really extend this to drug dealers. Those having over a certain amount of drugs and/or were caught selling them would probably serve sentence time. Of course, if all they had were a few small amounts, they'd be recognized as just buyers and might be able to get by with community service as a first time offense.

All this, of course, assuming that his assets could not be traced to. But then again, if all he is carrying are tiny amounts of drugs at a time, he'd probably wouldn't be a very successful dealer, much less have a large enough possessions to make the money given up to the state be very substantial.

[Perndog]

Dealers can still sell drugs in prison.

[kellychaos]

I think that the system already IS like that in a subtle, unspoken way. If you have the right kind of money, then you have a "Get Out Of Jail Unfree" card. Instead, of fines, substitute the term "lawyer's fees". Having a certain amount of celebrity or connections with the right people help in this repsect too. How's that for a progressive tax? I don't think that some people were so mad that OJ was guilty and got away with it so much as he learned these facts. Just sayin' :/

[kahljorn]

My friend got drunk one day and socked a cop, for about a year he moved to another state so he wouldnt goto jail, then he came back to visit and got rolled.

He got one month in jail. he told his lawyer to aim for, "Three weeks", as a joke. But so it was.