Allen,

I don’t know where you live, but in the several places I have lived, court costs were easily known.

Secondly, you are still asking / demanding that people that have done nothing pay for the actions of others. Society already does pay a large portion of the costs involved but I see nothing wrong with making the criminal pay for a greater share.

There is another solution and I would be for this: years ago Chuck Colson advocated for a restitution model for justice. Many, if not most, of the crimes that are committed have a cost associated with them that is born by the victim. Let the criminal pay for those costs to make the victim whole again. If you steal something, pay the victim back. If you drive into their car because you are drunk, you pay the victim back……

Such a model teaches the criminal the value of their crimes and proves to them that someone worked hard for the item they stole, damaged, etc.

Your position leads to the inevitable question of “why is it in civil cases do we place the burden of costs on those who are guilty, but in criminal cases, you want to place the cost on the victims / society?”

Sorry my friend. I don’t understand that thinking.

Usually when people actually get arrested and go through a booking process its because its a serious crime and when people are charged with a serious crime they usually lose their jobs or at a minimum they are suspended. The low level felonies are released almost immediately after and arrest and all misdemeanors are “cite and released” at least here in CA.

No. Let me put it a different way. If paying for incarceration is what we want, fine. Make it a part of the penalty for the crime. It should be set up front. Truth in punishment.

An example, if the penalty for speeding is $100, that is the max you pay. Right now, at least where I live, there can be extra court costs making it cost 2 or 3 times as much..

I am all for convicted criminals paying for the consequences of their actions. I just want it to be transparent . Currently, it is opaque.

Allen,

The converse must be true as well: if someone in society wishes to act against society, that is a value choice that they make and not society. If one wants to choose a course of action that will result in incarceration and costs them money, that is on them, not on society.

Placing the cost of incarceration on the incarcerated takes away a disincentive.

So making people pay for what they have chosen is a disincentive? Are you sure you want to stick with that?

To follow your thinking, speeding tickets should carry no costs, other than drivers with good records paying fines. Code enforcement fines in areas / standards that harm others should be paid for by the people who have followed the codes, rather than those who have not. Want to keep your house and yard a snake and vermin place? No problem. Your neighbors will gladly pay for that which you will not do.

Are fines too high? Maybe. Probably even. But to say that law abiding people should have to pay for the illegal actions of others is ridiculous.

gitacarver,

I disagree. Society determines what is anti-social behavior and how to punish it. If society decides that the behavior requires incarceration, that means society thinks that the value of incarcerating a person is greater than the value of keeping the person free. Thus, it is a societal cost.

Placing the cost of incarceration on the incarcerated takes away a disincentive. That is, if society has to pay for incarceration, society will have to decide how to pay for it. If society does not pay for it, there is no disincentive to just not make everything a crime.

And we should note: this is about societal norms. In some cultures, murder is accepted, but not ours. On the other hand, in our culture women don’t have to wear burkas. Right and wrong, therefore, is situational. To enforce the concepts, society makes a choice and it must bear the cost of making the choice. So too must those who act outside the norms, but taking away the freedom to be in society is the cost to them.

MattS,

First, most people won’t stay in jail forever. They will get out eventually. If they can pay the fines after the get out, so be it.

“We” don’t make it difficult for them to find jobs. Once again you are ascribing the consequences of people’s actions onto others. If anything, one would think that not having a record would be an incentive to not break the law and incur the costs. However, what seems even more clear is that the people that don’t break the law should not have to pay the fines, fees and costs of people who do break the law.

Also, I have no idea where you work or how many people you have hired in your lifetime. For me, it is well over a thousand and have hired people with records before. (If you have hired people before, how many people with records have you hired?)

I am not sure what you are asking on “how to expect that to work?” Here’s a clue and a good place to start: don’t do the crime.

To expect law abiding citizens to pay for the illegal acts of others is a disincentive to follow the law. Why should anyone follow the law if someone else is going to pick up the tab?

(For the record, I would be for lowering fines and requiring restitution to victims instead, but that is another issue.)

And how exactly is someone sitting in jail/prison supposed to pay those costs with no source of income?

Then we make it very difficult for them to find legitimate legal work after they get out and at the same time saddle them with huge debts to the government that they can be sent back to prison for failing to pay.

How do you expect that to work? Do you actually intend to force them back into a life of crime to survive after they get out?

“Society” did not commit the crime. “Society” did not add costs in physical damages and or angst of victims.

If a person wants to act outside of societal norms and what society has agreed to, is it not up to “society” to pay their freight. It is on them.