Law-Forums.org

[kendon19]

We are because we feel like paying any money to incarcerated criminals is not fair to the law abiding tax payer. Also we think that any income these prisoners have coming in from any source, except from family members or friends who work for a living, could and should be used to support them while locked up and help defray the cost of clothing, medicating, and feeding these convicted criminals. And this goes for any proceeds these kind of people receive from books they or family members write or movie rights their family or the convict agree to while still owing money toward their debt to society.

We think this ability to make money for personal use while locked up in jail is an abuse of the taxpayer. Although we do believe any such income could be used to reimburse their victim(s) to satisfy their restitution ordered by the court before any money is applied toward the justice system expenses. This includes any income from government like social security, disability, or any other income from any other sources.

We are most interested in what family members and friends of convicted criminals feel toward this subject and if they feel strongly enough to carry signs to protest for or against this fraud against taxpayers in the USA.

[rheged]

The whole point of lawful incarceration is that prisoners are not treated like outlaws or subhumans.
You need to address the insult-trauma punishment to their (often quite innocent) family that stems from locking them up before worrying about them earning pocket money inside.

Already the USA leads the world by a mile when it comes to the number per 100,000 head of pupulation locked inside.
At year-end 2009 it was 743 adults incarcerated per 100,000
In Canada the figure is 131 per 100,000 adult population.
In the UK the figure is around 140 per 100,000
In China the figure is 218 prisoners per 100,000 population ...

Something has gone SERIOUSLY wrong with the way prison is looked at in the USA hasn't it?

[wattekinson86]

Sadly, I don't agree with you. A law is already in place that says criminals can't profit off book deals and the like (son of sam started that). But their relatives? How could you restrict a free man from writing about something that, say, his brother did?

[link]

You have lumped together a bunch of unconnected issues and then call it fraud, when it is not.

Most criminals have no source of income at all. For the few who do, it is almost always the result of such things as investments and other business endeavors. The number of criminals making money FROM their criminal acts is slim indeed. Sometimes, they will write books, but some jurisdictions already prevent the criminal from profiting from anything related to their crime. Canada does, for example. You cannot simply say that 'they or their relatives' make money, because those are two separate issues. Nothing in law can punish someone or prevent them from making money based on being related to a criminal. That is a complete non starter.

You then contradict yourself by claiming that victims should be compensated before the justice system, when you had previously claimed that such earnings were a fraud on the taxpayer. Which is it, should the money go to the victim or the taxpayer? It can't be both.

In any event, if someone who has been ordered to pay restitution earns money while in prison, it DOES go to pay the victim first.

So basically, you seem to be all worked up about something that seldom happens, and your suggested remedies are confused and illogical.