TimeTraveler
01-29-07, 08:39 PM
Example, if someone is convicted of selling drugs, such as marijuana, should they pay the Marijuana tax after they do their time?
Let's look into this with more detail,
DARTMOUTH — Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson yesterday praised Gov. Deval Patrick's proposal to charge criminals a "safety fee," saying it echoes the principle behind the $5-per-day "cost of care" fee the Dartmouth House of Correction once charged inmates.
"It's the right position," he said. "It's something that I think should have been done a long time ago, not only in Massachusetts, but across the country. ... Finally, finally we're going to hold them responsible."
On Saturday, Gov. Patrick announced that he has a plan to charge every convicted criminal an as-yet undetermined fee that would pay to hire more police.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services have criticized the plan, saying that most criminals are poor and already face court fees when convicted.
Sheriff Hodgson said he wrote a letter of congratulations to Gov. Patrick when he heard about the plan, and invited the governor to Dartmouth to tour the House of Corrections and discuss fees.
Criminals "create a tremendous burden on the taxpayers with prisons and the justice system," he said. Later, he called Gov. Patrick's detractors "the same people who are responsible for recidivism in this country."
In 2002, the sheriff began charging each inmate $5 a day for room and board. "Over a two-year period, we raised $750,000," he said. "Imagine if every prison in Massachusetts charged a similar fee."
That two-year period ended July 2004 when a Bristol Superior Court judge ruled that the $5-per-day fee, along with other charges such as $5 for non-emergency medical visits and eyeglass prescriptions, were illegal.
Nine inmates represented by Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services took the case to court. It has been referred to the state Appeals Court.
The House of Corrections has an estimated population of 1,420 and a 2007 budget of $41 million, which it needs $4.4 million more to fund.
"Had we been able to collect (the daily $5 fee), we would cut that in half," Sheriff Hodgson said, adding that he has found other ways to trim his costs, such as cutting a cup of milk a day from the prisoner menu.
"That saved us 60 grand a year" while still meeting nutritional needs, he said.
The sheriff acknowledged that his cost-of-care charge is not analogous to Gov. Patrick's idea of a one-time fee.
"In our case, we get a bit more of a rehabilitative benefit," he said.
But he said the fact that he, a Republican, and Gov. Patrick, a Democrat, both came up with the idea of charging criminals to increase accountability shows that the notion crosses party lines.
Sheriff Hodgson said one of the biggest misconceptions of the $5 fee was that inmates' families would have to pay it. He said yesterday that the fees were assessed to the inmates themselves, and their families had no obligation to pay.
Poor inmates who could not pay had a bill that grew the longer they were incarcerated. When they were released, they were told, "If you don't come back within two years, we'll tear up the bill," Sheriff Hodgson said.
As for criticism of the sheriff that many criminals are already at an economic disadvantage, he said, "I'd invite you to come here and see how many inmates are picked up by limousines when they are let out."
Some come in with thousands of dollars, legal and illegal, he said.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-07/01-18-07/12local.htm
I think it's a brilliant idea. If a person is convicted of a crime, paying a fee is actually a very good way to punish them for the crime. Prison seems like a punishment but really the prison system does not work very well. Take for example a thief, that robs a bank, and makes millions, Prison is not a big deal because they'll have millions of dollars as a trade off, however if they had to pay the bank robbery tax, or the robbery tax, then when they get out, they'd be paying extra taxes for every crime they commited. More convictions = more taxes.
The result of this would be, that a rational person should come to the conclusion that crime does not pay, and that if convicted, it's going to result in your taxes being raised. I think it's actually a brilliant idea to link high taxes to criminals, think of it this way, if you've never commited a crime in your life, and you know someone has to pay the taxes to pay for the police and all the other stuff the society needs, shouldnt it be the criminals who pay these taxes?
Overall I think it is a good idea because it links the funding of the police department and crime fighting, with the activities of the criminals, so that if a city or town has a crime spike, it will also fund the police. Therefore if criminals get out of prison, they'd be paying taxes to fund the police department.
As far as tax status goes, I think it would be great if someone can get a tax deduction for having no criminal record. Imagine if you could get a 25% tax cut for having no criminal record, and another person who is a career criminal gets their taxes raised 25%?
I don't think convicted criminals will like this idea, and it does depend on how much money criminals can make when out of prison to pay these taxes or fees, and it depends on the crime, but I think different crimes should require different amounts in fees.
Let's look into this with more detail,
DARTMOUTH — Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson yesterday praised Gov. Deval Patrick's proposal to charge criminals a "safety fee," saying it echoes the principle behind the $5-per-day "cost of care" fee the Dartmouth House of Correction once charged inmates.
"It's the right position," he said. "It's something that I think should have been done a long time ago, not only in Massachusetts, but across the country. ... Finally, finally we're going to hold them responsible."
On Saturday, Gov. Patrick announced that he has a plan to charge every convicted criminal an as-yet undetermined fee that would pay to hire more police.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services have criticized the plan, saying that most criminals are poor and already face court fees when convicted.
Sheriff Hodgson said he wrote a letter of congratulations to Gov. Patrick when he heard about the plan, and invited the governor to Dartmouth to tour the House of Corrections and discuss fees.
Criminals "create a tremendous burden on the taxpayers with prisons and the justice system," he said. Later, he called Gov. Patrick's detractors "the same people who are responsible for recidivism in this country."
In 2002, the sheriff began charging each inmate $5 a day for room and board. "Over a two-year period, we raised $750,000," he said. "Imagine if every prison in Massachusetts charged a similar fee."
That two-year period ended July 2004 when a Bristol Superior Court judge ruled that the $5-per-day fee, along with other charges such as $5 for non-emergency medical visits and eyeglass prescriptions, were illegal.
Nine inmates represented by Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services took the case to court. It has been referred to the state Appeals Court.
The House of Corrections has an estimated population of 1,420 and a 2007 budget of $41 million, which it needs $4.4 million more to fund.
"Had we been able to collect (the daily $5 fee), we would cut that in half," Sheriff Hodgson said, adding that he has found other ways to trim his costs, such as cutting a cup of milk a day from the prisoner menu.
"That saved us 60 grand a year" while still meeting nutritional needs, he said.
The sheriff acknowledged that his cost-of-care charge is not analogous to Gov. Patrick's idea of a one-time fee.
"In our case, we get a bit more of a rehabilitative benefit," he said.
But he said the fact that he, a Republican, and Gov. Patrick, a Democrat, both came up with the idea of charging criminals to increase accountability shows that the notion crosses party lines.
Sheriff Hodgson said one of the biggest misconceptions of the $5 fee was that inmates' families would have to pay it. He said yesterday that the fees were assessed to the inmates themselves, and their families had no obligation to pay.
Poor inmates who could not pay had a bill that grew the longer they were incarcerated. When they were released, they were told, "If you don't come back within two years, we'll tear up the bill," Sheriff Hodgson said.
As for criticism of the sheriff that many criminals are already at an economic disadvantage, he said, "I'd invite you to come here and see how many inmates are picked up by limousines when they are let out."
Some come in with thousands of dollars, legal and illegal, he said.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-07/01-18-07/12local.htm
I think it's a brilliant idea. If a person is convicted of a crime, paying a fee is actually a very good way to punish them for the crime. Prison seems like a punishment but really the prison system does not work very well. Take for example a thief, that robs a bank, and makes millions, Prison is not a big deal because they'll have millions of dollars as a trade off, however if they had to pay the bank robbery tax, or the robbery tax, then when they get out, they'd be paying extra taxes for every crime they commited. More convictions = more taxes.
The result of this would be, that a rational person should come to the conclusion that crime does not pay, and that if convicted, it's going to result in your taxes being raised. I think it's actually a brilliant idea to link high taxes to criminals, think of it this way, if you've never commited a crime in your life, and you know someone has to pay the taxes to pay for the police and all the other stuff the society needs, shouldnt it be the criminals who pay these taxes?
Overall I think it is a good idea because it links the funding of the police department and crime fighting, with the activities of the criminals, so that if a city or town has a crime spike, it will also fund the police. Therefore if criminals get out of prison, they'd be paying taxes to fund the police department.
As far as tax status goes, I think it would be great if someone can get a tax deduction for having no criminal record. Imagine if you could get a 25% tax cut for having no criminal record, and another person who is a career criminal gets their taxes raised 25%?
I don't think convicted criminals will like this idea, and it does depend on how much money criminals can make when out of prison to pay these taxes or fees, and it depends on the crime, but I think different crimes should require different amounts in fees.