Justice Department: States Should Not Jail Poor People Over Fine Nonpayment

[Jacque67 7,328]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse

Bring'em back!

[Teddy B 17,252]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse

Bring'em back!

Been a while since I had some gruel!

Diet

Dinnertime at St Pancras Workhouse, London

In 1836 the Poor Law Commission distributed six diets for workhouse inmates, one of which was to be chosen by each Poor Law Union depending on its local circumstances.^[37] Although dreary, the food was generally nutritionally adequate,^[58] and according to contemporary records was prepared with great care. Issues such as training staff to serve and weigh portions were well understood.^[58] The diets included general guidance, as well as schedules for each class of inmate. They were laid out on a weekly rotation, the various meals selected on a daily basis, from a list of foodstuffs. For instance, a breakfast of bread and gruel was followed by dinner, which might consist of cooked meats, pickled pork or bacon with vegetables, potatoes, yeast dumpling, soup and suet, or rice pudding. Supper was normally bread, cheese and broth, and sometimes butter or potatoes.^[59]

The larger workhouses had separate dining rooms for males and females; workhouses without separate dining rooms would stagger the meal times to avoid any contact between the sexes.^[60] Rations provided for the indoor staff were much the same as those for the paupers, although more generous. The master and matron, for instance, received six times the amount of food given to a pauper.^[61]

[Jacque67 7,328]

And boarding schools continue the great diet;)

[TBoneTX 45,273]

Fine's have become more of a source of revenue for some districts than a punitive measure. They are very aggressive, even creative about getting the money.

Quite true. A large police department around here would put their traffic-enforcement cruisers out during the third week of every month, I imagine in hopes that people would pay their fines before month-end, thus helping the P.D. make its financial quotas.

Instead of fining people that cannot afford to pay, they should be sentenced to some type of community service.

At least for traffic infractions, offenders here can perform community service in place of paying fines. I've seen some working at the nonprofit-organization resale shops and have overheard their conversations about working off their penalties.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Quite true. A large police department around here would put their traffic-enforcement cruisers out during the third week of every month, I imagine in hopes that people would pay their fines before month-end, thus helping the P.D. make its financial quotas.

They set up speed traps here on open stretches of highway where they can make the most money. There are several places where speeding has caused major accidents that they ignore because they are not as frequent.

Same with the traffic cams. There was an article a while back that they put them at intersections that will generate the most revenue but not necessarily at intersections that are the most dangerous.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Dakine10

[TBoneTX 45,273]

If I had one relevant wish, it would be that every traffic camera and speed camera in the country would immediately and permanently malfunction.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

For the most part, despite obvious ways this can be abused, I'm for it. But I'd like the DOJ to start using these supposed interpretations of the constitution to do a great deal more, if they are genuinely concerned with unreasonable punishments. No more civil forfeiture, no more mandatory sentences for any crime ever, no more capital punishment. Everybody knows the US has too many people in prison.

You had me up until the capital punishment remark. I totally believe that if you comment the crime then you get the time. If you kill someone, then yes you need to be hanged. I know I am tough on this issue but I believe that is the only deterrent for murdering someone. Also I don't mean hey we put someone on death row and they MIGHT get executed in 30-40 years, but let them have one appeal and a 1-2 years after sentencing they be hanged.

[smilesammich 10,727]

You had me up until the capital punishment remark. I totally believe that if you comment the crime then you get the time. If you kill someone, then yes you need to be hanged. I know I am tough on this issue but I believe that is the only deterrent for murdering someone. Also I don't mean hey we put someone on death row and they MIGHT get executed in 30-40 years, but let them have one appeal and a 1-2 years after sentencing they be hanged.

and the state will be killing a percentage of innocent people, without fail.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

and the state will be killing a percentage of innocent people, without fail.

That's the issue that I am kinda like ughhhh. If there is unrefutable proof that an individual did it then go head hang them. If there is only an eye witness statement that is not really clear then no, they get life.

But you have to have capital punishment to punish those who murder other people. If you do not have it then they will eventually get out and possibly do more harm.

[smilesammich 10,727]

That's the issue that I am kinda like ughhhh. If there is unrefutable proof that an individual did it then go head hang them. If there is only an eye witness statement that is not really clear then no, they get life.

But you have to have capital punishment to punish those who murder other people. If you do not have it then they will eventually get out and possibly do more harm.

actually, you don't have to. i get that there are some people who believe that capital punishment is the only thing that keeps people from murdering others, but not everyone buys into that nonsense.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I don't want to waste tax payer money putting people in jail for a simple failure to pay a fine - how do you deter future behavior if people find out they will not be held accountable? Something has to be there..

I remember the Detroit water issue: People found out that water would not be turned off if they did not pay their bill and told all their friends and within a few years the water company was on verge of bankruptcy and the city had to start getting tough on people to pay back owed money which created a huge problem.

So don't put them in jail OK - How do we keep it from becoming a loophole people abuse?

Edited March 15, 2016 by OnMyWayID

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

actually, you don't have to. i get that there are some people who believe that capital punishment is the only thing that keeps people from murdering others, but not everyone buys into that nonsense.

unless we are having a zombie apocalypse, no one who has been executed has murdered anyone else.

[smilesammich 10,727]

unless we are having a zombie apocalypse, no one who has been executed has murdered anyone else.

and no one who was wrongly put to death by the state has ever resurrected from the dead to seek justice...yet.

[ExPatty 502]

We all know the stats, we all have opinions on them. Most people consider the stats on capital punishment fairly damning. But aside from them, in my opinion I've the essential idea that a state should never, except in times of defense of its people, be granted the power to kill. At times imprisonment is necessary, capital punishment is not. But it's a wedge issue anyway. Few people are killed. I'm vehemently against it, but it doesn't affect a ton of people. Mandatory minimums do and they are egregious.

[OriZ 3,157]

That's the issue that I am kinda like ughhhh. If there is unrefutable proof that an individual did it then go head hang them. If there is only an eye witness statement that is not really clear then no, they get life.

But you have to have capital punishment to punish those who murder other people. If you do not have it then they will eventually get out and possibly do more harm.

Seriously? You'd put someone away for life based on an eyewitness?

If I had one relevant wish, it would be that every traffic camera and speed camera in the country would immediately and permanently malfunction.

Israel is full of them. Vermont has none. It is so much better lol

We all know the stats, we all have opinions on them. Most people consider the stats on capital punishment fairly damning. But aside from them, in my opinion I've the essential idea that a state should never, except in times of defense of its people, be granted the power to kill. At times imprisonment is necessary, capital punishment is not. But it's a wedge issue anyway. Few people are killed. I'm vehemently against it, but it doesn't affect a ton of people. Mandatory minimums do and they are egregious.

That's exactly it for us too. Although there were literally dozens of reasons affecting our decision to move to VT(basically we could pick any state we wanted EXCEPT for WI which my wife did not want to go back to), one of them was actually just that. We did not want to live in a state that allows the moral(or immoral) thinking behind the even mere concept of capital punishment, we looked for one without it which already narrowed it down significantly. Studies have also shown that areas with capital punishment are usually actually more violent than those without. Not to mention all the cases in which innocent people end up being executed. Who turned the government into god and gave it the right to kill someone that they already have in custody? lest that not be confused(and as you have said so yourself "in times of defense of its people" with the necessity, at times, to kill people that you may not be able to capture, in order to prevent them from, say, carrying out terror attacks just as an example. But if you already have this person whether a terrorist or a criminal in prison, you cannot play god and decide you have been given the right to kill them.

Edited March 16, 2016 by OriZ