Shoud you be able to buy your way out of jail time?

[dazzleman]

No, you should not be able to buy your way out of jail.

But the reality is that it's done every day, effectively.  This is especially true for non-violent crimes, and sometimes true even for violent crimes.

Those who can afford lawyers who are competent enough to gum up the system will always get a lesser sentence than the person with a legal aid attorney with 100 pending cases at the same time.

The two major components of our lives are time and money.  Sometimes, we trade time for money, and other times we trade money for time.  The most hard-pressed person is the one who has an abundance of neither time nor money, and the luckiest person is one who has an abundance of both. 

Since our society has largely rejected physical punishment, there are really two ways to punish people -- take away some of their time, or take away some of their money.  Since all of us value these things differently, punishments don't affect us equally even if they are equal.

As an example, compare the guy who's 19 years old, who has nothing going on in his life and no money, to a wealthy older person.  The 19-year-old may not really mind a couple of years in the big house since he's not giving up that much to go there, but he'd be flattened by a heavy fine.  The older wealthy person is enjoying his life, doesn't have a lot of years left, and would much rather fork over some of his money than lose time, which is a more precious commodity to him at that point.

A previous poster mentioned the Finnish system of traffic fines.  It's an interesting attempt to equalize the impact of monetary punishments by pegging it to income.  It makes sense in principle.  I remember when I was younger and had little money; it hurt when I got fined for speeding or something like that.  Today, it's a rounding error in my checking account.  In Finland, they fined a guy something like $100,000 for speeding because his income was so high.  Maybe Huckleberry Finn can comment on how effective this has been.  It would be very difficult to implement, and will never happen here, but it's an interesting concept.

[dazzleman]

Ted Kennedy did it...

Did what?

I spoke without thinking through completely (no smartass comments from anyone, only I can say stuff like this about me)

That thing with the girl, anyone else would've have gotten 20 years for manslaughter at least.  He probably had the right clout and money to get himself out of it without even getting to the jail part.

The fact that you can do it doesn't exactly mean that you should be able to do it.  Not that there's really a way to stop it without resorting to something other than capitalism, but in an ideal world, someone wouldn't be able to do that.

I agree that it should not be possible to buy your way out of jail, but the fact is that in the good old USA at least (I don't know about Canada), justice is effectively negotiable and for sale, to some extent.

Criminals negotiate on their penalties all the time, because for crimes that aren't heinous and even for some that are, courts will lower your penalty if you agree not to put them through the trouble and expense of proving your guilt.  Even I have negotiated penalties in court in a minor way, for things like speeding tickets.

Where money comes in is that money gives a defendant the ability to make the state's job in proving his guilt a lot harder, since a defendant with money can pay a lawyer to force the court to dot every i and cross every t, while a person without money, and with an overburdened legal aid attorney, cannot do this.

This makes the courts more willing to strike a deal with a wealthy defendant than a poor one.  Also, a wealthy defendant has more to offer in terms of penalties other than jail, such as payment of large fines (government is always looking to make money), restitution, etc.

It's not right but practically speaking, I don't think it's a problem that can be fixed.  Still, the most egregious cases do stick in my craw, and the Ted Kennedy case is one of the more egregious ones I've seen.  OJ Simpson was also a disgrace, since OJ enjoyed the best of both worlds -the ability to hire first class lawyers, as well as the ability to pose as a poor oppressed minority, and get a gullible and none too intelligent jury to buy into it.

[dazzleman]

A previous poster mentioned the Finnish system of traffic fines.  It's an interesting attempt to equalize the impact of monetary punishments by pegging it to income.  It makes sense in principle.  I remember when I was younger and had little money; it hurt when I got fined for speeding or something like that.  Today, it's a rounding error in my checking account.  In Finland, they fined a guy something like $100,000 for speeding because his income was so high.  Maybe Huckleberry Finn can comment on how effective this has been.  It would be very difficult to implement, and will never happen here, but it's an interesting concept.

The system is used for all kind of crimes which you can get fine punishment, not only for speeding.  I can't say much about its effectiveness because it has been used a long time.

Dude, have you ever gotten fined under this system?  If so, were you considered high income, resulting in your getting whacked pretty hard, or did you get off relatively light because you were low or moderate income?  Have any of your friends or family come away hurting from a massive fine for a pretty minor offense, like speeding?

I find the concept pretty interesting.  Here, it's almost the opposite.  Lower income people who go to court dressed like slobs generally get fined more for the same offense than higher income people who are savvy enough to make a better presentation of themselves.  This is not official policy of course, but it seems to work out that way. 

I've seen it in action a few times when I've been to traffic court; people get treated in accordance with the way they present themselves.  Of course, there's no reason a lower income person can't dress decently for court, but in reality few do, and it hurts them.

[dazzleman]

I've seen it in action a few times when I've been to traffic court; people get treated in accordance with the way they present themselves.  Of course, there's no reason a lower income person can't dress decently for court, but in reality few do, and it hurts them.

To be fair the reason is money^ and an ignorance on decorum.  Many poorer people just don't have the money to shell out on even a Men's Warehouse suit nor see the great need for it without a stiff in a box present.

You don't need a suit, just a collared shirt and a decent pair of pants.  Last time I got a speeding ticket and went to court, I wore a polo shirt and a pair of white linen pants.  Khakis would have been fine too.

The same people that don't have money for decent clothes spend lots of money on cigarettes, and stuff like that.  I find it hard to believe that a person has nothing to wear other than ripped jeans and a dirty t-shirt.  It's a matter of spending priorities, and as you said, ignorance of decorum.  That ignorance is probably a lot of the reason they're badly off in the first place.  It's a nasty cycle.

Dress definitely affects what people think of you, and how they treat you.  If a guy shows up to court dressed like a gangbanger, people will think the worst of him, and be less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.  When someone dresses well, it sends a message that they take the issue seriously, even if that's not really true, and they get better treatment as a result.

[dazzleman]

Plant a cabbage get a cabbage is a good adage.  Crack ho's tend to have little thieving crackhead children.  It takes a values laden education and hard work to escape the lowest rung. 

Definitely true.  I fear that we have given people in this situation the exact opposite of what they really need through misplaced and misguided tolerance, born of unrealistic idealism.