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

[2952-0-0]

I mean, if you were sentenced to a period of time in prison could you pay for, say, $1,000 a day to reduce (or eliminate) your term?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

of course not. Think of white collar supercriminal CEOs.

[7,052,770]

definitely not.  A rich murderer could walk.

[Speed of Sound]

no. you could steal from a bank, invest it (maybe off-shore) and use it to get out, most likely with some to spare.

[Gabu]

Uh, no.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, but you need to do like I think Finland does with traffic tickets and the like where the size of the fine is a percentage of your annual income, and it shouldn't apply to crimes of violence as the purpose there is more than just punishment but the protection of society.

[Adam Griffin]

No. Why was this even asked? I would assume that for this to be asked, someone would have to believe in this cause, but I can't see anybody on these forums agreeing to this injustice.

[Alcon]

No.  That defeats the point of jail time.

[2952-0-0]

Yes, but you need to do like I think Finland does with traffic tickets and the like where the size of the fine is a percentage of your annual income, and it shouldn't apply to crimes of violence as the purpose there is more than just punishment but the protection of society.

Yeah, apparently the record for most expensive speeding ticket goes to a director of Nokia.

[Bono]

yes, if you paid restitution.
I don't care about fees.
This was teh system in saxonic England, and it's a shame that those pesky Normans got rid of it.

[John Dibble]

Depends on the nature of your crime. I would definitely say no to murderers, rapists, any other violent criminals, or thieves because their crime did direct harm to another person, and thusly the point of keeping them in jail is to both punish them and prevent them from commiting their crime again. Now, non-violent drug users(who shouldn't be jailed in the first place), corporate crooks, and other non-violent people who aren't dangerous to others would be a possible yes - though the fee should be proportionate to the crime, and the cost should be more than whatever was gained from the crime(if anything) in order to make it some kind of punishment, for instance, say Martha Stewart would have to pay double the money her actions cost investors(half for restitution to her victims, half going to the prison system budget). Also, anyone released like this should be under parole status, of course.

[Emsworth]

No

[David S]

Depends on the nature of your crime. I would definitely say no to murderers, rapists, any other violent criminals, or thieves because their crime did direct harm to another person, and thusly the point of keeping them in jail is to both punish them and prevent them from commiting their crime again. Now, non-violent drug users(who shouldn't be jailed in the first place), corporate crooks, and other non-violent people who aren't dangerous to others would be a possible yes - though the fee should be proportionate to the crime, and the cost should be more than whatever was gained from the crime(if anything) in order to make it some kind of punishment, for instance, say Martha Stewart would have to pay double the money her actions cost investors(half for restitution to her victims, half going to the prison system budget). Also, anyone released like this should be under parole status, of course.

I agree with that. Victims of fraud for example would probably be happier getting their money back than seeing the perpetrator in jail, as long as the amount of restitution is enough to cover the loss and provide sufficient deterrent to future crimes. This would also be less expensive to the state than imprisonment.

[MODU]

No.  You do the crime, you do the time.  Otherwise, the laws become meaningless.

[nclib]

No. This system would favor the rich.

[Democratic Hawk]

No

Dave

[A18]

For what? Murder? No. If you beat someone up, and the other guy is willing to take cash and not hold it against you, that's fine.

[Gabu]

I agree with that. Victims of fraud for example would probably be happier getting their money back than seeing the perpetrator in jail, as long as the amount of restitution is enough to cover the loss and provide sufficient deterrent to future crimes. This would also be less expensive to the state than imprisonment.

That's actually a good point, although there might also be victims of fraud who would be much happier seeing the guy do jail time than getting their money back.  Maybe we could leave it up to the victim?  It seems like it isn't exactly justice to just give the victim back his money with compensation if the victim doesn't even care about it.

[Emsworth]

Maybe we could leave it up to the victim?

That would undermine the whole basis of the criminal justice system. Settlements are appropriate in civil cases, as a tort is deemed to harm just the defendant. However, a crime is an offense not only against the victim, but also an offense against society, against the People. Thus, victims should not be able to determine the sentences of criminals.

[Bono]

I agree with that. Victims of fraud for example would probably be happier getting their money back than seeing the perpetrator in jail, as long as the amount of restitution is enough to cover the loss and provide sufficient deterrent to future crimes. This would also be less expensive to the state than imprisonment.

That's actually a good point, although there might also be victims of fraud who would be much happier seeing the guy do jail time than getting their money back.  Maybe we could leave it up to the victim?  It seems like it isn't exactly justice to just give the victim back his money with compensation if the victim doesn't even care about it.

How about crimes that don't have victims?

[Bono]

However, a crime is an offense not only against the victim, but also an offense against society, against the People.

I'd like to see a philosophical justification of that.
How is it an offense against me that some guy in teh otehr end of the country pickpockets someone.
And don't use hipotheticals, as they are worthless.

[Emsworth]

I'd like to see a philosophical justification of that.
How is it an offense against me that some guy in teh otehr end of the country pickpockets someone.
And don't use hipotheticals, as they are worthless.

It is not a philosophical argument, but an assumption of the law. The entity in which ultimate sovereignty and power is vested is the one against whom the crime is committed. Under the common law, for instance, a crime is an offense against The Crown, the ultimate repository of power. Similarly, in the U.S., a crime is assumed to be an offense against the People. The issue is not philosophical, but legal.

[Gabu]

Maybe we could leave it up to the victim?

That would undermine the whole basis of the criminal justice system. Settlements are appropriate in civil cases, as a tort is deemed to harm just the defendant. However, a crime is an offense not only against the victim, but also an offense against society, against the People. Thus, victims should not be able to determine the sentences of criminals.

Well, I don't personally agree with the notion in the first place that a person should be able to pay money to get out of serving a jail term, but if you ask me, if we do allow someone to do so, it should not occur without the victim's consent.  Personally, I would not exactly like the thought of someone stealing money from me and then getting off by simply paying it back with a little extra.

[MaC]

Ted Kennedy did it...

[Gabu]

Ted Kennedy did it...

Did what?