Minimum wage in Prison?!

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

So, a prisoner who has no daily living expenses gets the same wage as the guy next to him who does the same work but has to pay rent/mortgage, pay council tax and utility bills.

We really need to consider all of the ramifications of prisoners "in the community" making less.

One major reason that prisoners get the minimum wage when working in the community is so that the availability of prisoner labor does not unfairly advantage one business versus another. If you have a business far from a prison and my competing business can use prison labor to produce goods far more cheaply than you, I've got a huge competitive advantage.

Also, if an employer can pay less than the minimum wage to prisoners, why would he hire a law-abiding person and pay them minimum wage? That "guy next to him" will not even get the job if prisoner labor can do the work more cheaply. Requiring the employer to pay the minimum wage to prisoners actually helps protect the living of that law-abiding person! How would you feel if you lost your living only because your employer can pay the prisoner less than what the law requires he pay to you?

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

He can save all his earnings whilst the co-worker may be struggling to make ends meet. Maybe that co-worker would get to thinking twice about whether crime pays or not. I still think they should be deducted for their keep and the money put into some victim compensation fund - maybe less for the taxpayer to have to contribute to then.

I'm sure that most of us have given thought over the years as to whether crime pays. Generally, crime does pay, sorry to say. However, when most of us analyze the possible benefits of a life in crime and compare them with the risk of prison, we don't choose crime.

If you deduct the cost of a prisoner's keep, then you will take all they earn - and more. This leaves them with no reason to work. As engaging in regular, productive work is generally considered to be one of the major steps to preventing recidivism, there is a real need to leave the incentive to work in place. For those who are working in the community, perhaps some reasonable percentage could be deducted.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I agree with your disagreement there. People cannot be held responsible for what other members of their families do.

That was in reply to

Why should the relatives pay? Suddenly, we're choosing to punish the innoncent?

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by garinda

To have milk and sugar to put on their gruel.

Interesting, rindy, but the law in civlized countries does not allow the witholding of food.

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by Mancie

It may sound strange but in most prisons the "unemployment rate" if you can call it that, is up in the 80% 's.... having a "job" on the inside of prison is actually highly valued by most prisoners... having work cleaning/cooking or in the workshop gets a prisoner out of the cells and maybe £2-£4 a week on top of an allowance of around £6 per week that all prisoners get.

Good point, Mancie. One of those links I posted clearly indicates that employment opportunities on the inside are not sufficient to provide work for all those who want it.

[steeljack]

Uncle Joe (Stalin) had the best solution , a short stay in a gulag and they soon mended their ways

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by steeljack

Uncle Joe (Stalin) had the best solution , a short stay in a gulag and they soon mended their ways

steeljack, that was tasteless! Not even close to being funny.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by Billcat

steeljack, that was tasteless! Not even close to being funny.

wasn't supposed to be ............ Prison is supposed to be punishment for crimes against society .

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by steeljack

wasn't supposed to be ............ Prison is supposed to be punishment for crimes against society .

Again, you have been tasteless. Stalin's deathcamps were crimes against humanity, not just society. Further, they killed millions, many of them innocent.

If that is what you want prisons to be, then shame on you. Why not praise other genocidal jerks while you are at it?

[grego]

To quote Billcat
Also, if an employer can pay less than the minimum wage to prisoners, why would he hire a law-abiding person and pay them minimum wage? That "guy next to him" will not even get the job if prisoner labor can do the work more cheaply. Requiring the employer to pay the minimum wage to prisoners actually helps protect the living of that law-abiding person! How would you feel if you lost your living only because your employer can pay the prisoner less than what the law requires he pay to you?

I agree with that but do feel that the prisoners shouldn't be allowed to keep all the money they earn and as for the prisoners then refusing to work, they shouldn't have a choice they're in prison!

[LancYorkYankee]

Originally Posted by Billcat

Why should the relatives pay? Suddenly, we're choosing to punish the innoncent?

I know what my response would be - if society wants to lock them up, then society must pay for it. I'll pay my share, as part of my taxes, but that's an end to it. To ensure an equitable justice system, society needs to balance the cost of incarceration versus the cost of not imprisoning so many folks. Frankly, if it did not cost the public to run prisons, it could lead to any number of interesting abuses. For instance, under your proposal, wouldn't relatives be financially far better off helping a criminal hide out or escape?

Frankly, running a justice system, including prisons, is part of the cost of running a civilized society. If we don't pay the costs of maintaining civilization, we have no right to expect it to continue for long. From my point of view, the benefits far outweigh the costs I pay.

My point Billcat, is that the parents of many of these trouble-makers aren't innocent. Let a judge decide if the parents are somewhat culpable in how they allowed their kids to create mayheim! How many Accywebbers have been directly affected by many of these rebellious chavs?

I'd bet they'd like to see something much more serious being done then is being done now. These scumbags mostly have homes they eventually crawl back to. Anyhow, I was just thinking out loud.

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by LancYorkYankee

My point Billcat, is that the parents of many of these trouble-makers aren't innocent. Let a judge decide if the parents are somewhat culpable in how they allowed their kids to create mayheim!

Let's get factual! Under both American and British law, they are innocent - until proven guilty under law. By a jury trial, not a judge! BTW, I'd like to know just what crime you believe the parents to be guilty of. Last time I checked, most forms of poor parenting were not chargeable offenses. Let's charge the perpetrator, and not try to pine the blame on someone else (society, the school, social services, the parents, Officer Krupke, etc.).

Criminal liability, under both the US and UK justice systems, is based on mens rea - criminal intent. If intent is not proven (and it is a complex subject) then, generally speaking, a crime was not committed.

Also, most prisoners are over 18 and legally adults. In those cases, it would be very hard to make a case against the parents and require them to pay for the incarceration.

In any case, this is getting to be a serious thread wander, as it does not deal with the topic of wages earned by prisoners. Suggest that, if you wish to discuss further, you set up a new topic.

[jambutty]

Just one small point Billcat, in the UK a magistrate (it is usually 3 people where a majority decision rules) can try a case and does have the authority to impose a jail sentence although there is a time limit.

There is also the bit about being an accessory before, during or after the act. What about handling stolen goods?

The police could target parents and spouses as accessories to a crime. Don’t tell me that the wife or girl friend hasn’t a clue about where that £1,000 ring came from or that brand new plasma TV that she watches Corrie on? The same applies to a parent of a kid on the dole. Just where did that iPod come from or that new jazzy mobile phone. If a parent believes the usual, “my mate give it me or I found it” then they must be plain stupid.

[Ianto.W.]

Lets not fall out about this subject, if a prisoner works outside the prison with a view to early release and gets the minimum wage, surely the money that they earn is offsetting any resetlement money a long termer would get of the state anyway, so the system of self financeing their release is saving money that they would be able to claim anyway. I have read all these posts and come to the conclusion that whatever the powers that be do will not please us all.

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by jambutty

The police could target parents and spouses as accessories to a crime. Don’t tell me that the wife or girl friend hasn’t a clue about where that £1,000 ring came from or that brand new plasma TV that she watches Corrie on? The same applies to a parent of a kid on the dole. Just where did that iPod come from or that new jazzy mobile phone. If a parent believes the usual, “my mate give it me or I found it” then they must be plain stupid.

How would that make the parent an accessory? Where is the evidence? Truth is, it's very difficult for a prosecutor to prove that someone had a clue. Unless you've had a major change in the laws of the UK, being stupid or clueless is not a chargeable offense. Proving that some is an accessory generally requires the prosecutor to prove that they had actual knowledge of a crime. Good luck with that one!

jambutty, it is morally wrong to imply guilt by association without evidence.

Notice that you mentioned magistrate's courts. It is my understanidng from what I read that they are limited to sentences of less than a year (for multiple offenses) or six months (for a single offense). Serious crimes are still eligible for jury trial. Also, even judges are unlikely to convict unless the evidence of someone being an accessory (or receiving good they know to have been stolen) is quite clear. In case of a conviction, they would presumably be sent to prison. As far as I am aware, the law does not currently allow a sentence that would force them to pay for another's incarceration.

A helpful link to info on jury trial and magistrates in the UK:
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-ri...ue/venue.shtml

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Billcat

Interesting, rindy, but the law in civlized countries does not allow the witholding of food.

My attempt at being humerous also hid what I was trying to say in reply to why should prisoners work.

I'm not saying basic provisions shouldn't be provided, but like the rest of the world outside of the prison wall, luxuries should be earned by working for them, like we all have too.

If prisoners wanted tobacco/phone cards/magazines/stationary etc. they'd work for them if they had too.

(I left off the above list things like drugs/alcohol/illegal mobiles/pornography, which are also readily available for purchase in most UK jails.)