NY Lawmaker Wants Rich Convicts To Pay For Their Own Incarceration
New York State Assemblyman Jim Tedicsco sees an injustice. The upstate Republican saw wealthy scammer Bernie Madoff convicted and sent to federal prison for 150 years the rest of his life at taxpayer expense. How fair is that? Why can't rich criminals pay their own way?
So, yesterday, Tedisco introduced a bill. The—what else could you call it?—"Madoff" bill would charge New York inmates for their imprisonment on a sliding scale. It would include New Yorkers serving on federal charges.
If such a law had been in effect at the time, it could have targeted such wealthy inmates as Martha Stewart, the lifestyle guru who was sentenced to five months in prison in 2004 for lying to investigators about a stock trade, and Leona Helmsley, the high-end hotelier who was sentenced to prison in 1989 for tax evasion. Helmsley's prison sentence was reduced to four years, but she only served about a year and a half.
Tedisco said the need for his bill was demonstrated by "an incident in lower Manhattan's Tombs prison," a reference to an inmate's costly bar mitzvah that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said the city is investigating.
A sliding scale would determine how much convicts would have to pay, based on their assets, under Tedisco's bill. Those who are worth $200,000 or more would pay the entire tab, while those whose net worth is $40,000 or less would pay nothing.
Homes wouldn't be included in the total, but still, ouch. That's a respectable middle-class net worth. Fortunately, New York's legislatures is so dysfunctional right now that it probably couldn't even vote itself a pay raise.
"Madoff" bill would charge rich NY inmates for jail [Reuters]
(Photo: frankieleon)
Post a comment
Comments:
And how long will it take to pay the bill of at your $0.13 an hour prison job?
This makes too much sense to ever pass in New York. I'm surprised about the shift in position that "$200,000 is pretty normal middle-class net worth..." wasn't $250,000/year considered the super-rich in November?
And when will Tim Tedicsco be on the receiving end of this bill?
I don't think Madoff will be rich much longer...
Though I have always thought that for many people, fines would be a better deterrent than jail time. To many people, jail is practically a rite of passage. Fining them would hit them where it hurts most, and would also help with the problem of overcrowded, expensive prisons.
That is, if it were easy to actually collect the fines...
This is a terrible idea.
I see no reason why Andy "Madoff" Dufresne can't pay for his incarceration by filling out financial documents for the warden and guards.
what happens when they don't pay?
200,000 net worth considered middle class (without a house included)? Maybe it's just cause of where I'm from (western NY) but around here if you have 200,000 of net worth you're very well off.
@Nate128:
Net worth does include your house though (minus the mortgage, which means the house may actually have a negative effect on your net worth).
Even if you exclude the house, whether $200k is a significant net work really depends on your age.
@aphex242: Under some conditions. You wouldn't want someone to emerge from prison in debt, or have to sell off their business or car. But assuming a person comes out with at least $40,000 left it seems fair. Most people don't have that much set aside.
@Nate128:
Oh I see... homes wouldn't be included in the net worth... I did ctrl+f for "house" to figure out what you were talking about... my mistake.
Still, it depends on your age.
@shoelace414: Big difference there. Although if they don't include primary residence, then that changes things quite a bit. If that includes retirement funds, then a lot of people would definitely fall in that category.
@aphex242: Not to mention I would be the first person to have to pay for this under the law would sue under the equal protections clause of the constitution. It would amount a greater punishment to some than others for the exact same crime.
Unless we'd be willing to sell time served for some cash, like an indulgence.
What's to stop the prison from offering costly perks to well-off inmates? Perhaps a prisoner could afford to have the wall knocked down between his and the next cell and expand. Maybe he could afford to have lobster flown in for his meals. How about selling conjugal time?
Anyone else think that this would be unconstitutional, a la violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
Only problem is Madoff's money wasn't his. It belonged to his victims. I'd want it back, not going to cover his incarceration.
I think this would fall under unreasonable seizure, and smacks of the type of thing the Constitution is supposed to protect us from.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: Fines would essentially allow those with money to pay their way out of prison and there are already too many ways to do that.
High fines plus low-security prison would be more acceptable to me.
I vaguely remember a silly little amendment or something that provides for equal protection, but I am sure it doesn't apply to rich people.
Don't most of the 'rich' criminals already go to country clubs prisons? That is, if they go to jail at all? Think that having money = avoiding prison time.
How about we charge people for the costs of the trial too? I mean, when they are found guilty of course.
And what do you do for someone who is found to be innocent, after paying? Somehow just giving back the money does not seem like a fair shake...
Is there a way to append this bill so it affects the rich celebrities on the west side of the country? That is...if they ever DO go to prison/jail?
Next thing you know, we are going to be seeing people start personal bank collections to cover the cost of incarceration for others. Jeesch!
IANAL, but it seems like a violation of the 14th amendment to me. Rich people get penalized more for the same crime as poor people?
Inmates have to pay for their incarceration in Michigan. Based upon their ability to pay, of course. This mostly pertains to the wealthy and those with pensions.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: I suspect ol' Bernie has money squirreled away somewhere that only his family knows about (and maybe some that they don't even know about).
Dangerous territory to be wandering into here...
Why do you believe it would be unreasonable to make someone pay for their accommodations if they are able to? The state is incurring expenses as a result of the incarcerated's crimes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to make the incarcerated pay a portion (or all) of those expenses.
What's to stop a corrupt lawyer/politician/judge/whatever from sentencing wealthy people to abnormal jail time for kickbacks? Like those d-bags in PA that were sentencing kids to years at detention camps for slap on the wrist offenses because the camps were paying them to do so?
@GMFish: @RecordStoreToughGuy: Yes, the victims and the lawyers. I can only think of examples like Martha Stewart that this would work as intended. Most crimes have a victim -- victims sue the wealthly -- and lawyers take a huge chunk up front
@futuresuperbowlMVPJayCutler: I didn't mean the fine should be an optional replacement for jail time, I meant it should be a mandatory replacement for jail time for certain non-violent offenses that don't hurt anyone other than the offender... offenses that account for a shockingly high percentage of our prison population. I don't want to start a debate about our war on... those things we have a "war" on in this country. ;)
@Cant_stop_the_rock: Yes, because all those hard-core first time criminals really don't get their starts until their 50s!
But in all seriousness, there would be some huge constitutional issues. Equal protection and all that.
@shoelace414: That may be, but the thing is if someone who just has a house and kids and is in jail mistakedly they're screwed being charged, but someone who has 20mil could pay their life's incarceration and not bat an eye.
Not exactly fair. Try making incarceration costs as a percentage of your net worth as opposed to the basis of the charge and then you'll see a fair squeal going on. whats 1% of net worth at 40k? Not a whole lot. What's 1% of net worth at 40million when your assets are seized? appropriately painful.
@aphex242: I agree that it is not fair and therefore not a good idea, but it is VERY tempting. Especially since the law is not applied fairly (too often the people with money buy the best lawyers and their freedom), but it doesn't make up for it by applying the punishment unfairly. Besides, if we really were serious about decreasing the prison population (and reduce costs), just de-criminalize drugs and regulate them like we do the rest of them.
The problem that jumps out at me is the fact that a large proportion of adults' "net worth" isn't solely their own! Imagine a situation where a domestic violence conviction creates a financial hardship for the victim because the court is taking money from a joint account.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: I suppose a more pointed question would be why fines couldn't be levied under current laws to do the exact same thing. Why should we institute a new law when we apparently already have a system in place that can do exactly what is being proposed.
I realize that pretty much contradicts what I posted, but the thought hadn't occurred to me until just now.
@dfx: $200k net worth? @Nate128: $200,000 net worth is well off?
If I add up EVERYTHING I own of monetary value, then round up a bit, I might hit six figures. That's my savings from about 10 years of living. I can't buy a house for that, can't send a kid to private college for that.
Let's say I do have just over $200k, and end up being a dick and getting a 4 year sentence for some wacky crime. Not only am I in prison, and losing whatever my regular income would be, but I'm also losing up to $30-35k per year I'm in there? Does it seem fair to take maybe a decade of life savings along with a prison sentence? The concept seems to make sense, make wealthy criminals pay for their jail time instead of being a burden on tax payers. This idea, however, is fraught with pitfalls.
No, no, no!
I firmly believe that if the state is going to take away someone's freedom on behalf of the law-abiding citizens, then the law-abiding citizens should be the ones to pay for it. If you don't like paying for Maddoff's incarceration, then don't incarcerate him.
This, exactly. They already use traffic and parking tickets and drug busts as fundraisers. Money needs to be taken out of the legal system except for the purpose of directly compensating a victim.
Tedisco is not a state senator. He's an assemblyman from Schenectady (and a pretty useless one at that) who specializes in introducing crap like this.
Like most ideas dreamed up by politicians to satisfy a mob,this is stupid.I agree with everyone here that says that the appropriate punishment is a fine.Make that fine an obligation that has to be paid until satisfied or death of the offender. This is revenge - not justice.It amounts to a means test for repaying the cost of incarceration.
Anyone else seen the movie Brazil? ANYONE!?