3 ms·

The alternative is incarceration; would you rather that be mandatory? Crimes were committed (whether what was committed should be a crime is a different discuss

The alternative is incarceration; would you rather that be mandatory? Crimes were committed (whether what was committed should be a crime is a different discussion), incarceration is the normal punishment and means of ensuring the crime (nor others) is not repeated within a given period of time. Thanks to technology & private services, we can give the convicted an option which prevents/discourages recidivism within that period, but otherwise lets them largely return to freedom. Being costs above and beyond what the jurisdiction has budgeted (on the represented will of the people), either let the convicted opt for paying for the means for that freedom, or take the free route of being locked in a box for a prolonged period. Sure there are issues subject to objection in this, but remember: the alternative is dump these options and just incarcerate. BTW, PSA: an out-of-state driver in NY caught speeding can be subjected to an additional >$300 "safe driving assurance" (or some rot) fee, paid to ensure said driver is not arrested outright next time discovered (for any reason) driving in the state. No 3rd-party services/mechanisms involved, just straight-up legal extortion which, per the lead article's premise, hits the poor harder than the better-off.

yasth 12y ago
The issue with shifting to "soft" enforcement is that the softer enforcement allows the punishments to be extended for much longer than a jail sentence. Instead of 3 days for public intox it might be a year of ankle monitoring at $350 a month, and because the city wants the year to look attractive they either take away the incarceration option or increase the sentence. So the very poor get incarcerated for longer, and the less poor end up with a fairly massive chunk out of their income. Also because the city isn't paying they have a lessened interest in reducing the fees. If you look close you can see some hidden pernicious issues with it. Fundamentally it means that the state can be really mean to the poor and not impact the better off. Penalties that one can buy their way out of can even to an extent encourage lawbreaking.
scarmig 12y ago
The just alternative is that the State pays for the programs it deems necessary to force on people for the good of society. It's not a question of funding: incarceration is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than surveillance. If you think that large punitive fines are a useful disincentive to crime (whether that's true or not depends on several factors, but for people living paycheck to paycheck and in deep debt, probably not), fine, argue that. But that's a separate issue. So far as I can tell, there's no policy argument for making people for their own surveillance, if what you're concerned about is improving social outcomes.

yasth 12y ago

The issue with shifting to "soft" enforcement is that the softer enforcement allows the punishments to be extended for much longer than a jail sentence. Instead of 3 days for public intox it might be a year of ankle monitoring at $350 a month, and because the city wants the year to look attractive they either take away the incarceration option or increase the sentence. So the very poor get incarcerated for longer, and the less poor end up with a fairly massive chunk out of their income. Also because the city isn't paying they have a lessened interest in reducing the fees. If you look close you can see some hidden pernicious issues with it. Fundamentally it means that the state can be really mean to the poor and not impact the better off. Penalties that one can buy their way out of can even to an extent encourage lawbreaking.

scarmig 12y ago

The just alternative is that the State pays for the programs it deems necessary to force on people for the good of society. It's not a question of funding: incarceration is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than surveillance. If you think that large punitive fines are a useful disincentive to crime (whether that's true or not depends on several factors, but for people living paycheck to paycheck and in deep debt, probably not), fine, argue that. But that's a separate issue. So far as I can tell, there's no policy argument for making people for their own surveillance, if what you're concerned about is improving social outcomes.