[jacquesm]

> I'd call the amounts they get paid to work are more than generous since they do not have to repay the cost of their incarceration.

Prisoners do not have any control over how much their incarceration costs, therefore have no obligation to pay any of it back. The idea is that the loss of liberty alone is atonement, no judge ever sentenced an inmate to 'n days of incarceration + repayment of expenses incurred by the state in a negotiation process in which the defendant played no part'.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with your comments, whatever your goal is you are likely not helping it.

[fiter]

It sounds like you may be coming from a different law system than the person that you're replying to as there are many places in the US where such days of incarceration also mean incurring costs for housing and supervision.

It's hard for someone to control the costs of something that they've already committed, but I don't think there's any way around that. If it turns out that destroying a painting costs more or less depending on who does the restoration, that's not in the vandal's control.

For what it's worth, I think he made a valid point along with a fact that contributed to the discussion.

[behringer]

If prisons want to garnish wages, I have no problems with that. Put it on a balance sheet and hand over the receipt.

Right now that's not what the system is for, and it's outright slave labor.

[fiter]

I believe some states do exactly what you say.