TexasCHLforum.com

An interesting question I throw out just in case someone would like to comment. Would it be a good idea for Texas to do this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/us/19 ... ml?_r=1&hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

In Texas, probationers and parolees already have to pay for the cost of their supervision.

In most cases the authorities could be trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. Drug dealers and thieves have no assets or legitimate income. That is why they fall into that line of "work."

- Jim

Justice is defined (generally) as the administration of deserved punishment or reward. It seems to me that the key word here is 'deserved' ... meaning that the person or persons being administered to is the focus, and what is 'deserved' is codified in a body of criminal and civil law. Money should not enter into the picture.

If so many people are being punished that it breaks the bank then the meaning of deserved needs to be changed. Laws that are made independent of the cost to society are poor indeed. There are so many examples of these types of laws ... oops, now we are off topic in the off topic section.

just my 2 cents worth ...

A better idea is to return to the prison system that was in place up until the mid '80's. Prisoners ran a dairy, beef operation, raised patrol horses, made leather goods, ect. The prison system had a net cost of ZERO.




Then William Wayne Justice reformed the prison system...............

Locking them up probably costs a lot more than probation, for the ones who go straight. Being shot and killed by their intended victims is probably the best solution for repeat offenders.

Maybe we should give homeowners who kill burglars a 10% break on next year's property taxes, for saving the state the cost of locking up the criminal.

If Texas did something like this, they should include all expected costs to society, especially the expected cost to the criminal's subsequent victims while they're on probation or parole instead of in prison.