Topic: Ronnie G. violating more civil rights?
started by: Liberal
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 09 2003,12:19 pm
Here is a quote from the County Administrator he is talking about charging inmates for spending time in jail. Which is alright to do as long as you don't do it as a form of punishment. If you do it as a form of punishment it violates the 5th amendment.| Quote |
"This is another slap of the hand of someone that commits a crime," Gabrielsen said. He said the payments will act as a deterrent. Ron Gabrielsen |
here is an excerpt from an article on findlaw.com about the 5th amendment protection from double jeopardy.
| Quote |
The clause speaks of being put in ''jeopardy of life or limb,'' which as derived from the common law, generally referred to the possibility of capital punishment upon conviction, but it is now settled that the clause protects with regard ''to every indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined crime or misdemeanor, whether at the common law or by statute.'' Despite the Clause's literal language, it can apply as well to sanctions that are civil in form if they clearly are applied in a manner that constitutes ''punishment". Ordinarily, however, civil in rem forfeiture proceedings may not be considered punitive for purposes of double jeopardy analysis < findlaw.com 5th amendment info > |
It sure seems to me that we would be violating the inmates civil rights if we made them pay as a form of punishment like Gabrielsen is suggesting.
Posted by Tiger on Sep. 09 2003,12:22 pm
I agree, if he is calling it a slap of the hand then that sounds like punishment. However, I think it is a good idea and do agree that it would be a deterrent.
Posted by Tiger on Sep. 09 2003,12:33 pm
I agree, if he is calling it a slap of the hand then that sounds like punishment. However, I think it is a good idea and do agree that it would be a deterrent.
Posted by minnow on Sep. 09 2003,12:35 pm
Yes...you can attempt to charge and collect from mostly poor people, but that might make it less secure for those of us in the public. Often folks need a hand up instead of a backhand.Gabe just wants the inmates to offset the outrageous jail costs, in an attempt to escape criticism of the cost. Won't help much at all. Most inmates are indigent anyhow.
Most inmates are meth heads and drunks...
It's gonna take a jail 5 times that size if you wanna jail everyone of those home boy!
Posted by Tiger on Sep. 09 2003,12:42 pm
Minnow, this isn't the first I have heard of a city playing around with this idea of charging inmates to stay. It isn't just AL's way of getting out of costs you puke!! Owatonna has been doing this and are changing a few things to make the system run more smoothly. It was on the news about 1 1/2 weeks ago!!!
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 09 2003,12:50 pm
| Quote |
Owatonna has been doing this and are changing a few things to make the system run more smoothly. |
That's fine if that's the reason for charging the money. But you can't use punishment as a reason to charge the money. Ron wants to punish people by charging them money to stay at his mansion. That's just not right!
Nobody has a right to punish people after the judge is through with them?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 09 2003,1:05 pm
I agree with charging the inmates a "per diem" fee, but it was incredibly stupid of Gabrielson to state that it is part of the punishment. Only the judicial system is empowered to set punishment, unless authorized by a specific bill (i.e. OSHA fines). If a judge fines someone convicted of a crime, plus jail time, THAT is the punishment, not costs added on by a local unit of government.In this case, the prisoner has no choice--he can hardly bring his own food and bedding to the jail.
How was the figure arrived at? Given that we are going to have 10 or more NEW jailers, in addition to the old ones, what is the actual cost of supervision? I would guess it will be more than what is quoted. Is the figure variable depending on the number of inmates incarcerated on any given day?
Just HOW do they propose to collect this money? Can the prisoner declare bankruptcy and void the claim? Does he get jailed for non-payment, recreating "debtors prisons"?
Oh, the delicious irony--people both INSIDE and OUTSIDE the jail have NO SAY IN THE SIZE OR COST OF THE NEW JUDICIAL CENTER, BUT BOTH ARE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT!
Posted by minnow on Sep. 09 2003,1:17 pm
Whoever said crime(prohibition) doesn't pay? 
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 09 2003,1:35 pm
I agree, Jim, there's no reason why an inmate can't pay at least part of his "cost of living" while there, but as Liberal shows, it cannot be part of the punishment.Jim quote:
| Quote |
| Only the judicial system is empowered to set punishment |
Jim, since when has Gabrielson not empowered himself? 
The fine line here is how much, and if they don't pay, to turn them over to a collection agency and ruin their credit would be double jeapardy.
Ron's done it again, he's the "powers that be", I think not only do we need a sarcasm icon, but also one with a foot in its mouth!
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 09 2003,1:42 pm
I would think that Gabrialsons bosses, the commissioners, would tell him to keep his mouth shut unless he clears it with the county attorney about legal issues. I also agree that charging them to stay is a good idea, but I also agree that Gabrialson and the sherriffs department cant decide that this is some sort of fine on top of what the judge dishes out. Will they ever be able to charge this fee now that Ronny has put his foot in his mouth? He has made it clear that this is to be part of the punishment. My guess is that the first inmate that wants to fight now will win, Gabrialson just seen to that. After going and reading the article myself, sounds like the jail administrator should have Gabes job, Westland made a lot more sence with his expectations of just how much money this would produce. Like Westland stated, it has actually cost other counties more to collect the fees than what the fees bring in, come on people, more deficit spending? And violating the 5th amendment? They might as well, the same group violates the 1st amendment as well.
Posted by Tiger on Sep. 09 2003,2:12 pm
Liberal, if you would have read my initial post more carefully you would have seen that I agreed with you on the punishment thing. I'm sick of minnow always thinking everyone's motives are excuses for things he doesn't agree with. If it isn't minnow's way then it must be WRONG!!! Simmer down Liberal and take a breath.
Posted by minnow on Sep. 09 2003,2:46 pm
I'm right on almost every issue. Just look at what your thinking has done for you?...a ghost town...
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 09 2003,2:51 pm
It would be interesting to see what any of our local judges say about this--the County may impose more of a "fine" than the judges impose!
Posted by Spidey on Sep. 09 2003,3:19 pm
I'm not so sure he meant "as a punishment" by saying deterent. Those two words have different meanings. PUNISHMENT > You did a bad thing therefore you must pay rent!
DETERENT > You must pay rent to help defray costs, you know this isn't a free ride anymore, you may reconsider next time.
Charging convicted prisoners for room and board is the LEAST that should happen. But didn't I read somewhere that one county is doing this and the expenses out weigh the income? Surely there needs to be more thought put into this if that is correct in what I read.
Posted by 1adam12 on Sep. 09 2003,3:44 pm
Most likely, he did mean "deterrent". But that's OK, he's only one of the highest paid county employees - you expect him to think before he talks .The deterrent effect is minimal, however. The meth head, burglar or pizza-man assailant doesn't think "gee, if I get busted, it'll cost me $10 a day in jail. Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't do this".
This is simply a vain attempt to recoup some of the costs which was approved by the legislature. Don't get me wrong, they should pay. But there are no teeth to the charges.
I saw an article about the Rice County jail. Last year they had $6000 in charges to inmates, but only recovered $600.
Posted by minnow on Sep. 09 2003,5:25 pm
1. Then their credit is ruined and the local trailer park or section 8 housing won't accept them.2. They end up staying at a relatives near where we live and ...our things start missing....
Posted by danbelshan on Sep. 09 2003,5:28 pm
Here's State LawMinnesota Statutes 2002, Table of Chapters
Table of contents for Chapter 641
641.12 Collection of fees and board bills.
Subdivision 1. Fee. A county board may require that
each person who is booked for confinement at a county or
regional jail, and not released upon completion of the booking
process, pay a fee of up to $10 to the sheriff's department of
the county in which the jail is located. The fee is payable
immediately from any money then possessed by the person being
booked, or any money deposited with the sheriff's department on
the person's behalf. If the person has no funds at the time of
booking or during the period of any incarceration, the sheriff
shall notify the district court in the county where the charges
related to the booking are pending, and shall request the
assessment of the fee. Notwithstanding section 609.10 or
609.125, upon notification from the sheriff, the district court
must order the fee paid to the sheriff's department as part of
any sentence or disposition imposed. If the person is not
charged, is acquitted, or if the charges are dismissed, the
sheriff shall return the fee to the person at the last known
address listed in the booking records.
Subd. 2. Board. At the end of every month the
sheriff of each county shall render to the county auditor a
statement showing the name of each fugitive from justice, United
States prisoner, one committed from another county or one
committed by virtue of any city ordinance, the amount due the
county for board of each and from whom, and also of all amounts
due for board of prisoners for the preceding month.
Subd. 3. Inmate payment of room and board. (a) A
county board may require that an offender convicted of a crime
and confined in the county jail, workhouse, or correctional or
work farm pay the cost of the offender's room, board, clothing,
medical, dental, and other correctional services. The board
shall establish a schedule to charge offenders under this
subdivision. The costs may be collected at any time while the
offender is under sentence or after the sentence has been
discharged. During the period of confinement, the costs may be
deducted from any money possessed by the offender or any money
deposited with the local correctional or law enforcement agency
on the offender's behalf. The board, or local correctional
agency or sheriff with authority over the jail, workhouse, or
farm, may use any available civil means of debt collection in
collecting costs under this subdivision.
(b) The chief executive officer of the local correctional
agency or sheriff may waive payment of the costs under this
subdivision if the officer or sheriff determines that the
offender does not have the ability to pay the costs, payment of
the costs would create undue hardship for the offender or the
offender's immediate family, the prospects for payment are poor,
or there are extenuating circumstances justifying waiver of the
costs.
© If an offender has been ordered by a court to pay
restitution, the offender shall be obligated to pay the
restitution ordered before paying the costs under this
subdivision. However, if the offender is making reasonable
payments to satisfy the restitution obligation, the local
correctional agency or sheriff may also collect costs under this
section.
HIST: (10858) RL s 5473; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1975 c 94 s 5;
1997 c 239 art 9 s 38; 2002 c 322 s 1
Copyright 2002 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 09 2003,5:48 pm
Everyone is in agreement that it's legal to collect money from an inmate if it is meant to offset the cost of housing the inmate.The problem is Ron G. spells out exactly how our county plans to use it as a form of punishment.(this is another slap on the hand...)
Reimbursment is OK... punishment is unconstitutional.
Ron G. made it kind of obvious that the reason for this fee will be punishment.
Posted by minnow on Sep. 09 2003,5:50 pm
It just punishes the work release people so many will choose to just do the time instead of working to break even...especially with new facilities....excerise rooms, entertainment hall...cable/satellite.
Posted by collector on Sep. 09 2003,6:40 pm
As you can see by my username, I do collections for a national agency. To answer a few questions regarding prisoners and filing bankruptcy--anyone can file bankruptcy, however, the courts don't look favorably on that like they used to. It is harder to get your debts discharged these days. Will it hurt the prisoners to have a collection item on their credit report? Probably. Is it fair a medical bill or another type of bill is OK to send to collections for a poor person or indigent person and/or the credit report but a poor person or indigent person shouldn't have an item on his bureau for failure to pay a fee to a jail? I don't think so. All bills need to be paid and all should be treated fairly. Recovery rates for any business that places debt in collection is averaging about 25%. That isn't much. The county could do that and calculate a return based on the average. Chances are it will be less than that in real dollars. Will placing these charges on people and having an agency collect it make it debtors prisons again? No. There are many county governments using the services of collection agencies to collect jail fees, unpaid taxes, fines, etc. The agency takes an average 30% and the county gets the rest. It is better than letting all these unpaid taxes and fines stay on the books each year only to be written off. Whether we like collectors or collection agencies isn't the issue. Getting what is due is the issue. People like me work hard to do that for anyone wishing to place a debt in collections.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 10 2003,12:04 am
The only pitfall would be those that can't pay, I think you would have to offer them a work-off-your-debt plan or something along those lines. Equal protection of the law maybe? How many inmates are there already in Freeborn county that don't have a job or other income? I don't think charging the family for their relatives crime would be right... Not sure how that could be worked.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 10 2003,12:10 am
And while we're at it, is the new jail being wired for cabel tv in all of the cell blocks? If so, WHY!!!!!I think that would be a fair place to start if they want to try and cut costs, save a few hundred feet of coax cabeling and labor charges.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 10 2003,8:09 am
Dan--section 1 of the law you posted says $10 (it didn't say $10 a day, but I'd assume that is the case. Wasn't the proposal for $20? How does that square with the law?
Posted by 1adam12 on Sep. 10 2003,8:31 am
Jim, the $10 was called a "booking fee" when I was there. It was a one-time charge, no matter if you were there a week or a year. On the other hand, work-release inmates had to pay something like $7 a day they worked. None of the inmates I ever knew, if employed at the time, would let their job go just to avoid paying the $10. Jail is extremely boring, and these guys wanted the chance to be out working instead of sitting on their cans. Even the ones who weren't working would ask the judge for work-release to apply for jobs, just so they could be on the outside for awhile.Inmates also pay a minimal fee towards medical visits, but this was more of a deterrent to frivolous clinic trips.
I don't know how they are increasing the fee to $20, unless the law was revised.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 11 2003,5:08 pm
Why not look at making them work while they're locked up instead of making them pay when they get out? I'm sure we have plenty of county jobs that your average criminal is capable of doing and if we could cut just 1 or 2 jobs this way we would save a lot more than we would ever collect from shaking down drunks for pocket change.
Posted by minnow on Sep. 11 2003,8:12 pm
How about putting them to work shining Gabes shoes?
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 15 2003,8:29 am
Getting inmates to pay jail costs proves difficult, counties findAssociated Press
Published September 15, 2003 JAIL16
Charging jail inmates for some of the cost of locking them up isn't paying off like some county officials had hoped.
``I think the public needs to understand that there is a good lesson here,'' Paul Wilson, a county commissioner in Olmsted County, which found its collection program cost more than it brought in. ``Even with the best intentions, you cannot get blood out of a turnip.''
During the past year, at least one-quarter of Minnesota counties started charging for room and board. Dubbed ``pay to stay,'' the purpose was two-fold: bring in money to help offset ever-rising jail costs and send a message to criminals that jail will cost them in more ways than one.
But few inmates bother to pay.
In the first four months, Olmsted County spent about $13,000 in administrative costs to collect $7,261. The county, which is home to Rochester, collected less than 2 percent of the $546,450 it billed. Now the county is switching from a sliding scale fee of up to $70 to a flat $25 fee in an effort to rein in costs.
No one expected the majority of inmates to pay their bills, and many counties did not project revenue before they started. But law enforcement and court officials now are debating whether pay-to-stay efforts are a good use of staff time. Some jail administrators say the revenue isn't worth the work, and defense attorneys argue that there are more effective methods to curb escalating jail costs.
Sheriffs' officials, however, say it's too soon to determine how much the fees will generate in the long term and that earning something is better than nothing.
``A dollar derived from people who pay to stay is a dollar that taxpayers don't have to contribute,'' said Chief Deputy Scott Gudmundson of Sherburne County, where staff has collected about $15,000 so far, or about 2 percent of the amount that has been billed in the first year. ``Certainly it's worth it. If it's a buck, it's a buck.''
Gudmundson can thank his brother for the revenue the county has received.
Dakota County Sheriff Don Gudmundson pushed for the creation of a boarding fee after he saw three inmates walk out of his jail one day with a total of $4,000 in their pockets. The Metropolitan Inter-County Association asked legislators to write a bill to allow the fee, which was charged in several other states. It became law last summer. The fees generally range from $20 to $35.
Charging for room and board is new, but counties have passed along some fees to inmates for years. Such fees have increased dramatically in recent years, however, and public defenders say their clients can't afford the bill.
``I had many homeless clients, people sleeping under highway bridges,'' said John Stuart, a past Hennepin County public defender who is now the state's chief public defender. ``How they are expected to come up with money to pay a booking fee, a jail fee, a probation fee and a law library fee is beyond me.''
Some counties have gotten clever with collection methods.
``Pay to Stay Special!!!'' states a flyer given to inmates at the Dakota County jail, inviting them to contact a staff person to ``find out your special rate.'' Inmates who pay in full within seven days of their release get a 25 percent discount.
Scott County might hire a collection agency - something that several other counties have already done - and may allow inmates to use credit cards.
``If we can increase what we are collecting, yes it's definitely worth it,'' said Lt. Doug Schnurr, who oversees the jail. ``Right now at 6 percent (collection rate) I think it's more of a hassle and is putting a bigger strain on my staff than is necessary.''
Maybe we should just raise taxes to make up the difference. Of course, only after we spend 25 grand on a study to find out the same things other counties have already done.
And take a look at the idiot sherriff that said, "A buck is a buck, thats a dollar the tax payers dont have to come up with." What an idiot, a buck isnt a buck if you have to spend 5 bucks to get one buck. Is it any wonder our counties and towns are in poor financial shape with people like this in charge?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 15 2003,9:14 am
Gabrielson seems to be of two minds on this issue. When I talked to him last week, he acknowledged that they weren't going to have much luck getting money from most inmates. He said that they were going to get a credit card machine, and those with a credit card could pay that way. He said that they won't get money from someone in for theft, but they may get money from a drug dealer--someone that HAS money. Similarly, he said they would get money from someone who did something stupid--a DWI for example.The areas I am uncomfortable with are:
They will present a bill to the person when the order comes down for release. If the person refuses to pay at the time, "we will get two witnesses that will acknowledge that they refused to pay". I asked if the release would be held up if the inmate refused to pay. He said "it may take another 8 hours to process the paperwork, then the inmate would have to spend another night in jail, and another $20. Do they want to get out or not? If they have the ability to pay, they will."
We seem to be building in an inverse class system here. The poor, or career criminal, won't in all likelyhood have to pay, but an otherwise law-abiding citizen, picked up for DWI or a minor violation, will be socked.
Posted by hoosier on Sep. 15 2003,4:51 pm
I beg to differ, if we spend 10 dollars to collect 1 dollar, every tax payer in Freeborn County will be socked. I mean come on, this sounds a lot like Gabrialson spending thousands of dollars to fight 15 minutes of overtime by a police officer at his last job. Now he is going to fight the lawsuit over rule 19, spending thousands of tax payer money to fight rather than compromise, and looks like he wants to spend more tax payer money, spending more to collect than the county takes in, more deficit spending. When is it going to end? Seriously, how do these people get to be in the job they hold? Gabrialson has got to be the biggest idiot in Freeborn county government history.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 15 2003,5:14 pm
Gabrielson mentioned that they were going to propose implementing the system--then said that it wouldn't bring in big money. Maybe we could get Dan Belshan to ask him which one he favors--like the last budget meeting! My point was--I don't think it is right to "invent ways" to hold someone in jail for another day--AFTER the release was signed--in an attempt to extort them into giving the County money--when the County knows well and good that they can't do that. It smells of "we're going to do this, even though we know it's illegal--BECAUSE WE CAN!
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 15 2003,6:27 pm
Right, holding a person one extra day to charge them for an extra day because they refuse to pay. Seems to go back to the County authorizing more punishment after the judge makes the determination on the case, which we have seen as to be illegal.
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 15 2003,6:50 pm
They (MCLU) haven't been able to prove this is illegal, YET! With the wording of slapping them on the wrist makes it sound like double jeapardy. Holding them an extra 8 hrs if they won't/can't pay? Where does this guy stop. Someone needs to address the board on this issue.Jim, you say credit cars, just how many of the repeat and poor criminals are going to have them.
This sounds like what comes out of the backside of a cow!
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 16 2003,2:03 pm
Look at the next sentence in the post--"He said that they won't get money from someone in for theft, but they may get money from a drug dealer--someone that HAS money. Similarly, he said they would get money from someone who did something stupid--a DWI for example."A drug dealer, or someone who is otherwise law-abiding, either one MAY have a credit card, and would pay to get out of jail--while a poor person would have their paperwork "lost"--costing them another day in jail. That's just not right.
At the meeting today, the Commissioners approved "pay for stay", Huber Law charges increased from $10 to $20 a night. They also approved having the money collected by a collection agency--so under the BEST circumstances, where an inmate pays right away, the County loses 8%--and it goes up from there.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 16 2003,3:21 pm
Damn, $20 a day just for Huber?! Plus the per day stay on top of that??If it is just $20 for Huber, that's $100 per work week, I don't think too many people that are out of jail, let alone in jail, could really afford $100 per week just to keep their job plus pay a per-day rate to stay in jail.
Or is it just $20 for the Huber and the day combined?