Comment by godelski
10 days ago
This is why I never understand the expansion of surveillance tech and how people believe it will make us safer. So many people have these types of stories and how does expanded surveillance solve those problems? The police already know a crime has been committed, who did it, where they are, and we need more surveillance?!
The trick is making the criminal by law responsible to pay the costs of the investigation.
Now the cops and judge have an incentive to actually prosecute, since it generates their funding.
Now it only costs them money.
I would agree with that, but then you have the situation of "how?" - I volunteered for an organization that had a large part of their funds embezzled by the Treasurer. When they were arrested and charged with theft, the prosecutor came to an association meeting and asked what our thoughts were. The person had sufficient income that they could reasonably pay back the money in a (relatively) quick time frame, and the prosecutor noted that "in these types of cases, often the victim has to choose between retribution/punishment, and recompense" - not that we were choosing his punishment, but he was asking our input.
As in - he could afford to pay if his job was kept, etc. But charge him with the felony, he would likely lose that job and the ability to repay anything in any meaningful manner.
Then you have the State of Florida, who charges you $75/day if you are in jail at all, regardless of the outcome of your case, charges being dropped or dismissed. You could be arrested for a BS traffic stop on Friday, the prosecutor drops it on Monday morning, three days incarceration. Or a not guilty finding. Doesn't matter.
And then, failure to pay this is a Class B Felony.
You could let the victims decide, or make it (depending on the type of crime) that they first pay off the debt and then go to prison (perhaps with reduced sentence) or the other way around.
2 replies →