Kathy PosnerSince I am not an attorney, reading a 19 page Illinois Supreme Court decision was not an easy task, but I think I am presenting the facts here correctly. Sections might get a bit complicated for readers who enjoy my normally flippant writing style, but I beg you to stay and educate yourself about this important case and its implications.
The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week
that Joliet prison inmate Kensley Hawkins is not required to turn over to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) the $75 per month salary that he earned while participating in a prison work program. In total, he managed to save over $11,000 that he put into a private bank account.
BACKGROUND:
(1) Inmate Kensley Hawkins is serving time for the murder of one man and the attempted murder of two Chicago police officers in 1980.
(2) Under current Illinois law, prisoners are liable for the cost of their incarceration. In the Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Garman, “The Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/1–1–1 et seq. (West 2008)) Section 3–7–6(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/3–7–6(a) (West 2008)) establishes the responsibility of a ‘committed person’ for the costs of his or her incarceration.”
(3) IDOC collects 3% of inmates’ wages towards the payment of incarceration costs. The average annual cost per inmate at Stateville Prison is: $32,693.00. So if an inmate is earning $75/month, only $2.35 goes towards satisfying that debt.
(4) The IDOC usually go after inmates who have assets of more than $10,000.
(5) Once IDOC learned that Hawkins had saved $11,000 they tried to seize it, claiming that the State was entitled to $455,203.14 to cover the costs of his incarceration since July 1983.
(6) Hawkins lawyers argued to the Supreme Court that IDOC is only entitled to the 3% and cannot collect any more money from him.
(7) After 19 pages of mumbo-jumbo and citing many different sections of the Unified Code of Corrections, the court ruled that if inmates are encouraged to work and learn a skill, then they should be able to keep their wages. Justice Karmeier submitted a concurring opinion that agreed with the outcome of the decision, reasoning that “Once inmates [realize] that the extra work necessary to generate savings would benefit only the Department of Corrections, not them, they would quickly reevaluate the utility of prison employment.”
Well, I unanimously disagree with the Court.
First, they are wrong by saying that the money would benefit the Department of Corrections. The money would benefit the TAXPAYERS of Illinois who are paying the living expenses of $32,693/year for each inmate.
Second, the inmates are provided with room, board vocational training, recreation, education classes and substance abuse management if they need it. The average law-abiding American has to fork over between 35-45% of his income in federal taxes alone (not including state taxes). And yet prisoners, who have proven themselves to be so dangerous that we cannot have them living among us in society, are going to be rewarded by only having to contribute 3% of their income?
Third, if an inmate has an attitude that that he does not want to perform extra work because the money would be applied toward his living expenses, let him sit and rot every day in his cell. If he wants out, then he can choose to work.
Finally, how many taxpayers in Illinois are working two and three jobs to pay their bills? How should they feel when they learn that the Supreme Court decides that prisoners shouldn’t have to do extra work to pay their own expenses?
This ruling is an injustice and it insults the citizens of Illinois who pay the costs of incarceration. The only prisoner I wouldn’t mind paying for is former Governor Blagojevich. But maybe he will take the vocational classes and learn how to become a barber; he certainly knows how to style hair.
Read More From Kathy Posner Here....
The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week
that Joliet prison inmate Kensley Hawkins is not required to turn over to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) the $75 per month salary that he earned while participating in a prison work program. In total, he managed to save over $11,000 that he put into a private bank account.
BACKGROUND:
(1) Inmate Kensley Hawkins is serving time for the murder of one man and the attempted murder of two Chicago police officers in 1980.
(2) Under current Illinois law, prisoners are liable for the cost of their incarceration. In the Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Garman, “The Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/1–1–1 et seq. (West 2008)) Section 3–7–6(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/3–7–6(a) (West 2008)) establishes the responsibility of a ‘committed person’ for the costs of his or her incarceration.”
(3) IDOC collects 3% of inmates’ wages towards the payment of incarceration costs. The average annual cost per inmate at Stateville Prison is: $32,693.00. So if an inmate is earning $75/month, only $2.35 goes towards satisfying that debt.
(4) The IDOC usually go after inmates who have assets of more than $10,000.
(5) Once IDOC learned that Hawkins had saved $11,000 they tried to seize it, claiming that the State was entitled to $455,203.14 to cover the costs of his incarceration since July 1983.
(6) Hawkins lawyers argued to the Supreme Court that IDOC is only entitled to the 3% and cannot collect any more money from him.
(7) After 19 pages of mumbo-jumbo and citing many different sections of the Unified Code of Corrections, the court ruled that if inmates are encouraged to work and learn a skill, then they should be able to keep their wages. Justice Karmeier submitted a concurring opinion that agreed with the outcome of the decision, reasoning that “Once inmates [realize] that the extra work necessary to generate savings would benefit only the Department of Corrections, not them, they would quickly reevaluate the utility of prison employment.”
Well, I unanimously disagree with the Court.
First, they are wrong by saying that the money would benefit the Department of Corrections. The money would benefit the TAXPAYERS of Illinois who are paying the living expenses of $32,693/year for each inmate.
Second, the inmates are provided with room, board vocational training, recreation, education classes and substance abuse management if they need it. The average law-abiding American has to fork over between 35-45% of his income in federal taxes alone (not including state taxes). And yet prisoners, who have proven themselves to be so dangerous that we cannot have them living among us in society, are going to be rewarded by only having to contribute 3% of their income?
Third, if an inmate has an attitude that that he does not want to perform extra work because the money would be applied toward his living expenses, let him sit and rot every day in his cell. If he wants out, then he can choose to work.
Finally, how many taxpayers in Illinois are working two and three jobs to pay their bills? How should they feel when they learn that the Supreme Court decides that prisoners shouldn’t have to do extra work to pay their own expenses?
This ruling is an injustice and it insults the citizens of Illinois who pay the costs of incarceration. The only prisoner I wouldn’t mind paying for is former Governor Blagojevich. But maybe he will take the vocational classes and learn how to become a barber; he certainly knows how to style hair.
Read More From Kathy Posner Here....
0 comments:
Post a Comment