Philip J Fry said:

---

Was that made clear to her during her sentencing? If not, then shame on the state and that amount should be wiped off her record too.

If it was apart of the agreement to avoid 7 years in jail, then…

I noticed there's no reference to the crime she committed. 7 years sounds like more than a casual crime.

---

Does it matter if it was made clear to her? She had no choice at that point.

And also, what wouldn't you agree to if they cut 7 years off of your time in jail? It's bull*****

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Psycho Bunny said:

---

Food for thought. Stop committing crimes and wont have to worry about paying for your stay in jail.

---

We can all agree that they shouldn't commit crimes. Charging them to stay in prison is bull*****

---

Meant to chime in on this yesterday but got tied up. I totally agree, this is a Pandora's Box that the US doesn't want to open up.

I don't know about Asia or Europe, but many countries in LatAm basically make inmates "pay for prison" in the sense that if they don't have food sent to them or have money to pay for food then they don't eat. Or if they don't get clothes sent to them they have none, same with medical care. Those that are bad off have to do all kinds of things in order to survive.

This is just another symptom of how F'ed up the US prison system really is. Prison in the US is too soft for the most part. I don't think anyone should be charged or forced to pay in what amounts to arrears for being locked up. But those that are locked up need all creature comforts; i.e A/C, TV, and the like taken away. Equally the old model of the prison farms and prison industries should have remained in effect.

But charging a prisoner for being deprived of liberty is asinine. Keep going down this road and we will end up with the converse, "What can I get for $150 a night". And there criminals out that that can surely pay.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

It's endorsement by taking into account his other actions.

---

So you lied, got it. Flag his post