Is it time for prisoners to face the same rules as elderly in care homes?

[squarecorners]

In response to the news that John Warboys had a property worth £2m and still got legal aid, isn't it time for wealthy prisoners to face the same rules as elderly people who have to live in a care home, and that they must pay for their own board on a means tested basis up to a certain limit?
I work with the elderly and have seen many older people having to watch their life savings dwindle away because they need care. People with money who commit crimes, like Vicky Price and Chris Huhne should fund their own imprisonment by having to sell their homes or use their savings down to the same £25000 limit IMO. Life sentences should get nothing.
Interested to know what others think.

This policy would disdadvantage the poor, the mentally ill and women. The Tories would love it.

Women go to prison for minor offences when compared with men.
Should women have to pay for their care when they are serving a sentence for which a man may not have received a custodial sentence?

If their wealth is the proceeds of crime, then they can be stripped of it.

Before the prison reforms of the Victorian era (Elizabeth Fry and all that) prisoners did indeed have to pay for food etc, or have only meagre offerings prison staff thought fit to provide. If there wasn't a philanthropist or few taking an interest in the prison, that could be next to nothing and of such poor quality it could be a risk in itself. Mattresses, blankets - everything really - had to be paid for by the prisoner or his/her supporters. This is still the case in prisons in some other countries. It's not a model I agree with.

And unlike care homes, the prisoner is quite likely to return to live in them.

I suppose it's the same argument as asking people to pay for the 'hotel element' of their hospital stay or to contribute to respite care. But using a rather more unpopular group as a thin end of the wedge to expand the system.

The punishment is loss of liberty. If you want to punish them financially then bring in substantial fines. I dont think your suggestion makes much sense when you consider that prison is supposed to rehabilitate and reduce reoffending. How is sending them back out into society worse off going to achieve that?

I think Gordon Ramseys idea of getting prisoners working inside to generate income is a better one.

I think Gordon Ramseys idea of getting prisoners working inside to generate income is a better one.

I agree - along with providing education.

Taking away a person's home would also massively increase the homeless population - how does that benefit society?

As a previous poster says, the rules have changed since Worboys was convicted. Legal aid for criminal cases is now means tested. He would not receive legal aid today. He would have to fund his own defence.

By the way, I think the OP is wrong to say that he owned a property worth £2M. My understanding is that he owned a number of properties that were believed to have a combined value of approaching £2M.

I've said a couple of times now, you would have to use a system broadly similar to the care home system, so offender has partner who is innocent or even a victim, then if the house is jointly owned nothing happens unless the house is sold, at which point yes, the % which belongs to the offender should be seized. If you means test and leave the offender with the same levels of savings as an elderly person they should have more than enough cash to at least ensure they can be in some way housed. It might not be in the fashion to which they were accustomed, but frankly IDGAF. It would also mean using the same system as is used for care home fees to ensure that things that happened like with stuart hall, where he put all his assets in his wife's name, become able to be taken.
Ponderland I agree any treatment that would otherwise be covered by the NHS would continue to not be chargeable, and I would extend that to drug and alcohol treatment in prison.

I just do not see how we can in this country with a straight face charge our elderly for basic care (that sometimes doesn't even meet the standards we would hope for) and yet prisoners seem to be treated fairly well, for no charge, and even earn money in prison (I know it's not a lot but it's the principle of it). I have worked in a prison, I know there are social problems behind a lot of offending, I haven't got my eyes closed, but I really don't see why comparatively wealthy prisoners, who if they've managed to get more than £25k of assets should be reasonably intelligent and switched on and know better than to commit crime, shouldn't be made to pay for their costs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002

There is a way to retrieve criminal assets

Prisoners often do work, inside. In the deep, dark ages, before so many prisons ended up in the hands of the private sector, it was perfectly normal for prisoners to have jobs, while inside, such as working in the kitchens, gardens etc (yes, pretty much like on Porridge). I don't know how much of that happens, now.

My DH came out with at least £100 more than he had when he went in just from working as much as possible. he was only in for 6 weeks or so.
That was 15 years ago tho so maybe its changed.

One excellent rehab scheme are The Clink restaurants in prisons

theclinkcharity.org/

No, I think it's a dreadful idea.

Well if students have to pay off loans until they are in their 50s why not ex prisoners? I also like the poster who said fines should be calculated according to income. What a great idea. A £500 fine is a fortune for some and loose change for others. The principle should be that it hurts a bit - so you think twice about doing it again.

I also like the poster who said fines should be calculated according to income. What a great idea

They are. The fine bands are set as a percentage of relevant weekly income. The more you earn, the bigger the fine.

It's not punitive, any more than using a pensioner's assets for their care is a punishment for growing old.
Just put everyone on the same basis, same asset limits of 25k or whatever, then they pay the costs of their treatment / imprisonment

Either no pensioner has to pay, or no prisoner.
No worse for a prisoner to lose their home and assets than for a pensioner and their family

Assets should also be used for compensation to victims - why should a wealthy rapist, murderer or fraudster keep his millions - regardless of whether they came from crime - when his victims or their surviving relatives may be struggling to rebuild their lives ?

if the family are victims of violence, then they can apply for some , or all, of the prisoner's assets as compensation,
to avoid dodges, on the basis that the prisoner is forbidden to visit the property or receive any money from the family
Not perfect, but some families dodge care fees by hiding / giving away assets too.

Poor prisoners wouldn't suffer, any more than pensioners with no assets do now:
the state foots all the bills and only when the prisoner / pensioner has assets are these used until they hit the 25k minimum assets.

cdtaylornats that's only if the assets came from crime, not if they were wealthy by other means.

Also, there's supposed to be laws in place to stop prisoners profiting from their crimes (why Myra Hindley was never allowed to publish her autobiography), but twats like Vicky Pryce can lie to court, get (quite rightly) sent to jail and then shop herself and her tawdry book about "the economics of prison" around? Nope nope nope. That loophole needs closing, PDQ.

I think it's a great idea. It won't apply to man6 so won't really bring much money in, but imo it's well worth doing anyway.

I'm failing to see how stripping a prisoner of all assets would aid rehabilitation.
If someone commits an offence which means they get a year in prison. They come out of prison and have absolutely nothing, their families have been evicted from their homes etc (which will in turn put pressure on councils who have to house families as a priority) , they will have absolutely nothing to lose and might as well commit more crime to get a roof over their heads.
The next crime they commit will mean nothing to take.

Plus the child who has already lost a parent through no fault of their own will face losing their home and probably changing schools and losing friends too.

if students have to pay off loans until they are in their 50s why not ex prisoners

But students come out of that with a degree that will increase their earning potential. The same cannot be said of prisoners. It’s difficult to see how putting a massive financial burden on prisoners on release is going to do much for the rates of recidivism among most prisoners. The conviction itself is often enough of an issue.

It’s probably possible to means test this, but it’s quite likely to be complicated and ut’s Difficult to know how much they’d actually make once you’d taken into account the cost of means testing had been taken into account.

why should we shed tears for families of criminals.

Because it's not their fault? I have a sibling in prison. I'm not going to say what they did but the charges were very serious. The arrest was a terrible shock and the last year has been horrendous for the whole family.

Why should my sibling's spouse and children suffer when they didn't commit the crime and in fact knew nothing about it?

Is Free Legal Aid in the UK means tested.
If so, how come if Warboys owns a £2 million property he received free legal aid ?

I believe it is means tested yes. Are you sure he didn't pay? My sibling lived in a rented property, had a minimum wage job and received a bill for partial legal costs.

Starbucks somebody upthread said he got FLA, despite owning the property.

I think Gordon Ramseys idea of getting prisoners working inside to generate income is a better one. I agree - along with providing education.

Most prisoners do either work or engage with education and/or training alongside any MH and drugs/alcohol type treatments whilst in prison, so long as they are not on a 'basic' regime where they are restricted much more on when they can leave their cell.

I worked in a male prison and was involved with 1:1 work with such men, getting them into the work, training and education and various treatments and schemes - all designed to aid rehabilitation and the ability to stay on the right side of the law on release. But all the education and training doesn't mean it will work for them all.

Everyone is expected to reach a given level of literacy and numeracy - think it is level 2. This is treated as a priority and could take place in classrooms, as part of work training or even in-cell study. Then there are other types of education available right up to degree level and beyond.

The work can include cleaning, hospital work, library work, gym staff, laundry, cooking the meals for the site, etc.

Training was usually workshop based but covered a range of vocational training.