Parents of prisoner to pay percentage of incarceration costs

[Kerry]

A news report I'd like to read:

Parents, legal spouse, or living-with-partner of a prisoner to pay a percentage of incarceration costs.*

Hawaii's citizens are considering requiring both parents (whether together or divorced) or, a spouse, to pay a percentage of incarceration costs (food, salaries, health-care, etc.). The amount being a percentage, such as awarded for child support, of what it would cost a family to have their adult child live with them.

One council member in favor of the policy writes, . . . it's not fair to make everyone pay for a parent's failure to raise a law-abiding child. The same applies to married couples; if one partner, using his/her leadership-communication skills, supports the other in being incarcerated (did not inspire a life of integrity). Given that everyone--parents, family members, relationship partners, teachers, clergy, health-care professionals, police, and all community members--did not inspire a life of integrity for an inmate, it's appropriate that everyone, via taxes, pay a larger percentage of the incarceration fees.

Examples:
 
1) As of 2022 it reportedly costs about $40,000.00 per inmate per year ($112.00 per day). Parents of a convicted child/adult would pay the state/county the current monthly amount awarded for child support. If divorced, each parent would pay 1/2 that of child support. If legally married the spouse of a convict would pay an amount similar to child support.

2) A spouse would know that if they caused their partner to hit them that they would have to pay for a portion of their partner's incarceration.

3) Police responding to domestic violence calls would not ask who started it, nor allow either to blame the other for starting the abuse.

With such a policy it's assumed that parents would work on their leadership-communication skills during high school. Included in such a curriculum would be acknowledging and completing one's addiction to withholding (deceiving) and irresponsible blaming. Teens would be more selective during dating; parents would definitely insist upon meeting their child's date and the date's parents. The costs of an "accidental" (sneaky sex behind the backs of both sets of parents) teen pregnancy could be financially devastating for both sets of parents--for life.

It's assumed that newlyweds would continue studying communication if they knew they would be held responsible if either of them or their child committed a crime if they knew they would have to pay a percentage (above that covered by their taxes) of their child's incarceration costs. Most would watch the free (every other week) televised Support Groups for . . ..

Exceptions:

1) If a parent announces to the community, via a newspaper, social media or a notarized document, declaring that they, due to their inability to inspire their child to opt for a life of integrity, have estranged themselves from their child. The public announcement would affirm that they no longer interact, relate, or support their child in any way that could be interpreted as enabling. A single instance of a parent breaking the no interaction estrangement (even a phone call) would cause the parent's wages to be garnished a percentage of the costs of their child's incarceration.

2) Life or death situation requiring hospitalization.

It's assumed that lifetime responsibility for a child's behaviors would result in fewer births. Possibly incarceration insurance would be available to cover such expenses.

Dating teens would think twice about dating someone with a dysfunctional family, someone who doesn't have a hugging relationship with their parents.  The policy would greatly reduce "accidental" pregnancies if a teen knew that they'd not only have to pay child support they'd also be financially responsible for their child's illegal perpetrations--for life. Teens would know that participating in an illegal activity or a schoolyard fight resulting in hospitalization/incarceration, could cause their parents to have to pay $375.50 per month for say, a 5-12 year sentence.

It's a given that a parolee released to live with their family would not burden their family with even more incarceration (recidivism) costs. Note: A significant percentage of parole violations, that result in re-incarceration, are broken agreements, such as not showing up for meetings with their Parole Officer; this reveals that his/her parents failed to teach them about the correlation between personal integrity and results.

Divorced parents would both be responsible for their child's behavior--for life--unless publicly estranged.

Additional reading:

Tips for a successful parole
Parole--The First 24-hrs

* A spouse would no longer be able to say, "I didn't know my spouse was a Mafia Don, or, was dealing drugs." A Columbine-type parent would pay a percentage of their child's incarceration.

Last edited 1/6/24

Note: Hawaii is also considering a monthly integrity fee of $5.00 for all citizens. The fee would gather interest and at age 65 would be returned to those who have never been incarcerated.