Wednesday, December 5, 2001
|
Wednesday, December 5, 2001 |
|
Cities should pay jail fees for city prisoners A few weeks ago I told you of my concern about a presentation on the municipal prisoner issue, made to the Association of Fayette County Governments. Now, we see more attempts to manipulate public opinion by negotiating a municipal prisoner agreement via the media. Look at the most recent series of articles in the newspapers. It is noted in the articles that the newspapers have been receiving copies of letters sent to the county even before the county receives them. I think this illustrates the real target audience for the letters. So be it. While I can't control how others act and how they choose to do their negotiating, I can and will do something to correct misinformation. Here, then, is a short rebuttal to correct a couple of the misstatements that have been repeated over and over. The public, exposed mostly to those statements, can't make their own judgments about the truth unless they hear the other side. First, let's make sure we know that a "municipal prisoner" means someone who is in jail under the jurisdiction of a municipal (city) court. These are not people who have been charged with an indictable offense. Typically, they are in jail because they have not paid a fine. The main reason some cities establish municipal courts in the first place is to be able to impose fines. We have all heard about cities that set up "speed traps." Our cities are not guilty of that, but we need to understand that municipal courts are set up to be revenue generators, money makers, for the municipality. If a person is charged with an indictable offense, or if the case is transferred to a county court, the offender is no longer a "municipal prisoner." Then the magistrate court, state court or superior court would impose any fine and the fine money could be used to support the expenses of the jail. Second, these types of agreements are NOT unusual. I did a telephone survey of 12 other counties in our area. Of those counties, four do not accept municipal prisoners at all. Of the eight that do accept them, four charge a fee. Wouldn't this make accepting the prisoners and charging a fee the compromise approach? As to the question of "who pays," we need to understand that right now the taxpayers pay. Taxpayers in the unincorporated county and taxpayers in the cities are paying to keep these municipal prisoners in jail. That would continue if the county continued to accept these prisoners at no charge. As taxpayers, does that make sense to you? This doesn't make any sense to me when I know that the agreement that the county has proposed would transfer this cost from the taxpayers to the bad guys. The cost to keep these people in jail would come out of the fines paid by the offenders, not out of the taxpayers' pockets. I'm getting tired of this issue being portrayed as an issue between the county and taxpayers who live in cities. I am a taxpayer who lives in a city. Charging a fee for municipal prisoners would be a benefit to ALL of the taxpayers. Peter Pfeifer County Commissioner
|
||