Charging convicted legal offenders for their punishment has been an increasing issue over the years, with it involving a per diem charge for room and board. This does not include the extra charges such as expenses for their punishment, including apprehension, pre-trial detention, and trial costs. Fines are one type of legitimate sanctions for victim restitution, but not the charge of legal offenders for their punishment. In this article, Lippke talks about these injustices and how they are controversial. He defends them and believes that if the following claims (defensible policy) are true, then certain difficulties follow for the policy of making offenders pay for their punishments. He has come up with a defensible policy that would only charge offenders for their actual sanction, like their room and board. This would only happen when the offenders have opportunities for paid labor. The name he has called this policy of issue is called the Basic Fairness Argument. …show more content…
It is argued that if the offenders pay their costs, there will be social benefits, such as the costs of the public reducing, and this could eventually lead to lower taxes or the use of funds for other projects. A policy as such could also raise the costs and make the offenders take full responsibility for their conduct. If not, sanctions would take place, such as reimbursing the public, and this would serve as a deterrent as well. Also, if offenders are forced to reimburse for the misconduct they create, then more than likely they will appreciate the costs of their actions and