Tuesday, June 26, 2007
JAIL FEES FACE CHALLENGE IN GREENVILLE COUNTY SC
On June 26, 2007, The Greenville News reported that the propriety of imposing jail fees on inmates will be debated before Greenville County Council tonight.
On June 26, 2007, The Greenville News reported that the propriety of imposing jail fees on inmates will be debated before Greenville County Council tonight.
According to the article. "An aspirin or a request to see a doctor costs $5 each in the Greenville County Detention Center. Inmates also pay fees for a bag of chips or local phone calls -- unless it's a public defender, a judge or County Councilwoman Lottie Gibson on the line." Also, according to the article, "Telephone, canteen and medical fees generated more than $400,000 last year." More specifically, the telephone fees charged to the prisoners, at a rate of $1.20 for a one-minute call and $1.45 for a five-minute call" have generated about "$783,000 in telephone fees..in the past six years."
On June 27, 2007, Greenville Online reported "The debate over the fees [Greenville] county inmates pay for services like phone calls and medical attention got testier Tuesday, as a vote to study the issue eroded into a heated exchange between Councilman Tony Trout and county officials."
The article goes on to say "Trout again blasted jail administrators for what he called 'money-gouging' the families of inmates by charging for necessities like shampoo, socks and Bibles." Conversely, the comments posted by readers about Councilmen Trout are particularly nasty and personal.
Whatever one can say about the practice of accessing fees against prisoners who are often neither convicts nor criminals, at least the fees were authorized by Greenville County Council. That is not the case in Dorchester County
We have long argued that it is immoral to make a profit on the families of inmates by charging them for telephone calls at a rate that would be illegal in the "outside world." But, our position aside, we note that the telephone fees went back into the general fund. We wonder how the telephone fees were spent in Dorchester County. But, the audit should soon reveal the answer to this question.
The article goes on to say "Trout again blasted jail administrators for what he called 'money-gouging' the families of inmates by charging for necessities like shampoo, socks and Bibles." Conversely, the comments posted by readers about Councilmen Trout are particularly nasty and personal.
Whatever one can say about the practice of accessing fees against prisoners who are often neither convicts nor criminals, at least the fees were authorized by Greenville County Council. That is not the case in Dorchester County
We have long argued that it is immoral to make a profit on the families of inmates by charging them for telephone calls at a rate that would be illegal in the "outside world." But, our position aside, we note that the telephone fees went back into the general fund. We wonder how the telephone fees were spent in Dorchester County. But, the audit should soon reveal the answer to this question.
