The question split this self-selected UK chamber almost down the middle, but No won narrowly. The decisive instinct was that punishment already removes liberty, while a further financial burden could damage rehabilitation rather than strengthen accountability.
Yes voters framed repayment as conditional fairness, not necessarily a blanket charge. The floor’s strongest Yes case said it was “basic fairness and personal responsibility” for offenders with savings, assets or income to contribute, while others proposed making them “clean the country up”; even one supporter conceded the idea was “a pie in the sky idea” for many.
No voters answered with practicality and consequences. The argument the floor rated highest warned that prison can mean a lost job and that it is “far better to get them working within the prison, or doing community work”; another put the risk more bluntly: “Pushing people into debt” could drive someone back into offending.
The two sides largely agreed that those who genuinely have means should not escape every form of contribution, but they differed over whether that principle could be administered without becoming a blanket penalty. No voices pointed to benefits, low wages and the scarcity of assets — “Most are skint anyway” — while another rejected the idea of “means testing crime”; other contributions reached for proceeds-of-crime recovery, or argued that lost liberty and privileges were already payment.
The room’s practical verdict was therefore narrower than either slogan: accountability retained its appeal, but insolvency was not treated as another sentence. The unresolved bargain was contribution where possible, without making poverty itself part of the punishment.
14 Opinions
it doesnt seem practical and would limit an offenders but-in to rehabilitation
Most are skint anyway . Proceeds of crime should be used more.
The answer is, yes they should. Which is the answer to the question. The reality is very different and most would not have the means to do so. So it's a pie in the sky idea.
I don't want to get in to means testing crime. We already means test civil and corporate offences.
This is superficially attractive & I believe we should deport foreign criminals, also there is the question of Capital punishment for heinous crimes - which would save money. The convicted pay through the loss of liberty and privileges. Very difficult to implement otherwise without creating an impoverish underclass with nothing to lose. I think it would increase violence.
Pushing people into debt to pay off the cost of their incarceration is a guaranteed way to ensure that someone reoffends.
Once their sentence is finished square bash them and get them to clean the country up to repay their board and lodgings and to provide further protection to their victims. Many will think twice.
In the vast majority of cases, the criminal has chosen to carry out the crime. The crime is something that our society deems unacceptable. Therefore, the offender is imposing not only the crime, but the costs of justice on society. If the offender doesn't want to be punished and billed for those costs, they shouldn't commit the crime.
As the auto-genersted snippet for 'no' states above: these people "lack income or assets, making repayment impractical or impossible." So, how feasible and practical actually is this? My worry is that it could increase the strain and pressure upon criminals when they are reintegrated into society. Could forcing debt upon them greatly increase the risk of re-offending? We should look for funds elsewhere, like the ultra-wealthy, rather than pitting us against each other.
It's pointless making offenders repay the cost of their prison stay, or even a fine, if they are dependent on benefits, or low wages. Besides, a stay in prison equals a lost job. That's the fastest way to have a re-offender. Far better to get them working within the prison, or doing community work.