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

Back

to Opinion Home Page | Back

to the top of the page