Richard Lippke, philosophy professor at James Madison University in Harrisburg, Va., discussed the disadvantages of making criminals pay for the expenses of their punishment during a speech Friday at Catt Hall.

“It seems doubtful that charging punishment costs is going to deter very many [criminals],” Lippke said.

Lippke is a graduate of Iowa State and is the author of “Radical Business Ethics.” His speech was sponsored by the Murray Bacon Center for Ethics in Business and the philosophy department.

Lippke based his discussion on the Business Fairness Argument, which states that punishing offenders generates costs non-offenders are forced to bear and suggests some of the costs should be shifted to the offenders. By making offenders pay their punishment costs, the argument says it would alleviate the burden from the rest of the society.

“I think that the Business Fairness Argument is most convincing if we assume we live in a just society,” Lippke said. “I am not sure that we should think that what we are doing is fair and just.”

He said it wouldn’t be fair to charge people who were tried and found innocent, but he believes criminals should be charged to an extent.

“I am not going to conclude that we shouldn’t adopt policies making offenders pay,” Lippke said.

Lippke questions whether the laws are appropriate. He said the Business Fairness Argument presupposes the laws the convicted person are punished for are appropriate, which might not be true.

Lippke said there would be failures to prohibit harmful acts or punish them appropriately.

“We want acts to punish serious problems more severely,” he said.

The unfair enforcement of existing laws would also be a problem. Lippke said this would result in punishment costs falling only on some offenders. The rich and more powerful would be able to avoid costs more easily than the poor, he said.

For his final argument, Lippke said social and economic inequalities and crime would cause another problem. He questioned if it was fair to punish those who lack reasonable opportunities to pursue their interests.

If the criminals are not given an opportunity for paid labor, they will be forced to declare bankruptcy, which could mean higher social welfare costs for families, he said.

Lippke proposed a more desirable policy which would provide opportunities for paid labor, limit charges to punishment costs associated with sanctions and limit the government efforts to collect costs.

Paid labor could have a positive effect on the criminals, Lippke said.

“Access to paid labor might have rehabilitation effects,” he said.

Lippke said the punishment costs should be directly associated with sanctions, saying apprehension costs and others like it are outdated artifacts of the judicial system.

Assessing for pre-trial and trial costs would interfere with fair dispositions, Lippke said, adding that it might incline some of the people on trial to plead guilty and could also affect the length of the trial.

Lippke said a better alternative would be to have the costs directly related to the sanctions.

He made the point of constraining the government from taking inmate’s income. The inmates should be allowed to work and keep some of the money and put some of it towards the punishment costs, Lippke said.

“Families are going to suffer,” he said. “It is important to have a little income to help out spouses and dependents.”

Lippke also said the government would have to provide jobs for criminals after they are released from prison.