Kensley Hawkins, Illinois Prisoner, Asked To Pay State For His Incarceration After Saving $11,000 From Jail Job

When Kensley Hawkins was sent to prison for the 1980 murder of a man and the attempted murder of two Chicago police officers, he hoped his prison job would allow him to set some money aside to send to his daughter, who was reportedly 8-years-old at the time of his incarceration.

Though Hawkins' $75-per-month job building furniture at the Statesville Correctional Center in Joliet isn't much, he has managed to save up about $11,000 over the years. And now, the state wants its money back.

The Chicago Tribune reported Tuesday that Hawkins has been in court fighting to keep the money in his bank account, but the state says he owes them $455,203.14 to cover the cost of his incarceration.

The case has made it all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, which began hearing arguments Tuesday.

"The reason you want Mr. Hawkins to keep his money is because he's gonna get out of prison some day, and when he gets out of prison, we want him to have saved his money so that he can take care of himself you don't want the public to have to pay for him," Hawkins' attorney, Ben Weinberg, told Fox Chicago.

John Maki, coordinating director of the John Howard Association of Illinois, agreed. He told the Tribune taking away the money would not "help create a prison culture that's more rehabilitative."

Under current Illinois law, prisoners are liable for the cost of their incarceration, but most inmates do not have a way to pay. The Department of Corrections usually goes after people who have more than $10,000 in assets, according to the Tribune. The state also allows IDOC to collect 3 percent of an inmate's wages, and Hawkins' lawyers say they are not entitled to any more than that. The Supreme Court is working to decide whether there is a conflict in these laws, and if so, how to resolve it.

"This man committed some horrible crimes," Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins of illinoisvictims.org. told Fox Chicago "I commend him for working to earn money in prison, but he has a debt to society, a debt that he owes not only to his victims, who he should make restitution to, but he should also make restitution to the state."

Lawyers for Hawkins told Business Week they want the state's $455,203.14 judgment against their client overturned, and for the state to stay away from his savings. Hawkins will be eligible for parole in 2028.

Quick Poll

Should the state be able to take money an inmate earns in jail?

Yes.

No.

Depends on the situation.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[Andy Cataluna]

11:04 AM on 03/18/2011

$75 per month is less than half of Illinois' minimum wage, which means that approximately 52% of Hawkins' theoretical pay (had he been working outside of prison,) did go back to the state, and can be counted as a form of financial restitution for his crimes. I think that these facts render Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins' argument moot.

[sushi27]

07:41 AM on 03/18/2011

If they require him to pay the cost of jailing, then they should be paying him a living wage. I assumed that they get paid next to nothing because it was put towards covering the cost of incarceration. How can you force him to work for 75 cents a day and then say he still owes for room and board? Also, and people wonder why they end up back in jail again - they are let out with nothing and no way to find a job, especially in this economy - of course they are going to end up back in jail. duh

[Joe2dela]

12:53 AM on 03/18/2011

There are a lot of good arguments here. However, I didn't notice anyone looking at these points: If he wanted the money for his daughter, then why is he discussing that now in his 29th year of incarceration? His daughter was 8 when he went in. She's 36 /-1yr.

She should have had this money a long time ago. This is a poor argument.

I do agree with a later argument that you want him to save and have money for when he gets out. How else can he cope? Better that then to have him do something illegal to survive. It's a catch 22.

[ninthraphael]

09:47 PM on 03/17/2011

Prison is given to people who commits crime...how else can we make those who committed heinous crime pay for their sins? Implant them with chips Inside their brain that will explode if the get out of his 200 meter ( within the confine of his own home ) radius....cruel? Is prison humane? And make them work at home!

[ShinjiIkari]

09:38 PM on 03/17/2011

Either a convict is a ward of the state or not. It's one thing for a convict to profit from the crime itself--and the "Son of Sam Law" takes care of that. But to charge a convict for room and board simply because the state wants money is legalized theft.

[Valley Vixon]

03:59 PM on 03/17/2011

How much is the state paying to fight this case? I think it is more then $11, 000. Again how stupid have we become. He gets the possiblity of parole in 2028, so with this logic if he can't pay he stays...Moronic

[urturn]

03:38 PM on 03/17/2011

The state lost $455,203.14 due to his and other's incarceration? Really?

Then states need to take a hard long look at incarceration in this country. The consorted effort put into incarcerating our citizens has given the US the #1 status in incarcerations.

"Paying a debt to society or victims" is a myth, because recidivism is real goal. It is much more profitable to continue to incarcerate them, lend them out to corporations and pay them meager wages.

The $11,000 he saved could help his daughter with college fees or other expenses, but I'm sure there's some legislator somewhere thinking of a way to prevent children of convicted felons from securing financial aid to pay for college courses or have the right to vote.

The US is upside down.

=^.,.^=

[poster1122]

04:37 PM on 03/17/2011

The guy killed two people. What are the options in this case besides incarceration and execution?

The $11K he saved could help the families of the people he killed. If he prevails over the state in this matter, the families might consider a wrongful death suit against him and strip him of his assets. What he cost them was worth obviously way more than $11K.

[poster1122]

04:40 PM on 03/17/2011

Correction: he killed one person and tried to kill two others.

[urturn]

06:41 PM on 03/17/2011

..so you're saying, as I said in my post, that somehow his family should be held responsible as well; I don't think that's fair. Yes, he was convicted of killing someone, and the death penalty nor any amount of money will bring the victim back.

There was a case a few years ago, where a father lost a child due to a drunk driver. Even though that person would serve several years in prison and be paid meagerly for the work he would perform, the father asked that he send $1 a year, so that he would never forget about the victim. For him, it was not about the money.

The fact is, there is no law against inmates (sure to be one now) saving their money. They have to pay them, because working for free is....well, you know.

=^.,.^=

[throwcautiontothewind]

03:31 PM on 03/17/2011

Policies should not be applied post hoc. Period. The guy keeps his money (and there's good reason for him to do so).

IF prisoners are paid a living wage for their work in prison, there is good reason to have them contribute to their incarceration costs for the sake of getting them used to budgeting life expenses when they get out. It can be argued that that policy would be a part of their rehabilitation. But prison officials shouldn't be applying such a policy to one person, nor instituting the policy after the fact, and thus effectively PUNISHING the man for being responsible.

[Skotyman]

03:18 PM on 03/17/2011

Poor li'l murderer.

[HHHarry]

03:12 PM on 03/17/2011

"$ 455,203.14 " He must have used the mini-bar.

[BushyDEVIL]

03:01 PM on 03/17/2011

This is the way it is..and won't change too much money being made..I have 3 prisons in my area in a 20 mile radius....it's crazy

[DanoX]

03:00 PM on 03/17/2011

So the governement is not satified with running for profit prisons!? Now they want to take back the slave wages? What a God awful justice system! His crimes are irrelavent, he is in prison already! He doesn't have to work in the prison sweat shop making furniture. He does it so he can give something back to the child he has let down. Only in America!

[dannyconda]

04:02 PM on 03/17/2011

His crimes are irrelevant???
I'll go out on a limb here and assume it wasn't your family member
that he murdered.

[bgregs]

02:44 PM on 03/18/2011

Yes, his crimes are irrelevant. The issue at hand is that he's been working under practically slave conditions for all of $75 per week, and he's managed to save that money. If he'd spent the money, the state wouldn't CARE, it's only because he's saved it that the state is trying to get it back!

[awckid3]

01:05 PM on 03/18/2011

I wonder if the murder victim had kid(s) as well? If so, he let those children down too. Only in America, indeed.

[galaxian]

02:48 PM on 03/17/2011

Funny they didn't ask him to pay before he walked in the joint.

[PhloxJeana]

02:48 PM on 03/17/2011

Inmate wages are insulting even for third world countries. But for an inmate to work without pay is slavery. The cost to incarcerate a criminal is the price WE pay for the safety of our citizens. I'd MUCH rather an inmate leave prison with some earnings than to rely on taxpayers or return to crime in order to survive. We don't deal out biblical punishment, we remove those who can't live within the confines of our laws. We'd be FAR better off as a society if we rehabilitated our inmates rather than lock them away and/or use them for almost unpaid labor. Punishment is being locked up. We as a society should require that that time be used well, to better those in prison so they exit better prepared to be better citizens.

[CUL8R]

02:46 PM on 03/17/2011

So why did they pay him in the first place if they were going to take the money anyway?

[DanoX]

03:02 PM on 03/17/2011

The corporation running the prison has to give him a pittance for his labor to skirt the law banning the use of prisoners for commercial labor.