Hey Belly,
Your idea has merit, but it's also a can of worms.
You could argue people with a million or more should pay for their stay, but then they would say they were treated unfairly.

My idea goes hand in hand with other ideas I have, namely a socialist base-level jobs system 'the job you have when you don't have a job' to make use of the 5% unemployment capitalism needs to provide a pool of workers and prevent wage growth.

Then that pool of workers does things to help government save money as well as reduce construction costs on major infrastructure.

It's hoped that the work they do offsets the welfare cost.

There would be a large national infrastructure project and as for the criminals, in the same way I will offer the unemployed 'double dole' for full time work in the socialist base-level system, I'd offer non-violent offenders the opportunity to halve their sentence in exchange for full-time work on the same infrastructure' projects.
You work a day, you get a day off your sentence.
Reduce government (and taxpayers) expenditure and get something back instead.

The problem with society it gives cash as welfare but does not offer a job instead.

How are you gonna pay for free healthcare and education or make it fairer for taxpayers under this system.

Let the people who want to work and help themselves do so.

You want to feed a man a fish everyday or simply allow him to fish instead?
And create a foolproof system so that it is so.

Armchair Critic: You say "You could argue people with a million or more should pay for their stay, but then they would say they were treated unfairly."

Most wealthy people (say those with 5M$ or more) would be justified in claiming this. The main reason why because they would have already paid for it from their own previous tax contributions. To use myself as an example: this year I'm to pay roughly $350,000 in tax, last year it was $270,000, the year before "only" $155,000 and before that $250,000 and on and on previously. Now, considering that it costs about $300* a day on average to keep someone in prison, if I was to be canned in the slammer for a decade or two I would have easily already paid for it.

*(if I recall correctly, this figure was bandied about a couple of years ago so might be a bit more now)

Arm Chair Critic true but have ever asked why some seem to own a revolving door when going to court? I think, firmly, the costs of confinement are behind at least some weak to poor results handed down,in every thing we need not do things as they always have been, this is an area ripe for change, and by the way the fault you find in a job for every one exists in all things, all we can hope for is some thing better never perfect

My view is that if the criminal is under the age of 18, and can't pay, then the parents should pay, either from assets or from their incomes/welfare. After all, my two kids have not committed any crimes, which is because they were parented, not just left to their own devices or to entertain themselves.

As for adults, then yes, they should pay, regardless of whether or not they have assets or incomes, because they ought to know the consequences of their crime.

User pays all the way.

NO.

Imprisonment is such a cruel, idiotic and inhumane thing that it should not be further encouraged. Unless one is truly and currently dangerous to society, let them be detained in their own home (or a relative's), then naturally they will be paying their own living expenses.

If the issue is to get criminals out of our streets and those criminals have money, then let that money pay for some third-world country to accept them as immigrants and for a one-way air-ticket there, never to return.

Perhaps fines are not up to date? If so, then they should be raised, but they should not be linked with imprisonment and in any case, let no one have to pay for a service they did not request.

Yuyutsu no way the average person could think as you do, prison is a self defense thing much needed to protect the victims, some criminals will reoffend no matter what, see no advantage in trying to get money out of someone without any, but far too many have more than enough and why should we pay, take the nsw filth, those who used a position in government to make millions, we are their victims,twice over if we pay while they keep their riches