orrections services. If such a shift were fully elastic, the total costs of corrections administration could be shifted to the convicted persons receiving corrections services. As most persons receiving corrections services are in the country's lower socioeconomic classifications, however, the level of elasticity is relatively low, and the persons receiving such services are, in most instances, charged for only a fraction of the actual costs of administration of their corrections programs (Baird, Holien, and Hall, 1991, pp. 121-124).
The principle upon which policies are based for requiring convicted persons to pay a part of the costs associated with the administration of their corrections programs is the benefit principleùthose who benefit from public services should also be those who pay them. Requiring the convicted person to pay for her or his corrections program, however, tends to overlook societal benefits derived from corrections, and, in effect, acts more as an additional penalty imposed on the convicted and incarcerated person.
...