I think the Federal Court cannot take money from Social Security. While the gentleman in the case may owe money and make a payment arrangement, I don't think the Court can require a payment out of Social Security. While the man is prison, the money can be taken off his books, if its there, but that would be about it. Once he is released, he could refuse to pay and the worst the parole officer could do is recommend a parole revocation and put the matter back to the sentencing court. The court can demand all it wants, but until it issue an order directing the Social Security Administration to withhold the payment from the fellow's check, he can continue to refuse to pay. Additionally, I don't even think the Court could successfully revoke his parole for non-payment as long as his income is just Social Security. I know child support and other court awards cannot be taken from Social Security and Social Security is safe in bankruptcy court.

The Court must set a restitution amount, as the law requires, but I doubt it can be legitimately collected unless the man develops another income stream.

I think more explanation is due from the Explainer.

I believe that 18 USC sec. 3613 (specifically subsections (a) and (f)) exempts federal criminal restitution orders from the general rule that a judgment cannot reach Social Security income.

This is incorrect. Both Federal and state governments can garnish Social Security Retirement or Disability to collect a judgment. However, SSI is generally not collectable because it is not considered income. In my experience, referees and judges may order "voluntary" payments of SSI to satisfy a past-due debt. While these "voluntary payments" seem illegal, I have seen them enforced in the family law court in my county.

I think there's a good argument here that this man shouldn't be ordered to pay restitution from his SSI check. However, I wonder if he's actually receiving SSI. You can only collect a max amnt of $637 in SSI payments per month, not $1000 (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/­SSIamts.html).

I rather like the "day fines" idea - one of my issues with fines as punishment is that they're uneven punishment. You give me a $500 fine, that's two weeks pay and I'm fighting to make my mortgage; you give my boss's boss a $500 fine, she pays it and goes back to whatever she did to incur the fine because it's pocket change to her. Setting fines based on percentage of income evens that out.

Social Security Benefits are not exempt from garnishment order.

In some states, SSI pays a higher rate. The District of Columbia pays higher than Maryland.

I agree, fines should take income into account to even out the economic impact of the fine on those convicted of the same offense. But it won't always work out fairly, even so: take license suspension—those with alternative rides or income to pay for same are much less inconvenienced than those with only one family car. Still, equity remains the goal.