Posted on 10/04/2010 1:04:11 PM PDT by JoeProBono
NEW YORK, - Debt imprisonment is rising in America as poor people unable to pay fees are jailed, two advocacy groups said Monday.
Reports by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Brennan Center for Justice say many states across the country, strapped for funds, are aggressively going after poor people who have already served their criminal sentences. This makes it harder for them to re-enter society and ultimately costs much more.
"Incarcerating people simply because they cannot afford to pay their legal debts is not only unconstitutional but also has a devastating impact upon men and women, whose only crime is that they are poor," said Eric Balaban, senior staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project.
The ACLU report, "In for a Penny: The Rise of America's New Debtors' Prisons," and the Brennan Center report, "The Hidden Cost of Criminal Justice Debt," found that states and counties are imposing financial penalties on defendants beyond their criminal sentences as a way to raise revenue.
Incarcerating indigent defendants for failing to pay legal debts ends up costing states and counties much more than they can ever hope to recover, the ACLU said.
I think they got the story wrong. Municipalities can do math, so they know that they won’t make a dime imprisoning someone who can’t pay them.
What is really going on is a little more complicated, but not much.
It is called the “debtor loophole”, by which a private company can use the court system to imprison someone who owes them money, as a form of coercion.
1) When someone has a debt that they are unable to pay, more and more, companies are *selling* those debt to a collection service. Often for pennies on the dollar.
2) The collection service, who the debtor has never heard from, sends them bills which are ignored, for obvious reasons.
3) The collection service then *sues* the debtor in court, after sending them a court summons, which they also ignore, still not knowing what is going on, and never having been given a court summons before.
4) When the debtor doesn’t show up in court on the trial date, the collection service asks for a summary judgment against the debtor, then asks the judge to cite the debtor for “contempt of court”.
5) Typically, the judge then puts out a bench warrant, the surprised debtor is arrested, sentenced to jail for “contempt of court”, with their bail money set as the amount of their debt.
So technically, the debtor has *not* been imprisoned for being unable to pay their debt, which is typically not legal, but for contempt of court, which is very legal and happens a lot.
Yet the only way out of jail is to pay their debt. And yes, often this does work, as people in jail will do a lot to get out of jail, that they would not have done otherwise.
I was hoping for a moral distinction, not a legal description. I view taking something and not paying as theft.
Unless you happen to owe the IRS.
Yeah it's kind of tough if you can't get a decent job but you can't get any kind of job because of his actions.
If you search stories related to this one it appears that a large number of folks just ignore their debts.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013066985_debtor04m.html
I don’t see the problem. It should be a very miserable existence, where you remember every minute that YOU SCREWED UP! Every cold night, every bowl of ramen...
If you’re truly SORRY, you’ll relish the chance to sacrifice and make good.
IMO, the moral distinctions are along the nature of:
1) This penalty is almost exclusively assessed those too poor or unsophisticated to avail themselves of bankruptcy protection again creditors, while individuals with often far greater indebtedness avoid such sanctions via bankruptcy protection.
2) This difference is even more pronounced in the case of business bankruptcy; for example you can build tens or hundreds of substandard homes which incurs costs in the tens of thousands of dollars each to repair, but if you are doing business as an LLC or Corp., yon can legally walk away from financial responsibility.
It’s this sort of disproportionate application of the law which decreases public confidence it’s reasonableness.
IMO, the moral distinctions are along the nature of:
1) This penalty is almost exclusively assessed those too poor or unsophisticated to avail themselves of bankruptcy protection again creditors, while individuals with often far greater indebtedness avoid such sanctions via bankruptcy protection.
2) This difference is even more pronounced in the case of business bankruptcy; for example you can build tens or hundreds of substandard homes which incurs costs in the tens of thousands of dollars each to repair, but if you are doing business as an LLC or Corp., yon can legally walk away from financial responsibility.
It’s this sort of disproportionate application of the law which decreases public confidence it’s reasonableness.
Actually the article is about fines, costs and restitution resulting from criminal actions.
No problem. When you think the aclu might be right look a little closer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.