Jailing for debt exploits poor, ACLU says

upi. ^ | Oct. 4

[apillar]

It depends on the state you live in. In my state, the only thing that courts will can do if you have an unpaid fine or judgment (other than child support) is suspend your drivers license and attempt to garnish your wages. There are people in the system with over $20,000 in unpaid fines that have accrued over the years and as long as they work under the table and don't drive, or more likely drive without a license, there is really nothing else the state can do.

[microgood]

So if a drunk driver with no insurance runs into to you, maims you for life and destroys your property it's unfair to make him pay restitution?

This is a bad example because it is a crime - vehicular assault.

A better example would be not paying child support.

They got rid of debtor prisons a long time ago for good reasons. But the current generations are devoid of reason so we have it back. Next will be the Cat of Nine Tails.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[thackney]

I was hoping for a moral distinction, not a legal description. I view taking something and not paying as theft.

[dfwgator]

They got rid of debtor prisons a long time ago for good reasons.

Unless you happen to owe the IRS.

[Eagles6]

Well, suppose that you lost your family and are confined to a wheel chair and the guy that did it gets out of jail, goes to work and just doesn't feel like paying restitution owed to you for loss of family, property, medical bills and suffering.

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

[Fire_on_High]

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.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

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.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

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.

[Eagles6]

"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."

Actually the article is about fines, costs and restitution resulting from criminal actions.

[microgood]

Actually the article is about fines, costs and restitution resulting from criminal actions.

You are right. I should have read more carefully.

[microgood]

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...

Well, they tried that on Germany after World War I. Did not work out too well.

[Eagles6]

No problem. When you think the aclu might be right look a little closer.