Replies

I'm sure there are exceptions...but having dealt with hundreds of county governments over the years, one common complaint they all seem to share during recessionary times is that they're spending money they don't have locking people up because the defendants don't have the money to pay the fines, either in full or in part. And, by and large, they'd rather have the defendant enter into a payment agreement than have to spend money to lock him up and feed him.

The linked article even highlighted the fact that both jurisdictions in question offered payment plans and would at least consider community service as an alternative to payment of a fine. Neither are unusual procedures (no matter how they choose to handle it in your own neighborhood.)

Then it's just a matter of the defendant availing him/herself of those alternatives, and doing so in good faith. Guess what? The people who ended up in jail are the ones who 1) didn't (or couldn't) pay their fine and 2) didn't bother to talk to the city/county about the matter.

Those failures doesn't make these people victims of a "debtor's prison complex." As a general rule, it makes them feckless dolts who could have straightened the matter out if they had taken the initiative to do so.

I won't pretend to know how community service works in your neck of the woods, but once again, in most jurisdictions there is usually some flexibility in scheduling, so as to avoid conflict with work schedules.