Posted on 04/14/2015 11:41:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Why was Walter Scott running away from a policeman who tried to stop him for a broken taillight? The media are trying to make a South Carolina policeman's killing of a black man, Walter Scott, another sensational case of racism, but the media have missed the point of the tragedy.
The problem wasn't racism, or even dangerous driving or stolen property. It was caused by the obnoxious anti-father rulings of the family courts and Scott's fear that he would be returned to debtor's prison. Scott had already been jailed three times for failure to pay child support, and he didn't want to be sent to prison again.
Debtors' prisons were common in England in the colonial period. You can read about them in the writings of Charles Dickens, who wrote from first-hand knowledge; his own father spent time in a debtor's prison.
We kicked out British rule by the American Revolution and abolished some of its trappings, such as royalty and its titles, primogeniture and bowing to our top national official. We thought we abolished debtor's prisons even before we abolished slavery, but they continue to exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely labeled "child support."
We say "falsely" because the money collected from the poor guy usually doesn't go to his kid or her mother. It just supports the welfare-state bureaucracy.
Of course, it wasn't wise to try to outrun the policeman's gun, but this sad event should make us reevaluate the policy of repeatedly sending a penniless man to jail for failure to pay so-called child support.
These guys don't have the money to hire a defense lawyer, which they should be given when jail is the cost of losing the case.
When corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar over many years. But a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless, homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly), can't afford a lawyer, serving in our Armed Forces overseas, isn't the father or never owed the money in the first place.
The reason "child-support" debt can never be reduced by the court is the Bradley Amendment, named after a Democratic senator from New Jersey and one-time presidential candidate. That law should be repealed.
Fifteen years ago, a family court judge threw Scott in jail because he hadn't made his child support payments on time, and that meant he lost his $35,000-a-year job at a film company, "the best job (he) ever had." He then found some odd jobs but couldn't make enough money to make the support payments the government demanded.
The whole idea that a poor man is expected to support two households, including one with a child he never sees that may not even be his, is contrary to common sense and to all human experience. In too many cases, DNA investigations revealed that the poor guy is not the father of the kid for whom he is ordered to pay child support.
Scott seemed to turn a corner, but after making a couple of payments, he fell behind again and was sent back to jail. He said, "This whole time in jail, my child support is still going up."
Walter Scott's older brother, Anthony Scott, told the Charleston Post and Courier, "Everybody knows why he ran away." A bench warrant had been issued for his arrest for failure to pay enough child support.
A survey of county jails in South Carolina found that at least 1 out of every 8 incarcerated people is there for not paying so-called child support. All this imprisonment is imposed without any jury trial, due process or the benefit of a lawyer to defend the guy.
According to CUNY Law School Professor Ann Cammett, an expert on incarcerated parents who owe child support, "We have zero evidence that it works. If the goal of the child support system is to get support for children, parents can't do that if they're incarcerated."
One case on this issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, but it didn't produce much relief. Michael Turner of South Carolina argued that his constitutional rights had been violated because he didn't have a lawyer at his hearing, even though jail was the penalty if he lost. The Court ordered some minimal "procedural safeguards," but didn't tackle the issue of giving a father the fundamental right of due process before sending him to jail.
We hope Walter Scott's death may help some dads in the future who are unfairly treated by the family courts, not given a lawyer, denied due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
That guy has a bunch of them, he’s hilarious.
He says that Obama is a homo on the low down and Michele just married him for the $$$ and high life.
Are you serious? Sometimes, I think I am in alternate universe. I thought this was a conservative website.
He needs to pay for play, otherwise baby mommy gets welfare, and all us of us taxpayers have to pay for his fun. I don't think he should go to jail, but he should work and have his wages garnished, and it should be a nation wide registry so that baby daddy can never get away from his obligations. I pay enough in taxes, there should be financial responsibility by these deadbeat dads.
If he does not want to be stuck paying child support, then wear a condom!
Yep, and that decision doesn’t help this officer, because he won’t be able to show that this suspect met that pretty strict standard.
If jail is a possible punishment, then it’s a criminal prosecution, no matter what the courts try to label it to get around the constitution.
“Sure, I understand we call them “civil”, but we are sending people to jail over these offenses, so they are criminal offenses, no matter what we call them.”
The constitution specifies criminal offenses. If the writers of the constitution had wanted to include civil offenses they would have.
I suspect if the cop had been tased they would have broadcasted that to the world as a defense the day the video went public. In addition to posting pics of his dart wounds.
I haven't seen anything like that yet.
“He says that Obama is a homo on the low down and Michele just married him for the $$$ and high life.”
Well, so far, so good : )
“Zimmerman’s case was different because he fired his weapon when he was in imminent danger. This officer waited until after the danger was over, then calmly took aim and shot a man in the back who was no longer a threat. That’s certainly a situation where a good case for a homicide charge can be made.”
Only in the case of Zimmerman, the scenario was that Z gunned down the victim in cold blood. Of course it was all made up but Z had to prove otherwise.
“She is arguing that these stupid child support laws, with automatic jail time, is what started this bad cycle, and suggests repealing them.”
What started this whole thing is WS fathering four kids he was unwilling to support.
My grand daughter’s child support was just reduced by the court. All it took was a motion to modify and a plausible reason presented to the judge.
I am also aware of cases where less that the minimum required by state law was assigned. A smart person gets a lawyer- many around here will allow you to make payments.
It’s an adversarial system, so you have to advocate on your behalf if you hope to get a better deal.
The jail/prion systems is costing tax payers hundreds of billions per year. And now throw in everything that goes along with that such as medical care for the caged, and on and on and on...
Tax payers get economically gang banged regardless.
Maybe this will illustrate my point better, from Black’s Law Dictionary:
“In contradistinction to criminal, it indicates the private rights and remedies of men, as members of the community, in contrast to those which are public and relate to the government ; thus, we speak of civil process and criminal process, civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction.”
Law Dictionary: What is CIVIL? definition of CIVIL (Black’s Law Dictionary) http://thelawdictionary.org/civil/
Imprisonment is not a “private remedy” available to members of the public. It is a distinctly public remedy that can only be imposed by the government. Therefore, any prosecution that carries a possible term of imprisonment is by definition a criminal prosecution.
Child support is nothing more than privatized welfare, and its build on lies, the main one that its ‘for the child’
That is a complete lie.
Legally its just a payoff to the woman (’the whore’)
She can legally support another man on it if she wants to, the kid is entitled to nothing.
Scott was executed for giving the tramp sex.
The cop needs life in prison.
Remembering “Photoshop” I saw a purported picture of the cop in question with Taser lines running to his chest. Once again if true would being “Tased” effect his mental State?
“If jail is a possible punishment, then it’s a criminal prosecution, no matter what the courts try to label it to get around the constitution.”
Get around the constitution???? The constitution is VERY specific. Criminal and civil law go back to 1066. Read your history. If the authors of the constitution had wanted to include civil offenses they would have.
Could I see that pic?
I agree, but these are criminal offenses. It doesn’t matter if we suddenly decide to call them “civil”, they meet the definition of criminal prosecutions. You can call a giraffe an antelope, but that does not make it so.
Yes, they are clearly skirting the Constitution by pretending that these are civil cases, when they are clearly criminal.
“Maybe this will illustrate my point better, from Black’s Law Dictionary:”
I give you this example. Tell the traffic judge to ‘Fxxx Off’ and see if you get a jury trial.
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.