Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/28/local-courts-reviving-debtors-prison-for-overdue-fines-fees/

Seriously, folks, this country has really started getting whacky and scarey recently, and this is coming from a guy who lived through the 60's.

It's not really that new. I had a room mate hauled off for parking tickets back in the 80's, but there is no logic in the practice.

It's absolutely nuts, I've read more and more about those.

Also I would imagine most libertarians should like the ACLU quite a bit, if you get over the hype and actually dig in.

Isn't the prison system already barely coping with the number inmates that throwing in a couple more thousand over this seems a tad non feasible. I mean the whole thing stinks of red tape, but still, people aught to think of the out stretching practical issues inherent to this kind of thing.

Our justice system is so broken. Warehousing people for decades doesn't work, and is contrary to the principles of this country.

From what I'd seen in the UK before I moved over this was not unheard of before. But only after multiple failures by the guilty party to pay the fines, multiple extensions granted by the courts, amendments to the pay schedule in the guilty party's favour, and often more fines for other offences. In short - it was usually serial and prolific offenders.

From a practical stand point though what can the courts do if someone refuses to pay a fine after being convicted of an offense? Does it keep adding more fines to the total knowing those are also unlikely to get paid? Does it waive the fines so the guilty essentially escape punishment?

This is worth a look.

“From a fair reading of the defendants’ testimony, one might ascertain that a more apt description of the Harpersville Municipal Court practices is that of a judicially sanctioned extortion racket,” he added. “Most distressing is that these abuses have been perpetrated by what is supposed to be a court of law. Disgraceful.”

This is a better write-up, but I wanted use the above quote.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

From a practical stand point though what can the courts do if someone refuses to pay a fine after being convicted of an offense? Does it keep adding more fines to the total knowing those are also unlikely to get paid? Does it waive the fines so the guilty essentially escape punishment?

Garnishment. Though that also has a number of associated issues, given that it affects your credit.

Though, personally, I would prefer that all those who are assessed fines or fees have the opportunity to "pay" them by way of community service.

Can you can sue for being thrown in jail over the fees, which can then be used to pay off the fees? if so, that is some twisted Brazil-esque gak.

 dogma wrote:


Though, personally, I would prefer that all those who are assessed fines or fees have the opportunity to "pay" them by way of community service.

We can't have that, Dogma. There's too much common sense in that solution.

I admit, I don't like this. It's pretty oppressive.

And the community service seems like a great alternative option. A good solution to cover people who really can't pay.

So...my question is: does it become okay to throw them in jail if they refuse to do community service? At what point do you separate someone who is legitimately struggling to work within the confines of the system from someone whose thumbing their nose at an administration they believe is impotent in the situation? Is there some point at which a stiffer penalty becomes warranted?

On a related note: what about personal debts? At least in this state, if you don't pay a legally mandated personal debt, there is very little that can be done to you. You can always go back to small claims court to sue for a large amount, and court costs, but if there's no legal repercussions for just IGNORING a court order to repay a debt, what is the wronged party to do in order to seek redress?

I'm not saying I agree with debtor's prison; far from it. But it seems like although it's a lazy solution, the problems it's being applied to are REAL problems that aren't being solved in other ways. Or am I off base?

I'd let the rich buy off their debts and work them as indentured servants until they pay them off. No downside.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I admit, I don't like this. It's pretty oppressive.

And the community service seems like a great alternative option. A good solution to cover people who really can't pay.

So...my question is: does it become okay to throw them in jail if they refuse to do community service? At what point do you separate someone who is legitimately struggling to work within the confines of the system from someone whose thumbing their nose at an administration they believe is impotent in the situation? Is there some point at which a stiffer penalty becomes warranted?

On a related note: what about personal debts? At least in this state, if you don't pay a legally mandated personal debt, there is very little that can be done to you. You can always go back to small claims court to sue for a large amount, and court costs, but if there's no legal repercussions for just IGNORING a court order to repay a debt, what is the wronged party to do in order to seek redress?

I'm not saying I agree with debtor's prison; far from it. But it seems like although it's a lazy solution, the problems it's being applied to are REAL problems that aren't being solved in other ways. Or am I off base?

Garnishment, as Dogma said, is a good second route. If someone is thumbing their nose at legal responsibilities, who cares about thier credit rating?

Possibly, although I've been told by counsel that they don't garnish wages for personal debts in this state. It's another good option for the government debts, but Joe Citizen still seems high and dry. (Although it might just be Joe Illinoisan for all I know. Not like it would be the first time. )

 Jimsolo wrote:
Possibly, although I've been told by counsel that they don't garnish wages for personal debts in this state. It's another good option for the government debts, but Joe Citizen still seems high and dry. (Although it might just be Joe Illinoisan for all I know. Not like it would be the first time. )

Can you slap liens on someone for personal debt in your state?

Its ThinkProgress, so grains of salt are needed

Last week, a Georgia county judge ruled that Sentinel Offender Service had illegally extended the sentence of Mantooth and potentially thousands of others who were required to pay the firm monthly probation fees, and was illegally ordering electronic monitoring for misdemeanor offenders — prohibited by state law — while charging probationers for their own monitoring.

Private prisons, ladies and gentlemen. Gotta keep those dollars rolling in somehow.

Relapse wrote:

 dogma wrote:


Though, personally, I would prefer that all those who are assessed fines or fees have the opportunity to "pay" them by way of community service.

We can't have that, Dogma. There's too much common sense in that solution.

Indeed. And clean streets!?!? Pah! We will have none of that

The issue over community service is that not every crime that you can be fined for also allows the judge to pass a community service order. For a judge to pass a sentence that falls outside the scope of the statute would be ultra vires.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The issue over community service is that not every crime that you can be fined for also allows the judge to pass a community service order. For a judge to pass a sentence that falls outside the scope of the statute would be ultra vires.

Time to look at changing the law, then.

And what do you suggest is done until then? Will the law be changed at a State, or Federal, level?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And what do you suggest is done until then? Will the law be changed at a State, or Federal, level?

Whatever it takes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And what do you suggest is done until then? Will the law be changed at a State, or Federal, level?

State... most debtor laws are at the State level.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Can you can sue for being thrown in jail over the fees, which can then be used to pay off the fees? if so, that is some twisted Brazil-esque gak.

If you had actionable grounds, but it is highly unlikely.

 whembly wrote:
State... most debtor laws are at the State level.

Thank you for the clarification

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And what do you suggest is done until then? Will the law be changed at a State, or Federal, level?

Whatever it takes.

You still haven't answered what should be done until the law is amended (presuming it is). Should the amended law also be applied retroactively?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Can you can sue for being thrown in jail over the fees, which can then be used to pay off the fees? if so, that is some twisted Brazil-esque gak.

If you had actionable grounds, but it is highly unlikely.

 whembly wrote:
State... most debtor laws are at the State level.

Thank you for the clarification

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And what do you suggest is done until then? Will the law be changed at a State, or Federal, level?

Whatever it takes.

You still haven't answered what should be done until the law is amended (presuming it is). Should the amended law also be applied retroactively?

Not being a lawyer, I really can't give you an off the cuff answer on that one except that I like the idea of retroactive application if it gets people jailed for debt out.

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Can you can sue for being thrown in jail over the fees, which can then be used to pay off the fees? if so, that is some twisted Brazil-esque gak.

If you had actionable grounds, but it is highly unlikely.

 whembly wrote:
State... most debtor laws are at the State level.

Thank you for the clarification

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And what do you suggest is done until then? Will the law be changed at a State, or Federal, level?

Whatever it takes.

You still haven't answered what should be done until the law is amended (presuming it is). Should the amended law also be applied retroactively?

Not being a lawyer, I really can't give you an off the cuff answer on that one except that I like the idea of retroactive application if it gets people jailed for debt out.

...
O.o

Isn't that why we have bankruptcy laws?

Relapse wrote:
Not being a lawyer, I really can't give you an off the cuff answer on that one except that I like the idea of retroactive application if it gets people jailed for debt out.

But it isn't debt, it is unpaid fines. No one is getting put in jail for missing a credit card payment. People are getting jailed because they committed a criminal act, were found guilty, were fined, did not pay the fines, and from here likely given more time to pay the fines, had the payment schedule and amounts adjusted, continued to miss payments, had further adjustments made, and were eventually sent to jail. It is a very lengthy process to go from being fined, to going to jail because of unpaid fines. And the courts do not typically jail people for unpaid fines on a whim, and it is only used as a last resort when it is obvious that the fine will not be paid.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Possibly, although I've been told by counsel that they don't garnish wages for personal debts in this state. It's another good option for the government debts, but Joe Citizen still seems high and dry. (Although it might just be Joe Illinoisan for all I know. Not like it would be the first time. )

They do, but only after a court judgment (there are exceptions to that rule), and only up to 15% of income.

 Jimsolo wrote:

So...my question is: does it become okay to throw them in jail if they refuse to do community service? At what point do you separate someone who is legitimately struggling to work within the confines of the system from someone whose thumbing their nose at an administration they believe is impotent in the situation? Is there some point at which a stiffer penalty becomes warranted?

I can see jailing someone who refuses to pay, by whatever means, if that eliminates their debt.

 Ouze wrote:
Also I would imagine most libertarians should like the ACLU quite a bit, if you get over the hype and actually dig in.

I think most libertarians like much of what the ACLU accomplishes, but intensely dislike its selective support for some constitutional rights but not others.

What that has to do with fines, I don't know.

The US has some serious problems with the prison system. We have more prisoners than any other country in the world. We have more prisoners now than Soviet Russia did at its highest point, and more prisoners than China, who has a bigger population than the US by about a billion.

When viewed in that light, I don't see how throwing even more people in jail for unpaid fines and traffic tickets is anything other than completely ridiculous. There has got to be a better way to deal with this.

 Ouze wrote:
It's absolutely nuts, I've read more and more about those.

Also I would imagine most libertarians should like the ACLU quite a bit, if you get over the hype and actually dig in.

Much of the problem with the ACLU is their marketing. Their email blasts are all major lefties and they sound off about the oddest things.
If the ACLU backed off some of their stuff on Christianity and supported the Second Amendment more it would be better. Oh well. I still support. But dude, quit calling me!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The issue over community service is that not every crime that you can be fined for also allows the judge to pass a community service order. For a judge to pass a sentence that falls outside the scope of the statute would be ultra vires.

Agreed. I'd like more info on what the fines and fees actually are. These are not private debts, but I don't see any detail on what the government fines and fees actually are.