Deadbeats Are People, Too

[Flanders]

When I was teenager I thought debtor’s prison did not exist in America. I probably got that mistaken idea from reading Charles Dickens. I’m pretty sure I knew nothing about the Equal Protection Clause:

. . . even though imprisoning someone for a debt that person can not pay is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, a 1983 United States Supreme Court decision (declaring this practice to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution),. . .

I was so mistaken about debtor’s prison, I thought nobody could go to jail even if they could afford to pay the debt. In my naiveté I thought that was fair because it made the lender responsible for making a bad loan.

NOTE: The XVI Amendment would have made debtor’s prisons inevitable if they did not exist before 1913. What’s the good of a tax on income if no one pays it. Confiscating property and garnisheeing wages was not enough to satisfy the tax collector; prison was an added incentive for the shy. Interestingly, judges and lawmakers have no fear of debtor’s prison because they get everything for nothing. It’s no wonder debtors are being locked up by loan sharks and landlords.

Eventually, I grew up and learned the truth when I saw men put in prison for failing to pay alimony or child support among other things. I still think that is wrong. I don’t see why a guy should go to prison because some ladies show poor judgement in the first place.

And let’s not forget the welfare state. Wronged wives and mothers do not suffer the same fate their sisters suffered in Victorian England. Not only does the state end up caring for destitute ex-wives and mothers, the state ends up feeding the deadbeats, too. Mr. Dickens made villains of moneylenders, etc., and debtor’s prisons by extension. I don’t think he had deadbeat dads and delinquent husbands in mind.

This next aspect of debtor’s prison is so bad it triggered the ACLU’s interest:

It is legal in Ohio to jail someone for refusing to pay a court fine. But first, a judge must determine the defendant has the means to pay, but refuses to do so.

The ACLU of Ohio says it found “no evidence that any of these people were given hearings to determine whether or not they were financially able to pay their fines, as required by the law.”

XXXXX​

∙ Holding defendants in contempt for failure to pay fines and costs without due process, notice, or counsel;

∙ Ordering defendants to “pay or appear,” and issuing arrest warrants for those who fail to comply;

∙ Or, jailing defendants who are too poor to pay their court costs or restitution.


Debtors' prisons alive and well in U.S.!
Shock study finds those who can't pay small fines locked up
Published: 10 hours ago
GARTH KANT

Debtors? prisons alive and well in U.S.!

To me, a person should only go to jail after being convicted of a crime after getting a trial. When a judge can fine you and send you to jail violates the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. There again, confiscating property and garnisheeing wage is available for collecting fines. Prison should be removed from the process.

One final observation. Limousine Liberals and the touchy-feely crowd oppose locking up the worst criminals —— then they fight to have them released after they are in jail, yet I have never seen an outcry against debtor’s prison. That’s why I am surprised the ACLU is taking a hand.

 

[whitehall]

People who aren't deadbeats are sometimes hit with staggering fines that they can't pay. Next thing you know the Hussein administration will order banks to lend money to deadbeats. Oh? It's already going on?

 

[Flanders]

Next thing you know the Hussein administration will order banks to lend money to deadbeats. Oh? It's already going on?

To whitehall: Good point. I forgot about government-sponsored deadbeats. They can’t lock them up because taxpayers cover the bad debt.

 

[LAfrique]

When I was teenager I thought debtor’s prison did not exist in America. I probably got that mistaken idea from reading Charles Dickens. I’m pretty sure I knew nothing about the Equal Protection Clause:

. . . even though imprisoning someone for a debt that person cannot pay is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, a 1983 United States Supreme Court decision (declaring this practice to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution),. . .

I was so mistaken about debtor’s prison, I thought nobody could go to jail even if they could afford to pay the debt. In my naiveté I thought that was fair because it made the lender responsible for making a bad loan.

NOTE: The XVI Amendment would have made debtor’s prisons inevitable if they did not exist before 1913. What’s the good of a tax on income if no one pays it. Confiscating property and garnisheeing wages was not enough to satisfy the tax collector; prison was an added incentive for the shy. Interestingly, judges and lawmakers have no fear of debtor’s prison because they get everything for nothing. It’s no wonder debtors are being locked up by loan sharks and landlords.

Eventually, I grew up and learned the truth when I saw men put in prison for failing to pay alimony or child support among other things. I still think that is wrong. I don’t see why a guy should go to prison because some ladies show poor judgement in the first place.

And let’s not forget the welfare state. Wronged wives and mothers do not suffer the same fate their sisters suffered in Victorian England. Not only does the state end up caring for destitute ex-wives and mothers, the state ends up feeding the deadbeats, too. Mr. Dickens made villains of moneylenders, etc., and debtor’s prisons by extension. I don’t think he had deadbeat dads and delinquent husbands in mind.

This next aspect of debtor’s prison is so bad it triggered the ACLU’s interest:

It is legal in Ohio to jail someone for refusing to pay a court fine. But first, a judge must determine the defendant has the means to pay, but refuses to do so.

The ACLU of Ohio says it found “no evidence that any of these people were given hearings to determine whether or not they were financially able to pay their fines, as required by the law.”

XXXXX​

∙ Holding defendants in contempt for failure to pay fines and costs without due process, notice, or counsel;

∙ Ordering defendants to “pay or appear,” and issuing arrest warrants for those who fail to comply;

∙ Or, jailing defendants who are too poor to pay their court costs or restitution.


Debtors' prisons alive and well in U.S.!
Shock study finds those who can't pay small fines locked up
Published: 10 hours ago
GARTH KANT

Debtors? prisons alive and well in U.S.!

To me, a person should only go to jail after being convicted of a crime after getting a trial. When a judge can fine you and send you to jail violates the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. There again, confiscating property and garnisheeing wage is available for collecting fines. Prison should be removed from the process.

One final observation. Limousine Liberals and the touchy-feely crowd oppose locking up the worst criminals —— then they fight to have them released after they are in jail, yet I have never seen an outcry against debtor’s prison. That’s why I am surprised the ACLU is taking a hand.

It is outright insanity to imprison people for failure to make payment. Why not simply give the person (if unemployed) some government manual labor employment so that income earned can easily be directed towards payment of owed money; or employed, order an income garnishment? Why burden taxpayers with another mouth to feed in prison?

 

[freedombecki]

When I was teenager I thought debtor’s prison did not exist in America. I probably got that mistaken idea from reading Charles Dickens. I’m pretty sure I knew nothing about the Equal Protection Clause:

. . . even though imprisoning someone for a debt that person cannot pay is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, a 1983 United States Supreme Court decision (declaring this practice to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution),. . .

I was so mistaken about debtor’s prison, I thought nobody could go to jail even if they could afford to pay the debt. In my naiveté I thought that was fair because it made the lender responsible for making a bad loan.

NOTE: The XVI Amendment would have made debtor’s prisons inevitable if they did not exist before 1913. What’s the good of a tax on income if no one pays it. Confiscating property and garnisheeing wages was not enough to satisfy the tax collector; prison was an added incentive for the shy. Interestingly, judges and lawmakers have no fear of debtor’s prison because they get everything for nothing. It’s no wonder debtors are being locked up by loan sharks and landlords.

Eventually, I grew up and learned the truth when I saw men put in prison for failing to pay alimony or child support among other things. I still think that is wrong. I don’t see why a guy should go to prison because some ladies show poor judgement in the first place.

And let’s not forget the welfare state. Wronged wives and mothers do not suffer the same fate their sisters suffered in Victorian England. Not only does the state end up caring for destitute ex-wives and mothers, the state ends up feeding the deadbeats, too. Mr. Dickens made villains of moneylenders, etc., and debtor’s prisons by extension. I don’t think he had deadbeat dads and delinquent husbands in mind.

This next aspect of debtor’s prison is so bad it triggered the ACLU’s interest:

It is legal in Ohio to jail someone for refusing to pay a court fine. But first, a judge must determine the defendant has the means to pay, but refuses to do so.

The ACLU of Ohio says it found “no evidence that any of these people were given hearings to determine whether or not they were financially able to pay their fines, as required by the law.”

XXXXX​

∙ Holding defendants in contempt for failure to pay fines and costs without due process, notice, or counsel;

∙ Ordering defendants to “pay or appear,” and issuing arrest warrants for those who fail to comply;

∙ Or, jailing defendants who are too poor to pay their court costs or restitution.


Debtors' prisons alive and well in U.S.!
Shock study finds those who can't pay small fines locked up
Published: 10 hours ago
GARTH KANT

Debtors? prisons alive and well in U.S.!

To me, a person should only go to jail after being convicted of a crime after getting a trial. When a judge can fine you and send you to jail violates the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. There again, confiscating property and garnisheeing wage is available for collecting fines. Prison should be removed from the process.

One final observation. Limousine Liberals and the touchy-feely crowd oppose locking up the worst criminals —— then they fight to have them released after they are in jail, yet I have never seen an outcry against debtor’s prison. That’s why I am surprised the ACLU is taking a hand.

It is outright insanity to imprison people for failure to make payment. Why not simply give the person (if unemployed) some government manual labor employment so that income earned can easily be directed towards payment of owed money; or employed, order an income garnishment? Why burden taxpayers with another mouth to feed in prison?

Because a jury of their peers makes them.

 

[Flanders]

Because a jury of their peers makes them.

To freedombecki: Can you show me one example of an individual being charged with owing money, then going to debtor’s prison after a jury trial. Can you show me one example of a debtor getting a trial based solely on owing money regardless of the outcome.

 

[freedombecki]

Because a jury of their peers makes them.

To freedombecki: Can you show me one example of an individual being charged with owing money, then going to debtor’s prison after a jury trial. Can you show me one example of a debtor getting a trial based solely on owing money regardless of the outcome.

I was referring to your statement "Why burden taxpayers with another mouth to feed in prison?"

With, "Because a jury of their peers makes them."

In spite of your claims, I have no knowledge of a debtor's prison. Juries sentence people to prison and burden taxpayers with so many mouths to feed it's ubiquitous.

I separated your question out from your point which I missed. I'm sorry.

Please carry on.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

off topic comment*** Freedom Becki's signature at bottom is an important message. Too many people being killed on the road because of cell phones. Wait until you pull over! What is 5 minutes in the scope of eternity? THINK ABOUT IT!

 

[KissMy]

Next thing you know the Hussein administration will order banks to lend money to deadbeats. Oh? It's already going on?

To whitehall: Good point. I forgot about government-sponsored deadbeats. They can’t lock them up because taxpayers cover the bad debt.

We are subsidizing the 18 largest banks to the tune of $83 Billion a year. Yet none of the bankers have been jailed.

 

[Flanders]

I was referring to your statement "Why burden taxpayers with another mouth to feed in prison?"

With, "Because a jury of their peers makes them."

In spite of your claims, I have no knowledge of a debtor's prison. Juries sentence people to prison and burden taxpayers with so many mouths to feed it's ubiquitous.

I separated your question out from your point which I missed. I'm sorry.

Please carry on.

To freedombecki: It all boils down to one thing: Owing money is not a criminal offense. So only judges can lock you up when you’ve committed no crime.

We are subsidizing the 18 largest banks to the tune of $83 Billion a year. Yet none of the bankers have been jailed.

To KissMy: Now that’s criminal law.

 

[freedombecki]

I was referring to your statement "Why burden taxpayers with another mouth to feed in prison?"

With, "Because a jury of their peers makes them."

In spite of your claims, I have no knowledge of a debtor's prison. Juries sentence people to prison and burden taxpayers with so many mouths to feed it's ubiquitous.

I separated your question out from your point which I missed. I'm sorry.

Please carry on.

To freedombecki: It all boils down to one thing: Owing money is not a criminal offense. So only judges can lock you up when you’ve committed no crime.

Buying a product from a merchant with a stolen identity is a crime.

If you buy a product from someone and tell them you will pay for it with the intention of not making any payment whatsoever can be considered theft in some circumstances. And theft is not hard to prove when the same person does it to everyone he does business with in a town, then skips after a couple of weeks, goes someplace else, and repeats the stealing using somebody else's identity.

Another route criminals will take is to make a token payment on a big-ticket item, and three months later, is telling the local criminal court how he paid cash with the balance but doesn't have a receipt because the seller didn't give him one.

A ring of criminals doing the same thing, hitting several merchants in a small town with the same claim can close a business's doors.

So making a career of indebtedness that never gets repaid can inflict irreparable harm in the business districts of just about anywhere, USA. It may mean nothing to you until your best friend in the world is forced to leave town and find employment in another state because a ring of criminals elected to cheat him out of several large-ticket items he has no way of reimbursing the supplier for if he borrowed money to show big-ticket merchandise and have stock on hand to sell.

The question is, does the Constitution allow people to make a career of destroying businesses through credit default on a habitual basis.

I'm not sure that was the intention of the founders.

 

[Flanders]

I was referring to your statement "Why burden taxpayers with another mouth to feed in prison?"

With, "Because a jury of their peers makes them."

In spite of your claims, I have no knowledge of a debtor's prison. Juries sentence people to prison and burden taxpayers with so many mouths to feed it's ubiquitous.

I separated your question out from your point which I missed. I'm sorry.

Please carry on.

To freedombecki: It all boils down to one thing: Owing money is not a criminal offense. So only judges can lock you up when you’ve committed no crime.

Buying a product from a merchant with a stolen identity is a crime.

If you buy a product from someone and tell them you will pay for it with the intention of not making any payment whatsoever can be considered theft in some circumstances. And theft is not hard to prove when the same person does it to everyone he does business with in a town, then skips after a couple of weeks, goes someplace else, and repeats the stealing using somebody else's identity.

Another route criminals will take is to make a token payment on a big-ticket item, and three months later, is telling the local criminal court how he paid cash with the balance but doesn't have a receipt because the seller didn't give him one.

A ring of criminals doing the same thing, hitting several merchants in a small town with the same claim can close a business's doors.

So making a career of indebtedness that never gets repaid can inflict irreparable harm in the business districts of just about anywhere, USA. It may mean nothing to you until your best friend in the world is forced to leave town and find employment in another state because a ring of criminals elected to cheat him out of several large-ticket items he has no way of reimbursing the supplier for if he borrowed money to show big-ticket merchandise and have stock on hand to sell.

The question is, does the Constitution allow people to make a career of destroying businesses through credit default on a habitual basis.

I'm not sure that was the intention of the founders.

To freedombecki: You’re ridiculous.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=player_detailpage]Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

This could be wrong, but my first memory of the modern debtor's prison was imprisoning men for nonpayment of child support while crazy-irresponsible breeders can collect money from government without much scrutiny of their habits. Judges here routinely award custody to mothers who spend the money on everything but a roof or food for the kids.

One mother had her child in a car using drugs and the judge ruled that was not a change of circumstance and the father couldn't petition for custody. But if the father misses a payment, he's going to jail.

My brother was arrested for not paying child support. His ex-wife paid him a lot more than child support was ever going to amount to for that crime, and for good measure she is now a convicted felon for filing false charges, but it doesn't erase the memory of being handcuffed and hauled off to jail.

Debtors prisons are all too real in America today.

 

[freedombecki]

To freedombecki: It all boils down to one thing: Owing money is not a criminal offense. So only judges can lock you up when you’ve committed no crime.

Buying a product from a merchant with a stolen identity is a crime.

If you buy a product from someone and tell them you will pay for it with the intention of not making any payment whatsoever can be considered theft in some circumstances. And theft is not hard to prove when the same person does it to everyone he does business with in a town, then skips after a couple of weeks, goes someplace else, and repeats the stealing using somebody else's identity.

Another route criminals will take is to make a token payment on a big-ticket item, and three months later, is telling the local criminal court how he paid cash with the balance but doesn't have a receipt because the seller didn't give him one.

A ring of criminals doing the same thing, hitting several merchants in a small town with the same claim can close a business's doors.

So making a career of indebtedness that never gets repaid can inflict irreparable harm in the business districts of just about anywhere, USA. It may mean nothing to you until your best friend in the world is forced to leave town and find employment in another state because a ring of criminals elected to cheat him out of several large-ticket items he has no way of reimbursing the supplier for if he borrowed money to show big-ticket merchandise and have stock on hand to sell.

The question is, does the Constitution allow people to make a career of destroying businesses through credit default on a habitual basis.

I'm not sure that was the intention of the founders.

To freedombecki: You’re ridiculous.

<youtube available above>

No, I'm experienced in small-town business where big-city sheisters come to fleece unsuspecting people and rely on people like you to ensure they have freedom from the written promises they agree to keep.

 

[freedombecki]

This could be wrong, but my first memory of the modern debtor's prison was imprisoning men for nonpayment of child support while crazy-irresponsible breeders can collect money from government without much scrutiny of their habits. Judges here routinely award custody to mothers who spend the money on everything but a roof or food for the kids.

One mother had her child in a car using drugs and the judge ruled that was not a change of circumstance and the father couldn't petition for custody. But if the father misses a payment, he's going to jail.

My brother was arrested for not paying child support. His ex-wife paid him a lot more than child support was ever going to amount to for that crime, and for good measure she is now a convicted felon for filing false charges, but it doesn't erase the memory of being handcuffed and hauled off to jail.

Debtors prisons are all too real in America today.

I'm sad for their children around whose support their sorry story revolves.

 

[George Costanza]

Debtor's prison does NOT "exist in America today." No one can be put in prison because of an inability to pay a debt. Now, if the person owes certain types of debts (court fines, court-ordered payments such as child or spousal support, etc.), otherwise has the ability to pay and does not, THEN yes, they can be jailed. Note the one, necessary factor: OTHERWISE HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY.

Jailing someone who cannot pay because of an inability to pay, violates Due Process of Law.