When I was teenager I thought debtors prison did not exist in America. I probably got that mistaken idea from reading Charles Dickens. Im pretty sure I knew nothing about the Equal Protection Clause:
I was so mistaken about debtors 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 debtors prisons inevitable if they did not exist before 1913. Whats 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 debtors prison because they get everything for nothing. Its 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 dont see why a guy should go to prison because some ladies show poor judgement in the first place.
And lets 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 debtors prisons by extension. I dont think he had deadbeat dads and delinquent husbands in mind.
This next aspect of debtors prison is so bad it triggered the ACLUs interest:
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 debtors prison. Thats why I am surprised the ACLU is taking a hand.
. . . 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 debtors 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 debtors prisons inevitable if they did not exist before 1913. Whats 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 debtors prison because they get everything for nothing. Its 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 dont see why a guy should go to prison because some ladies show poor judgement in the first place.
And lets 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 debtors prisons by extension. I dont think he had deadbeat dads and delinquent husbands in mind.
This next aspect of debtors prison is so bad it triggered the ACLUs 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 debtors prison. Thats why I am surprised the ACLU is taking a hand.