In Jail For Being In Debt
July 9, 2010 9:24 AM Subscribe
Minnesota, like some other states, throws debtors in jail when they miss court dates to answer to the debt.
"It's just one more blow for people who are already struggling," said Beverly Yang, a Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation staff attorney who has represented three Illinois debtors arrested in the past two months. "They don't like being in court. They don't have cars. And if they had money to pay these collectors, they would."
"It's just one more blow for people who are already struggling," said Beverly Yang, a Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation staff attorney who has represented three Illinois debtors arrested in the past two months. "They don't like being in court. They don't have cars. And if they had money to pay these collectors, they would."
This post was deleted for the following reason: posted previously -- jessamyn
Aww, BP beat me to it.
posted by domo at 9:28 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by domo at 9:28 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm confused. Are they being arrested because they owe money? Or are they being arrested because they didn't meet an obligation to be in court? Seems to me, regardless of WHY they are appearing in court, it isn't something out of the ordinary for bench warrants to be issues if you don't show up when you're supposed to. What is outrageous about that, and why is this article framing this all as "you're in jail because you owe money" when it doesn't seem to be true?
posted by hippybear at 9:28 AM on July 9, 2010
posted by hippybear at 9:28 AM on July 9, 2010
This is what happened to Bartleby at the end.
Whoops, spoiler warning.
posted by Eideteker at 9:31 AM on July 9, 2010
Whoops, spoiler warning.
posted by Eideteker at 9:31 AM on July 9, 2010
"They don't like being in court.
"
This is an excuse for breaking a law now? Awesome!
posted by spicynuts at 9:35 AM on July 9, 2010
"
This is an excuse for breaking a law now? Awesome!
posted by spicynuts at 9:35 AM on July 9, 2010
We throw men who owe child support in jail. It's not a real large logical leap to use it for other monetary obligations.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:36 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
Please note: while "print-friendly" versions are nice to link, because they're prettier and don't have ads, this link automatically brings up the print dialogue, and it'd probably be a good idea to warn people first.
posted by koeselitz at 9:40 AM on July 9, 2010
posted by koeselitz at 9:40 AM on July 9, 2010
Eideteker: “Whoops, spoiler warning.”
Geez, thanks, Eideteker. I really wanted to read that story, but now that you've given away the ending, I would prefer not to.
posted by koeselitz at 9:42 AM on July 9, 2010 [3 favorites]
Geez, thanks, Eideteker. I really wanted to read that story, but now that you've given away the ending, I would prefer not to.
posted by koeselitz at 9:42 AM on July 9, 2010 [3 favorites]
We throw men who owe child support in jail. It's not a real large logical leap to use it for other monetary obligations.
Is the difference is that, in this case, the courts are becoming an organ of for-profit businesses?
posted by quakerjono at 9:51 AM on July 9, 2010
Is the difference is that, in this case, the courts are becoming an organ of for-profit businesses?
posted by quakerjono at 9:51 AM on July 9, 2010
The sorts of people who skip court appearances are not generally the sorts of people who are highly skilled at critical thinking or planning.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:53 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:53 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
In Minnesota, judges have issued arrest warrants for people who owe as little as $85 -- less than half the cost of housing an inmate overnight.
This implied argument is fallacious. We sentence people to punishments that cost more than it would to fix the results of the immediate crime all the time (think of the court and punishment costs of minor vandalism cases for instance), because we're also accounting for the social costs of people not paying their debts and detering other people from not paying their debts.
posted by Jahaza at 9:55 AM on July 9, 2010
This implied argument is fallacious. We sentence people to punishments that cost more than it would to fix the results of the immediate crime all the time (think of the court and punishment costs of minor vandalism cases for instance), because we're also accounting for the social costs of people not paying their debts and detering other people from not paying their debts.
posted by Jahaza at 9:55 AM on July 9, 2010
Is the difference is that, in this case, the courts are becoming an organ of for-profit businesses?
Courts enforce civil judments all the time. If I run into a commerical building with my car and they sue me and win a judgment and the court enforces it (say by garnishing my wages) it's not turning the courts into an organ of business, it's enforcing the tort law. Similarly, we've empowered the court to enforce contract laws (making people pay their debts) because there's a social cost if people can't be held to the terms of their contracts. Neither makes the courts an organ of business.
posted by Jahaza at 9:57 AM on July 9, 2010
Courts enforce civil judments all the time. If I run into a commerical building with my car and they sue me and win a judgment and the court enforces it (say by garnishing my wages) it's not turning the courts into an organ of business, it's enforcing the tort law. Similarly, we've empowered the court to enforce contract laws (making people pay their debts) because there's a social cost if people can't be held to the terms of their contracts. Neither makes the courts an organ of business.
posted by Jahaza at 9:57 AM on July 9, 2010
Is the difference is that, in this case, the courts are becoming an organ of for-profit businesses?
They are not throwing people in jail for being in debt, they are throwing them in jail for missing court dates. That has nothing to do with profit.
posted by spicynuts at 9:57 AM on July 9, 2010
we're also accounting for the social costs of people not paying their debts and detering other people from not paying their debts
How about the social costs of businesses not properly accounting for credit worthiness before extending credit in the first place?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:58 AM on July 9, 2010
How about the social costs of businesses not properly accounting for credit worthiness before extending credit in the first place?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:58 AM on July 9, 2010
Yes, Minnesota judges have in-fact thrown people who could not pay anything in jail until they could pay some token, which very closely mimics debtor prison.
We have wage garnishment to cover precisely these situations. So no one should ever be thrown in jain for debt non-payment.
If your debtor has no wages to garnish, well you've just proven that society will benefit from you not having the money to lend.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:58 AM on July 9, 2010
We have wage garnishment to cover precisely these situations. So no one should ever be thrown in jain for debt non-payment.
If your debtor has no wages to garnish, well you've just proven that society will benefit from you not having the money to lend.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:58 AM on July 9, 2010
« Older I don't even drive! | Women and Suicide by Self-Immolation in... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:27 AM on July 9, 2010 [2 favorites]