12 ms·

A debtors’ prison in Mississippi

229 points by nthitz 11y ago

kordless 11y ago
I can't read any of these Washington Post articles because I've 'read my limit of free articles'.
- bsimpson 11y ago
  Here's the John Oliver version of the same story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto (Also, incognito mode is your friend when cookies conspire against you.)
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  google it then. EDIT: To the downvoters. Try googling why googling the article will allow her to read it. Very meta.
  - chc 11y ago
    Jeremy Ashkenas actually made a Chrome extension called "Wait! Google sent me!" that did this for you. It seems to have gotten deleted, though.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  try deleting your cookies.
dx211 11y ago
"All of which means that because Anderson was too poor to pay his $170 fine, his overall debt ballooned to $580. His fine more than tripled, solely because he was too poor to pay it." This seems pretty much like the status quo. If you default on your credit card bill, and ultimately choose minimal payments until it's paid off, rather than bankruptcy, you'll end up paying several times the value of the original loan. That said, if you go to the Biloxi court house's web site, they offer people the ability to do a payment plan for tickets, but they explicitly say "Remember that release on a payment plan is a privilege afforded by the Court and a violation of the payment order will result in your immediate arrest." I think that's pretty terrible since in this post-6th-amendment society, "arrest" is frequently indistinguishable from "imprisonment". Debt, especially something so trivial, should be a civil matter.
- mikeash 11y ago
  There's a significant difference, in that you choose to take on credit card debt, but you don't choose to be fined. I don't have much of a problem with credit card debt ballooning if you screw it up, but state-mandated punishments shouldn't be that way, especially if failure to pay is because of an inability to pay rather than simply not wanting to. (To head off any "don't commit the crime, then" replies, do keep in mind that traffic enforcement is extremely arbitrary, filled with cases where following the law is substantially less safe than breaking it, and rife with profiling.)
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    Well they could take the fine directly out of their government assistance and then the fine would not balloon.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Right but she would go hungry or homeless...
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        So if you are poor enough you can speed with impunity? If you take away their license they could go hungry.
        tekromancr 11y ago
        Well, I am sure that there are many people here for whom a $170 could be seen as a reasonable expense to get to an important meeting on time. Does that entitle the wealthy to speed with impunity?
        happyscrappy 11y ago
        That is probably the reason that you lose your license after three speeding tickets in a year.
baldfat 11y ago
Social Justice is a big part of who I am. I get so mad when i read it and read this > This means that poorer counties are more reliant on fines and fees produced by municipal courts, which inevitably come from the poor residents of those areas. Those governments then put pressure on police departments to generate revenue by targeting residents for traffic offenses, jaywalking, and other misdemeanors and petty crimes... > The city got poorer. That meant less revenue from other sources. So the city sought more revenue by imposing more fines and fees on its citizens. Which of course only makes them poorer. > Private probation companies have a strong incentive to keep people on probation for as long as possible. I live in a poor city with a school district where 90% of the students qualify for free lunch. We are privatizing Public Education to also feed off the poor take the money out of the community and are rewarded if the Public School system does poorly.
rayiner 11y ago
Similar injustices in Georgia, with people jailed for traffic tickets: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/georgia-probation-misdemeanor-poor-jail http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/georgia-probatio....
everyone 11y ago
When the really big criminals (corrupt bankers and wealthy businessmen) cant pay fines they just declare bankruptsy (or their corporations do) and nothing happens to them. Afterwards they seem to be perfectly well off.
Shivetya 11y ago
It isn't just judicial fines and such that are the problem, government as a whole has turned lower income into a debtor prison. They provide some food assistance, maybe living assistance, and such, then take away the free cash and even ability to drive with fee after fee after fee. Throw in sales taxes in some cities and the burden is greater. However what this article points out is just flat out abuse and should result in government officials locked up. Just like previous stories about deals states cut with prison phone companies we have a justice system, if not most of government, which only exists to keep people poor and more controllable
rdtsc 11y ago
The poor are an easy target for governments and private entities, simply because they are easy to abuse and there are so many of them. Unlike the wealthy they simply do not have the time, money, resources, ability to unify and fight back as a single block (save some outraged protests and rioting resulting from attack or mistreatment by police, but those one can argue do more harm than good). If they don't have an extra $20/month, chances are they will not have time to sit and write a letter to a senator, or to call a lawyer or organize campaigns. As the article put it, adding these fees and doing this is really an administrative step, it's just too easy not to do it. If they, say, tried to raise taxes on top tax bracket, that would turn into a long uphill battle probably. There would be local town meetings, letter to legislative representatives, calls to country club networks of friends and so on. So as a result there are lots of payday loans places, high fees for courts, jail time (unless fee is paid on the spot), for the poor. Even once they go to prison they are turned effectively into slaves, they can't even call home because they nickle and dime there as well.
- everyone 11y ago
  You're right, is it a logical outcome. Its inevitable if you let market forces dictate everything. There is a such a strong anti-government 'libertarian' streak to US domestic policy, that is essentially anarchism though. Which quickly defaults to oligarchy / despotism. One of the primary purposes of nations and governments is (or ought to be anyway) to protect the poor and powerless from the excesses of the rich and powerful, to level the playing field somewhat and ensure some modicum of fairness. Those in the US should look to extremely well run countries like Denmark with more socialist governments and strong legislation protecting its citizens. That is how a country ought to be.
  - brianlweiner 11y ago
    It takes a bit of rhetorical agility to blame "Government officials fining the poor and imprisoning them when they fail to pay" on libertarians.
    - yequalsx 11y ago
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Just to tie this to Ferguson: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/ferguson-and-the-debtors-prison.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/fer...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- xaqfox 11y ago
  #1 is quite a sweeping generalization that could be viewed as bigotry.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      There's nothing religious in this article at all, and speaking as a Christian jailing people for being too poor to pay an arbitrary fine is nothing close to what we'd encourage in our public officials. It's just greed, good old fashioned greed. Greed from the municipalities that want more money, and greed from the taxpayers who constantly demand more services for less money out of their paychecks.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  This happens everywhere in the US
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- tomasien 11y ago
  Of course you made this about the Southern states.
rrggrr 11y ago
If your blood isn't already boiling here are other examples: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/07/the-rise-of-debtors-prisons-in-the-us/ http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/07/the-rise-of-debtors-pri...
- adekok 11y ago
  And more, for support, not fines: http://www.alternet.org/economy/debtors-prisons-are-alive-and-well-america http://www.alternet.org/economy/debtors-prisons-are-alive-an... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_cour... I can't find the reference now, but the stats from a California government investigation showed that ~90% of people (i.e. men) not paying child support simply couldn't afford to pay. They were charged 20% interest, too. It's a common abuse of poor people: make them pay for being poor. Pile on interest, charges, fees, etc. to double or triple their debt.
tdb7893 11y ago
Isn't it vastly more expensive to jail people than reduce a 170$ fine that obviously couldn't be paid?
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  Not when you turn around and bill them for their incarceration (in theory, at least - there's that whole 'blood from a stone' thing going on).
- laotzu 11y ago
  Yes it is, and that's where the prison corporation cashes in.
ElComradio 11y ago
What makes me skeptical of articles like this is the case studies seem to focus on people who appear to be behaving in the most ridiculous way possible. Taking a joint to court? Running stop signs on a suspended license? If the situations profiled are commonplace, it should not be hard to find more sympathetic victims. That said, it is true that even if this is going on infrequently it is still an injustice and should be corrected... But the headline and article would seem to want to have us believe that we have whole prisons filled with debtors.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  "Taking a joint to court?" If, by 'taking a joint to court', you mean, 'had a joint in her purse, whilst being a passenger in a car that committed a minor traffic violation, and having the police officer demand she identify herself (why? She was the passenger in a traffic violation), arrest her, and take her from there to the County Courthouse', sure.
  - ElComradio 11y ago
    I was mistaken. The way the paragraph read seemed to state that she told the judge she couldn't pay and was fined, then fined for a joint found in her purse; I did not see the joint was actually discovered during a previous instance. Still, if you are already in trouble with the law, it seems incredibly foolish to continue to willfully break it by carrying around illegal substances with you.
FussyZeus 11y ago
The uncomfortable question that needs asking here is why are all these cities hurting for money so badly and the answer is us. We as taxpayers are constantly demanding and electing politicians who promise (and deliver) tax cuts. Then we turn around and bitch because potholes don't get fixed. If you want your Government to run well, you need to goddamn pay for it. People need to grow up.
- greedo 11y ago
  If you look at Federal revenues in constant dollars, other than three years during GWB's first term and the crash of 2009, tax revenues have risen steadily. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Average spending per person when you combine Federal/State/Local is over $20K.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    You think $20k is enough for every road, electrical line, sewer and misc. utilities that serve your home? Not to mention paying the officers that protect you (in theory anyway), the firefighters that are ready 24/7 to put your house out, the teachers who educate your children, on and on and on? Federal spending is out of control (mostly in defense) but local spending, the spending that actually matters? You think the measly share of that $20k that your local town gets is nearly enough to cover all that?
    - greedo 11y ago
      Oh I pay for my utilities as well, those aren't payed by the government. And as the downvotes rain upon my karma, so be it. Yes, $20k per man, woman, and child is plenty for the government to have. And if you think the problem with the Federal budget, you need to take a closer look at how much we're paying in entitlements...
      - FussyZeus 11y ago
        Except "entitlements" refers to everything from welfare (which is what I'm assuming you're REALLY talking about) to insurance for Government employees, not the least of which are our soldiers, benefits to veterans and all the systems they rely upon, etc. etc. The other thing, Defense, goes to a 12 billion dollar plane that's never flown a single mission, a shitload of the most sophisticated and expensive armaments known to mankind, and on and on. One of these is necessary, the other is really up for debate.
littletimmy 11y ago
The more I think about it, the more I believe that the United States is the worst place to live if you are poor. There are places that are poorer, hell I'm from a third world country. But I've never seen anyone in the third world show utter contempt for the poor. No one keeps reminding the poor that it's their fault. We call them "unfortunate", Americans call them "losers". The US is the only place where being poor is not just a material failing, but also a moral failing. Perhaps it is a natural outcome of lionizing your winners that you absolute hate your losers, but this is fast becoming a heartless society where one wouldn't want to live unless one is rich.
- m0dc 11y ago
  I think that last sentence is spot on. It's an extension of the American Dream: "those who deserve reward will be rewarded." The problem is that many people also believe its insidious contrapositive: "those who are punished are deserving of punishment." This leads to a constant reinforcement of the status quo.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I would beg to differ. In India/Bangladesh, where I'm from, rich/middle-class people don't even think of the poor as human beings.
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    Corroborating this. In Islamabad, it's not uncommon to have people throw food at their servants squatting on the ground. Or for another famous case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_RWZCCLvdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_RWZCCLvdc (NB: the NO FEAR on the T shirts means they're part of the anti-terror squad)
- jqm 11y ago
  "United States is the worst place to live if you are poor" Uh, that's not even close to true. Not even close.
joeclark77 11y ago
It's always amazing to watch modern-day "educated" New York liberals discover things that every 12-year-old with a basic education in civics understood 100 years ago. The lesson of this article: Government has only one means to carry out its policies: force (more precisely, threat of force). When you vote for a new tax or fine (cough Obamacare cough) you are voting for rough men with guns to take stubborn objectors away to prison. Period. This is at the heart of the libertarian argument: government should be used cautiously, and the default position should always be not to impose a law unless you're sure that force is justifiable and necessary.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The lesson of this article: Government has only one means to carry out its policies: force (more precisely, threat of force). This is simply factually false. Government has all the means available to any other institution or person available. You seem to have reversed the common definition of government as whatever entity or aggregate of entities exercise a monopoly on legitimate use of force into the idea that the government somehow magically loses access to every other tool that people and groups of people have.
  - joeclark77 11y ago
    All right, I revise my statement to "government has only one means to enforce law: force" I suppose there are some "policies" (not laws or taxes) which can be encouraged or enacted by spending money. Doesn't detract from my point though. This is still a humorous case of some over-credentialed nitwit at WaPo "discovering" what most educated children should be able to tell you about the rule of law.
- unethical_ban 11y ago
  What are you arguing for? That there should be no punishment for traffic violations? The biggest issue here is the financial incentive of the private parties involved in collections.
  - joeclark77 11y ago
cozzyd 11y ago
It's a shame that so many areas are so car-dependent that a driver's license revocation can be so damaging.
Kalium 11y ago
A small group of individual rioters two blocks from my home. You'll have to pardon me for not wanting to encourage a repeat of this by sending a message that rioting near my home garners my political support.
- djcapelis 11y ago
  Oh get over yourself! Something vaguely inconvenient happened to some folks a couple blocks away from you once and now you're not interested in a whole class of people's legitimate grievances against oppression? Also you think that the best way to stop riots from happening is to continue the same policies that lead to them in the first place? Are you really even against riots?
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Can I ask for a little empathy, please? EDIT: What do you think rewarding rioters with political concessions will do the future rational cost-benefit evaluations of riots vs peaceful action?
    - djcapelis 11y ago
      For what, exactly? Someone else's windows being smashed? I've actually had my car window smashed. I assure you, it is a minor inconvenience compared to what black people often experience interacting with law enforcement. What exactly do you think you deserve empathy for? And how long have you lived in Oakland? Were you aware you moved to the city where the Black Panthers were founded or are you just thinking you have the right to complain just because you decided to move there?
      - Kalium 11y ago
        I'm well aware of Oakland's history, thank you. I'm asking you to stop and feel empathy for someone whose personal well-being is at needless risk. Is that a thing you care about?
marincounty 11y ago
If these fees were tied to income, we might not have a problem in a few months. Yes, when a rich man gets a ticket; he laughing tells his wife over dinner. A poor man gets a ticket; he could be at risk for being homeless. Since they started to raise fees at every level of government about 15 years ago, I felt it's time to equate fees to income. When the Rich guy comes home with a $7000 speeding ticket; the laws/fees will change--fast. I think they tie income to fee in Switzerland? Unless the rich are effected nothing will change, or at least that's been my experience. (To all you think the poor never learn their lesson, there could be a quota system. For example, if the poor Speeder abuses the system, they would go back to paying these currently rediculious amounts.)
- Devthrowaway80 11y ago
  I believe this is the case in Switzerland. There are multipliers for certain cars as well - sports cars pay an additional penalty. Everyone was driving EXACTLY the speed limit. I was warned not to go more than a few km/h over the limit. A doctor friend happened to be a driving his new Porsche through there and got dinged something like 5000 Euros. Oops!
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  There's an aritcle in the Atlantic on exactly this: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-...
danmaz74 11y ago
> Private probation companies have a strong incentive to keep people on probation for as long as possible. Obvious... and crazy.
ericfrederich 11y ago
John Oliver has touched on this several times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
tzs 11y ago
> During a single week in 2011, Joseph Anderson, 52, suffered three heart attacks and a stroke. The latter left the left side of his body partially paralyzed. Later that year, he suffered a fourth heart attack. Prior to his health problems, Anderson worked as a mechanic at a local Best Western. After that disastrous stretch, he has been unable to work, and struggles to get by on the less than $10,000 per year he gets in various forms of public assistance $10k/year is below the poverty level for a single person household. It is shameful that in a first world country someone can still be knocked into poverty by losing the ability to work due to medical problems.
DubiousPusher 11y ago
A few years back I met a kid in rural Michigan who was ticketed for driving without his glasses which had broken. When he was unable to pay the ticket he was fined in excess of the ticket by a judge. He had to drive to work to make the money to pay the ticket and buy glasses. And of course when he raised some money he paid the fine first rather than buying glass because it kept him out of jail. Judges are supposed to have leeway to take these kinds of things into account.
therealdrag0 11y ago
If this resonates with you, consider joining/donating to the ACLU! https://www.aclu.org/donate/ https://www.aclu.org/donate/

229 points by nthitz 11y ago

kordless 11y ago

I can't read any of these Washington Post articles because I've 'read my limit of free articles'.

bsimpson 11y ago
Here's the John Oliver version of the same story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto (Also, incognito mode is your friend when cookies conspire against you.)
JupiterMoon 11y ago
google it then. EDIT: To the downvoters. Try googling why googling the article will allow her to read it. Very meta.
- chc 11y ago
  Jeremy Ashkenas actually made a Chrome extension called "Wait! Google sent me!" that did this for you. It seems to have gotten deleted, though.
Shivetya 11y ago
try deleting your cookies.

dx211 11y ago

"All of which means that because Anderson was too poor to pay his $170 fine, his overall debt ballooned to $580. His fine more than tripled, solely because he was too poor to pay it." This seems pretty much like the status quo. If you default on your credit card bill, and ultimately choose minimal payments until it's paid off, rather than bankruptcy, you'll end up paying several times the value of the original loan. That said, if you go to the Biloxi court house's web site, they offer people the ability to do a payment plan for tickets, but they explicitly say "Remember that release on a payment plan is a privilege afforded by the Court and a violation of the payment order will result in your immediate arrest." I think that's pretty terrible since in this post-6th-amendment society, "arrest" is frequently indistinguishable from "imprisonment". Debt, especially something so trivial, should be a civil matter.

mikeash 11y ago
There's a significant difference, in that you choose to take on credit card debt, but you don't choose to be fined. I don't have much of a problem with credit card debt ballooning if you screw it up, but state-mandated punishments shouldn't be that way, especially if failure to pay is because of an inability to pay rather than simply not wanting to. (To head off any "don't commit the crime, then" replies, do keep in mind that traffic enforcement is extremely arbitrary, filled with cases where following the law is substantially less safe than breaking it, and rife with profiling.)
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  Well they could take the fine directly out of their government assistance and then the fine would not balloon.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Right but she would go hungry or homeless...
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      So if you are poor enough you can speed with impunity? If you take away their license they could go hungry.
      - tekromancr 11y ago
        Well, I am sure that there are many people here for whom a $170 could be seen as a reasonable expense to get to an important meeting on time. Does that entitle the wealthy to speed with impunity?
        happyscrappy 11y ago
        That is probably the reason that you lose your license after three speeding tickets in a year.

baldfat 11y ago

Social Justice is a big part of who I am. I get so mad when i read it and read this > This means that poorer counties are more reliant on fines and fees produced by municipal courts, which inevitably come from the poor residents of those areas. Those governments then put pressure on police departments to generate revenue by targeting residents for traffic offenses, jaywalking, and other misdemeanors and petty crimes... > The city got poorer. That meant less revenue from other sources. So the city sought more revenue by imposing more fines and fees on its citizens. Which of course only makes them poorer. > Private probation companies have a strong incentive to keep people on probation for as long as possible. I live in a poor city with a school district where 90% of the students qualify for free lunch. We are privatizing Public Education to also feed off the poor take the money out of the community and are rewarded if the Public School system does poorly.

rayiner 11y ago

Similar injustices in Georgia, with people jailed for traffic tickets: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/georgia-probation-misdemeanor-poor-jail http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/georgia-probatio....

everyone 11y ago

When the really big criminals (corrupt bankers and wealthy businessmen) cant pay fines they just declare bankruptsy (or their corporations do) and nothing happens to them. Afterwards they seem to be perfectly well off.

Shivetya 11y ago

It isn't just judicial fines and such that are the problem, government as a whole has turned lower income into a debtor prison. They provide some food assistance, maybe living assistance, and such, then take away the free cash and even ability to drive with fee after fee after fee. Throw in sales taxes in some cities and the burden is greater. However what this article points out is just flat out abuse and should result in government officials locked up. Just like previous stories about deals states cut with prison phone companies we have a justice system, if not most of government, which only exists to keep people poor and more controllable

rdtsc 11y ago

The poor are an easy target for governments and private entities, simply because they are easy to abuse and there are so many of them. Unlike the wealthy they simply do not have the time, money, resources, ability to unify and fight back as a single block (save some outraged protests and rioting resulting from attack or mistreatment by police, but those one can argue do more harm than good). If they don't have an extra $20/month, chances are they will not have time to sit and write a letter to a senator, or to call a lawyer or organize campaigns. As the article put it, adding these fees and doing this is really an administrative step, it's just too easy not to do it. If they, say, tried to raise taxes on top tax bracket, that would turn into a long uphill battle probably. There would be local town meetings, letter to legislative representatives, calls to country club networks of friends and so on. So as a result there are lots of payday loans places, high fees for courts, jail time (unless fee is paid on the spot), for the poor. Even once they go to prison they are turned effectively into slaves, they can't even call home because they nickle and dime there as well.

everyone 11y ago
You're right, is it a logical outcome. Its inevitable if you let market forces dictate everything. There is a such a strong anti-government 'libertarian' streak to US domestic policy, that is essentially anarchism though. Which quickly defaults to oligarchy / despotism. One of the primary purposes of nations and governments is (or ought to be anyway) to protect the poor and powerless from the excesses of the rich and powerful, to level the playing field somewhat and ensure some modicum of fairness. Those in the US should look to extremely well run countries like Denmark with more socialist governments and strong legislation protecting its citizens. That is how a country ought to be.
- brianlweiner 11y ago
  It takes a bit of rhetorical agility to blame "Government officials fining the poor and imprisoning them when they fail to pay" on libertarians.
  - yequalsx 11y ago

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

Just to tie this to Ferguson: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/ferguson-and-the-debtors-prison.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/fer...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

xaqfox 11y ago
#1 is quite a sweeping generalization that could be viewed as bigotry.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    There's nothing religious in this article at all, and speaking as a Christian jailing people for being too poor to pay an arbitrary fine is nothing close to what we'd encourage in our public officials. It's just greed, good old fashioned greed. Greed from the municipalities that want more money, and greed from the taxpayers who constantly demand more services for less money out of their paychecks.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
pdeuchler 11y ago
This happens everywhere in the US
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
tomasien 11y ago
Of course you made this about the Southern states.

rrggrr 11y ago

If your blood isn't already boiling here are other examples: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/07/the-rise-of-debtors-prisons-in-the-us/ http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/07/the-rise-of-debtors-pri...

adekok 11y ago
And more, for support, not fines: http://www.alternet.org/economy/debtors-prisons-are-alive-and-well-america http://www.alternet.org/economy/debtors-prisons-are-alive-an... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_cour... I can't find the reference now, but the stats from a California government investigation showed that ~90% of people (i.e. men) not paying child support simply couldn't afford to pay. They were charged 20% interest, too. It's a common abuse of poor people: make them pay for being poor. Pile on interest, charges, fees, etc. to double or triple their debt.

tdb7893 11y ago

Isn't it vastly more expensive to jail people than reduce a 170$ fine that obviously couldn't be paid?

FireBeyond 11y ago
Not when you turn around and bill them for their incarceration (in theory, at least - there's that whole 'blood from a stone' thing going on).
laotzu 11y ago
Yes it is, and that's where the prison corporation cashes in.

ElComradio 11y ago

What makes me skeptical of articles like this is the case studies seem to focus on people who appear to be behaving in the most ridiculous way possible. Taking a joint to court? Running stop signs on a suspended license? If the situations profiled are commonplace, it should not be hard to find more sympathetic victims. That said, it is true that even if this is going on infrequently it is still an injustice and should be corrected... But the headline and article would seem to want to have us believe that we have whole prisons filled with debtors.

FireBeyond 11y ago
"Taking a joint to court?" If, by 'taking a joint to court', you mean, 'had a joint in her purse, whilst being a passenger in a car that committed a minor traffic violation, and having the police officer demand she identify herself (why? She was the passenger in a traffic violation), arrest her, and take her from there to the County Courthouse', sure.
- ElComradio 11y ago
  I was mistaken. The way the paragraph read seemed to state that she told the judge she couldn't pay and was fined, then fined for a joint found in her purse; I did not see the joint was actually discovered during a previous instance. Still, if you are already in trouble with the law, it seems incredibly foolish to continue to willfully break it by carrying around illegal substances with you.

FussyZeus 11y ago

The uncomfortable question that needs asking here is why are all these cities hurting for money so badly and the answer is us. We as taxpayers are constantly demanding and electing politicians who promise (and deliver) tax cuts. Then we turn around and bitch because potholes don't get fixed. If you want your Government to run well, you need to goddamn pay for it. People need to grow up.

greedo 11y ago
If you look at Federal revenues in constant dollars, other than three years during GWB's first term and the crash of 2009, tax revenues have risen steadily. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Average spending per person when you combine Federal/State/Local is over $20K.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  You think $20k is enough for every road, electrical line, sewer and misc. utilities that serve your home? Not to mention paying the officers that protect you (in theory anyway), the firefighters that are ready 24/7 to put your house out, the teachers who educate your children, on and on and on? Federal spending is out of control (mostly in defense) but local spending, the spending that actually matters? You think the measly share of that $20k that your local town gets is nearly enough to cover all that?
  - greedo 11y ago
    Oh I pay for my utilities as well, those aren't payed by the government. And as the downvotes rain upon my karma, so be it. Yes, $20k per man, woman, and child is plenty for the government to have. And if you think the problem with the Federal budget, you need to take a closer look at how much we're paying in entitlements...
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      Except "entitlements" refers to everything from welfare (which is what I'm assuming you're REALLY talking about) to insurance for Government employees, not the least of which are our soldiers, benefits to veterans and all the systems they rely upon, etc. etc. The other thing, Defense, goes to a 12 billion dollar plane that's never flown a single mission, a shitload of the most sophisticated and expensive armaments known to mankind, and on and on. One of these is necessary, the other is really up for debate.

littletimmy 11y ago

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the United States is the worst place to live if you are poor. There are places that are poorer, hell I'm from a third world country. But I've never seen anyone in the third world show utter contempt for the poor. No one keeps reminding the poor that it's their fault. We call them "unfortunate", Americans call them "losers". The US is the only place where being poor is not just a material failing, but also a moral failing. Perhaps it is a natural outcome of lionizing your winners that you absolute hate your losers, but this is fast becoming a heartless society where one wouldn't want to live unless one is rich.

m0dc 11y ago
I think that last sentence is spot on. It's an extension of the American Dream: "those who deserve reward will be rewarded." The problem is that many people also believe its insidious contrapositive: "those who are punished are deserving of punishment." This leads to a constant reinforcement of the status quo.
rayiner 11y ago
I would beg to differ. In India/Bangladesh, where I'm from, rich/middle-class people don't even think of the poor as human beings.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  Corroborating this. In Islamabad, it's not uncommon to have people throw food at their servants squatting on the ground. Or for another famous case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_RWZCCLvdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_RWZCCLvdc (NB: the NO FEAR on the T shirts means they're part of the anti-terror squad)
jqm 11y ago
"United States is the worst place to live if you are poor" Uh, that's not even close to true. Not even close.

joeclark77 11y ago

It's always amazing to watch modern-day "educated" New York liberals discover things that every 12-year-old with a basic education in civics understood 100 years ago. The lesson of this article: Government has only one means to carry out its policies: force (more precisely, threat of force). When you vote for a new tax or fine (cough Obamacare cough) you are voting for rough men with guns to take stubborn objectors away to prison. Period. This is at the heart of the libertarian argument: government should be used cautiously, and the default position should always be not to impose a law unless you're sure that force is justifiable and necessary.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The lesson of this article: Government has only one means to carry out its policies: force (more precisely, threat of force). This is simply factually false. Government has all the means available to any other institution or person available. You seem to have reversed the common definition of government as whatever entity or aggregate of entities exercise a monopoly on legitimate use of force into the idea that the government somehow magically loses access to every other tool that people and groups of people have.
- joeclark77 11y ago
  All right, I revise my statement to "government has only one means to enforce law: force" I suppose there are some "policies" (not laws or taxes) which can be encouraged or enacted by spending money. Doesn't detract from my point though. This is still a humorous case of some over-credentialed nitwit at WaPo "discovering" what most educated children should be able to tell you about the rule of law.
unethical_ban 11y ago
What are you arguing for? That there should be no punishment for traffic violations? The biggest issue here is the financial incentive of the private parties involved in collections.
- joeclark77 11y ago

cozzyd 11y ago

It's a shame that so many areas are so car-dependent that a driver's license revocation can be so damaging.

Kalium 11y ago

A small group of individual rioters two blocks from my home. You'll have to pardon me for not wanting to encourage a repeat of this by sending a message that rioting near my home garners my political support.

djcapelis 11y ago
Oh get over yourself! Something vaguely inconvenient happened to some folks a couple blocks away from you once and now you're not interested in a whole class of people's legitimate grievances against oppression? Also you think that the best way to stop riots from happening is to continue the same policies that lead to them in the first place? Are you really even against riots?
- Kalium 11y ago
  Can I ask for a little empathy, please? EDIT: What do you think rewarding rioters with political concessions will do the future rational cost-benefit evaluations of riots vs peaceful action?
  - djcapelis 11y ago
    For what, exactly? Someone else's windows being smashed? I've actually had my car window smashed. I assure you, it is a minor inconvenience compared to what black people often experience interacting with law enforcement. What exactly do you think you deserve empathy for? And how long have you lived in Oakland? Were you aware you moved to the city where the Black Panthers were founded or are you just thinking you have the right to complain just because you decided to move there?
    - Kalium 11y ago
      I'm well aware of Oakland's history, thank you. I'm asking you to stop and feel empathy for someone whose personal well-being is at needless risk. Is that a thing you care about?

marincounty 11y ago

If these fees were tied to income, we might not have a problem in a few months. Yes, when a rich man gets a ticket; he laughing tells his wife over dinner. A poor man gets a ticket; he could be at risk for being homeless. Since they started to raise fees at every level of government about 15 years ago, I felt it's time to equate fees to income. When the Rich guy comes home with a $7000 speeding ticket; the laws/fees will change--fast. I think they tie income to fee in Switzerland? Unless the rich are effected nothing will change, or at least that's been my experience. (To all you think the poor never learn their lesson, there could be a quota system. For example, if the poor Speeder abuses the system, they would go back to paying these currently rediculious amounts.)

Devthrowaway80 11y ago
I believe this is the case in Switzerland. There are multipliers for certain cars as well - sports cars pay an additional penalty. Everyone was driving EXACTLY the speed limit. I was warned not to go more than a few km/h over the limit. A doctor friend happened to be a driving his new Porsche through there and got dinged something like 5000 Euros. Oops!
kwhitefoot 11y ago
There's an aritcle in the Atlantic on exactly this: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-...

danmaz74 11y ago

> Private probation companies have a strong incentive to keep people on probation for as long as possible. Obvious... and crazy.

ericfrederich 11y ago

John Oliver has touched on this several times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto

tzs 11y ago

> During a single week in 2011, Joseph Anderson, 52, suffered three heart attacks and a stroke. The latter left the left side of his body partially paralyzed. Later that year, he suffered a fourth heart attack. Prior to his health problems, Anderson worked as a mechanic at a local Best Western. After that disastrous stretch, he has been unable to work, and struggles to get by on the less than $10,000 per year he gets in various forms of public assistance $10k/year is below the poverty level for a single person household. It is shameful that in a first world country someone can still be knocked into poverty by losing the ability to work due to medical problems.

DubiousPusher 11y ago

A few years back I met a kid in rural Michigan who was ticketed for driving without his glasses which had broken. When he was unable to pay the ticket he was fined in excess of the ticket by a judge. He had to drive to work to make the money to pay the ticket and buy glasses. And of course when he raised some money he paid the fine first rather than buying glass because it kept him out of jail. Judges are supposed to have leeway to take these kinds of things into account.

therealdrag0 11y ago

If this resonates with you, consider joining/donating to the ACLU! https://www.aclu.org/donate/ https://www.aclu.org/donate/