4 ms·

First, I don't think you can make the distinction between whatever you are calling "simple debt" (care to at least define things that you make up?) and the vari

First, I don't think you can make the distinction between whatever you are calling "simple debt" (care to at least define things that you make up?) and the various fees associated with the United States and particularly the Texas legal system. Second, even if you grant there is a difference between the debt types, how can he be wrong about it being de facto "debtors prison"? Who cares what the debt type is, it would still be a debtors prison, and there are a myriad of very good reasons we got rid of such things! Third, the legal system is extremely unfavourable to the middle-class and poor, to the extent that I would also argue with your claim that the fees are "(probably) justified"... Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems. For example, I (in Texas btw) who almost never gets tickets, got one last year. Normally I have a paralegal friend do the deferred adjudication, I take a class, and move on. Well this last ticket they missed the deadline, I forgot about it, and the original $160 fee ballooned eventually to $700! Not only that, but technically, until I payed it, there was a warrant out for my arrest! Do you think that kind of percentage increase is warranted or the warrant for arrest for not paying a fee is justified, because I certainly don't. I managed to pay it off, but for someone earning less would have had a very hard time paying that big of a fee, much less the financial impact of being fucking arrested... " It's not the case that the police are extorting people that are behind on their rent/credit card payments or something." Please explain how this is correct now, because it seems obviously false. (aka, they are extorting people because they are behind on payments (just because you made the false distinction of credit cards/rent and court fines does not make that fact magically go away...), and the police are even doing it for a third party!) That's not even getting into the privacy and other issues the eff raises. For example, my paralegal friend has access to the TLO system and can look up plates and their geo/time data. While she wouldn't abuse it, the barriers to entry for paralegals can be pretty low in some firms...

jacobush 11y ago
Do you also have your friend take the class? :)
Karunamon 11y ago
The distinction you seem to take such issue with is not entirely of his own creation. For one, judicially enforced financial penalties cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
jrs235 11y ago
"Third, the legal system is extremely unfavourable to the middle-class and poor, to the extent that I would also argue with your claim that the fees are "(probably) justified"... Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems." I couldn't agree more. The penalty for civil infractions is a fine and/or jail time. We've become so use to just payig fines we think it's a debtors prison if the law breaker doesn't pay the fine so we opt to penalize then with jail time. Perhaps we should just great everyone fairly and use jail time penalties only. That could lead to some reforms read quickly. The bigger offense and issue I have is when the state then charges the inmates for room and board. That's wrong.
sithadmin 11y ago
>I don't think you can make the distinction between whatever you are calling "simple debt" (care to at least define things that you make up?) and the various fees associated with the United States and particularly the Texas legal system. The law already does. In the former case, we're talking about debts established in the course of various financial transactions between private parties. In the latter case, we're talking about fees (or more specifically in this case, what would colloquially be known as fines) that are imposed by the state for punitive and administrative reasons. Skipping out on the former will (generally) result in ruined credit scores and civil suits; skipping out on the latter is an civil or criminal offense against the state. >even if you grant there is a difference between the debt types, how can he be wrong about it being de facto "debtors prison"? Who cares what the debt type is, it would still be a debtors prison, and there are a myriad of very good reasons we got rid of such things! The term 'debtor's prison' is a loaded term, perjoratively describing historical cases of imprisonment of persons for failing to pay private debts. Barring edge cases (i.e., fraud), this has largely been eliminated in the USA. Imprisonment for failing to pay fines imposed for offenses against the law, on the other hand, is not a practice that has ever been (nor is likely to be) eliminated. And I don't buy that there are 'good reasons to get rid of such things', but that's a different discussion than the one at hand. >Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems. Be that as it may, it's not germane to whether or not it's okay for the state to use creative ways to collect on previous assessed fines. >I (in Texas btw) who almost never gets tickets, got one last year. Normally I have a paralegal friend do the deferred adjudication, I take a class, and move on. Well this last ticket they missed the deadline, I forgot about it, and the original $160 fee ballooned eventually to $700! Not only that, but technically, until I payed it, there was a warrant out for my arrest! Do you think that kind of percentage increase is warranted or the warrant for arrest for not paying a fee is justified, because I certainly don't. Actually, I do think it's justified. Dealing with low level tickets is hardly difficult or burdensome, and the state has excellent reasons to create strong disincentives for dodging punishment. Further, paying a steep premium for irresponsible handling of your incident seems far preferable to serving actual jail time, or facing some other less dignified form of corporal punishment (as you might receive in a less westernized nations). > they are extorting people because they are behind on payments There's no extortion going on. It's implicit that the state's agents possess the means to impose compliance with the law; in cases where the law dictates that individuals pay a fine, it's reasonable for the state's agents to collect that fine or initiate further punishment for noncompliance with the law. Given the choice between jail + the courts and paying a high fee (some of which is to cover the costs associated with payment collection), a 25% premium hardly seems unreasonable.

jacobush 11y ago

Do you also have your friend take the class? :)

Karunamon 11y ago

The distinction you seem to take such issue with is not entirely of his own creation. For one, judicially enforced financial penalties cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

jrs235 11y ago

"Third, the legal system is extremely unfavourable to the middle-class and poor, to the extent that I would also argue with your claim that the fees are "(probably) justified"... Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems." I couldn't agree more. The penalty for civil infractions is a fine and/or jail time. We've become so use to just payig fines we think it's a debtors prison if the law breaker doesn't pay the fine so we opt to penalize then with jail time. Perhaps we should just great everyone fairly and use jail time penalties only. That could lead to some reforms read quickly. The bigger offense and issue I have is when the state then charges the inmates for room and board. That's wrong.

sithadmin 11y ago

>I don't think you can make the distinction between whatever you are calling "simple debt" (care to at least define things that you make up?) and the various fees associated with the United States and particularly the Texas legal system. The law already does. In the former case, we're talking about debts established in the course of various financial transactions between private parties. In the latter case, we're talking about fees (or more specifically in this case, what would colloquially be known as fines) that are imposed by the state for punitive and administrative reasons. Skipping out on the former will (generally) result in ruined credit scores and civil suits; skipping out on the latter is an civil or criminal offense against the state. >even if you grant there is a difference between the debt types, how can he be wrong about it being de facto "debtors prison"? Who cares what the debt type is, it would still be a debtors prison, and there are a myriad of very good reasons we got rid of such things! The term 'debtor's prison' is a loaded term, perjoratively describing historical cases of imprisonment of persons for failing to pay private debts. Barring edge cases (i.e., fraud), this has largely been eliminated in the USA. Imprisonment for failing to pay fines imposed for offenses against the law, on the other hand, is not a practice that has ever been (nor is likely to be) eliminated. And I don't buy that there are 'good reasons to get rid of such things', but that's a different discussion than the one at hand. >Another thing to remember is that fees have become revenue generators, and to look at them as punitive damages to be payed to the public for offenses is a naive take on the ways fees have developed in the legal and justice systems. Be that as it may, it's not germane to whether or not it's okay for the state to use creative ways to collect on previous assessed fines. >I (in Texas btw) who almost never gets tickets, got one last year. Normally I have a paralegal friend do the deferred adjudication, I take a class, and move on. Well this last ticket they missed the deadline, I forgot about it, and the original $160 fee ballooned eventually to $700! Not only that, but technically, until I payed it, there was a warrant out for my arrest! Do you think that kind of percentage increase is warranted or the warrant for arrest for not paying a fee is justified, because I certainly don't. Actually, I do think it's justified. Dealing with low level tickets is hardly difficult or burdensome, and the state has excellent reasons to create strong disincentives for dodging punishment. Further, paying a steep premium for irresponsible handling of your incident seems far preferable to serving actual jail time, or facing some other less dignified form of corporal punishment (as you might receive in a less westernized nations). > they are extorting people because they are behind on payments There's no extortion going on. It's implicit that the state's agents possess the means to impose compliance with the law; in cases where the law dictates that individuals pay a fine, it's reasonable for the state's agents to collect that fine or initiate further punishment for noncompliance with the law. Given the choice between jail + the courts and paying a high fee (some of which is to cover the costs associated with payment collection), a 25% premium hardly seems unreasonable.