3 ms·

They can order you to pay, and then if you fail to pay, you can be put in jail. This did not happen in this case, but I'm not focusing on a single case. It ha

They can order you to pay, and then if you fail to pay, you can be put in jail. This did not happen in this case, but I'm not focusing on a single case. It has happened before in other cases, and I'm talking about the general principal. Now, as others have pointed out, the court is supposed to decide what you should be able to pay, and thus ideally you are never forced to pay more than you can afford. But the court does make errors and often people don't have equal access to help on the matters, and thus you can end up with people being required to pay more than they have access to. This can end up with them in jail, and thus we do have debtor prisons, even if they aren't quite as bad as debtor prisons of the past.

morgante 11y ago
> This did not happen in this case, but I'm not focusing on a single case. That's the thing: I have never heard of a single case where someone was imprisoned for not paying debts in the modern United States. Instead of talking in the abstract, please provide a single citation of someone imprisoned for failing to pay back a loan.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Just to be clear, if in an example the jailed individual is put in jail for failing to follow a court order, but that court order was to repay a debt resulting from a loan, would you accept that example? If not, where is the difference between that and the example you are requesting?
  - morgante 11y ago
    Sure, if someone is serving jail time in the US for failing to pay a loan then I'd love to see it (even if that loan was backed by a court order). However, being arrested for failing to appear in court or otherwise being in contempt of court would not qualify.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/debtors-prison-is-back-and-just-as-cruel-as-ever/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/debtors-prison-is-bac... In this case a debt leads to a recurring pay or appear judgment that requires a monthly court appearance if payment cannot be made, and the arrest is made for failing the court appearance and not failing the payment. Close, but not exactly what I wanted. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/02/24/debtors-prisons-then-and-now-faq#.c4TnCBecz https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/02/24/debtors-prison... In the opening, it is medical bill instead of loan and once again failure to appear, but given that the individual wasn't notified they had to appear it is once again pretty close. But later on it gives this line: >or if the judge deems that the debtor is “willfully” not paying the debt, the judge may write a warrant for the debtor’s arrest on a charge of “contempt of court.” So if the judge thinks the person can pay and they don't, they go to jail. It also brings up the 1983 case of Bearden v. Georgia which does allow imprisonment if the person is judged unwilling, but not unable, to pay. Do we assume the court is 100% perfect in these judgments? >http://www.startribune.com/in-jail-for-being-in-debt/95692619/ http://www.startribune.com/in-jail-for-being-in-debt/9569261... Took a little searching because of all the websites focusing on debt resulting from anything criminal (I was purposefully not bringing up those results). >In Illinois and southwest Indiana, some judges jail debtors for missing court-ordered debt payments. In extreme cases, people stay in jail until they raise a minimum payment. In January, a judge sentenced a Kenney, Ill., man "to indefinite incarceration" until he came up with $300 toward a lumber yard debt. >In Minnesota, judges have issued arrest warrants for people who owe as little as $85 >Three debt buyers -- Unifund CCR Partners, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. and Debt Equities LLC -- accounted for 15 percent of all debt-related arrest warrants issued in Minnesota since 2005, court data show. The debt buyers also file tens of thousands of other collection actions in the state, seeking court orders to make people pay. The debts -- often five or six years old -- are purchased from companies like cellphone providers and credit card issuers, and cost a few cents on the dollar. Using automated dialing equipment and teams of lawyers, the debt-buyer firms try to collect the debt, plus interest and fees. A firm aims to collect at least twice what it paid for the debt to cover costs. Anything beyond that is profit. All in all, it does seem the majority of cases I found were for failure to appear to a hearing (even though this could be caused by not being notified of a hearing or being required to repeatedly attend hearings and eventually missing one), but as the article points out that in a few places they don't even need that formality.

morgante 11y ago

> This did not happen in this case, but I'm not focusing on a single case. That's the thing: I have never heard of a single case where someone was imprisoned for not paying debts in the modern United States. Instead of talking in the abstract, please provide a single citation of someone imprisoned for failing to pay back a loan.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Just to be clear, if in an example the jailed individual is put in jail for failing to follow a court order, but that court order was to repay a debt resulting from a loan, would you accept that example? If not, where is the difference between that and the example you are requesting?
- morgante 11y ago
  Sure, if someone is serving jail time in the US for failing to pay a loan then I'd love to see it (even if that loan was backed by a court order). However, being arrested for failing to appear in court or otherwise being in contempt of court would not qualify.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/debtors-prison-is-back-and-just-as-cruel-as-ever/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/debtors-prison-is-bac... In this case a debt leads to a recurring pay or appear judgment that requires a monthly court appearance if payment cannot be made, and the arrest is made for failing the court appearance and not failing the payment. Close, but not exactly what I wanted. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/02/24/debtors-prisons-then-and-now-faq#.c4TnCBecz https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/02/24/debtors-prison... In the opening, it is medical bill instead of loan and once again failure to appear, but given that the individual wasn't notified they had to appear it is once again pretty close. But later on it gives this line: >or if the judge deems that the debtor is “willfully” not paying the debt, the judge may write a warrant for the debtor’s arrest on a charge of “contempt of court.” So if the judge thinks the person can pay and they don't, they go to jail. It also brings up the 1983 case of Bearden v. Georgia which does allow imprisonment if the person is judged unwilling, but not unable, to pay. Do we assume the court is 100% perfect in these judgments? >http://www.startribune.com/in-jail-for-being-in-debt/95692619/ http://www.startribune.com/in-jail-for-being-in-debt/9569261... Took a little searching because of all the websites focusing on debt resulting from anything criminal (I was purposefully not bringing up those results). >In Illinois and southwest Indiana, some judges jail debtors for missing court-ordered debt payments. In extreme cases, people stay in jail until they raise a minimum payment. In January, a judge sentenced a Kenney, Ill., man "to indefinite incarceration" until he came up with $300 toward a lumber yard debt. >In Minnesota, judges have issued arrest warrants for people who owe as little as $85 >Three debt buyers -- Unifund CCR Partners, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. and Debt Equities LLC -- accounted for 15 percent of all debt-related arrest warrants issued in Minnesota since 2005, court data show. The debt buyers also file tens of thousands of other collection actions in the state, seeking court orders to make people pay. The debts -- often five or six years old -- are purchased from companies like cellphone providers and credit card issuers, and cost a few cents on the dollar. Using automated dialing equipment and teams of lawyers, the debt-buyer firms try to collect the debt, plus interest and fees. A firm aims to collect at least twice what it paid for the debt to cover costs. Anything beyond that is profit. All in all, it does seem the majority of cases I found were for failure to appear to a hearing (even though this could be caused by not being notified of a hearing or being required to repeatedly attend hearings and eventually missing one), but as the article points out that in a few places they don't even need that formality.