6 ms·

Nothing you just said is at odds with the article. The problem is that people are spending time in jail (via the process you describe) because of civil debts th

by lukev 9y ago

Nothing you just said is at odds with the article. The problem is that people are spending time in jail (via the process you describe) because of civil debts that can fall into one of the following categories: (a) debts of small sums (b) with insufficient evidence that a debt is actually owed (apparently hoping that the defendant won't be able to competently defend themselves.) (c) with insufficient notice to the defendant (apparently, this is the plaintiff's responsibility in some jurisdictions.) (d) with insufficient consideration for the defendant's situation (i.e, physical or mental disability, single parents that cannot afford childcare, etc.) It seems self evident that these situations are unjust and that reforming the process is desirable, wouldn't you agree?

temporallobe 9y ago
You're describing our justice system in general. When anyone of low income is even accused of a crime or is fined an even small amount of money, it snowballs into a much larger issue because of their inability to pay, take off work, find childcare, etc. It seems like our justice system is designed to be fair only to stable, healthy, and wealthy people. For example I got a speeding ticket in VA which ended up being a reckless driving charge, an actual CRIME in VA. Because I was able to hire a lawyer, I got it reduced to simple speeding. The woman before me without a lawyer, doing tbe same exact speed as me, got convicted of the reckless driving charge because she dared to waive her right to an attorney snd roll the dice. Well she lost, but this made me feel disgusted.
dadkins 9y ago
I disagree with you premise. People are spending time in jail for not showing up to court, not because of their debts. And even jail time is pretty rare for a bench warrant. Of the situations you listed, the only valid reason for not showing up to court is because you weren't aware. But because the stakes are so high, judges in California require that parties have been personally served by a registered process server before they'll issue a bench warrant for not showing up to a debtor's examination. I assume other states are similar. Correct me if I'm wrong. I actually think that the process that the courts have for enforcing judgements is much fairer than the tactics that debt collectors often resort to. There's a reason that laws like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act exist.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  > Of the situations you listed, the only valid reason for not showing up to court is because you weren't aware. You are correct about the responsibilities of individuals, but that is not the only thing at stake. The system can be at fault for wrongly placing such responsibilities on people. Consider the "with insufficient evidence that a debt is actually owed ..." part. Sure it is your duty in that case to turn up and get the thing dismissed. But the fact that you were forced to turn up means your freedom has already been compromised. Small debts are also a symptom of a one-sided system. Civilised people usually settle small matters without going to the courts. Courts have to be making things pretty easy for creditors before that becomes a cost-effective way of collecting small debts.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    >But the fact that you were forced to turn up means your freedom has already been compromised. That is the cost of living in a civilized society where we can settle our conflicts before an impartial judge instead of by the law of the jungle. Anyone can sue you and make you (or your lawyer) show up in court. >Small debts are also a symptom of a one-sided system. Civilised people usually settle small matters without going to the courts. Courts have to be making things pretty easy for creditors before that becomes a cost-effective way of collecting small debts. If you make it harder for creditors to collect on small debts, then you will make it harder and more expensive for the poor to get access to credit.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      That's absurd. Just recently in Indiana a law was changed allowing up to 400% interest. Harder? Fat chance. They'll just get the laws changed to screw people over further. Of course it'll be in the name of "access to credit".
      - marcoperaza 9y ago
        "I'll give you $100 today if you pay me back $110 next week. And I don't care about your awful credit score." That's over 500% annualized interest, but it's not very unreasonable for an unsecured short term loan to a person with bad credit.

by lukev 9y ago

temporallobe 9y ago

You're describing our justice system in general. When anyone of low income is even accused of a crime or is fined an even small amount of money, it snowballs into a much larger issue because of their inability to pay, take off work, find childcare, etc. It seems like our justice system is designed to be fair only to stable, healthy, and wealthy people. For example I got a speeding ticket in VA which ended up being a reckless driving charge, an actual CRIME in VA. Because I was able to hire a lawyer, I got it reduced to simple speeding. The woman before me without a lawyer, doing tbe same exact speed as me, got convicted of the reckless driving charge because she dared to waive her right to an attorney snd roll the dice. Well she lost, but this made me feel disgusted.

dadkins 9y ago

I disagree with you premise. People are spending time in jail for not showing up to court, not because of their debts. And even jail time is pretty rare for a bench warrant. Of the situations you listed, the only valid reason for not showing up to court is because you weren't aware. But because the stakes are so high, judges in California require that parties have been personally served by a registered process server before they'll issue a bench warrant for not showing up to a debtor's examination. I assume other states are similar. Correct me if I'm wrong. I actually think that the process that the courts have for enforcing judgements is much fairer than the tactics that debt collectors often resort to. There's a reason that laws like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act exist.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
> Of the situations you listed, the only valid reason for not showing up to court is because you weren't aware. You are correct about the responsibilities of individuals, but that is not the only thing at stake. The system can be at fault for wrongly placing such responsibilities on people. Consider the "with insufficient evidence that a debt is actually owed ..." part. Sure it is your duty in that case to turn up and get the thing dismissed. But the fact that you were forced to turn up means your freedom has already been compromised. Small debts are also a symptom of a one-sided system. Civilised people usually settle small matters without going to the courts. Courts have to be making things pretty easy for creditors before that becomes a cost-effective way of collecting small debts.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >But the fact that you were forced to turn up means your freedom has already been compromised. That is the cost of living in a civilized society where we can settle our conflicts before an impartial judge instead of by the law of the jungle. Anyone can sue you and make you (or your lawyer) show up in court. >Small debts are also a symptom of a one-sided system. Civilised people usually settle small matters without going to the courts. Courts have to be making things pretty easy for creditors before that becomes a cost-effective way of collecting small debts. If you make it harder for creditors to collect on small debts, then you will make it harder and more expensive for the poor to get access to credit.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    That's absurd. Just recently in Indiana a law was changed allowing up to 400% interest. Harder? Fat chance. They'll just get the laws changed to screw people over further. Of course it'll be in the name of "access to credit".
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      "I'll give you $100 today if you pay me back $110 next week. And I don't care about your awful credit score." That's over 500% annualized interest, but it's not very unreasonable for an unsecured short term loan to a person with bad credit.