6 ms·

Potato potato, that person would not have been in prison had they paid off the debt. Where the debt comes from matters why exactly? The prison should be for o

Potato potato, that person would not have been in prison had they paid off the debt. Where the debt comes from matters why exactly? The prison should be for one purpose only: to make society safer. If someone is dangerous enough to be in prison, they should not be out regardless of whether they owe money or not. In other words, if you can't buy your way out of prison, a debt should not bring you into one.

wavefunction 7y ago
I will expand upon your point. Debt in this case is a civil matter between two private individuals. The State has an interest only, if that, in enforcing court decisions such as garnishment of wages or liens. To sentence someone to jail or prison for the crime of a civil disagreement is sick and wrong and I invite you (abstract yous) to prove me wrong via rhetoric.
- underdown 7y ago
  "People sent to the centers had been sentenced for felonies but didn’t commit violent crimes, according to the program rules. "
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  According to the information in this thread, the amount owed was for a criminal conviction for embezzlement. This is not about a contract between private parties.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  These people had no wage garnishment, instead they were sentenced to forced labor. Why the difference? Because they are poor. And the line between civil and criminal is often drawn in a peculiar way: Repeat copyright violation enough and somehow it's criminal not civil, but systematically fail to pay artists their royalties it remains civil forever. Embezzling $1000 is criminal, keeping $1000 out of an employee paycheck is a civil.
rayiner 7y ago
> Potato potato, that person would not have been in prison had they paid off the debt. No. The meaning of words matters. Words, used precisely, are how people with different values and beliefs can communicate and reach agreements in a functioning society. When journalists, who are supposed to inform and educate the public, twist the meaning of words in order to make a point, that’s wrong. > Where the debt comes from matters why exactly? Because a debt arising from a criminal conviction requires the convicted person to have engaged in a wrongful act in the first place. Mere failure to pay a civil debt does not. > The prison should be for one purpose only: to make society safer Views about the proper role of prisons vary widely. Most people believe that prisons are for punishing people for doing bad things. Note that by your reasoning, many people who do very bad things should not be imprisoned because there is no risk of recidivism. Women who murder their abusive husbands, for example, are almost never going to go and murder someone else. By your reasoning, they shouldn’t go to prison to punish them for their murder.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  I see your point, but taking that on a tangent id say someone who has committed murder is more dangerous than the average person.
- a_t48 7y ago
  > Women who murder their abusive husbands, for example, are almost never going to go and murder someone else. By your reasoning, they shouldn’t go to prison to punish them for their murder. That's a reasonable position to take, actually. Depends on the level of abuse, I'd say. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/europe/uk-sally-challen-intl-scli-gbr/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/europe/uk-sally-challen-intl-...
  - klipt 7y ago
    The thing is, jail also acts as a deterrent to the first murder. If it's common knowledge that everyone gets one "murder your abusive spouse" consequence free, a lot more people might commit murders in cases where a divorce might have worked out better and less deadly.

wavefunction 7y ago

I will expand upon your point. Debt in this case is a civil matter between two private individuals. The State has an interest only, if that, in enforcing court decisions such as garnishment of wages or liens. To sentence someone to jail or prison for the crime of a civil disagreement is sick and wrong and I invite you (abstract yous) to prove me wrong via rhetoric.

underdown 7y ago
"People sent to the centers had been sentenced for felonies but didn’t commit violent crimes, according to the program rules. "
toasterlovin 7y ago
According to the information in this thread, the amount owed was for a criminal conviction for embezzlement. This is not about a contract between private parties.
TomMckenny 7y ago
These people had no wage garnishment, instead they were sentenced to forced labor. Why the difference? Because they are poor. And the line between civil and criminal is often drawn in a peculiar way: Repeat copyright violation enough and somehow it's criminal not civil, but systematically fail to pay artists their royalties it remains civil forever. Embezzling $1000 is criminal, keeping $1000 out of an employee paycheck is a civil.

rayiner 7y ago

> Potato potato, that person would not have been in prison had they paid off the debt. No. The meaning of words matters. Words, used precisely, are how people with different values and beliefs can communicate and reach agreements in a functioning society. When journalists, who are supposed to inform and educate the public, twist the meaning of words in order to make a point, that’s wrong. > Where the debt comes from matters why exactly? Because a debt arising from a criminal conviction requires the convicted person to have engaged in a wrongful act in the first place. Mere failure to pay a civil debt does not. > The prison should be for one purpose only: to make society safer Views about the proper role of prisons vary widely. Most people believe that prisons are for punishing people for doing bad things. Note that by your reasoning, many people who do very bad things should not be imprisoned because there is no risk of recidivism. Women who murder their abusive husbands, for example, are almost never going to go and murder someone else. By your reasoning, they shouldn’t go to prison to punish them for their murder.

quickthrower2 7y ago
I see your point, but taking that on a tangent id say someone who has committed murder is more dangerous than the average person.
a_t48 7y ago
> Women who murder their abusive husbands, for example, are almost never going to go and murder someone else. By your reasoning, they shouldn’t go to prison to punish them for their murder. That's a reasonable position to take, actually. Depends on the level of abuse, I'd say. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/europe/uk-sally-challen-intl-scli-gbr/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/europe/uk-sally-challen-intl-...
- klipt 7y ago
  The thing is, jail also acts as a deterrent to the first murder. If it's common knowledge that everyone gets one "murder your abusive spouse" consequence free, a lot more people might commit murders in cases where a divorce might have worked out better and less deadly.