> The EU Convention on Human Rights bans debtors prisons. It states: "No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a cont

> The EU Convention on Human Rights bans debtors prisons. It states: "No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation." Restitution as punishment for a crime does not arise out of a “contractual obligation.” It arises out of a criminal conviction. Sure, but the Convention does not define the term "debtors' prison," however much you may want to imply that it does. It merely says what you quoted; it says that this particular thing is a human right. It does not close the door to debtors' prisons that do not violate human rights but are still odious in civilized society; it certainly does not close the door to violations of human rights that are not enumerated in the Convention, perhaps because some party to the Convention wishes to continue violating human rights. The argument "Because the Convention doesn't ban it, it must not be a debtors' prison" is just as sound as saying "Because the 13th amendment doesn't ban it, it isn't slavery." Forced labor as punishment for a crime is permissible in the United States, and it's still slavery, of course. The meaning of words matters, and a lawyer, of all people, ought to use words precisely when speaking about justice and imprisonment.