how is driving without a license and insurance not threatening the others?
it is. it means you are not responsible enough to drive a car.
It isn't like this is a one time thing. this person has multiple occurrences of not just traffic violations,
but driving on suspended licenses and driving without insurance.
that in and of itself puts the public at large at risk.
It's not my definition, it's what the law says. In Bearden v. Georgia, SCOTUS threw out the idea of imprisoning someone because they could not pay a fine. However, they also said this; a judge must first consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay but "willfully" refuses. Since the court did not instruct the judges as to how to define willfully refuses, every judge can make up their own standards on this. If, in a judges opinion, she/he feels a person can pay, but will not, then they can then go to jail....not for an inability to pay but for a "refusal to pay."
The issue here has nothing to do with a "victimless crime".
they are being taken to jail on contempt of court. or they are being taken to jail for violation of the law.
it is pretty simple. I have gotten tickets and not going to jail for it.
ignoring a ticket is the same as not going to court. you get a contempt of court charge and you go to jail.
that is why she was arrested. it makes it worse if she was driving without a license and knowingly driving without a
I think you're confused. What part of Bearden v. Georgia don't you understand?
The ACLU is already suing Ferguson based on the Bearden v. Georgia ruling on debtors prison. Nothing to do with violating a judges order, to wit:
it is a strawman argument.
they are not going to debtors prison. they are going to prison for breaking the law not once but multiple times.
they probably have warrents out for their arrest.
The ACLU has no case in the matter.
(a)If a State determines a fine or restitution to be the appropriate and adequate penalty for the crime, it may not thereafter imprison a person solely because he lacked the resources to pay it. Williams v. Illinois,399 U. S. 235; Tate v. Short,401 U. S. 395. If the probationer has willfully refused to pay the fine or restitution when he has the resources to pay or has failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts to seek employment or borrow money to pay, the State is justified in using imprisonment as a sanction to enforce collection. But if the probationer has made all reasonable bona fide efforts to pay the fine and yet cannot do so through no fault of his own, it is fundamentally unfair to revoke probation automatically without considering whether adequate alternative methods of punishing
the probationer are available to meet the State's interest in punishment and deterrence. Pp. 461 U. S. 664-669.
(b) The State may not use as the sole justification for imprisonment the poverty or inability of the probationer to pay the fine and to make restitution if he has demonstrated sufficient bona fide efforts to do so. Pp. 461 U. S. 669-672.
(c) Only if alternative measure of punishment are not adequate to meet the State's interests in punishment and deterrence may the court imprison a probationer who has made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay the fine. To do otherwise would deprive the probationer of his conditional freedom simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay. Such a deprivation would be contrary to the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 461 U. S. 672-673.
With all the above being said if it's determined that the defendant just plain refuses to pay than all bets are off, he/she gets what they get.