• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civil Rights Attorneys Sue Ferguson Over 'Debtors Prisons'

stonewall50 said:
I don't think you get the point. Failure to pay these tickets for not having the proper paperwork may be "victimless." But in reality one of these dumbasses could hit someone and then their victim is up **** creek. The point is they failed to have the proper documentation, and that documentation is there to protect people from being victims.
Click to expand...
Again, nothing to do with the OP. If there is a victim, it's a whole different matter. The OP and the article I posted deal solely with the practice of jailing someone strictly because they don't have the means to pay their fines and or fees. You guys are making a completely different argument.
 
I can't see how going to jail for refusing to pay for citations can be considered a "debtors jail".

citations are not debts, they are punitive fines enacted by a court of law, per statute.

people will be punished for ignoring court orders,and it is rightful that they are... the legitimacy of the entire judicial system relies on people be held to it.
 
azgreg said:
Incarcerating them means they won't be able to take care of their children at all.
Click to expand...

Same goes for a guy that sticks up a liquor store. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
 
azgreg said:
Incarcerating someone for not being able to pay a fine is the definition of debtor's prison.




I'm not saying that they don't have to obey the rules. reading is fun.



Having a license is in no way a measure to one's ability to drive safely. Driving without insurance does not increase the danger factor in driving.
Click to expand...

Driving without insurance means if you injure someone in an accident you leave them twisting in the wind.
 
ironhorse said:
Same goes for a guy that sticks up a liquor store. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
Click to expand...

That's different, that crime has a victim.
 
ironhorse said:
Driving without insurance means if you injure someone in an accident you leave them twisting in the wind.
Click to expand...

If you hit someone and don't have insurance you are still responsible for any damage you cause there just isn't an insurance company paying for it.
 
ludin said:
I agree it isn't victimless they are a threat to the rest of the driving public at large
Click to expand...
`
A victimless crime is a phrase used to refer to actions that are by statute, illegal, but which do not directly violate or threaten the rights of any other individual. Piling up fines has no victim.
 
I don't see this As a civil Rights issue but As a common sense issue. Incarcerating these people costs money and takes up jail space. The logica' thing is to simply seize their assets, including car, phone, etc.
 
DVSentinel said:
If they can not afford the fines and penalties, how do they afford the car and gas?

In the quote you gave, how much did he spend on alcohol to get drunk?
Click to expand...
irrelevant.
 
azgreg said:
If you hit someone and don't have insurance you are still responsible for any damage you cause there just isn't an insurance company paying for it.
Click to expand...

If you are too poor to pay a fine for not having insurance you have no assets to seize.
 
azgreg said:
That's different, that crime has a victim.
Click to expand...

So "victimless" crimes should not be crimes? If you follow someone to close in a car you get no ticket for tail gating I guess. There is no victim until or unless you slam into someone from behind and spin them into oncoming traffic and kill them? Then they get a ticket?
 
ironhorse said:
So "victimless" crimes should not be crimes? If you follow someone to close in a car you get no ticket for tail gating I guess. There is no victim until or unless you slam into someone from behind and spin them into oncoming traffic and kill them? Then they get a ticket?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said that victimless crimes should not result in jail time.
 
azgreg said:
If you hit someone and don't have insurance you are still responsible for any damage you cause there just isn't an insurance company paying for it.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? This is a poor (and disabled) person that will not even pay court ordered fines yet you assert that they would pay accident liability damages.
 
I could be wrong, but aren't the penalties in most small crimes an either/or penalty? Ten dollars or ten days?

If you don't pay the fine, then you have made your choice.
 
azgreg said:
I didn't say that. I said that victimless crimes should not result in jail time.
Click to expand...

On the whole I am not in favour of prison for most crimes. But your attitude is very absolutist. It implies that somebody who doesn't pay taxes can under no circumstances be sentenced to jail.
 
You guys are all getting off track here (a common malady of this forum). The point of the OP (and the article I linked to) is people being incarcerated for the simple fact that they don't have the means to pay fines for simple offenses and court fees accrued due to those cases. People are being locked up just because they are poor. In all fairness I did move the discussion a little further to include all victimless crimes as Paxaeon defined better than I did. There have been cases where someone is jailed for a short period of time for a couple hundred dollar fine and when they get out they are presented a bill for food, etc. that they accrued while in jail. Guess what? they can't pay that either so back to jail they go. Does this sound like the right thing to do to you? According to the ACLU America has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners. How's it feel to be on a list with the likes of N Korea?
 
Fleming said:
On the whole I am not in favour of prison for most crimes. But your attitude is very absolutist. It implies that somebody who doesn't pay taxes can under no circumstances be sentenced to jail.
Click to expand...

Never said that either.
 
azgreg said:
You guys are all getting off track here (a common malady of this forum). The point of the OP (and the article I linked to) is people being incarcerated for the simple fact that they don't have the means to pay fines for simple offenses and court fees accrued due to those cases. People are being locked up just because they are poor. In all fairness I did move the discussion a little further to include all victimless crimes as Paxaeon defined better than I did. There have been cases where someone is jailed for a short period of time for a couple hundred dollar fine and when they get out they are presented a bill for food, etc. that they accrued while in jail. Guess what? they can't pay that either so back to jail they go. Does this sound like the right thing to do to you? According to the ACLU America has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners. How's it feel to be on a list with the likes of N Korea?
Click to expand...

On what basis do you conclude that all people who don't pay their fines do so because they are poor and not because they don't want to pay?
 
Fleming said:
On what basis do you conclude that all people who don't pay their fines do so because they are poor and not because they don't want to pay?
Click to expand...

I never made that conclusion. maybe you should read the 2 articles linked in this thread.
 
azgreg said:
I never made that conclusion. maybe you should read the 2 articles linked in this thread.
Click to expand...

Not being able to read and understand what you write yourself must be tough. I wish you good luck with that.
 
azgreg said:
Who said this?
Click to expand...


you are basically

if you think it is wrong to "punish" transgressions because of income, you basically are giving them carte blanche

why should they follow the rules....you cant make them pay for it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom