• 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!

Poor defendants say they face modern-day debtors' prison

Hale rejects the comparison to a debtors’ prison, saying that people are asked about their ability to pay and then offered a chance to go on a payment plan.

“We incarcerate for nonpayment or failure to comply with a court order only after a third or fourth time,” said Hale, who added that defendants are given the option of community service instead of jail. “The main thing is they have to pay restitution.”

The $25 fee for a bounced check, along with court costs and a warrant charge, could add up to thousands of dollars as additional fees are tacked on if the defendant does not come to court and pay the initial costs in a timely manner, the judge said.

Hale acknowledged that defendants are asked to waive their right to counsel, but said that is intended to speed up the process, noting that the waiver also outlines potential legal sanctions. “f you’re charged with a misdemeanor, you could receive a one-year jail sentence or a $1,000 fine.”

Hale also said that a public defender is available to answer defendants’ questions.
Click to expand...


I deal with broke people and government fines all the time. There are always options to get things worked out but "no penalty" is rarely one of those options. I'd say that in 99.9% of the cases I deal with when someone ends up in real trouble it's their fault, not the fault of "the system".
 
Lutherf said:
I deal with broke people and government fines all the time. There are always options to get things worked out but "no penalty" is rarely one of those options. I'd say that in 99.9% of the cases I deal with when someone ends up in real trouble it's their fault, not the fault of "the system".
Click to expand...

There has been a lot of stories regarding this on NPR lately. Lots of SJW claim that fines are discriminatory against the poor. Yet they don't offer an alternative. So if you're poor and you get a speeding ticket you shouldn't have to pay a fine, but if you're not poor then you should have to pay? Nonsense. Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time.
 
Groogrux said:
There has been a lot of stories regarding this on NPR lately. Lots of SJW claim that fines are discriminatory against the poor. Yet they don't offer an alternative. So if you're poor and you get a speeding ticket you shouldn't have to pay a fine, but if you're not poor then you should have to pay? Nonsense. Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time.
Click to expand...

Why not make the fines dependent upon income? A person with an annual income of $500,000 can certainly afford to pay $1000 for a parking ticket while a Walmart employee will barely be able to afford paying $10, yet the impact on both could be seen as comparable. Let's make a criminal/civil system which is a tad more equal - less affluenza and more humanity
 
Somerville said:
Why not make the fines dependent upon income? A person with an annual income of $500,000 can certainly afford to pay $1000 for a parking ticket while a Walmart employee will barely be able to afford paying $10, yet the impact on both could be seen as comparable. Let's make a criminal/civil system which is a tad more equal - less affluenza and more humanity
Click to expand...

Except that's not fair. Its absolutely not fair to have someone pay up to hundred times the amount someone else pays for the same exact crime.
 
Somerville said:
Why not make the fines dependent upon income? A person with an annual income of $500,000 can certainly afford to pay $1000 for a parking ticket while a Walmart employee will barely be able to afford paying $10, yet the impact on both could be seen as comparable. Let's make a criminal/civil system which is a tad more equal - less affluenza and more humanity
Click to expand...

So punish people because they've been successful? No thank you. Lets just lower fines overall then. And how are you going to determine what someone should pay? By their tax returns? Tax returns are a joke in determining someone's worth/income.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Except that's not fair. Its absolutely not fair to have someone pay up to hundred times the amount someone else pays for the same exact crime.
Click to expand...

Sure it is, because the point is to punish, so in order to punish equally one must pattern the fine after the wealth of the one fined. This only works though if we have a reliable way to judge wealth on short notice and with little labor. I dont think we can do it.

We must fix the bail system and we must get off of trying to fund government with sin taxes and fines, which amount to about the same thing. THAT is what drives the problem. We hand out way too many fines.
 
Somerville said:
Why not make the fines dependent upon income? A person with an annual income of $500,000 can certainly afford to pay $1000 for a parking ticket while a Walmart employee will barely be able to afford paying $10, yet the impact on both could be seen as comparable. Let's make a criminal/civil system which is a tad more equal - less affluenza and more humanity
Click to expand...
Yet a parking infraction affects society equally, regardless who does it. Why should a rich person be penalized more simply because they happen to be rich? That's not equal, either.
 
I am arguing for equal economic impact upon the violator. $10 for a parking ticket means nothing to the person making $500,000 a year; as a consequence there is no "penalty" on that person. For the minimum wage worker, $10 could mean a missed meal or two.


Affluenza is real in this nation.
 
Somerville said:
I am arguing for equal economic impact upon the violator. $10 for a parking ticket means nothing to the person making $500,000 a year; as a consequence there is no "penalty" on that person. For the minimum wage worker, $10 could mean a missed meal or two.


Affluenza is real in this nation.
Click to expand...

If receiving a parking ticket means missing a meal then you shouldn't be parking illegally.
 
Lutherf said:
I deal with broke people and government fines all the time. There are always options to get things worked out but "no penalty" is rarely one of those options. I'd say that in 99.9% of the cases I deal with when someone ends up in real trouble it's their fault, not the fault of "the system".
Click to expand...

The fines add up when the people don't keep their word.

They have nobody to blame but themselves.
 
Groogrux said:
There has been a lot of stories regarding this on NPR lately. Lots of SJW claim that fines are discriminatory against the poor. Yet they don't offer an alternative. So if you're poor and you get a speeding ticket you shouldn't have to pay a fine, but if you're not poor then you should have to pay? Nonsense. Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time.
Click to expand...

If you are poor, how do you get a speeding ticket?

Poor people don't have cars.
 
Somerville said:
Why not make the fines dependent upon income? A person with an annual income of $500,000 can certainly afford to pay $1000 for a parking ticket while a Walmart employee will barely be able to afford paying $10, yet the impact on both could be seen as comparable. Let's make a criminal/civil system which is a tad more equal - less affluenza and more humanity
Click to expand...

Why give a law breaker a break because he makes less money.

He did the crime, right?
 
Somerville said:
I am arguing for equal economic impact upon the violator. $10 for a parking ticket means nothing to the person making $500,000 a year; as a consequence there is no "penalty" on that person. For the minimum wage worker, $10 could mean a missed meal or two.


Affluenza is real in this nation.
Click to expand...

The impact on the violator is not what fines are about.

Fines are about filling the city or state coffers.
 
Somerville said:
I am arguing for equal economic impact upon the violator. $10 for a parking ticket means nothing to the person making $500,000 a year; as a consequence there is no "penalty" on that person. For the minimum wage worker, $10 could mean a missed meal or two.


Affluenza is real in this nation.
Click to expand...
You're not necessarily wrong, but you are trading one wrong for another.

Which we're all probably guilty of on this topic. We're all choosing the side we more naturally empathize with.
 
Mason66 said:
The fines add up when the people don't keep their word.

They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...
To a fair point, yes, but there are some jurisdictions that abuse their authority and make it as difficult as possible to get out from under the weight. They shouldn't be doing that, either. LE should be fair and equal in it's own right.
 
Mason66 said:
Why give a law breaker a break because he makes less money.

He did the crime, right?
Click to expand...

Law breakers are given a break only when they are politically connected like Hillary and Dubya.

Poor law breakers get no break at all.
 
Somerville said:
I am arguing for equal economic impact upon the violator. $10 for a parking ticket means nothing to the person making $500,000 a year; as a consequence there is no "penalty" on that person. For the minimum wage worker, $10 could mean a missed meal or two.


Affluenza is real in this nation.
Click to expand...

Yep , that was Bernie's line before buying that $650,000 home , thank you Hillary . :lamo
 
Thoreau72 said:
Law breakers are given a break only when they are politically connected like Hillary and Dubya.

Poor law breakers get no break at all.
Click to expand...

The important word(s) in your response is lawbreaker, not poor.
 
Socrates1 said:
Yep , that was Bernie's line before buying that $650,000 home , thank you Hillary . :lamo
Click to expand...

Other than the ever so small fact that this was yet another attempt to deflect away from the thread's topic, it also is another fine example of something we see fairly often from the fanatics of either party - exaggeration The lakeside cottage on one of the islands in Lake Champlain cost $575,000, NOT $650K The funds to pay for it came from the sale of a family place in Maine, one that had been in Sanders' wife's family since 1900.
 
Somerville said:
Other than the ever so small fact that this was yet another attempt to deflect away from the thread's topic, it also is another fine example of something we see fairly often from the fanatics of either party - exaggeration The lakeside cottage on one of the islands in Lake Champlain cost $575,000, NOT $650K The funds to pay for it came from the sale of a family place in Maine, one that had been in Sanders' wife's family since 1900.
Click to expand...

And being a proper socialist I'm sure he will share it with the downtrodden 90% of the time ! :lamo
 
Socrates1 said:
And being a proper socialist I'm sure he will share it with the downtrodden 90% of the time ! :lamo
Click to expand...


Amazing capacity for denial when one is smacked down for posting false info. Nevermind, that the whole concept of "socialism" in your psyche has little relationship with actual socialism, because some people 'know' more than people who have actually experienced living in socialist countries.
 
Somerville said:
Amazing capacity for denial when one is smacked down for posting false info. Nevermind, that the whole concept of "socialism" in your psyche has little relationship with actual socialism, because some people 'know' more than people who have actually experienced living in socialist countries.
Click to expand...

The same amazing capacity for denial when it comes to seeing the hypocrisy of his ways . :roll:
 
Lutherf said:
I deal with broke people and government fines all the time. There are always options to get things worked out but "no penalty" is rarely one of those options. I'd say that in 99.9% of the cases I deal with when someone ends up in real trouble it's their fault, not the fault of "the system".
Click to expand...

Well, that is in your area, not all areas are so decent as your area. Just read these 2 stories:

This Mom Spent 35 Days In Jail For Bouncing A $29 Check

An Arkansas Judge Sent A Cancer Patient To 'Debtors' Prison' Over A Few Bounced Checks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom