Debtors Prisons On The Rise

[Damen]

We've talked about this before, but this is the first time I've seen it make it's way into the somewhat mainstream news. I logged on to Yahoor News and found an article that'd been reposted from CBSMoneyWatch on the issue.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-for--280--the-return-of-debtors--prisons.html

How did breast cancer survivor Lisa Lindsay end up behind bars? She didn't pay a medical bill -- one the Herrin, Ill., teaching assistant was told she didn't owe. "She got a $280 medical bill in error and was told she didn't have to pay it," The Associated Press reports. "But the bill was turned over to a collection agency, and eventually state troopers showed up at her home and took her to jail in handcuffs."

Although the U.S. abolished debtors' prisons in the 1830s, more than a third of U.S. states allow the police to haul people in who don't pay all manner of debts, from bills for health care services to credit card and auto loans. In parts of Illinois, debt collectors commonly use publicly funded courts, sheriff's deputies, and country jails to pressure people who owe even small amounts to pay up, according to the AP.

Under the law, debtors aren't arrested for nonpayment, but rather for failing to respond to court hearings, pay legal fines, or otherwise showing "contempt of court" in connection with a creditor lawsuit. That loophole has lawmakers in the Illinois House of Representatives concerned enough to pass a bill in March that would make it illegal to send residents of the state to jail if they can't pay a debt. The measure awaits action in the senate.

"Creditors have been manipulating the court system to extract money from the unemployed, veterans, even seniors who rely solely on their benefits to get by each month," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said last month in a statement voicing support for the legislation. "Too many people have been thrown in jail simply because they're too poor to pay their debts. We cannot allow these illegal abuses to continue."

...

According to the ACLU: "The sad truth is that debtors' prisons are flourishing today, more than two decades after the Supreme Court prohibited imprisoning those who are too poor to pay their legal debts. In this era of shrinking budgets, state and local governments have turned aggressively to using the threat and reality of imprisonment to squeeze revenue out of the poorest defendants who appear in their courts."

Some states also apply "poverty penalties," including late fees, payment plan fees, and interest when people are unable to pay all their debts at once, according to a report by the New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama charges a 30 percent collection fee, for instance, while Florida allows private debt collectors to add a 40 percent surcharge on the original debt. Some Florida counties also use so-called collection courts, where debtors can be jailed but have no right to a public defender.

What I want to know is why hasn't it been made a Federal Law that you cannot jail someone for failure to pay legal and court fees? That one law at the federal level would close this loophole and eliminate the return of debtors prisons. But I find myself wondering if the booming private prison industry might have something to do with this.

Of course, this being found on Yahoor News, the comments section is obviously flooded with knuckle draggers who're grunting and howling that the US Government should be jailed for it's debt.

[Dantes Virgil]

Something about this whole thing seems really odd to me.  Now, my only real experience with this is helping a friend of mine who is a landlady.  She frequently has to sue for money.  But based on this experience, for one thing, if someone wants to get money from you, that's civil court, not criminal.  So I don't see how jail ever enters the picture with a debt.  People just sue the tar out of you and then garnish your wages and ding up your credit report.  If you don't show up to court, it's a default win for the person suing you.  Which means a judgment and usually a garnishment.  I'm off to read up more about being sent to jail over something like this!

[nickiknack]

I'm sure the Private Prison Industry does have an hand in this. Also I've always found the whole concept of debtors prisons to be counterproductive, I mean, how are you supposed to pay off the debt, if you're in goddamn jail??

[Dantes Virgil]

OK, not that I give a crap about the system, but I got a fuck no for that comment?  LOL.  I was trying to express shock, not trying to say I was running off to figure out how we could include jail time in the unpleasant business my friend already has to do.   

It's not like we don't have jail/prison overcrowding already; putting people away for a few hundred bucks is going to absolutely crash an already broken system.

[Distind]

I'm sure the Private Prison Industry does have an hand in this. Also I've always found the whole concept of debtors prisons to be counterproductive, I mean, how are you supposed to pay off the debt, if you're in goddamn jail??

If I remember correctly you were supposed to hold down a job at the same time. Because prison never stopped anyone from being able to get a job after all.

I think they're getting the criminal charges out of technicalities based on the civil trial. Which is going to be much harder to solve than simply say they can't go to jail over debts. Because that isn't it. It's because the court has sent them to jail over a related matter, not the debt itself. Though it does achieve the exact same effect.

[DasFuchs]

I'm sure the Private Prison Industry does have an hand in this. Also I've always found the whole concept of debtors prisons to be counterproductive, I mean, how are you supposed to pay off the debt, if you're in goddamn jail??

I believe, if you follow the dollars, the people that go to jail are the ones that owe too little to be worth trying to take, this is more of a "Well, we can't just let you go". I say this out of experience. When my apartment complex "evicted" me, they sent the law after me at first because I didn't owe anything but some rent I couldn't pay. The judge told me I'd either have to pay now, or spend a few days in the slammer. The apartment complex decided to let me go when they heard that. Then they spent a few months trying to rack up a few thousand worth of debt and took me to court again.

[Old Viking]

Let's remain calm.  One of our major political parties says if you're poor you should be imprisoned.

[Lt. Fred]

But based on this experience, for one thing, if someone wants to get money from you, that's civil court, not criminal.  So I don't see how jail ever enters the picture with a debt.

I think this is more about court fees, less about private debts. So you can get jailed if you can't pay a court fine. Why you wouldn't just declare bankruptcy is beyond me, though.

As for Fuck Yes and Fuck No, I try to ignore it. Which I suppose explains my rather poor showing.

[Osama bin Bambi]

And this is supposed to make people pay their debts how exactly? Not to mention that the large influx of debtors on top of the drug-users and nonviolent offenders will result in very overcrowded prisons, which taxpayers will have to pay for.

So basically, taxpayers pay more, prisoners are unhappy, and defrauded customers are sent to jail on bullshit charges.

Here's some info on laws regarding fines: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fines

Y'see, the Supreme Court has ruled that you can't establish labor camps for convicted people to pay off their fines.

The U.S. Supreme Court has placed limits on incarceration for nonpayment of fines. In Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S. Ct. 2018, 26 L. Ed. 2d 586 (1970), the defendant, Willie E. Williams, was convicted of petty theft and sentenced to one year in prison and a $500 fine, the maximum sentence allowed under the applicable statute. When Williams was unable to pay the fine upon completing his year in jail, he was kept incarcerated to "work off" the fine at a rate of $5 a day. Williams appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no state may increase the sentence of a defendant beyond the maximum period specified by statute for failure to pay a fine.

You also can't alter a convicted person's fine to a jail term if they are incapable of paying the fine.

Shortly after the Williams case, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not convert a fine into incarceration if the conviction warrants only a fine. In Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S. Ct. 668, 28 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1971), the defendant, Preston A. Tate, was unable to pay $425 in fines for traffic offenses and was committed to prison to work off his fine at a rate of $5 a day. The Supreme Court ruled that a state may not "impos[e] a fine as a sentence and then automatically conver[t] it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full."

You can only incarcerate a convicted person sentenced with a fine if they are able to pay said fine, but refuse to do so.

Neither the Williams ruling nor the Tate ruling prevents a court from imprisoning a defendant who is able, but refuses, to pay a fine. The court may do so after finding that the defendant was somehow responsible for the failure to pay and that alternative forms of punishment would be inadequate to meet the state's interest in punishment and deterrence (Beardenv. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S. Ct. 2064, 76 L. Ed. 2d 221 [1983]).

Also, fines are intended to pay for the cost of incarceration. Jailing people for not paying fines completely undermines the purpose of assigning fines instead of jail time in the first place.

Fines are often used to pay for incarceration and other sentencing costs. In 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive crime control act (codified in scattered sections of 5, 8, 29, 41, 42, and 50 App. U.S.C.A.), which established the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Commission. According to section 5E1.2 of the act, a federal court shall impose a fine that is at least sufficient to pay the costs of imprisonment, probation, or supervised release order. Many states have followed suit, and fines are increasingly used to defray the costs of punishment.

All emphasis mine.

[TenfoldMaquette]

Well, yes, that's all true...but they're not being imprisoned for not paying the fine. They're being imprisoned for "contempt of court", or "failing to respond to a court order", etc etc. Certainly it has nothing to do with the money they owe...that's just a coincidence. A happy, useful coincidence.

...and yes, that was sarcasm.




 

[Sylvana]

I am a bit confused.
I actually work in debt collection and the absolute worst that can happen here is after the collection company sues the debtor a monthly amount is deducted from the debtor's salary before they even sniff the money. However nothing close to jail, although do note that assets may be seized as well. In general though companies by far prefer the salary deductions because they want money not second hand assets.

However, when things like this goes to court, how is the debtor even fined by the court? What exactly is the debtor being fined for? To my understanding the court can only issue a fine if someone breaks the law, and while contempt of court can result in such a fine, if you take the court proceedings seriously like one should you shouldn't ever end up in that situation. I am not saying that things like this are the fault of the debtor though, I am just confused exactly how the state and collection agencies are pulling this off.

[DasFuchs]

But based on this experience, for one thing, if someone wants to get money from you, that's civil court, not criminal.  So I don't see how jail ever enters the picture with a debt.

I think this is more about court fees, less about private debts. So you can get jailed if you can't pay a court fine. Why you wouldn't just declare bankruptcy is beyond me, though.

As for Fuck Yes and Fuck No, I try to ignore it. Which I suppose explains my rather poor showing.

Depends on how much you're in debt. Bankruptcy costs money too. about 3k for the lawyer and court fees and such. So if you're in debt for some 2k, declaring bankruptcy for 3k is hardly a sound move

However, when things like this goes to court, how is the debtor even fined by the court? What exactly is the debtor being fined for? To my understanding the court can only issue a fine if someone breaks the law, and while contempt of court can result in such a fine, if you take the court proceedings seriously like one should you shouldn't ever end up in that situation. I am not saying that things like this are the fault of the debtor though, I am just confused exactly how the state and collection agencies are pulling this off.

They aren't fines per se, they're court fees. The price for the "privilege" of using the court system. In the most "esteemed" Lapeer county, it tends to hover around 300 bucks for such issues. What sucks even more is the last time i paid garnishments, we went on layoff, so the debt collectors went back to court when my garnishment period was up to garnish the rest and it hit me with another 300 bucks

[Bezron]

I am a bit confused.
I actually work in debt collection and the absolute worst that can happen here is after the collection company sues the debtor a monthly amount is deducted from the debtor's salary before they even sniff the money. However nothing close to jail, although do note that assets may be seized as well. In general though companies by far prefer the salary deductions because they want money not second hand assets.

However, when things like this goes to court, how is the debtor even fined by the court? What exactly is the debtor being fined for? To my understanding the court can only issue a fine if someone breaks the law, and while contempt of court can result in such a fine, if you take the court proceedings seriously like one should you shouldn't ever end up in that situation. I am not saying that things like this are the fault of the debtor though, I am just confused exactly how the state and collection agencies are pulling this off.

It sounds like you probably work for one of the more reputable collection agencies.  As you should know, however, there are quite a few agencies that are popping up that are very predatory.  These generally are the ones that buy zombie debt for pennies on the dollar, etc.  In some cases, they will then sue the debtor, but not serve the papers correctly.  So, the debtor doesn't show up to court, the judge gets pissed and issues a contempt fine.  Debtor doesn't know about it, judge issues a warrant and BAM! jail.

This actually happened to me once (except the jail part).  Luckily, the officer serving the bench warrant was very nice and gave me an appear date.  i went in lawyered up and presented all of my facts.  The judge got so mad at the agency that they not only erased the debt, but had to pay me the $1000 fine for dishonest collection practices.  This was all over a $200 phone bill that was close to 10 years old at the time.

[Sylvana]

It sounds like you probably work for one of the more reputable collection agencies.  As you should know, however, there are quite a few agencies that are popping up that are very predatory.  These generally are the ones that buy zombie debt for pennies on the dollar, etc.  In some cases, they will then sue the debtor, but not serve the papers correctly.  So, the debtor doesn't show up to court, the judge gets pissed and issues a contempt fine.  Debtor doesn't know about it, judge issues a warrant and BAM! jail.

That must surely be illegal? I don't know about specific American laws, but here court papers have to be served by an official of the court and must be done in person. Just mailing the summons is not legal, although registered mail that must be signed for I believe is ok. Also, the serving of papers is done by the courts not the agency.
Similarly one should be able to appeal the contempt of court ruling based on never receiving the court papers, of which there should be a paper trail because in order for them to be successfully served surely the person in question must sign for receipt.

If actions like these are legal in America, it really makes me weep for your country. 

[DasFuchs]

It sounds like you probably work for one of the more reputable collection agencies.  As you should know, however, there are quite a few agencies that are popping up that are very predatory.  These generally are the ones that buy zombie debt for pennies on the dollar, etc.  In some cases, they will then sue the debtor, but not serve the papers correctly.  So, the debtor doesn't show up to court, the judge gets pissed and issues a contempt fine.  Debtor doesn't know about it, judge issues a warrant and BAM! jail.

That must surely be illegal? I don't know about specific American laws, but here court papers have to be served by an official of the court and must be done in person. Just mailing the summons is not legal, although registered mail that must be signed for I believe is ok. Also, the serving of papers is done by the courts not the agency.
Similarly one should be able to appeal the contempt of court ruling based on never receiving the court papers, of which there should be a paper trail because in order for them to be successfully served surely the person in question must sign for receipt.

If actions like these are legal in America, it really makes me weep for your country. 

Here in the US the debt collector's lawyers mail out the court papers they received when they set a court date. They also send the papers after you lose if you didn't show. They can manipulate crap like that, and it's fairly difficult to prove they did since the only way to show would be some recordable info. If a letter came when it was too late and post marked as such, then you'll most likely get an extension, but no letter or evidence and it's your word against their's
What happened to Bezron was more likely due to the date of the debt. After a certain amount of time (in Michigan it's seven years) collectors cannot open a case on a debt.