Local Government’s Now Opening Debtors Prisons

[Arraya]

Good grief. This is not about traffic violations.

It is about:

1: What states are doing to make up shortfalls

2: Putting people in jail for debts

[scaredyclassic]

it’s not about putting people in jail for generic “debt”, it’s about putting people in jail for debts related to criminal offenses. you can argue about whether driving without insurnace, or even dui, should be a criminal offense. but it’s not just about debts. i can see a good argument for decriminalizing lack of insurance, and not criminalizing anything but very bad driving. how about this regime. legalize dui, legalize no insurance — but if you drive in any way that endangers anyone else, including running a red light, going 1 mph over the speed limit, you get 3 years prison. would that be preferable? is it unreasonable to regulate the risks we impose on each other? if you do it first with fines, and no one pays the fines, then you ahve no regulation over the risks we impose on one another. your bad credi card debt doens’t directly impose a risk on me — but your driving without insurance does. your continuing to drive without a license because you didn’t pay off your dui fines does also, because you wont be able to get insurance.

[scaredyclassic]

it’s not about putting people in jail for generic “debt”, it’s about putting people in jail for debts related to criminal offenses. you can argue about whether driving without insurnace, or even dui, should be a criminal offense. but it’s not just about debts. i can see a good argument for decriminalizing lack of insurance, and not criminalizing anything but very bad driving. how about this regime. legalize dui, legalize no insurance — but if you drive in any way that endangers anyone else, including running a red light, going 1 mph over the speed limit, you get 3 years prison. would that be preferable? is it unreasonable to regulate the risks we impose on each other? if you do it first with fines, and no one pays the fines, then you ahve no regulation over the risks we impose on one another. your bad credi card debt doens’t directly impose a risk on me — but your driving without insurance does. your continuing to drive without a license because you didn’t pay off your dui fines does also, because you wont be able to get insurance.

[scaredyclassic]

it’s not about putting people in jail for generic “debt”, it’s about putting people in jail for debts related to criminal offenses. you can argue about whether driving without insurnace, or even dui, should be a criminal offense. but it’s not just about debts. i can see a good argument for decriminalizing lack of insurance, and not criminalizing anything but very bad driving. how about this regime. legalize dui, legalize no insurance — but if you drive in any way that endangers anyone else, including running a red light, going 1 mph over the speed limit, you get 3 years prison. would that be preferable? is it unreasonable to regulate the risks we impose on each other? if you do it first with fines, and no one pays the fines, then you ahve no regulation over the risks we impose on one another. your bad credi card debt doens’t directly impose a risk on me — but your driving without insurance does. your continuing to drive without a license because you didn’t pay off your dui fines does also, because you wont be able to get insurance.

[scaredyclassic]

it’s not about putting people in jail for generic “debt”, it’s about putting people in jail for debts related to criminal offenses. you can argue about whether driving without insurnace, or even dui, should be a criminal offense. but it’s not just about debts. i can see a good argument for decriminalizing lack of insurance, and not criminalizing anything but very bad driving. how about this regime. legalize dui, legalize no insurance — but if you drive in any way that endangers anyone else, including running a red light, going 1 mph over the speed limit, you get 3 years prison. would that be preferable? is it unreasonable to regulate the risks we impose on each other? if you do it first with fines, and no one pays the fines, then you ahve no regulation over the risks we impose on one another. your bad credi card debt doens’t directly impose a risk on me — but your driving without insurance does. your continuing to drive without a license because you didn’t pay off your dui fines does also, because you wont be able to get insurance.

[scaredyclassic]

it’s not about putting people in jail for generic “debt”, it’s about putting people in jail for debts related to criminal offenses. you can argue about whether driving without insurnace, or even dui, should be a criminal offense. but it’s not just about debts. i can see a good argument for decriminalizing lack of insurance, and not criminalizing anything but very bad driving. how about this regime. legalize dui, legalize no insurance — but if you drive in any way that endangers anyone else, including running a red light, going 1 mph over the speed limit, you get 3 years prison. would that be preferable? is it unreasonable to regulate the risks we impose on each other? if you do it first with fines, and no one pays the fines, then you ahve no regulation over the risks we impose on one another. your bad credi card debt doens’t directly impose a risk on me — but your driving without insurance does. your continuing to drive without a license because you didn’t pay off your dui fines does also, because you wont be able to get insurance.

[Arraya]

First of all. You are configuring the argument to make a point by picking out certain crimes or violations.

This is about unpaid debts to local municipalities putting you in jail. Not about certain crimes, even though he used certain crimes as examples.

We don’t have enough information to know if it is for the crimes that scardey cat deems worthy of jail time.

And if it is the case, that it is what scaredycat deems worthy, then put people with money in jail as well.

No fine to get you out of jail. How do you think that would fly? Would it regulate risk? Would it be fair? Would you be ok with going to jail for a week because of a speeding ticket? Or would you think it cruel and unusual? If you feel it is not fair, then why would you want to impose it on somebody because they did not have money.

Surely, local municipalities can figure out something, rather than jailing people for small offenses, if they don’t have the money.

Also, you discount the part about raising penalties to make up for shortfalls. Did crimes or violations suddenly become worse?

Making life harder for the bottom section of the country during tough economic times is not a trend we want to persist. Though, it undoubtedly will and we should be conscious of it, not encourage it.

[Arraya]

First of all. You are configuring the argument to make a point by picking out certain crimes or violations.

This is about unpaid debts to local municipalities putting you in jail. Not about certain crimes, even though he used certain crimes as examples.

We don’t have enough information to know if it is for the crimes that scardey cat deems worthy of jail time.

And if it is the case, that it is what scaredycat deems worthy, then put people with money in jail as well.

No fine to get you out of jail. How do you think that would fly? Would it regulate risk? Would it be fair? Would you be ok with going to jail for a week because of a speeding ticket? Or would you think it cruel and unusual? If you feel it is not fair, then why would you want to impose it on somebody because they did not have money.

Surely, local municipalities can figure out something, rather than jailing people for small offenses, if they don’t have the money.

Also, you discount the part about raising penalties to make up for shortfalls. Did crimes or violations suddenly become worse?

Making life harder for the bottom section of the country during tough economic times is not a trend we want to persist. Though, it undoubtedly will and we should be conscious of it, not encourage it.

[Arraya]

First of all. You are configuring the argument to make a point by picking out certain crimes or violations.

This is about unpaid debts to local municipalities putting you in jail. Not about certain crimes, even though he used certain crimes as examples.

We don’t have enough information to know if it is for the crimes that scardey cat deems worthy of jail time.

And if it is the case, that it is what scaredycat deems worthy, then put people with money in jail as well.

No fine to get you out of jail. How do you think that would fly? Would it regulate risk? Would it be fair? Would you be ok with going to jail for a week because of a speeding ticket? Or would you think it cruel and unusual? If you feel it is not fair, then why would you want to impose it on somebody because they did not have money.

Surely, local municipalities can figure out something, rather than jailing people for small offenses, if they don’t have the money.

Also, you discount the part about raising penalties to make up for shortfalls. Did crimes or violations suddenly become worse?

Making life harder for the bottom section of the country during tough economic times is not a trend we want to persist. Though, it undoubtedly will and we should be conscious of it, not encourage it.

[Arraya]

First of all. You are configuring the argument to make a point by picking out certain crimes or violations.

This is about unpaid debts to local municipalities putting you in jail. Not about certain crimes, even though he used certain crimes as examples.

We don’t have enough information to know if it is for the crimes that scardey cat deems worthy of jail time.

And if it is the case, that it is what scaredycat deems worthy, then put people with money in jail as well.

No fine to get you out of jail. How do you think that would fly? Would it regulate risk? Would it be fair? Would you be ok with going to jail for a week because of a speeding ticket? Or would you think it cruel and unusual? If you feel it is not fair, then why would you want to impose it on somebody because they did not have money.

Surely, local municipalities can figure out something, rather than jailing people for small offenses, if they don’t have the money.

Also, you discount the part about raising penalties to make up for shortfalls. Did crimes or violations suddenly become worse?

Making life harder for the bottom section of the country during tough economic times is not a trend we want to persist. Though, it undoubtedly will and we should be conscious of it, not encourage it.

[Arraya]

First of all. You are configuring the argument to make a point by picking out certain crimes or violations.

This is about unpaid debts to local municipalities putting you in jail. Not about certain crimes, even though he used certain crimes as examples.

We don’t have enough information to know if it is for the crimes that scardey cat deems worthy of jail time.

And if it is the case, that it is what scaredycat deems worthy, then put people with money in jail as well.

No fine to get you out of jail. How do you think that would fly? Would it regulate risk? Would it be fair? Would you be ok with going to jail for a week because of a speeding ticket? Or would you think it cruel and unusual? If you feel it is not fair, then why would you want to impose it on somebody because they did not have money.

Surely, local municipalities can figure out something, rather than jailing people for small offenses, if they don’t have the money.

Also, you discount the part about raising penalties to make up for shortfalls. Did crimes or violations suddenly become worse?

Making life harder for the bottom section of the country during tough economic times is not a trend we want to persist. Though, it undoubtedly will and we should be conscious of it, not encourage it.

[bsrsharma]

unpaid debts to local municipalities putting you in jail.

Arraya,

It is not that simple; only those debts that arise from a criminal offense land someone in jail. If property tax is not paid, the government takes away your house for auction – not put you in jail. If you don’t pay a business tax, your business will be closed – not put you in jail.

Driving is always considered a privilege and not a right. A person without the means to adhere to all laws shouldn’t drive. Would you like a railroad, bus, airplane or physician to operate without proper license and insurance? Then why allow a dangerous activity like driving a vehicle on public roads to go without strict laws on license & insurance.

I agree living without driving is difficult; but if enough people complain, may be public transport will improve. In fact, a whole lot of people can be helped by making taxi & shuttle (shared taxi) service easier to operate. The unemployed with good driving record and insurance can help people like these folks get around. That is a market solution to the problem; not by decriminalizing license & insurance requirements. Just look what has happened to California (and many other states) by having illegal immigration (de facto) decriminalized. Do you want that lawlessness on roads with 2000-4000 lb vehicles moving at 60-70 mph next to you?

[bsrsharma]

unpaid debts to local municipalities putting you in jail.

Arraya,

It is not that simple; only those debts that arise from a criminal offense land someone in jail. If property tax is not paid, the government takes away your house for auction – not put you in jail. If you don’t pay a business tax, your business will be closed – not put you in jail.

Driving is always considered a privilege and not a right. A person without the means to adhere to all laws shouldn’t drive. Would you like a railroad, bus, airplane or physician to operate without proper license and insurance? Then why allow a dangerous activity like driving a vehicle on public roads to go without strict laws on license & insurance.

I agree living without driving is difficult; but if enough people complain, may be public transport will improve. In fact, a whole lot of people can be helped by making taxi & shuttle (shared taxi) service easier to operate. The unemployed with good driving record and insurance can help people like these folks get around. That is a market solution to the problem; not by decriminalizing license & insurance requirements. Just look what has happened to California (and many other states) by having illegal immigration (de facto) decriminalized. Do you want that lawlessness on roads with 2000-4000 lb vehicles moving at 60-70 mph next to you?

[bsrsharma]

unpaid debts to local municipalities putting you in jail.

Arraya,

It is not that simple; only those debts that arise from a criminal offense land someone in jail. If property tax is not paid, the government takes away your house for auction – not put you in jail. If you don’t pay a business tax, your business will be closed – not put you in jail.

Driving is always considered a privilege and not a right. A person without the means to adhere to all laws shouldn’t drive. Would you like a railroad, bus, airplane or physician to operate without proper license and insurance? Then why allow a dangerous activity like driving a vehicle on public roads to go without strict laws on license & insurance.

I agree living without driving is difficult; but if enough people complain, may be public transport will improve. In fact, a whole lot of people can be helped by making taxi & shuttle (shared taxi) service easier to operate. The unemployed with good driving record and insurance can help people like these folks get around. That is a market solution to the problem; not by decriminalizing license & insurance requirements. Just look what has happened to California (and many other states) by having illegal immigration (de facto) decriminalized. Do you want that lawlessness on roads with 2000-4000 lb vehicles moving at 60-70 mph next to you?

[bsrsharma]

unpaid debts to local municipalities putting you in jail.

Arraya,

It is not that simple; only those debts that arise from a criminal offense land someone in jail. If property tax is not paid, the government takes away your house for auction – not put you in jail. If you don’t pay a business tax, your business will be closed – not put you in jail.

Driving is always considered a privilege and not a right. A person without the means to adhere to all laws shouldn’t drive. Would you like a railroad, bus, airplane or physician to operate without proper license and insurance? Then why allow a dangerous activity like driving a vehicle on public roads to go without strict laws on license & insurance.

I agree living without driving is difficult; but if enough people complain, may be public transport will improve. In fact, a whole lot of people can be helped by making taxi & shuttle (shared taxi) service easier to operate. The unemployed with good driving record and insurance can help people like these folks get around. That is a market solution to the problem; not by decriminalizing license & insurance requirements. Just look what has happened to California (and many other states) by having illegal immigration (de facto) decriminalized. Do you want that lawlessness on roads with 2000-4000 lb vehicles moving at 60-70 mph next to you?

[Author]

Posts