Jailed for Debt in the U.S. in the 21st. Century

reply to post by rival


There are no "debtors prisons"...

You will be jailed, once again for not respecting a court order... if the court ordered you to stand on the front steps and wear a sign, you could get the same thing if you refused...


Once again, it's not because of the debt, its because of ones relationship to the court...

Come on folks, didn't any of you learn civics?

Originally posted by alaskan

Originally posted by alaskan
Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial point or distinction that revolves around mere words rather than significant issues: “To argue whether the medication killed the patient or contributed to her death is to argue over semantics.”

source : www.dictionary.com

Heh... well I wouldn't call dictionary.com "authoritative" LOL

Let's try Webster...

Main Entry: se·man·tics
Pronunciation: \si-ˈman-tiks\
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Date: 1893

1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : semiotic (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth
2 : general semantics
3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Ouch. I see... Thank you for sharing your story. Laws are usually more complex than I give credit, each state having their own set of laws making it difficult to distinguish them, and the language used escalating the complication understanding them.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Well the headline is a bit disingenuous... No one has been jailed for debt... They've been arrest and jailed for not showing up to court regarding debt....

That's a huge difference there...

Exactamundo!
A lot of people will not read enough to see clearly that this woman was arrested for an FTA (failure to appear) however I have seen her story before and knew this.
The fact that a creditor paid an attorney to go after a $250 debt tells me that something is fishy here. The legal fees alone would amount to more than that.
There is no debtors prison here in the US the best they could do is to put a lien against your paycheck or property.
These people are just trying to stir angst.


(Edit) to fix the lean/lien issue my spellin ar knot tu guud.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by g146541]

People are going to court and standing in front of the judge, The Judge then finds in the creditors favor and sets up a payment plan, say $300 per month for 48 months, that the debtor is court ordered to pay the creditor to satisfy the debt.

If the debtor fails to make payments to the creditor for what ever reason, they are in violation of court order and a warrant is issued for the arrest of the debtor.

Debtor is jailed for failure to pay the debt.

People ARE jailed for debt not only for not appearing in court but, for not paying the debt.

reply to post by L.HAMILTON


Hunka is dead on regarding this issue.

If a person is in debt, it means that they voluntarily entered into a contract; usually with regards to another private party or company for a service, commodity or merchandise.

When that person is unable to fulfill that contract, the other party has every right to either settle with the person privately or pursue the liable party via the court system.

When the person who holds the debt fails to show up in court to explain them, they are now in contempt of the court and that is why they are being arrested. While the debt was the means, it was in no way the reason why they are jailed.

I shall ask all those that are up in arms about this: If you were a company that provided a service and all your clients defaulted on their payments to you, would you not pursue them in whatever way you are afforded? Should they be given a pass for their lack of responsibility?

Understandably there are those that have come upon hard times, but that is no excuse to think you should be given a pass in regards to the debt you have built. But the mere fact that those who have no fulfilled their obligation in regards to a debt, along with not showing up in court to defend themselves, shows that the person is lacking character.

Post Script:
There is a growing trend, especially in the United States that the debt we incurred is not of our doing. Make no mistake; debt is the most successful and widely marketed product of our times. Through the irresponsibility of the people though, they become beholden to debt and live their lives in a negative cash flow.

To think that you are not liable and will not be held accountable to monies owed is ignorant and/or fraudulent at worst. Stop blaming those who you willfully engaged in commerce with by buying something you could not possibly afford and take responsibility for your actions.


[edit on 20-6-2010 by ownbestenemy]

Originally posted by deepred
People are going to court and standing in front of the judge, The Judge then finds in the creditors favor and sets up a payment plan, say $300 per month for 48 months, that the debtor is court ordered to pay the creditor to satisfy the debt.

If the debtor fails to make payments to the creditor for what ever reason, they are in violation of court order and a warrant is issued for the arrest of the debtor.

Debtor is jailed for failure to pay the debt.

People ARE jailed for debt not only for not appearing in court but, for not paying the debt.

Nope... The person was jailed for failure to follow a court order... Doesn't matter what the order was.. Plus the judge is not going to set up a payment plan that you could never possibly pay...

No matter which way you go about it, this has always been the case... When you go to jail for failure to appear, or failure to follow a court order, that's all you've been jailed for...

For example, if you had to show up to court for some reason, and you didn't appear because you didn't have money for the bus, and they arrest you... You are not put in jail for being poor... Your put in jail for failure to appear!!!!

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Come on folks, didn't any of you learn civics?

No, to answer your question, honestly. I myself am getting there, but it takes time, and not everyone has time to spare, or values the acquisition of knowledge equally, so any effort to gather or employ such knowledge outside this forum, in life, is determined meritless, and on some occasions, I have experienced, pointless. And not everyone has attended college, where I believe a semester of civics is required, or may satisfy some requirement? I'll have to take a look at the student coursebook that I have.

I've seen similar comments in just about every forum on Above Top Secret. For example, having knowledge in one field or another would render obsolete an idea where a lack of said knowledge would nurture it. Now accumulating all of these fields in which such knowledge, no matter how elementary, builds together quite a degree of understanding considering the breadth of each field itself. Knowing something as the relationship between the individual and the court might seem simple, but when taken into consideration with other activities, or responsibilities, it no longer becomes a matter of whether or not the understanding of something is neglected, but whether there is enough time to add them to your body of knowledge. There are many things that I would love to learn, or to study, but had to put them aside because their wasn't enough time in the day to dedicate to them.

I think I'm done rambling for now as I've run out of time for that as well.

I'm far from a legal expert, but how does this differentiate in Civil VS Criminal Court? I was always under the impression that the resolution of private debt is a civil matter and if you don't show up, a summary judgement is issued against you?

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Well the headline is a bit disingenuous... No one has been jailed for debt... They've been arrest and jailed for not showing up to court regarding debt....
That's a huge difference there...

You are wrong.
Bill Clintstone passed the "dead Beat Dad act. It is a Federal Offense to be behind in child support payments of $15,000.00
If an unfortunate man gets divorced by his cheating wife, He Has To Pay!
If this man is ordered by the court to pay $1600.00 a month, and is laid off and on in a Two year period, then it is easy to see that this man will be indited, and tried for a Federal Offense!
There is no justice!

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Nope... The person was jailed for failure to follow a court order... Doesn't matter what the order was.. Plus the judge is not going to set up a payment plan that you could never possibly pay...

Again, you are wrong.
It is a debt that caused the problem in the first place.
But then, no matter how many times you are proven wrong, you will say you are right.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by deepred
People are going to court and standing in front of the judge, The Judge then finds in the creditors favor and sets up a payment plan, say $300 per month for 48 months, that the debtor is court ordered to pay the creditor to satisfy the debt.

If the debtor fails to make payments to the creditor for what ever reason, they are in violation of court order and a warrant is issued for the arrest of the debtor.

Debtor is jailed for failure to pay the debt.

People ARE jailed for debt not only for not appearing in court but, for not paying the debt.

Nope... The person was jailed for failure to follow a court order... Doesn't matter what the order was.. Plus the judge is not going to set up a payment plan that you could never possibly pay...

No matter which way you go about it, this has always been the case... When you go to jail for failure to appear, or failure to follow a court order, that's all you've been jailed for...

For example, if you had to show up to court for some reason, and you didn't appear because you didn't have money for the bus, and they arrest you... You are not put in jail for being poor... Your put in jail for failure to appear!!!!

Yes, and a murderer goes to jail because of a court sentence, not the actual murder and a rapist does not go to jail because he raped someone but rather because he violated the rules set forward by the courts clearly assuring punishment if convicted of violating the courts orders not to rape.

If a court order is issued requiring repayment of a debt and the debt is not repaid as ordered, then a violation has occurred. The cause of the violated court order is failure to repay dept as ordered by the court.

Now you can simplify this and say it was a "violation of court order" but an actual violation must be cited. In this case the actual violation of the courts order was the failure to repay the debt as ordered by the court.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by rival

 

There are no "debtors prisons"...

You will be jailed, once again for not respecting a court order... if the court ordered you to stand on the front steps and wear a sign, you could get the same thing if you refused...


Once again, it's not because of the debt, its because of ones relationship to the court...

Come on folks, didn't any of you learn civics?

You are correct, I agree, and in the OP's post the debtor went to jail
for failure to appear. But I am one to call a horse a horse (9th grade
education--no civics).

And though it seems we are bickering semantics, in a hypothetical
situation where a debtor is ordered to pay a creditor, and fails, that
debtor will face jail timel--the root cause of which was owing a debt.

Now let's put semantics aside.

In unsecured debt, such as with a credit card, it is understood that the
creditor is assuming a risk that the debtor will not pay. The creditor's risk
is offset by charging higher interest fees than those normally charged for
secured debt, and in that sense, we ALL pay for the privilege of credit.

In an imperfect world, if all unsecured debts were court ordered to be payed
then that would greatly reduce the creditor's risk and the high interest
fees would be unjustified to offset the risk.

To boil my argument down to two main points;

If the original cause for court proceedings was debt, and if jail is the outcome
whether by failure to appear, or failure to follow court order to pay, then
the debtor is going to jail ultimately for non-payment of debt (I know
this is a straw-man argument, but I'm sticking with it)--hence me using the term debtor's prison.

Unsecured debt is unsecured debt. Facing jail time for refusal or inability
to pay secures said debt to a large degree.

Here it's called an "FTA"-Failure to Appear. It's just disrespectful. If you get a summons, go to court. You can get an FTA for not going to jury duty, too. If people really are going to jail for debt, that's outrageous, but it looks like people are misinterpreting what happened.

Originally posted by twitchy
I'm far from a legal expert, but how does this differentiate in Civil VS Criminal Court? I was always under the impression that the resolution of private debt is a civil matter and if you don't show up, a summary judgement is issued against you?

That's very much what I thought, and from what I've heard or read about still think. I'll look over the laws for my state, Connecticut, and see what I can find. So far I am finding that if you refuse to show when a subpoena is issued requiring attendance you may be found in contempt of court. Not appearing will also severely limit your rights and ability to fight the debt.

reply to post by L.HAMILTON


Being jailed for 'debt-related' issues is not the same as being put in jail for debt.
The article states they are put in jail for not appearing in court. Well DUH.

Originally posted by deepred

Yes, and a murderer goes to jail because of a court sentence, not the actual murder

Yeah, but he showed up in court to get the sentence, didn't he?

If he didn't show up in court, he would have went to jail for not showing up in court if he were ever pulled over or caught for his warrant for not appearing in court, AND THEN he would be tried for his rape, which is a completely different matter than not showing up in court. I hope you can differentiate raping and not appearing somewhere at a predetermined date and time.

If a court order is issued requiring repayment of a debt and the debt is not repaid as ordered, then a violation has occurred. The cause of the violated court order is failure to repay dept as ordered by the court.

If.... there is no if. The if only occurs once the person is in court. Contrary to what you may believe, court rulings on repayments of debt are NOT delivered to your mailbox.

Now you can simplify this and say it was a "violation of court order" but an actual violation must be cited. In this case the actual violation of the courts order was the failure to repay the debt as ordered by the court.

I can sue you for stepping on my big toe and causing me to spill hot coffee on my lap.

The thing is, if I sue you, and you ignore the summons, you are not going to be charged guilty for stepping on my big toe or causing me to spill coffee on my lap.

... no, you will be charged for not showing up in court.

Same goes for the debt.

LIES LIES and more LIES

They've been arrest and jailed for not showing up to court regarding debt....


That's a huge difference there...
-----------------------------------------------

ZERO difference. ok so you didn't go to court, they toss you in jail, but larry makes a payment for you and they let you out because someone made a payment, thats debtors prison..

you can say its all about not showing up for kangaroo court all you want to but the fact is, its a civil matter no detainment should ever be involved.

Originally posted by Pewbert
LIES LIES and more LIES

They've been arrest and jailed for not showing up to court regarding debt....


That's a huge difference there...
-----------------------------------------------

ZERO difference. ok so you didn't go to court, they toss you in jail, but larry makes a payment for you and they let you out because someone made a payment, thats debtors prison..

you can say its all about not showing up for kangaroo court all you want to but the fact is, its a civil matter no detainment should ever be involved.

If someone legally contests you in some regard, you are legally obligated to dispute them in court. This is the right of the accuser.. how would you like it if you accused someone over something and it was never brought to court to be ruled because they just ignored it?

If you DO NOT dispute them, you will have a warrant issued for your arrest so that you can contest the matter. Don't think of it as a "oh no i'm being imprisoned against my will" think of it as a "you will get your ass to court and settle this matter like an adult" If you feel this is wrong, you have a right also: to counter sue your accuser.

Kinda curious about a couple of things about debt, please validate me or correct me on this...

1. I was told that if a person sent in to a creditor a sum related to 5 dollars a month, a creditor could not take any actions against you because you sent in a payment and the creditor accepted it. Does this still hold true today? (most likely today - the creditor will send it back telling you they can not accept it. That in of itself also provided proof of good faith on behalf of the debtor in that an effort was made, but rejected by the creditor. Does this still apply today?


HUNKAHUNKA...

2. A debt has an expiration date? or was that the court ruling in a judgement that had the expiration date? I'm trying to understand your grace in expiration as explained by the lawyer you talked with here...

Does a judgement fall under the jurisdiction of Statues of limitations or ??