debtor's prisons are back

Post Reply New Topic

or how states are trying once again to squeeze blood from turnips
13th amendment, anyone?

Peonage

Summary: Section 1581 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in "debt servitude," or peonage, which is closely related to involuntary servitude. Section 1581 prohibits using force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion to compel a person to work against his/her will. In addition, the victim's involuntary servitude must be tied to the payment of a debt.

18 U.S.C. § 1581

(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).

Involuntary Servitude

Summary: Section 1584 of Title 18 makes it unlawful to hold a person in a condition of slavery, that is, a condition of compulsory service or labor against his/her will. A Section 1584 conviction requires that the victim be held against his/her will by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion. Section 1584 also prohibits compelling a person to work against his/her will by creating a "climate of fear" through the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion [i.e., If you don't work, I'll call the immigration officials.] which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will.

18 U.S.C. § 1584

Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

Forced Labor

Summary: Section 1589 of Title 18, which was passed as part of the TVPA, makes it unlawful to provide or obtain the labor or services of a person through one of three prohibited means. Congress enacted § 1589 in response to the Supreme Court?s decision in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), which interpreted § 1584 to require the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion. Section 1589 broadens the definition of the kinds of coercion that might result in forced labor.

18 U.S.C. § 1589

Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person--

(1) by threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person;

(2) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if the person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint; or

(3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

Trafficking with Respect to Peonage, Slavery, Involuntary Servitude, or Forced Labor

Summary: Section 1590 makes it unlawful to recruit, harbor, transport, or broker persons for labor or services under conditions which violate any of the offenses contained in Chapter 77 of Title 18.

18 U.S.C. § 1590

Whoever knowingly recruits, harbors, transports, provides, or obtains by any means, any person for labor or services in violation of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

where are the civil rights lawyers on this?

And your proof of this is.....?

It is illegal to federally imprison someone for debt. At the state level, however, it is not. Many states have debtor imprisonment laws on the books.

Here in Ohio, it isn't allowed under state law (it actually isn't addressed), but it is on the local level in many areas. For example, East Cleveland has a statute under the Home Rule clause of the Ohio Constitution allowing the imprisonment of anyone who cannot pay fines or fees payable to the court. I actually saw someone who had his traffic court case dismissed, but could not pay the court fees (including the "not guilty" fee), and get hauled off to spend a night in jail.

Land of the free.
With liberty and justice for all.

How would people ever pay off their credit card bills?The interest would just accumulate.
On the other hand,dead beat parents that won't pay child support and have the funds should go to the pokey for not paying that debt.

^This has been the major criticism for child support non-payment imprisonment. The owed amount continues to go up while they are in prison, as well as interest accumulation. The person is released and then expected to resume payments and pay the amount already owed within a given time frame or go back in. Wage garnishment seems a better system, but even then there are some sneaky ways for dodging the payments.

Child support can be a funny thing.My friend's son pays a big amount,his ex buys a sports car Seems like she'd invest in the kids and not herself.
I wouldn't want someone to go to jail for nonpayment if they are down on their luck and don't have the funds,it's the ones that work under the table for cash and then don't pay.

The Constitution of the State of Utah provides at Art. 1, Sec. 16 http://le.utah.gov/code/CONST/htm/00I01_001600.htm that "[t]here shall be no imprisonment for debt except in cases of absconding debtors."

But, according to a Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5610 ... d.html.csp news report, Utah "[c]reditors can ask for a hearing where debtors must disclose their ability to pay. If the latter fail to show up, it's considered contempt, and a warrant is issued. According to Brent Johnson of the Utah State Courts, it's rare for someone to be jailed on these warrants, but it could happen. 'The numbers would be low and the arrests would be based on repeated disobedience to the court's order.' He added that Utah courts don't keep records on how many people are actually arrested."

So, the Utah debtor must play along with all legal proceedings to show that the debtor isn't absconding or in contempt of court. Hm. Not exactly the kind of defense against debtors' prisons that I had thought my state would have adopted.

The reason why those that do not pay child support are imprisoned is that it is not that they 'cannot' pay. They just don't. They do not get imprisoned unless they literally make zero payments for some time plus make no effort to TRY and make payment. The legal system does have measures in place that allow the person to prove they have no income for X reason and thus cant make payments for X months...or that their pay is very low and they cannot make the full child support payment but they are paying at least a little bit.

Wage garnishment does not work as it is very easy to avoid it by getting paid under the table. The most common way to do this is the person gets a very low pay part time job where they work absolute minimum hours and thats where the wage garnishment comes from...and their 'main' job is one that pays them under the table (usually a trade or manual labor type jobs).

This last system is used by people to avoid paying the full amount of child support while keeping the bulk of the money they make. They abuse the 'you cant pay the full amount but you're at least paying a little bit so we wont take you to court to be arrested' loophole.

It is up to the recipient of the child support to catch this behavior and have the courts deal with it.

It is not surprising that those who are in prison for child support issues are mostly either drug addicts or those that got caught gaming the system to avoid payments.

Personally I think that when child support is issued, the assets of the person should be considered fair game. Own a house and they game the system to avoid paying it? You just lost your house...thank you for playing. - type of thing.

I agree. But, isn't asset forfeiture in civil complaints about child support already permitted? In other-than-civil complaints, I would question why legislatures need to make debt a crime, so that criminal courts may attach assets when civil courts already provide it. After all, debt is a violation of contract law, not a crime against a person like rape, kidnapping or murder.

But yeah, if a person defaults on a debt (especially in civil child-support complaints), attaching the person's assets is justified.

That depends on the state. Plenty of places where it is based on missed payments with zero consideration for ability to pay.



Hence the reason I said there were sneaky ways to get around it. But there are less and less jobs out there that will pay under the table even half as well as a minimum wage job.



Another aspect of the system that could be improved.



Reference? Deadbeat dad is a pretty nasty stereotype that one of my ex-brother in laws had to deal with for years (and sometimes still does) after my sister got him tossed into jail for a few months. His ability to pay was based off of his tax returns, despit the fact that he lost his job and hadn't worked for 2 months. Even my sister was sorry afterwards, as she filed the official complaint after a particularly nasty screaming match.



This has a similar potential for abuse as wage garnishment. But I do agree with it.

I just don't think that anyone should ever be put into prison for a failure to pay their debts. It sets a dangerous precedent in a nation where the bulk of our legal system is based entirely on precedent.

Is there a relatively current example of debtor's prison law in use that this thread relates to that would actually make it a news topic?

our very own ASS-P who, in various wrong planet postings, described how due to accumulating fines, has been jailed at least once in a jail facility which in his case served in the capacity of a debtor's prison. IOW that he was put in jail for not paying fines because he lacked the fundage to pay the fines. I don't understand how this could be anything other than punishing people for being poor. it costs more to jail them than they'd ever get from the fines being paid.

Most fines seem to be disproportionate to the offense. Sometimes way over the top with speeding tickets being the first example that comes to mind. Having said that, the alternative to paying the fines or not paying them (regardless of the reason) is jail.
Fairness in fining would be a better crusade.

Knowing that for-profit corporations now operate most detention facilities, jails and prisons where the governments that contract with the corporations obligate themselves to maintain a 90-percent inmate rate, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that felony creep has become felony sprint.

If the fines for misdemeanors kept pace with inflation instead of being mere nusances, there wouldn't probably be much need for ever more felony convictions. Thus, we have a criminal-justice industry which practically guarantees that certain people will "strike out" quickly and feloniously, and face mandatory sentencing. Clearly, this is what Prisons Inc. intended all along. The debtors' factor is simply one face of the multiheaded hydra.

how about not kicking people when they're already down? how 'bout leaving the down and out alone, at least let them have peace if one doesn't want to actually help them? what is wrong with this nation? the jails are already bursting at the seams as it is without cramming in poor debtors as well. seems like there is a lack of 1] compassion, and 2]common sense happening on a large scale. where is the good sense in spending more money to jail people than to fix their problems in the first place?

In my opinion, the entire justice system is one of those things that I strongly believe should remain strictly a government function and not contracted out. It stands to reason that if it's profitable to incarcerate people that more people will be incarcerated. That's just wrong.
Fines for misdemeanors are already too goddamned expensive.