[dadkins]

Both this article and the ACLU report it's based upon are ridiculously misleading. You don't get arrested for owing a debt. You get a bench warrant issued for not showing up to court when you've been ordered to do so.

Debt collectors sue to get a court judgement against people who won't otherwise pay, so they can use the power of the state to garnish wages, levy bank accounts, etc. It's no surprise that they win in court. The debts are usually valid. It doesn't help debtors' cases when they don't show up. Then they get a default judgement.

Even with a judgement against you, you still won't get arrested for not paying. But if you don't, the creditor can then request a debtor's examination to which the court requires you to show up. At the examination, you'll be asked about your assets and income, so the creditor knows how to collect by force.

What happens if you don't show up to a debtor's examination? The creditor can ask the judge for a bench warrant against you. What happens next depends on the state and county. Sometimes the sheriff knocks on your door and gives you a piece of paper telling you to come to court, or else. Sometimes they do nothing until you get pulled over for some other reason and the warrant comes up.

In any case, what's happening to some people is that they're being sued over debts they owe, not showing up to court to defend themselves, getting default judgements against them, still not paying, getting summoned to court for a debtor's examination, not showing up for that, and then getting a bench warrant issued.

If you don't show up for jury duty, the judge can issue a bench warrant. They probably won't, but they can. If you get subpoenaed and don't show up, bench warrant.

All this is to say that far from the courts criminalizing debt or being manipulated by debt collectors, they are simply acting in their capacity to enforce civil judgements. You know, the seventh amendment? Suits at common law?

[lukev]

Nothing you just said is at odds with the article. The problem is that people are spending time in jail (via the process you describe) because of civil debts that can fall into one of the following categories:

(a) debts of small sums

(b) with insufficient evidence that a debt is actually owed (apparently hoping that the defendant won't be able to competently defend themselves.)

(c) with insufficient notice to the defendant (apparently, this is the plaintiff's responsibility in some jurisdictions.)

(d) with insufficient consideration for the defendant's situation (i.e, physical or mental disability, single parents that cannot afford childcare, etc.)

It seems self evident that these situations are unjust and that reforming the process is desirable, wouldn't you agree?

[temporallobe]

You're describing our justice system in general. When anyone of low income is even accused of a crime or is fined an even small amount of money, it snowballs into a much larger issue because of their inability to pay, take off work, find childcare, etc. It seems like our justice system is designed to be fair only to stable, healthy, and wealthy people. For example I got a speeding ticket in VA which ended up being a reckless driving charge, an actual CRIME in VA. Because I was able to hire a lawyer, I got it reduced to simple speeding. The woman before me without a lawyer, doing tbe same exact speed as me, got convicted of the reckless driving charge because she dared to waive her right to an attorney snd roll the dice. Well she lost, but this made me feel disgusted.

[dadkins]

I disagree with you premise. People are spending time in jail for not showing up to court, not because of their debts. And even jail time is pretty rare for a bench warrant.

Of the situations you listed, the only valid reason for not showing up to court is because you weren't aware. But because the stakes are so high, judges in California require that parties have been personally served by a registered process server before they'll issue a bench warrant for not showing up to a debtor's examination. I assume other states are similar. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I actually think that the process that the courts have for enforcing judgements is much fairer than the tactics that debt collectors often resort to. There's a reason that laws like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act exist.

[adrianratnapala]

> Of the situations you listed, the only valid reason for not showing up to court is because you weren't aware.

You are correct about the responsibilities of individuals, but that is not the only thing at stake. The system can be at fault for wrongly placing such responsibilities on people.

Consider the "with insufficient evidence that a debt is actually owed ..." part. Sure it is your duty in that case to turn up and get the thing dismissed. But the fact that you were forced to turn up means your freedom has already been compromised.

Small debts are also a symptom of a one-sided system. Civilised people usually settle small matters without going to the courts. Courts have to be making things pretty easy for creditors before that becomes a cost-effective way of collecting small debts.

[wildmusings]

>But the fact that you were forced to turn up means your freedom has already been compromised.

That is the cost of living in a civilized society where we can settle our conflicts before an impartial judge instead of by the law of the jungle. Anyone can sue you and make you (or your lawyer) show up in court.

>Small debts are also a symptom of a one-sided system. Civilised people usually settle small matters without going to the courts. Courts have to be making things pretty easy for creditors before that becomes a cost-effective way of collecting small debts.

If you make it harder for creditors to collect on small debts, then you will make it harder and more expensive for the poor to get access to credit.

[crankylinuxuser]

That's absurd. Just recently in Indiana a law was changed allowing up to 400% interest.

Harder? Fat chance. They'll just get the laws changed to screw people over further. Of course it'll be in the name of "access to credit".

[wildmusings]

"I'll give you $100 today if you pay me back $110 next week. And I don't care about your awful credit score." That's over 500% annualized interest, but it's not very unreasonable for an unsecured short term loan to a person with bad credit.

[adrianratnapala]

> That is the cost of living in a civilized society where we can settle our conflicts before an impartial judge instead of by the law of the jungle. Anyone can sue you and make you (or your lawyer) show up in court.

But in a healthy system, it only happens when they have a substantial claim and a real belief they will win; because otherwise it is costly to them. There are normally strong incentives to settle privately.

And that too is part-and-parcel of living in a civilised society. The rule of law requires that officials, or those who influence them, do so in an orderly way and don't just wield it like a stick.

[lukev]

Well, that's what the article is about. Even if it's "pretty rare" it's not rare enough.

It also specifically states that many times people were jailed without even being aware that there was a suit against them. This implies that many jurisdictions do not require a formal serve process, since that process is designed explicitly to prevent this situation.

But the broader issue is that even if it is "their own fault" for missing court, a tiny amount of debt combined with a failure (intentional or accidental) to adequately navigate the legal system can land you in jail.

I think the ACLU's contention is that that is, a priori, wrong. And I think anyone with an ounce of empathy would agree with them.

[evanlivingston]

Another valid reason for not showing up to court is no recognizing the states monopoly of authority.

I don't mean here to determine whether that's a good course of action, just pointing out another good reason for not showing up to court.

[chrisbennet]

A.k.a. Mental illness.

[evanlivingston]

Er, that's a slippery slope, equating anyone who rejects the authority of the state with mental illness.

[chrisbennet]

Ah, the old "You aren't the boss of me!" objection. Rejecting the [very, very obvious to millions of your peers] authority on the ground might cause one to question one's sanity.

That said, I do understand that in some circumstances it might be the sane thing to do: for example when 99.99% of everyone else is wrong and you are right. For example; advocating for your rights as a woman in a strict Muslim country.

[guelo]

You pretty much paraphrased the article. I don't know what was so ridiculously misleading about it.

[pjc50]

The bit in here that seems unnecessary is the "debtor's examination" and subsequent arrest; neither of the UK debt recovery systems have a provision for forcing people to come to court, and it doesn't seem necessary anyway. If you fail to show up to the court process at which a debt judgement is made against you, then the bailiffs can go to work. But you can't be arrested.

[refurb]

Agreed.

The issue is not debt here, it's not showing up for a court date. The exact same thing would happen if you got a ticket and had to appear before a judge and didn't show. Or if you had a child custody trial and just blew off the date.

[FullMtlAlcoholc]

> In any case, what's happening to some people is that they're being sued over debts they owe, not showing up to court to defend themselves, getting default judgements against them, still not paying, getting summoned to court for a debtor's examination, not showing up for that, and then getting a bench warrant issued.

> If you don't show up for jury duty, the judge can issue a bench warrant. They probably won't, but they can. If you get subpoenaed and don't show up, bench warrant.

For starters, instead of throwing people in jail for missing the debtors examination, they can complete it without your input. They can already garnish your wages or look at the last tax filing so there is enough information for a rudimentary examination.

I think you're missing that next logical leap though. Courts generally have hours from 9-12pm and 1-4pm. I'm going to make the assumption that a significant percentage of people that end up having a bench warrant issued for owing debts are those on the low end of the income scale, generally service and retail jobs. These jobs are generally the most inflexible in terms of scheduling. Also, consider that some of these people may be transient and/or homeless (From sleeping on a relative's, friend's etc. couch or sleeping on the streets) Your options then come down to: 1) Go to court and risk losing your job if you do not have an understanding employer, which can snowball into losing housing 2) Get a lawyer 3) Take the hit to your credit score, make whatever payments one can on the debt, hope for the best but cross the bridge when it comes to it and focus on more immediate concerns.

> If you don't show up for jury duty, the judge can issue a bench warrant.

Employers are legally obliged to excuse you for jury duty so the comparison is not that apt.

Siderant: It is somewhat ridiculous that the whole court shuts down for lunch instead of staggering schedules, especially when often that is the only time that people can show up to court. Those who can afford to do so generally send a lawyer, who get their own special line to save their time.

If you owe a debt, you are already penalized with collection costs and a penalty to your credit score (In my not heavily researched position, that should be enough. People who take on debts like these often are not financially literate. Anecdotally, I've also found it a bit surprising the number of people who do not understand expoentiation, thus making it nearly impossible for them to truly comprehend compounded interest rates). Not only are these people being penalized multiple times for the same issue, it's enforcment is being subsidized by taxpayers. They're also being criminalized, endure the trauma and mental, if not physical, torture, and be subjected to the detrimental health consequences of a prison diet (which only seems to require a minimum number of calories as its nutrition requirement) that is the American prison system. Not to mention the stigma and reduced employment opportunities that come with being a part of that system

I have the opinion that it is morally unconscionable. Whatever technically sends them to jail, the issue originates from an unpaid debt and has a chance to cascade down to jail. You're criminalizing people for unpaid debts while those with means can engage in the exact behavior, but through the use legal instruments can declare bankruptcy or take on the debts through a fictitious entity with a limited liability (often both). It's literally just a stroke of a pen (incorporation of an llc or other fictitious entity via our legal system. For me, it's a ritualized incantation of a magic spell) that separates the two. If these loans are so risky that they need this kind of enforcement to be profitable, perhaps its removal would mean that some of these loans are not made in the first place. Also, time spent in jail does nothing towards the actual debt, but that is once again subsidized by taxpayers. (I assume that they’re in jail for failure to appear, so after they get out and most likely have lost their job and will find it harder to get a new one, and after all these punitive measures nothing still has gone towards the principal).

TL;DR: It sucks being poor. It really sucks in America to be poor [1]

[1] https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-lo...