[wfo]

It is most of the time not an education issue. Showing up can be hard: skip work and be fired or show up in court? Abandon your kids to make your court date? Nearly all eviction hearings do not have a defendant present, and it's not because nobody understands. It's because the people who prey on the weak and destitute know they can't afford to take a day off to show up, and because the poor (often rightly) believe the legal system will never help them in any way so showing up is a waste of time.

[jeffmould]

because the poor (often rightly) believe the legal system will never help them in any way so showing up is a waste of time

This! Sadly, there are many government services that are intended to help the poor in these situations, unfortunately, there is a lack of awareness and/or education about what is exactly available, to whom that help is for, and how to go about receiving that help. For example, many courts have pro-bono attorneys available a few times a month to provide legal advice to those who can't afford to hire an attorney. Most often these services are available for free on a first-come-first-serve basis regardless of income level. They are intended not for criminal defense, but instead to help people navigate civil court issues (i.e. evictions, divorce, collections, etc...).

Yes, showing up can be hard for someone living day-to-day/paycheck-to-paycheck. No amount of education or resources is going to solve that problem. One alternative solution could be for courts to offer alternate hours for these cases.

[jopsen]

Or maybe, try to keep these things out of the court system.

If people have less than say 5k in assets just block any sort of wage garnishing, etc.. and dismiss the case. Forbid collection of debt, etc. And put the burden of proof onto the collector.

We shouldn't allow debt collectors to take the clothes of peoples back, why should we allow debt collectors to take the last dollar.

I'm not saying this is the only solution, just one of many. The point keep poor people out of the court system, they can't pay anyways, what's the point?

[rayiner]

How do you prove the person has less than 5k of assets if they won’t participate in the court system?

[wfo]

It's certainly possible to require that if debt collectors demand the courts help them collect their debt, that they have to provide certain pieces of evidence to the court.

This is already the case: in order to convince a court to garnish wages, debt collectors have to prove to the court that the person accused actually owes the debt. They could also be required to provide evidence that the person is wealthy enough to pay.

A person not paying and not being able to reasonably afford to is no crime and should not involve the court at all: the person who made the loan made a mistake. The reason lendors are allowed to charge interest is so that they can asses the risk they will not be able to recover their investment in some cases -- these are those cases.

If someone can pay and chooses not to, that is a matter for the courts, so if a debt collector wishes to have the courts take money from these people they should have to prove they fall into this category.

[cmurf]

Lack of teaching empathy is an education issue. No one should think this situation is fair, anyone with sufficient empathy would find this corruption unacceptable in a civil society because it risks loss of trust in it.

The debt company is gaming the system, but it's also ammoral so we should expect this sort of gaming. And perhaps appreciate it for exposing a bug in the rules of civil society, or what should be civil society.

The question is how do citizens react to this weakness in the system being exposed? Selfish individualism says, doesn't affect me, and that just allows more corruption, classism, and distrust. It illiberalizes society. It damages everyone's ability to trust, be trusted, have predictable and fair outcomes.

Yes the courts should be respected, but not by enacting disproportionate punishment for not showing up. The court still needs to be trusted. Why should only the court system, and the debtee be permitted to set the court date and time? Why not give deference to the accused to set the date and time within a 120 day window? It is more fair. Courts serve the people. And the business serves no one.

I also agree with the ACLU's remedies for adequate notification and burden of proof of debt.

[wfo]

>Why not give deference to the accused to set the date and time within a 120 day window?

I definitely agree with this.

>Lack of teaching empathy is an education issue.

I disagree here: we live in a hypercapitalist system. Empathy is a competitive disadvantage. Any company that exercises it is weak, and will be culled eventually by companies that don't. Lack of empathy, brutal selfishness and a willingness to exploit the weak are not a cultural problem, but a natural consequence of an economic structure: we cannot teach our children to be nice and hope that it will go away.

[telchar]

To some extent you're right, but I'd say education is absolutely a part of the problem. Most people (I'm guessing, based on anecdote), at least under 30, have no idea what the potential consequences of not showing up to a court date can be. Even if someone doesn't think the court system will help them, they should understand that not showing up makes things monotonically worse.

[scythe]

Shouldn't there be some sort of law that says you can't be fired over a court date?

[Broken_Hippo]

You would think so, but there isn't. Even if it is a child custody case. Even if you have a subpoena. I worked one place that would let you off if you were a witness in a criminal case or had jury duty (because it was law), but never for a civil case. After all, you should have conducted your personal life in such a way that it didn't interfere with work.

Of course, this was a state that didn't require any reason to fire you. Sometimes folks could get unemployment afterwards, sometimes not.

[wfo]

Perhaps there should, but these laws are generally toothless and unenforceable because of the power structure in a place of business: in the US employment is "at will" so even if on paper it says you can't be fired for this, it is easy for bosses to invent some justification for the firing, and to make it known subtly or not so subtly that missing work for any reason legal or not will result in consequences. Employers can and do do this right now, all the time: "wow look at John, he worked through lunch and worked unpaid overtime until 6. He is really dedicated. He's employee of the month. You should all be more like John. He definitely won't be laid off next week."

Without a competing power structure to hold employers accountable and keep an eye on their behavior (i.e. a union) the law is a nice sentiment but not much more.