[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.

[jopsen]

it might be a reasonable business proposition if all players were rational, but parent trying to put food on the table aren't rational.

I can't fault them for that. Sadly, it's not profitable to help people.

[jstanley]

You don't get to decide what levels of interest are "rational" for other people to take on.

[CaptainZapp]

I dare say that this really depends where you live.

Herearound any extension of credit with an annual interest rate above 15% is considered usury, which is a criminal offense.

[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.