Why not debtors' prison?

[acptulsa]

what makes something a criminal offense other than the circular reason that there's a criminal law for it? So if we made debt a criminal offense does that solve your problem?

Look, Trollpoints, there are people (even here) who do not consider the body of laws established by the people of a republic part of an instance of 'circular reasoning'. Most disagree with your assertion (posted earlier in this thread) that fraud should be a capital crime.

That said, fraud is a crime, and if it can be proven, will land a person in jail. This is a fact that has been repeated in this thread, and which you (in the most trollish manner imaginable) have ignored to your convenience so you can continue your silly assed thread unimpeded.

The world is just as you want it to be, with the exceptions that proof of guilt is required before a person is punished and fraud is not considered a captial crime. Are you really so intransigent in your love affair with the banksters that you cannot compromise on those two points? And do you really expect to convince rational people to adapt to your line of thinking on those two points?

Psychologists can be your friend.

What is the difference? Just because one is listed on the criminal law books and the other isn't? Why not solve that problem by adding another item?

Just what the nation needs--more laws.

What part of fraud is a crime are you pretending not to understand?

 

[Tpoints]

Look, Trollpoints, there are people (even here) who do not consider the body of laws established by the people of a republic part of an instance of 'circular reasoning'. Most disagree with your assertion (posted earlier in this thread) that fraud should be a capital crime.

That said, fraud is a crime, and if it can be proven, will land a person in jail. This is a fact that has been repeated in this thread, and which you (in the most trollish manner imaginable) have ignored to your convenience so you can continue your silly assed thread unimpeded.

I am aware crimes are crimes. What i haven't seen an answer to (at least not from you, in my memory), is why crimes are crimes, and why owing money and admitting your intent to never pay it back can't be one. If you don't consider it circular reasoning, I bet you can tell me why.

The world is just as you want it to be, with the exceptions that proof of guilt is required before a person is punished and fraud is not considered a captial crime.

Fraud is not a capital crime because it's not a capital crime, are you going to tell me something I don't know? Who said I didn't want debtors to be punished only after they can prove intent and guilt?

Are you really so intransigent in your love affair with the banksters

Are you really so ignorant to think only banksters are creditors?

that you cannot compromise on those two points? And do you really expect to convince rational people to adapt to your line of thinking on those two points?

Psychologists can be your friend.

Just what the nation needs--more laws.

Or less, I'll be pretty happy if we get rid of bankruptcy protection.

What part of fraud is a crime are you pretending not to understand?

The WHY part and WHY we can't make owing money plus intent to never pay back another crime.

 

[bobbyw24]

Government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing people's contracts. If you make a bad deal and end up being unable to collect what is owed you, that is YOUR problem, not mine. Fraud would be another matter and I approve of the use of force to obtain restitution in those instances. But breech of contract? That's a private matter. Be more careful next time you lend your money.

Right --the Constitution allows one to go bankrupt to avoid just this

 

[Tpoints]

Right --the Constitution allows one to go bankrupt to avoid just this

is that essentially letting the state discharge debt, encourage irresponsible lending, screw lenders, and subsidize bad behavior of debtors?

 

[jabowery]

"Prisons" as we know them are not an appropriate punishment.

My prediction : people here will say because there's a system wide conspiracy to either bait stupid people into debt, or fraudulently force people into debt they'd never incur voluntarily. But hopefully people agree that if debts were voluntarily created, then prisons would be an appropriate punishment when debts can't be expected to be paid back (and bankruptcy discharging debts makes a mockery of responsibility)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/opinion/dowd-why-not-debtors-prison.html?_r=0

Listen to both parts of episode 1 of Sortocracy's Compassion for the reason prisons as we know them are not an appropriate punishment except as voluntarily agreed to by those who wish to remain part of the body politic whose laws they have violated.

 

[TheGrinch]

what makes something a criminal offense other than the circular reason that there's a criminal law for it? So if we made debt a criminal offense does that solve your problem?

Maybe if you don't cut off the rest of my quote, you won't make me have to repeat myself:

because well, you don't have to be a criminal for life to happen and find yourself unable to pay. That doesn't mean the system is perfect, but certainly incarceration isn't the answer, when restitution is the matter.

Restitution is a civil matter... You said something along the lines of "won't pay even if they can pay", well, civil court will make sure that what you can pay you will pay, you cannot have millions and just say "no, I won't pay my contractual obligation", the courts will make you.

Sorry, but I cannot believe this has made it 8 pages, and you're still ignoring the abundantly obvious that debt in most cases is not a criminal matter, and that's not jsut because I or anyone else says so. It simply doesn't fall under the definition of willingly infringing on someone else's liberty.

I'm sad to admit that I've racked up some debt recently, but I'm no criminal, nor are most debtees.

 

[mczerone]

so you vindicated my prediction again, that people who object to a debtor prison proposal ultimately argue that in their ideal world, there would be no prisons, no laws, and nothing is criminal.

I explicitly said that there would be a role for prisons in my "ideal world."

 

[anaconda]

so is there a middle ground? Would you be in favor of not letting people discharge debt, and continue to let creditor harass the debtor until he either pays back or kills himself or hides the rest of his life wishing he did?

I am OK with bankruptcy.

 

[cheapseats]

Debtors' Prisons, boo hiss.

Beyond that, I urge those Free Marketers who favor privatization of prisons (AND TSA) to revisit the concept.

Incarceration Inc.
7 August 2012

Imprisonment is not rightly a FOR PROFIT scheme. Locking people up for profit is BAD.

Political Correctness and Moral Relativism encourage people to believe-more-like-rationalize that EVERYTHING has shades of gray, that NOTHING is “black and white”. DEAD OR ALIVE is black and white.

Incarcerating people for profit is unambiguously BAD/WRONG.

Imprisonment falls under the Necessary Evil umbrella, same as Taxes. The objective with Necessary Evils is LOGICALLY to require as few of them and as little of each as possible.

Generally speaking...Econ 101 generally...society will get more of whatever turns a profit. Lo and behold, the land of the free and the home of the brave has the largest prison population on earth. Not “just” the largest per capita, the LARGEST. Though China and India have over a BILLION people apiece, the “United” States has the largest prison population.

The shining light on the hill...lol, the beacon of hope...locks up more people for a greater number of lesser offenses AND locks them up for longer periods of time.

Read it and weep: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world ... wanted=all

To privatize prisons is to INCENTIVIZE incarceration. “Naturally”, more and more people will be incarcerated.

More and more people will be incarcerated because it constitutes more business, which generates more revenue, from whence come salaries and bonuses and profits and such. The infamous Silent Majority will ALLOW more and more people to be locked up for profit because freedom from the EXPENSE of imprisoning people frees free people even from AWARENESS of the unjustly imprisoned.

If Americans are willing to LOCK HUMAN BEINGS BEHIND BARS, they had damned well better be willing to PAY for it. PAYING for the “privilege” of removing people from society and stripping them of rights is a fundamental deterrent to abuse of the practice.