You're viewing a single thread.
- criminalization drugs via use/possession = true
- criminalizing homelessness via loitering or vagrancy laws = true
- criminalizing being poor = ????
What laws directly criminalize being poor? We don't have debtors prisons anymore since the early 19th century when Congress banned them.
If it helps, you can think of it as an enhancement to keep people in prison longer or paying more fines, but when the result is poor people are in prison when rich people would not be for the same offense, not having debtors' prisons is a semantic distinction without a meaningful difference.
I thought this (pretty old) Washington Post article did a pretty good job describing reporting done by NPR. A good soundbite from there:
NPR found that in the vast majority of America, defendants can be charged for a public defender, for their own parole and probation, the cost of a jury trial, and their stay in a jail cell. Some jurisdictions have even found ways to charge people “booking fees” after an arrest, even if the arrest never results in a criminal charge, a policy recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. My favorite example of this nonsense, though it isn’t in the NPR report, is crime labs. Believe it or not, in some jurisdictions, crime labs are paid fees only if their analysis leads to a conviction. (The fees are then assessed to defendants.) Think about the incentives at work there.
Failure to pay these fines results in — you guessed it — more fines, plus interest. If the debt is sent to a collection agency, those fees get tacked on, too. Ultimately, inability to pay the fines can land you in a jail cell. Which is why we’re now seeing what are effectively debtors’ prisons, even though the concept is technically illegal.
If it helps, you can think of it as an enhancement to keep people in prison longer or paying more fines, but when the result is poor people are in prison when rich people would not be for the same offense, not having debtors’ prisons is a semantic distinction without a meaningful difference.
First, I acknowledge that the justice system is drastically weighted in favor of the rich with the poor disproportionately affected by interaction with, navigating through it, and in drastic need of reform. However, that is decidedly different than criminalizing the poor. Not all poor people have interactions with law enforcement or the justice system for them to be impacted by this.
If the OP wanted to address the imbalanced justice system, they should have said that instead. Its a legitimate criticism! Simply saying that being poor is a criminal offense isn't true, and dilutes from the otherwise important message.
I think you're missing the forest for a very specific tree here. Did you skip past the part where there's literally debtor's prisons, they just call them something else? Those people would not be in jail if they did not have debt.
Whether that debt was incurred as a fine they couldn't pay because of law enforcement or a civil debt, judges can and do issue warrants for their arrest, with which they imprison people.
The ACLU page on this was also linked in that article.
Like I don't want to fear-monger here, but when you think about just how many people are a paycheck away from having debts they can't pay, this is a very real possibility for a large portion of America. I assume less so in countries that aren't quite so backward.
I read your link. I wonder if you did. Your ACLU link even details how the jail time happens, and its not from holding a debt. Its from committing a crime.
"Over 40 states across the country suspend driver’s licenses for outstanding court debts, a practice that disproportionately harms low-income people.** Driving with a suspended license carries a penalty of between two days and six months**."
Those people would not be in jail if they did not have debt.
If you're using your ACLU example, the debt did not cause them to be in jail. It absolutely complicated their lives and made the choice to break the law a calculated risk to continue to keep their job or get their kids to school, but again that's a justice system problem not criminalizing being poor.
You're making too many logic leaps to try and make the OP statement true. You're going to lose the audience you want to convince about the other very true issues in the post (homelessness and drugs) when you're throwing in half-true at best.
I'm okay with losing the parts of the audience who didn't read the whole page:
The criminalization of private debt happens when judges, at the request of collection agencies, issue arrest warrants for people who failed to appear in court to deal with unpaid civil debt judgments. In many cases, the debtors were unaware they were sued or had not received notice to show up in court. Tens of thousands of these warrants are issued annually.
Like I get that the ACLU could have capitalized that, bolded it, and stuck it at the top of the page, but you only have to make it to like the second paragraph to read it.
Edited to add – thanks for this. I haven't had a pointless argument on the internet with someone who already mostly agrees on the important points but can't quite get past pointless minutiae in awhile.
Like I get that the ACLU could have capitalized that, bolded it, and stuck it at the top of the page, but you only have to make it to like the second paragraph to read it.
Oh I read that too, and again you're making an additional logical leap with your idea that isn't always true.
In many cases, the debtors were unaware they were sued or had not received notice to show up in court. Tens of thousands of these warrants are issued annually.
They aren't sent to jail for having debt. They (could possibly) be sent to jail for failing to appear in court. You keep saying we "literally have debtors prisons", but at best we might have effectively debtors prisons and I'm squinting really hard and giving you every benefit of the doubt to even say that.
If debt was illegal (as the OP post claims), everyone not paying debt would be in prison. That simply isn't true. Presenting it like it is reality makes you come off as a crackpot, dismissable, and your otherwise important message is lost.
Edited to add – thanks for this. I haven’t had a pointless argument on the internet with someone who already mostly agrees on the important points but can’t quite get past pointless minutiae in awhile.
I wish I could say its been a while since I've had a conversation with someone on the internet that has a good overall message, but is so urgent to make an additional point for rhetorical value that they de-value their entire message. If you want to change minds, which ostensibly is the reason for organizing around the problem, you have to look at your own messages through the eyes of others, not just your own. Good luck!
Oh I read that too, and again you're making an additional logical leap with your idea that isn't always true.
Weird, because I feel like you're jumping past the point because it isn't technically spelled out in the USC that someone will arrest you if you don't make enough money.
If someone sues you civilly, you receive no notice of it, and then they arrest you and put you in prison, I get that there are intervening steps, but it's literally the same result.
I understand that sometimes people get notice and might have the ability to show up in court and they do, but the OP's point isn't that every poor person is in jail. The point is that they're put there when rich people aren't.
That the OP can't cite a PL that says being poor is illegal doesn't exculpate society from putting them in prison because they're poor. I'm sorry that it's insidious and underhanded, but it is literally happening.
I also don't think the OP is trying to change anyone's mind. I'm not either. I don't think the people who criminalize being poor are worth the effort. The point of these types of posts isn't to change minds. It's to overcome the apathy of the majority of people who already know it's wrong to do this and use that majority to forcibly remove power from those people whose minds you want to change.
Weird, because I feel like you’re jumping past the point because it isn’t technically spelled out in the USC that someone will arrest you if you don’t make enough money.
I think its very weird you're willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.
If someone sues you civilly, you receive no notice of it, and then they arrest you and put you in prison, I get that there are intervening steps, but it’s literally the same result.
- IF you have a debt and...
- IF the creditor chooses to sue and...
- IF you do not get notified and...
- IF you don't appear...
- THEN MAYBE the judge will have an arrest warrant issued against you and ...
- If you commit an ADDITIONAL crime, which puts you in contact with law enforcement, the warrant from the no-show would cause you to be jailed.
Thats A LOT of "if" to make your statement true, but you're passing it off as its always the case. Complete different with drugs and homelessness. You can be arrested (and jailed) in the very first act.
Being in debt doesn't put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.
I also don’t think the OP is trying to change anyone’s mind. I’m not either. The point of these types of posts isn’t to change minds.
Hmm, okay you're not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?
It’s to overcome the apathy of the majority of people who already know it’s wrong to do this and use that majority to forcibly remove power from those people whose minds you want to change.
So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someone's mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of "changing a mind" means now?
This is so much fun, thank you again.
I think its very weird you're willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.
Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?
The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. It's not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough you'll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if they're caught and if it's worth enough to the prosecutor and if they're convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. You're okay with those 'ifs' in your definition, but not the chain below...why?
Thats A LOT of "if" to make your statement true, but you're passing it off as it's always the case.
I mean, yeah, that's kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know? The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because they're poor and it's wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.
Being in debt doesn't put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.
Maybe this is where you're confused. No one is saying that everyone with debt is being put in prison. Or maybe someone is, but they aren't in this conversation. I'm saying that this set of circumstances should not be criminal, and it only happens to poor people. Apparently, according to the ACLU, it happens to tens of thousands of them. I'm pretty sure the OP is saying that, too.
Hmm, okay you're not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?
I'd classify it more as a call to action for likeminded people. I generally read things like this and think I should do something about it, so I do what I can think of. If that's an echo chamber for you, knock yourself out, I guess.
So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someone's mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of "changing a mind" means now?
I mean, no; you're arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.
I don't care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out what's happening, and somehow not think that's wrong, I don't think any words are going to change their mind.
It's doesn't matter, though, because the majority already know it's wrong. They either know it's wrong and didn't realize it was a thing, or they know it's a thing but they think they're powerless to change it.
I (and, I assume, the OP) want those who aren't currently doing something to realize they aren't alone in thinking what they're thinking, so they'll be more inclined to do things about it. They already want to do those things; their minds don't need to be changed.
Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?
-
"Federal Drug Possession Penalties (21 USC §844) www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm Persons convicted of illegally possessing any controlled substance face penalties of up to 1 year in prison and a minimum fine of $1,000, or both."
-
"It shall be unlawful for any person to be found loitering, concealed or sleeping at night, or other inappropriate time, in, or about any public building or private premises not such person's own, under suspicious circumstances, and not being able to give a satisfactory account thereof." = an example of texas law
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. It’s not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough you’ll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if they’re caught and if it’s worth enough to the prosecutor and if they’re convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. You’re okay with those ‘ifs’ in your definition, but not the chain below…why?
You're right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldn't be illegal. The reason I'm not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isn't going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
Thats A LOT of “if” to make your statement true, but you’re passing it off as it’s always the case.
I mean, yeah, that’s kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know?
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isn't breaking a law.
The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because they’re poor and it’s wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
I mean, no; you’re arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
I don’t care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out what’s happening, and somehow not think that’s wrong, I don’t think any words are going to change their mind.
Let me clarify. I used the word "neutral" before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to "no opinion". Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
-