
A debtors’ prison in Mississippi - nthitz
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/10/21/a-debtors-prison-in-mississippi/
======
rdtsc
The poor are an easy target for governments and private entities, simply
because they are easy to abuse and there are so many of them.

Unlike the wealthy they simply do not have the time, money, resources, ability
to unify and fight back as a single block (save some outraged protests and
rioting resulting from attack or mistreatment by police, but those one can
argue do more harm than good). If they don't have an extra $20/month, chances
are they will not have time to sit and write a letter to a senator, or to call
a lawyer or organize campaigns.

As the article put it, adding these fees and doing this is really an
administrative step, it's just too easy not to do it. If they, say, tried to
raise taxes on top tax bracket, that would turn into a long uphill battle
probably. There would be local town meetings, letter to legislative
representatives, calls to country club networks of friends and so on.

So as a result there are lots of payday loans places, high fees for courts,
jail time (unless fee is paid on the spot), for the poor. Even once they go to
prison they are turned effectively into slaves, they can't even call home
because they nickle and dime there as well.

~~~
everyone
You're right, is it a logical outcome. Its inevitable if you let market forces
dictate everything. There is a such a strong anti-government 'libertarian'
streak to US domestic policy, that is essentially anarchism though. Which
quickly defaults to oligarchy / despotism. One of the primary purposes of
nations and governments is (or ought to be anyway) to protect the poor and
powerless from the excesses of the rich and powerful, to level the playing
field somewhat and ensure some modicum of fairness. Those in the US should
look to extremely well run countries like Denmark with more socialist
governments and strong legislation protecting its citizens. That is how a
country ought to be.

~~~
brianlweiner
It takes a bit of rhetorical agility to blame "Government officials fining the
poor and imprisoning them when they fail to pay" on libertarians.

~~~
everyone
Well a lot of it because the prison system in the US is often privatised and
run for profit, as is the parole company in the article. Everyone (including
the local government) is incentivised to fleece the poor and there is nothing
to protect them. Things that would solve this (based on other countries that
dont suffer from these issues)

1\. Tax corporations and rich people more. Then the local government wont be
reduced to fleecing the poor, also it would make the government stronger
relative to large corporations and reduce their clout and lobbying power.

2\. Dont let private corporations run prisons for profit. (I dont think I need
to explain why)

3\. Provide stronger legislation protecting the poor and services such as
legal advice to make preying upon them less lucrative.

~~~
matwood
> 1\. Tax corporations and rich people more. Then the local government wont be
> reduced to fleecing the poor, also it would make the government stronger
> relative to large corporations and reduce their clout and lobbying power.

Government is a lot like any other entity. It will grow as big as it can. Even
if you tax corporations and rich people more, the math for government promises
still doesn't work out, government will still fleece the poor.

~~~
zbyte64
And now we've come full circle on how libertarianism is co-opted into arguing
that it isn't the Government's role to protect the poor.

------
dx211
"All of which means that because Anderson was too poor to pay his $170 fine,
his overall debt ballooned to $580. His fine more than tripled, solely because
he was too poor to pay it."

This seems pretty much like the status quo. If you default on your credit card
bill, and ultimately choose minimal payments until it's paid off, rather than
bankruptcy, you'll end up paying several times the value of the original loan.

That said, if you go to the Biloxi court house's web site, they offer people
the ability to do a payment plan for tickets, but they explicitly say
"Remember that release on a payment plan is a privilege afforded by the Court
and a violation of the payment order will result in your immediate arrest." I
think that's pretty terrible since in this post-6th-amendment society,
"arrest" is frequently indistinguishable from "imprisonment". Debt, especially
something so trivial, should be a civil matter.

~~~
mikeash
There's a significant difference, in that you _choose_ to take on credit card
debt, but you don't choose to be fined. I don't have much of a problem with
credit card debt ballooning if you screw it up, but state-mandated punishments
shouldn't be that way, especially if failure to pay is because of an
_inability_ to pay rather than simply not wanting to.

(To head off any "don't commit the crime, then" replies, do keep in mind that
traffic enforcement is extremely arbitrary, filled with cases where following
the law is substantially less safe than breaking it, and rife with profiling.)

~~~
Karunamon
In the case of traffic law, yes, you do choose very much to be fined.

What the law says or doesn't say is irrelevant in that distinction, it takes
conscious choice (or carelessness: also illegal) to blow through a red light,
or to park in a non parking area, or to drive over the speed limit. The law
_in general_ is extremely arbitrary, and you run the risk of penalties when
you _choose_ to break it.

The case of the guy in the article was the victim of an extremely broken
system (outsourcing of payment plans? WTF?), but that doesn't mean the law he
broke is somehow invalid.

In general, a failure of enforcement does not render the relevant law invalid.

~~~
mikeash
It does not take carelessness to park in a no-parking zone where the signage
is illegible, yet people still get fined for it, and there is typically no
recourse.

It does not take carelessness to drive at the speed of traffic rather than
turning yourself into a hazardous obstacle by driving 20MPH slower than
everybody else, yet in many places this is a speeding violation.

It does not take carelessness to drive through a red light when the yellow is
set so short that you don't get enough warning to stop for it.

Inconsistent enforcement may not render the law invalid in terms of whether it
can be enforced on those who get unlucky, but it _does_ have major effects on
the law's legitimacy in a moral and public opinion sense.

It is basically impossible to live life without violating traffic laws. So
"you choose to violate them" is at best meaningless and really is just plain
wrong. If we're all going to violate them then we need to at least make sure
the punishment isn't completely crazy.

------
rrggrr
If your blood isn't already boiling here are other examples:
[http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/07/the-rise-of-debtors-
pri...](http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/07/the-rise-of-debtors-prisons-in-
the-us/)

~~~
adekok
And more, for support, not fines:

[http://www.alternet.org/economy/debtors-prisons-are-alive-
an...](http://www.alternet.org/economy/debtors-prisons-are-alive-and-well-
america)

[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-
crime_and_cour...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-
crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/)

I can't find the reference now, but the stats from a California government
investigation showed that ~90% of people (i.e. men) not paying child support
simply couldn't afford to pay. They were charged 20% interest, too.

It's a common abuse of poor people: make them _pay_ for being poor. Pile on
interest, charges, fees, etc. to double or triple their debt.

------
ArkyBeagle
Just to tie this to Ferguson:
[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/fer...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/ferguson-
and-the-debtors-prison.html)

------
baldfat
Social Justice is a big part of who I am. I get so mad when i read it and read
this

> This means that poorer counties are more reliant on fines and fees produced
> by municipal courts, which inevitably come from the poor residents of those
> areas. Those governments then put pressure on police departments to generate
> revenue by targeting residents for traffic offenses, jaywalking, and other
> misdemeanors and petty crimes...

> The city got poorer. That meant less revenue from other sources. So the city
> sought more revenue by imposing more fines and fees on its citizens. Which
> of course only makes them poorer.

> Private probation companies have a strong incentive to keep people on
> probation for as long as possible.

I live in a poor city with a school district where 90% of the students qualify
for free lunch. We are privatizing Public Education to also feed off the poor
take the money out of the community and are rewarded if the Public School
system does poorly.

------
FussyZeus
The uncomfortable question that needs asking here is why are all these cities
hurting for money so badly and the answer is us. We as taxpayers are
constantly demanding and electing politicians who promise (and deliver) tax
cuts. Then we turn around and bitch because potholes don't get fixed.

If you want your Government to run well, you need to goddamn pay for it.
People need to grow up.

~~~
greedo
If you look at Federal revenues in constant dollars, other than three years
during GWB's first term and the crash of 2009, tax revenues have risen
steadily. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Average
spending per person when you combine Federal/State/Local is over $20K.

~~~
FussyZeus
You think $20k is enough for every road, electrical line, sewer and misc.
utilities that serve your home? Not to mention paying the officers that
protect you (in theory anyway), the firefighters that are ready 24/7 to put
your house out, the teachers who educate your children, on and on and on?
Federal spending is out of control (mostly in defense) but local spending, the
spending that actually matters? You think the measly share of that $20k that
your local town gets is nearly enough to cover all that?

~~~
greedo
Oh I pay for my utilities as well, those aren't payed by the government. And
as the downvotes rain upon my karma, so be it. Yes, $20k per man, woman, and
child is plenty for the government to have. And if you think the problem with
the Federal budget, you need to take a closer look at how much we're paying in
entitlements...

~~~
FussyZeus
Except "entitlements" refers to everything from welfare (which is what I'm
assuming you're REALLY talking about) to insurance for Government employees,
not the least of which are our soldiers, benefits to veterans and all the
systems they rely upon, etc. etc. The other thing, Defense, goes to a 12
billion dollar plane that's never flown a single mission, a shitload of the
most sophisticated and expensive armaments known to mankind, and on and on.
One of these is necessary, the other is really up for debate.

~~~
greedo
What $12B plane are you referring to?

------
everyone
When the really big criminals (corrupt bankers and wealthy businessmen) cant
pay fines they just declare bankruptsy (or their corporations do) and nothing
happens to them. Afterwards they seem to be perfectly well off.

------
rayiner
Similar injustices in Georgia, with people jailed for traffic tickets:
[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/georgia-
probatio...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/georgia-probation-
misdemeanor-poor-jail).

------
tdb7893
Isn't it vastly more expensive to jail people than reduce a 170$ fine that
obviously couldn't be paid?

~~~
FireBeyond
Not when you turn around and bill them for their incarceration (in theory, at
least - there's that whole 'blood from a stone' thing going on).

------
marincounty
If these fees were tied to income, we might not have a problem in a few
months.

Yes, when a rich man gets a ticket; he laughing tells his wife over dinner.

A poor man gets a ticket; he could be at risk for being homeless.

Since they started to raise fees at every level of government about 15 years
ago, I felt it's time to equate fees to income.

When the Rich guy comes home with a $7000 speeding ticket; the laws/fees will
change--fast. I think they tie income to fee in Switzerland? Unless the rich
are effected nothing will change, or at least that's been my experience.

(To all you think the poor never learn their lesson, there could be a quota
system. For example, if the poor Speeder abuses the system, they would go back
to paying these currently rediculious amounts.)

~~~
kwhitefoot
There's an aritcle in the Atlantic on exactly this:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-
home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/)

------
littletimmy
The more I think about it, the more I believe that the United States is the
worst place to live if you are poor.

There are places that are poorer, hell I'm from a third world country. But
I've never seen anyone in the third world show utter _contempt_ for the poor.
No one keeps reminding the poor that it's their fault. We call them
"unfortunate", Americans call them "losers".

The US is the only place where being poor is not just a material failing, but
also a moral failing. Perhaps it is a natural outcome of lionizing your
winners that you absolute hate your losers, but this is fast becoming a
heartless society where one wouldn't want to live unless one is rich.

~~~
rayiner
I would beg to differ. In India/Bangladesh, where I'm from, rich/middle-class
people don't even think of the poor as human beings.

~~~
selimthegrim
Corroborating this. In Islamabad, it's not uncommon to have people throw food
at their servants squatting on the ground.

Or for another famous case:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_RWZCCLvdc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_RWZCCLvdc)
(NB: the NO FEAR on the T shirts means they're part of the anti-terror squad)

------
tzs
> During a single week in 2011, Joseph Anderson, 52, suffered three heart
> attacks and a stroke. The latter left the left side of his body partially
> paralyzed. Later that year, he suffered a fourth heart attack. Prior to his
> health problems, Anderson worked as a mechanic at a local Best Western.
> After that disastrous stretch, he has been unable to work, and struggles to
> get by on the less than $10,000 per year he gets in various forms of public
> assistance

$10k/year is below the poverty level for a single person household. It is
shameful that in a first world country someone can still be knocked into
poverty by losing the ability to work due to medical problems.

------
Shivetya
It isn't just judicial fines and such that are the problem, government as a
whole has turned lower income into a debtor prison. They provide some food
assistance, maybe living assistance, and such, then take away the free cash
and even ability to drive with fee after fee after fee. Throw in sales taxes
in some cities and the burden is greater.

However what this article points out is just flat out abuse and should result
in government officials locked up. Just like previous stories about deals
states cut with prison phone companies we have a justice system, if not most
of government, which only exists to keep people poor and more controllable

------
DubiousPusher
A few years back I met a kid in rural Michigan who was ticketed for driving
without his glasses which had broken. When he was unable to pay the ticket he
was fined in excess of the ticket by a judge. He had to drive to work to make
the money to pay the ticket and buy glasses. And of course when he raised some
money he paid the fine first rather than buying glass because it kept him out
of jail.

Judges are supposed to have leeway to take these kinds of things into account.

------
cozzyd
It's a shame that so many areas are so car-dependent that a driver's license
revocation can be so damaging.

------
therealdrag0
If this resonates with you, consider joining/donating to the ACLU!

[https://www.aclu.org/donate/](https://www.aclu.org/donate/)

------
ericfrederich
John Oliver has touched on this several times.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto)

------
danmaz74
> Private probation companies have a strong incentive to keep people on
> probation for as long as possible.

Obvious... and crazy.

------
Kalium
A small group of individual rioters _two blocks from my home_. You'll have to
pardon me for not wanting to encourage a repeat of this by sending a message
that rioting near my home garners my political support.

~~~
mazelife
Since when does supporting the righting of an injustice require you to also
support rioting? I'm sorry, that just doesn't logically follow. You're
confusing the tactics of a tiny minority with the substance or a huge
movement.

~~~
Kalium
Since riot-supporters consistently use political successes to advocate for
more riots. This is a thing that happens consistently, reliably, and
regularly. You see it right here on HN, where people argue that riots raise
awareness and are thus a positive.

~~~
FireBeyond
Do, please, provide citations that support your assertions that here on HN,
people are arguing that riots are a positive thing that raise awareness.

~~~
Kalium
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10440455](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10440455)

> Riots, on the other hand, seem to cause the media hordes to descend and at
> least draw attention to the cause. It's hard to argue the fact that they are
> at least useful for consciousness -raising.

~~~
FireBeyond
Perhaps.

Although 'effective', or in this case 'useful' definitely does not have to be
a synonym for "a positive thing", as you state.

~~~
Kalium
I am using "positive" in the sense of "gainful", contextually meaning
"furthers the cause in question".

~~~
FireBeyond
It's a loaded word. A massacre on TV highlights the plight of the people under
attack, be it genocide or otherwise. Would you describe the raising awareness
from the descending media as a positive thing?

It's possible to separate the benefit of increased awareness from the
negativity of the event in question. Your spin is more akin to "people think
riots are good".

------
kordless
I can't read any of these Washington Post articles because I've 'read my limit
of free articles'.

~~~
JupiterMoon
google it then.

EDIT: To the downvoters. Try googling why googling the article will allow her
to read it. Very meta.

~~~
chc
Jeremy Ashkenas actually made a Chrome extension called "Wait! Google sent
me!" that did this for you. It seems to have gotten deleted, though.

------
joeclark77
It's always amazing to watch modern-day "educated" New York liberals discover
things that every 12-year-old with a basic education in civics understood 100
years ago.

The lesson of this article: Government has only one means to carry out its
policies: force (more precisely, threat of force). When you vote for a new tax
or fine ( _cough_ Obamacare _cough_ ) you are voting for rough men with guns
to take stubborn objectors away to prison. Period.

This is at the heart of the libertarian argument: government should be used
cautiously, and the default position should always be _not_ to impose a law
unless you're sure that force is justifiable and necessary.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The lesson of this article: Government has only one means to carry out its
> policies: force (more precisely, threat of force).

This is simply factually false. Government has all the means available to any
other institution or person available.

You seem to have reversed the common definition of government as whatever
entity or aggregate of entities exercise a monopoly on legitimate use of force
into the idea that the government somehow magically loses access to every
other tool that people and groups of people have.

~~~
joeclark77
All right, I revise my statement to "government has only one means to _enforce
law_ : force"

I suppose there are some "policies" (not laws or taxes) which can be
encouraged or enacted by spending money. Doesn't detract from my point though.
This is still a humorous case of some over-credentialed nitwit at WaPo
"discovering" what most educated _children_ should be able to tell you about
the rule of law.

------
ElComradio
What makes me skeptical of articles like this is the case studies seem to
focus on people who appear to be behaving in the most ridiculous way possible.
Taking a joint to court? Running stop signs on a suspended license?

If the situations profiled are commonplace, it should not be hard to find more
sympathetic victims. That said, it is true that even if this is going on
infrequently it is still an injustice and should be corrected... But the
headline and article would seem to want to have us believe that we have whole
prisons filled with debtors.

~~~
FireBeyond
"Taking a joint to court?"

If, by 'taking a joint to court', you mean, 'had a joint in her purse, whilst
being a passenger in a car that committed a minor traffic violation, and
having the police officer demand she identify herself (why? She was the
passenger in a traffic violation), arrest her, and take her from there to the
County Courthouse', sure.

~~~
ElComradio
I was mistaken. The way the paragraph read seemed to state that she told the
judge she couldn't pay and was fined, then fined for a joint found in her
purse; I did not see the joint was actually discovered during a previous
instance.

Still, if you are already in trouble with the law, it seems incredibly foolish
to continue to willfully break it by carrying around illegal substances with
you.

