
Debt Collection Companies Have Hijacked the Justice System - walterbell
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-economic-justice/debt-collection-companies-have-hijacked-justice-system
======
sathackr
Most judges now just seem to be rubber-stamp operators anyways, particularly
in pre-trial proceedings and in situations where someone doesn't haven an
opportunity to defend themselves against the action (such as in the case of a
search warrant).

They suffer from the same plight as the majority of the public-side of our
legal system. Too much work and not enough workers.

Judges, prosecutors, police, public defenders, etc...

They all have such a great case load that to examine every single document in
detail would grind the entire machine nearly to a halt. The system needs an
overhaul but it will not get one in the current political climate. The
judicial branch is supposed to operate independently of the legislative and
executive branches, but control lies with the controller of the budget.

Reminds me of an outrage a local newspaper reported on several years ago. A
fire-rescue/EMT operation had a target response time of X, and had actually
been responding in about half that time. This was seen as an indication that
they were overstaffed or had too much money/equipment, and the proposal was to
reduce the staffing/budget/equipment levels until the response time more
closely tracked the target.

~~~
Cw67NTN8F
Yp, your life might get ruined but for the judge it's just another day at the
job. Need to clear the docket, meet Jeff for lunch and then plan his golfing
weekend.

Oh, he owes $127 and he's not here? Arrest warrant!

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
Or your fate may hang in the balance of the time the decision is rendered. The
person who has their case heard right before lunch generally is given the
least amount of sympathy and understanding

~~~
edanm
This has been really questioned, and I think largely debunked.

The "effect" shown in the study that demonstrated this was probably caused by
batching of certain kinds of defendants/cases by time of day, e.g. put the
longest (most difficult) cases first, then have a bunch of easy no decisions
right before the break. (That's not what really happens, it's just an example,
I don't remember what really happens).

------
rayiner
This is a problem with trying to enforce the law against people who have no
money. This is quite a problem with traffic violations. In many states, people
get sent to jail over unpaid speeding tickets, not because speeding tickets
are punishable with jail time, but because they don't pay the ticket, don't
show up to court to address the ticket, don't respond when their license gets
suspended, and eventually get pulled over for driving on a suspended license.
On one hand, it doesn't seem like people should go to jail for this sort of
thing. On the other hand, how exactly are you supposed to encourage compliance
from people who can't afford to pay fines and penalties?

~~~
black_puppydog
> how exactly are you supposed to encourage compliance from people who can't
> afford to pay fines and penalties?

This seems to imply that financial punishment is the _only_ thing that people
will react to, and also that compliance is solely a matter of deterrence. I'd
argue both are false. You could easily convert tickets into community service
etc. Social shaming has made people "compliant" in all sorts of situations for
millennia. Handing out a speeding ticket to someone without considering if
they'll be able to pay it (i.e. without considering if the punishment is
appropriate TM) is making things worse for no good reason.

~~~
rayiner
Community service is forced labor and generally only a punishment imposed for
criminal conduct. Imposing it for what should be a civil issue is an
escalation.

Also, how do you sentence someone to community service if you can’t get them
to show up in court?

~~~
black_puppydog
I'm not a lawyer, and not a U.S. citizen, so I can't speak about details
regarding the _current_ legal situation about this. Maybe there are obstacles
there, I wouldn't know that.

I do get the feeling however that we're making two different comparisons here.
You seem to be comparing the "do community service" scenario to "pay a fine"
scenario. I am comparing the "pay a fine. oh, you can't? then do community
service" scenario to "pay a fine. oh, you can't? then go to jail" scenario.

Granted, that kind of casy by case justice costs time and effort on the side
of the state (i.e. tax payer) but personally, that's just the price of having
actual "justice for all".

~~~
rayiner
Jails are different than prisons. Jail is where someone is held pending a
hearing on their case. Prison is where someone is sent once it has been
decided they are violating the law. Although other countries use different
terminology, most have the same distinction between the two.

What happens in these cases is that someone doesn't show up to court. A bench
warrant is issued, and they get arrested months later when they get pulled
over for speeding or something unrelated, and the police find the warrant. At
that point, the court can't immediately drop everything and hear the case.
They get put in jail for a day or two until a bail hearing, at which point the
court will set a new court date, and decide whether to require the person is
required to post bail as a guarantee that they'll show up this time, or
whether they'll be held in jail pending the court date. At this point, the
judge can't order the person to do community service--they've done nothing
wrong other than fail to show up to court, and the only reason they're in jail
is the risk that they won't show up for the new court date. Many people can't
post the bail, so they sit in jail waiting for their new court date.

No matter how lenient you are with debtors, at the end of the day the court
needs some way to force someone to participate in the process of deciding what
to do. Even if you say "we'll forgive small debts if the debtor is poor," how
do you decide that if the debtor won't show up to court?

------
yoklov
For the interested, there's a lot more info in the ACLU's report:
[https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-
economic-j...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-economic-
justice/debt-collection-companies-have-hijacked-justice-system)

------
dadkins
Both this article and the ACLU report it's based upon are ridiculously
misleading. You don't get arrested for owing a debt. You get a bench warrant
issued for not showing up to court when you've been ordered to do so.

Debt collectors sue to get a court judgement against people who won't
otherwise pay, so they can use the power of the state to garnish wages, levy
bank accounts, etc. It's no surprise that they win in court. The debts are
usually valid. It doesn't help debtors' cases when they don't show up. Then
they get a default judgement.

Even with a judgement against you, you still won't get arrested for not
paying. But if you don't, the creditor can then request a debtor's examination
to which the court requires you to show up. At the examination, you'll be
asked about your assets and income, so the creditor knows how to collect by
force.

What happens if you don't show up to a debtor's examination? The creditor can
ask the judge for a bench warrant against you. What happens next depends on
the state and county. Sometimes the sheriff knocks on your door and gives you
a piece of paper telling you to come to court, or else. Sometimes they do
nothing until you get pulled over for some other reason and the warrant comes
up.

In any case, what's happening to some people is that they're being sued over
debts they owe, not showing up to court to defend themselves, getting default
judgements against them, still not paying, getting summoned to court for a
debtor's examination, not showing up for that, and then getting a bench
warrant issued.

If you don't show up for jury duty, the judge can issue a bench warrant. They
probably won't, but they can. If you get subpoenaed and don't show up, bench
warrant.

All this is to say that far from the courts criminalizing debt or being
manipulated by debt collectors, they are simply acting in their capacity to
enforce civil judgements. You know, the seventh amendment? Suits at common
law?

~~~
lukev
Nothing you just said is at odds with the article. The problem is that people
are spending time in jail (via the process you describe) because of civil
debts that can fall into one of the following categories:

(a) debts of small sums

(b) with insufficient evidence that a debt is actually owed (apparently hoping
that the defendant won't be able to competently defend themselves.)

(c) with insufficient notice to the defendant (apparently, this is the
plaintiff's responsibility in some jurisdictions.)

(d) with insufficient consideration for the defendant's situation (i.e,
physical or mental disability, single parents that cannot afford childcare,
etc.)

It seems self evident that these situations are unjust and that reforming the
process is desirable, wouldn't you agree?

~~~
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.

~~~
marcoperaza
> _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".

~~~
marcoperaza
"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.

~~~
jopsen
Should you get to exploit people who are desperate?

~~~
jstanley
If they _really_ want $100 right now, and are happy to pay $110 back next
week, I don't see offering that to them as exploitative.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
Then perhaps you ought to understand underlying motivations rather than seeing
everyone 100% logical robots with complete awareness of situation.

Its not the rational and logical who use payday loans with similar interest.
Its the single parent families. There's children involved, power threatened to
being turned off. There's a car repair needed for they can work. You know,
poverty.

And your excuses are just that- rational justification to fuck over poor
people trying to make the best of bad answers.

~~~
jstanley
If someone really needs a loan of $100 to keep the power from being turned
off, is denying them a loan for $100 in the best interest of the children? I
don't think so.

If you don't give them the loan, the power will definitely be turned off. If
you give them the loan, they can pay the power bill.

~~~
jopsen
You can't help poor people and make money. Or at least that's very hard.

If a family needs a few bucks to make things go round we should help. But
trying to make money helping is likely to be counter productive.

Yes, you need the state to step in. And no when you phrase it as people
exploiting the system, it won't help either ;)

~~~
jstanley
If you're not allowed to make money helping poor people, there's very little
incentive to do so.

The world didn't grow to the level of abundance that we have today by
everybody agreeing to work for each other for free. We grew through voluntary,
mutually-beneficial, exchange.

~~~
mrguyorama
If you need a monetary incentive to help someone who needs it, then you never
really cared about actually helping them in the first place

~~~
crankylinuxuser
Poor people are in a negative sum game.

Many make less than the required minimum they need to survive in the USA,
given things like dying vehicles and rotting residences and rising rent.

So it may cost $900/month to live total, but your fridge died and spoiled
food. So its now $1000 cost, and at -$100. So you sell a part of yourself to a
check cashing company and go further in debt. But you can eat. Who knows what
next week will be like.

Thats being in poverty. Sure we can make excuses that "its for providing
loans". Yeah, but they are extracting what little the people in poverty have
for a little bit more skin.

And that's absolutely unethical. Well, unless you work in that industry.

------
tachyoff
This is disgusting. One of my adult fears is that I’ll wind up on the wrong
end of a collections bill or something and everything will go to shit. That
being said, our court system was never particularly kind to the poor and
destitute (what institution has been?). I’m so thankful that organizations
like the ACLU exist and that they continue to do good, solid legal work.

~~~
garmaine
> That being said, our court system was never particularly kind to the poor
> and destitute (what institution has been?).

I encourage you to imagine a world without the rule of law.

~~~
tachyoff
I seem to know a lot of anarchists, so I’m very well-acquainted with the idea
of a world without the rule of law. Anyway, I think the principles of the
American court system are pretty solid. Like all legal systems, it’s made up
of flawed humans, and I don’t think it’s impossible to both hold it in some
sort of esteem while also acknowledging that it needs improvement. That it is
unfair to the poor doesn’t mean the entire system is broken (at least, that
would be my argument; I’m sure you could argue that the whole thing IS
broken), it just means parts of it need improvement.

Let’s not ignore all the ways the court system has succeeded, oftentimes in
numerous tiny ways (i.e. cases at the state level that set important precedent
and have pretty fair outcomes for the involved parties. C.f. restrictive
covenants on deeds. The rulings for my state (Michigan), at least, seem pretty
well-reasoned and legally logical.)

~~~
garmaine
I think you were misreading my statement. I was certainly not advocating for
anarchy! Quite the opposite. Life was miserable, brutal, and short before the
very progressive step was taken to have police, courts, and he rule of law for
common people. It is quite ironic to complain that police brutality and court
machinery are oppressing the poor when in fact it is precisely those
institutions that prot ct what liberties they enjoy.

------
jwfxpr
Seeing this appearing alongside "How poverty changes your mindset"[0] on the
front page helps to explain why the issues covered in both articles are so
problematic.

[0][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16461773](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16461773)

------
vermooten
Debt collection companies _in the US_ have hijacked ....

------
meri_dian
It's important that we have an independent press and groups like the ACLU to
hold our institutions accountable and bring this sort of abuse to light.
However it's also important to keep in mind that we only ever really hear news
about these institutions when something goes wrong. We only ever hear the bad,
not the good.

This bias is unfortunate because our institutions do a good job protecting us
and and safeguarding justice and order. By "good" I mean that most of the time
these institutions do protect the common people.

I think much of this bias emerges for two reasons. First, as I said before,
the news we hear is usually bad news. One can only hear so much bad news
before developing negative bias. In a large nation like the USA with so many
people, abuses of power are almost guaranteed to happen once in a while. It's
critical that a free press report on these incidents to keep institutions
honest, but an unfortunate side effect of this is negative bias against those
same institutions that so often work well and protect us.

The second reason is that institutions do have power over us, and loom very
large in our lives. In comparison to them, we are very small. This can be
disconcerting and uncomfortable for some.

~~~
Slansitartop
This is a very weird submission in which to be posting a comment like that.
Those foundational institutions should be held to high standards, and it's
good that there are people who will call them to account when they fail to
"product the common people," especially when the failure is systematic.

~~~
meri_dian
I agree with you. The institutions should be held to a high standard, and
there should be people to hold them accountable.

However there are many people, many people on HN who, if asked, would say that
our institutions are fundamentally broken or, as a comment elsewhere on this
post says, a "discriminatory clusterfuck".

My point is that this is a skewed and biased understanding of reality produced
by constantly being fed negative news. Are our institutions perfect? Obviously
not. Is there room for improvement? Of course! But do most people who interact
with our institutions get treated fairly and according to the letter of the
law, a law that itself is for the most part fair and just? I believe so.

~~~
jadedhacker
That's true, but that's mainly true of political majorities. Political
minorities (often racial, national, or other kinds) are systemically impacted.
Increasingly, it is the wealthy minority that is treated exceptionally fairly
with incredible deference while any poor person, if they make a small mistake,
is thrown to the wolves and blamed for not understanding a complex system or
thinking too little of it.

