Why not debtors' prison?

[TheGrinchWhoStoleDC]

I am not going to read 7 pages in hopes that someone will point out the very basic argument that debt is a civil matter, not a crime [/thread]

[Tpoints]

I am not going to read 7 pages in hopes that someone will point out the very basic argument that debt is a civil matter, not a crime [/thread]

what is the rationale for separating the 2?

[mczerone]

what is the rationale for separating the 2?

The rationale (not that I agree with it) is that criminal law is meant to protect society at large from people who are threats to the general public while civil law is meant to right the wrongs perpetrated against specific individuals (i.e. tort/contract laws).

A debtor has a specific, usually contractually bound, "victim" that can monetize their losses and seek redress.

[TheGrinchWhoStoleDC]

what is the rationale for separating the 2?

No sorry, I'm going to bed. I'm sure you can take a Law 101 class at the community college down the road if you wish to learn more about the difference between criminal and civil law.

Or in short, debt isn't a criminal offense (unless you're dealing with the IRS mob who gives you no choice), 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.

There are particular reasons for incarceration (agree or disagree), but owing someone money in an agreed-upon exchange does not call for you being removed from society, that's just absurd.

[Tpoints]

Or in short, debt isn't a criminal offense

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?

[mczerone]

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?

In practice, nothing but circular reasoning makes something a criminal offense.

In (statist) theory, criminal law is there to protect the innocent from dangerous behavior, punish perpetrators, and deter 'crime' through threats of punishments. Civil law is meant to make victims whole. This is why OJ Simpson was tried in both criminal court (under threat of prison) and civil court (for payment to the specific victims) for the murders.

Criminal law has no role in a free society because proper restitution to victims is the best deterrent to crime; and prisons only have the role to restrain people who are imminent threats.

[Tpoints]

In practice, nothing but circular reasoning makes something a criminal offense.

In (statist) theory, criminal law is there to protect the innocent from dangerous behavior, punish perpetrators, and deter 'crime' through threats of punishments. Civil law is meant to make victims whole. This is why OJ Simpson was tried in both criminal court (under threat of prison) and civil court (for payment to the specific victims) for the murders.

Criminal law has no role in a free society because proper restitution to victims is the best deterrent to crime; and prisons only have the role to restrain people who are imminent threats.

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.

[osan]

I NEVER EVER said I wanted to encourage lenders to not work with borrowers. But what do we do when they tried and worked and debtors still don't pay? YOU didn't pay attention when I said many times that this should be LAST RESORT, not as a substitution for people who can pay and are willing.

OK, this thread has taken on the flavor of a giant troll and shame on me for feeding it, but I will weigh in one last time with the bone jarring obvious answer.

We have in the USA an institution called the court of equity. When someone causes a loss to another, whether defaulting on a loan or driving his 1970 VW hippie bus through someone's living room, the damaged party demands restitution. That failing, he secures the services of a lawyer and files an action. The action is settled one way or the other and then collection is to be made in the event the plaintiff prevails. What happens thereafter is another story, but up until that point there is a thing called "due process of law" - perhaps you have heard the term before? That is how these matters are settled.

There is another problem with the notion of a debtor's prison. Because no crime has been committed yet loss incurred, at what threshold is prison called for? Do you put people into prison who owe $1MM? How about $500K? $10K? $100? $1.79? A penny? The principle, after all, is precisely the same in all cases. If we do not imprison people for a penny, why not when there is no substantive difference between that and owing a billion dollars?

I notice you did not respond to my previous post, which would suggest you are either not being careful or are uninterested in the correct answer to your original question. The answer has been posted and it is a pretty clear and simple affair. That this thread has gone on this long is a disturbing indicator that people's time is being wasted.

[Tpoints]

There is another problem with the notion of a debtor's prison. Because no crime has been committed yet loss incurred, at what threshold is prison called for?

That's like asking what amount you have to steal to be in prison, isn't it? $100? $500? $50,000? Do you believe people should be in prison or punished for theft? If so, how much?

Do you put people into prison who owe $1MM? How about $500K? $10K? $100? $1.79? A penny?

Whatever makes it worthwhile. It's hard to imagine a person would owe $100 and file for bankruptcy. So the threshold would likely be above $100K (but I'll say it again, and as much as necessary, IT MUST BE LAST RESORT WHEN YOU KNOW THE DEBTOR HAS NO INTENTION OR ABILITY TO PAY). That's just a guess to give you an idea, I'm sure you have a million reasons why that's wrong, as if you have a better answer.

The principle, after all, is precisely the same in all cases.

Like I ever cared about in "principle" whatever. And no, not precisely the same, you made that up.

If we do not imprison people for a penny, why not when there is no substantive difference between that and owing a billion dollars?

WHO said there's no substantive difference between having, losing, stealing, owing, taking, robbing, transfering a penny vs a billion dollars? EVER? FIND ME ONE PERSON WHO SAID THAT OR SHOVE THIS STRAWMAN DOWN YOUR OWN THROAT.

I notice you did not respond to my previous post, which would suggest you are either not being careful or are uninterested in the correct answer to your original question. The answer has been posted and it is a pretty clear and simple affair. That this thread has gone on this long is a disturbing indicator that people's time is being wasted.

I'll go back and look. Sorry.

[Tpoints]

You are apparently not familiar with the nature of business and risk. Voluntary engagement in business agreements, all business agreements carries with it risk. Risk should be entered into only after having been given its due consideration. Given that, any and all business ventures are prone to the risk of failure, often through no fault of the parties involved. This is par for the course and all parties to such agreements understand and accept this. When such endeavors fail "organically", no crime has occurred and therefore there exists no basis for charges, much less imprisonment.

That doesn't address when a person purposes breaches contract or admits he will not pay even if he can. Should we ever punish people who purposely owes money to hurt people?

Normal business risk, whether low or high, is fundamentally different from criminal activity such as fraud, which is​ a crime and should be addressed accordingly.

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?