I suppose I should clarify a couple of things that may not have been spelled out in my prior replies.
First, I know there*s a difference between parole and probation. That may be relevant here, because one is part of an original sentence and other other happens later.
Second, Im aware that the 13th amendment does not prevent a state from forcing a convicted inmate to work, at hard labor or otherwise, while imprisoned. That may very well be a broad enough power to allow a judge, separate from any agreement to accept probation, to order a criminal defendant to obtain private employment. (This is the question Im attempting to explore.)
Defendants don’t always agree to be on probation. Occasionally they are found guilty at trial and placed on probation without agreeing to it. And those probation orders are enforced just the same as when the person agreed to it. I have had people convicted at trial refuse to agree to follow certain conditions and they have been revoked and jailed. I can remember several people who decided they would rather go to jail than get jobs, but I can’t remember if they had plea agreements or were sentenced after trial. But I’ve never seen an attorney try to argue that just because somebody had not agreed to probation that they should be exempt from any rules, and I’ve heard just about every argument there is as to why people should be exempt from the rules. After serving in seven courts over the last ten years, I’m pretty confident that our judges would not buy that argument.
Just FYI, everytime I have seen a Judge order that condition it is usually because they do not want the defendant “hanging on the corner” they want to see them doing something productive with their time so that they have less time to get into more trouble…
No. The court is stating that a condition of probation is being employed. That is totally different from the court ordering you to get a job. Violation of the former means your probation is ended and you are subjected to the penalties applicable in such cases (return to prison most likely). Violation of the latter would imply the court could find you in contempt.
I am quite reasonably confident that a judge cannot, sua sponte, order a person to obtain employment. I could be proven wrong, but not by recollections and mis-statements of the law.
A good start would be a reference to a relevant statute.
A judge can order almost anything they want. Whether or not such an order would be uphelp upon appeal is a more pertinent question. I am aware of some pretty bizzare judicial orders in criminal cases.
I.C. 35-38-2-2.3 Sec. 2.3.(a) As a condition of probation, the court may require a person to do a combination of the following:
(1) Work faithfully at suitable employment or faithfully pursue a course of study or vocational training that will equip the person for suitable employment.
I hate getting into these legal semantic nitpick arguments, so let me just say this. I am sitting 2’ away from a filing cabinet with 250 files in it, and in each and every one of these files there is a court order ordering a person to “become and remain gainfully employed.” Furthermore, I have seen countless people sent to jail for not getting a job as ordered. So I will just say yes, a judge can order it, and leave it to the lawyers to argue over whether a judge can or not.
This has been an interesting thread, drift and all.
So I take it the answer to the OP as I posted it is: “The judge can’t order the guy to get a job in the context of a civil case. Employment might be a condition of parole in a criminal proceeding but this guy hasn’t been arrested, just sued. The judge could imprison the guy for mooning him (as per Oakminster) but given that this isn’t a child support case the successful plaintiffs will be left sucking pond water as regards the award. Even in a child support case, the judge can’t force the deadbeat to get a job if the deadbeat doesn’t fear prison.”
Pretty close…unless the Defendant had an insurance policy that would cover the damages, the Plaintiff is likely out of luck. Plaintiff could record his judgment in any jurisdiction where the Defendant owns property, and thereby acquire a lien against that property…but that lien would be subordinate to the first lien holder(s), and the homestead may be exempt under State law. Plaintiff can also renew his judgment every few years (7 years in my state, varies by state I think) just in case Defendant hits the lottery or something. Plaintiff can attempt to collect by wage garnishment, if Defendant is employed (and makes over the minimum for garnishment), or Plaintiff could attempt to garnish any bank/investment accounts he can identify, probably through a debtor’s exam.
I’d anticipate the Defendant filing bankruptcy to discharge his liability if possible…certain types of damages are not dischargeable.
Most states have civil garnishment laws, which permit judgment creditors (i.e. folks who have gotten a legal judgment against somebody) to garnish the wages and earnings of the judgment debtor. Normally garnishment is limited to a certain percentage or amount of earnings, on the theory that people have to spend some of their earnings on living expenses. Some states, however, do not permit the garnishment of wages.
The collection of judgements is an unromantic but important area of the law. However, the fact is that a large percentage of judgments simply never get paid.