I see the news reports of the protests around the county sparked by grand juries not charging police officers. The protesters in Madison Wi. are asking that a new jail NOT be built and those committing “crimes of poverty” not be imprisoned. The way I’m understanding this is they are saying a poor person should be allowed to take whatever they wish and not be prosecuted.
Am I missing something? Should those that work to provide for themselves and their families be ok with someone taking that away simply because they are poorer? And who decides at what income level someone can plead poverty as a defense for robbing a liquor store or mugging someone on the street?
I completely understand the outrage over the way our country’s
police forces have become more and more militaristic and heavy handed. As an ex over the road trucker and and a lifelong “biker” I have had more then my share of interactions with law enforcement and have very little trust in them. But I also understand their need in a civilized society. So this isn’t a question about cops. It’s an honest desire to understand why as a civilized society we should excuse “crimes of poverty”.
So does that mean that (according to those people) if I make less than a certain amount of money I should be exempt from paying traffic tickets and fines for petty offenses? I mean, if you don’t go to jail for it, there’s really no real consequence. You’d probably go on some sort of probation, but what does it matter if you violate it?
Well then what does not wanting a new jail built have to do with not paying a fine? The current jail is a shithole. Was when I was in it for having a few joints in my pocket in 1976. I can only imagine how bad it must be 41 years later. Even if you stop incarcerating the poor for not paying the fines imposed for endangering our children by driving 60 MPH passed the school at 3:15 or running a redlight on the cross street you’re passing through on your way home from work, the people that are in there need to be housed safely.
And as stated before, there must be some form of punishment for those that choose to disregard the basic rules of society. If not jail or fines then what?
The people protesting the new jail want to get rid of prison as a punishment for crimes. Here’s a blog by the group:
They don’t go into detail about what they want in its place. Historically, the major alternatives to incarceration have been corporal punishment, exile, or slavery, but I’d be surprised if that’s what they’re going for.
In other words, they’re a bunch of whiny liberals who like to protest what they erroneously deem “inhumane” but are so facile they can’t propose any reasonable alternatives to the problem.
This is exactly like the whiny immigration protesters.
“The system is broken! The system is broken!”
“(But we can’t define why exactly it’s broken nor propose any alternatives)”
FOR THE RECORD: the PIC is a monstrosity. So propose reasonable reforms and people will take you seriously. Stupid whiny people do their cause a disservice on so many issues.
There are programs in place for poor people with terrible driving records to get their licenses back. It includes fine forgiveness, exempting them from insurance requirements, and expediting point removal from their driving records.
It’s horseshit. To qualify one must fall into certain economic factors. If you’re not dirt poor the system basically says “eat shit! You fucked up your driving record now suffer the consequences.” I looked at the program and was horrified at what kind of people got their driving privileges back and what kind of records they had. The idea of the program is, without the ability to legally drive poor people will remain poor. The truth is, many of those people are poor in the first place because of bad decisions, including the decision to commit numerous traffic violations.
I’ve lived in Wisconsin for going on 55 years. Best advice is, don’t take anything anyone from Madtown says seriously. They’re all fuggin nuts!
I read somewhere that you guys throw people in jail for failure to be able to pay such things as child support and alimony. After for instance having lost their job. Seems like a pretty stupid idea on the whole. How is putting someone in jail going to help him pay child support and alimony? “Such as” could be to stop demanding people pay what they cannot do.
Today’s Editorial by George Will is, I think, very much on point. And I think even many of his detractors on the left will agree with the overall sentiment expressed there.
That quote does not support your claim. To the extent that child support payments are at all ethical, they apply only to Dwayne Ferebee’s earnings. Putting Dwayne in prison as a means of forcing his mother and his fiancee to pay child support to Dwayne’s ex is not, as you seem to believe, how it should work.
Actually it does - every time Mr. Ferebee finds himself in the pokey, sooner or later he manages to scrape together the money to pay his child support.
The notion that child support might not be ethical may be the basis for our disagreement. If you create a child, you are morally obligated to support that child. And I care very little to hear excuses.
If you have to beg or borrow - I am not prepared to go so far as say “steal”, but I am pretty close - then you do that.
I disagree. “How it should work” is that he comes up with the money to support the children he created, and if he has to get that from his mommy or his latest girlfriend that matters not at all. Any funds to which he has, or can get, legal access, then he is morally obligated (and should be legally obliged) to pay his child support.
If he wants to call himself a man, then he takes care of his own. If you won’t take care of your own, then don’t bother me with excuses because I am not listening.
As I understand it, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1982 that the government can’t send someone to jail simply because they can’t afford to pay a fine.
What’s even more stupid about throwing debtors in jail is that many jails are also charging inmates for the cost of being imprisoned. So because someone doesn’t pay a parking ticket, they get thrown in jail. Then they could be charged a couple hundred bucks for the priviledge of being in the hoosegow. Then they get out, and they can’t pay the money for being fed while in jail – leading them to be thrown in jail again.
It’s absolutely idiotic that states don’t seem to be abiding by this Supreme Court decision.
AIUI the government can send you to jail for “willfully” refusing to pay a fine. Which is a bit more of a gray area - if someone can borrow the money but doesn’t, is that “willful”?
One case is indicative of the problem -
Not only did he not pay his fine, he also did not complete his community service. Or pay his restitution. One might expect that, even if he were broke and unemployed, he could do his community service. But he didn’t, which could indicate that he was refusing to do even what he could do towards repaying his debt to society and the person he robbed. It is rather like sending someone back to jail for not following up with his parole officer.
There is always talk of non-prison sentences for non-violent crimes, and it often makes a lot of sense. But if convicts are going to be allowed to ignore all the non-prison parts of their sentences, that starts to not make as much sense. If the courts are sentencing me to do something that I don’t have to do, how is that different from not sentencing me at all?
So let’s take a clear-cut case: if someone is indigent and totally broke, do you or do you not want them to be sent to jail for failure to pay a fine that they literally have no money to pay?
Ridiculous. He didn’t have “legal access” to his mom’s money or his girlfriend’s tax refund. Basically the state exthorted the money from them. There is no reason to assume they would have given up that money if he wasn’t being held for ransom.