Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/06/13/juvenile-debtors-prisons.html
…
3 Likes
insurance companies…who…got so big in the first place by being experts in finding creative ways to extract money from vulnerable people, quite often at the behest and requirement of the state…
10 Likes
I think the rules absolutely need to be reconsidered for accomplice crimes, and I disagree with re-imprisoning anyone for failing to pay a debt in a timely manner, but it’s also not fair to victims to only punish offenders with jail time, and not to fully compensate them for real losses.
I would hope there’s some way to see to that goal without unduly burdening the offender, but can certainly see how that could get out of hand — it’s extremely easy to cause huge amounts of damage that could easily become a lifelong burden.
4 Likes
Those who do not read Dickens are doomed to repeat him.
11 Likes
That would be the result of a working insurance system. Those financially damaged by the crime get repaid by the insurer, and people don’t get imprisoned for poverty.
6 Likes
How the US does law enforcement and prisons is a SCAM! It is profiteering at it’s worse. Roll back predatory laws, pardon, and release. Prison is the new slavery.
5 Likes
“Land of the free…” you say?
1 Like
In lots of places it was the old slavery too.
10 Likes
Exactly what would you call it, if someone is put in prison when they can’t pay these debts? That’s practically the definition of getting ‘imprisoned for poverty’.
2 Likes
and that is how you make drug dealers.
3 Likes
Insurance should protect against accidents, not willful acts. I can’t intentionally burn down my own home and claim the insurance, but can if it’s an accident.
Yes it is. My point was that we should have a working system instead of the current screwed up system where people are imprisoned for poverty.
I didn’t mean to be unclear. I was thinking that insurance providers (who exist to mitigate financial risk) should cover the losses for individuals with policies and that the city/state should take out policies so that loss from a crime will be covered by the insurance provider if there was no personal policy. That way people don’t go broke because someone stole their stuff and people don’t go to jail for being broke
5 Likes
Of course insurance protects against willful acts. If someone else burns down your home, then your insurance should pay for it.
9 Likes
oh stop whining about your debt to society and knock over a bank.
Really? So if someone without means steals and totals your car, you feel that 1) you should pay for it out of pocket and 2) the individual should go to jail until they can pay you back (even if that’s for life?)
Under that system I suppose I understand the US a bit more, with the whole “shoot for trespass” thing. 
9 Likes
Ah, much clearer. Thank you.
2 Likes
I explicitly said “I disagree with re-imprisoning anyone for failing to pay a debt in a timely manner,” but yes, they should absolutely have to pay you back.
And if someone makes off with my car? I, like a lot of drivers, only have liability coverage. So if my car is stolen and totaled, the thief shouldn’t be responsible for replacing the car?
If a tree falls on my car, I’ll take the hit, sure — that’s just force-of-nature bad luck. But in no world do I see it as just that I should be liable for another person’s actions against my property.
Wait, but if it’s insured and the insurance company pays you for the damage, why? I mean, if the person who did the damage already served time for the crime, why do you feel like the insurance company should be reimbursed?
Insurance companies charge premiums based on the risk of loss. They factor in loss by force majeure, theft, vandalism, etc. If they charge you as their customer for the premium, then pay out based on your loss, then go after the person who did the damage, then the insurance company is double-dipping. That can’t be legal. If it is, it shouldn’t be.
6 Likes
How would liability coverage pay for that?
I, like a lot of drivers, only have liability coverage.
1 Like
