Comments on: “Not guilty,” pronounces the judge

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:40:20 +0000

So even if a person is not “poor” and is able to avoid jail because of ability to pay a fee for the privilege of being found not guilty – – that’s OK?

I don’t think that’s OK.

It’s not OK for anyone – regardless of their means.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 20:50:39 +0000

Most collection agencies I know of take a portion of the recovery to fund the company.

Here, it seems that the City and the collection company are automatically making a contract that involves a third party (the citizen) to be charged fees without the consent or approval of the third party.

Just how can that be legal or moral? Why can the City and the company seek to obtain fees for which the citizen never agreed to?

By: marco73

marco73 — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:53:32 +0000

While the reporter was trying to get the other side for this article, the mayor kept giving him the slip.
When the reporter finally got to the mayor at a public meeting, he got a whole song and dance about how it was the court’s issue.
Mr. Mayor, sir, you signed the contract that puts your own citizens in jail for the crime of being poor. Shirking responsibility is what small town pols are all about.

By: MattS

MattS — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:23:03 +0000

@Canvasback,

From a Libertarian perspective, if a company’s very existence is dependent on government contracts, it isn’t really a private enterprise.

By: Canvasback

Canvasback — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:40:07 +0000

Even if they stop jailing people, the fees and fines condemn so many people to penury. $45/month on a $500 balance – what’s a stronger word than ‘predatory’ that we could use here? I know libertarians are generally for private enterprise, but this seems anti-liberty and the vilest form of rent-seeking.

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:16:59 +0000

Well maybe at least now we know the price of freedom.

It’s $198 court costs.