SCOTUS: Public lawyers not required in civil cases involving incarceration. (child support case)

c0mputar · 2011-06-21T09:40:01+00:00

"Unmoved, the judge gave him to up to 12 months in jail, although Turner could get out the minute he paid Rebecca Rogers, the mother of his child, what he owed her."

I chuckled. If he has $5700 he could pay and avoid jail, but chooses not to or is unable to, what then? Are they going to keep imprisoning this guy after he gets out until he somehow pays up, which is only going to get harder and harder the more he spends time in jail? This is why debtors' jail is about the dumbest thing to ever spring up in Western societies.

At least make it so that if the individual spends time in jail then, as a result, all their past debt and future obligations are relinquished. What financial crime other than child support follows you around even after you have served time? If Bernie were to somehow get out of jail had the sentence not been so steep, do you think he is still liable for all the interest and returns?

There's just too much abuse. Men, don't stick dick in crazy, and women, don't let crazy dick in you. Women should recognize that poor women do not get treated as horrifically by the family court as poor men though. We hear about those women who are the breadwinners and end up paying child support... Funny thing is they themselves are the ones who have the child anyways, which shows how grossly anti-men those family laws are because it's considered a guaranteed that women get custody. The court will generally give the woman the child. In the case that she isn't the breadwinner, it's because she's the mother, and when she is the breadwinner, it's because she is more financially stable. Funny how that works.

The only sensible way around this is to have no such debtor laws. In a world striving for equality and freedom, both individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want. A single parent or two separated parents who work through it financially, are far better ideas than two separated parents with an ongoing financial battle that sees one of them going in and out of jail.

mtux96 · 2011-06-21T06:05:45+00:00

So if they cannot have lawyers, neither should the other side.. What gets me is the following:

"A requirement that the state provide counsel to the noncustodial parent in these cases could create an asymmetry of representation that would 'alter significantly the nature of the proceeding,'" Breyer said. "And perhaps more important for present purposes, doing so could make the proceedings less fair overall, increasing the risks of a decision that would erroneously deprive a family of the support it is entitled to receive."

It's one thing when you don't pay when you can afford it, but it's completely different when you cannot. The difference is that those who can afford it, can afford a lawyer and possibly get out of jail, whereas those who fail to pay because they cannot afford it, get a free pass to jail. How is that fair?

They are trying to squeeze blood out of turnips and then jailing the turnips because it won't give them what they cannot give.

Title	SCOTUS: Public lawyers not required in civil cases involving incarceration. (child support case)
Author	kloo2yoo
Upvotes	45
Comments	4
Date	June 21, 2011 2:47 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/i4wf9/scotus_public_lawyers_not_required_in_civil_cases/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/scotus-public-lawyers-not-required-in-civil-cases.1038376 https://theredarchive.com/post/1038376

Comments