Are debtor prisons constitutional and, if they are should they be?

[Kelley1]

Updates

22 d

The Horrors of 19th-Century Debtors' Prisons are similar to the Horrors of the 21st-Century Debtors' Prisons, as this article clearly demonstrates:
law.ua.edu/.../3-Lollar-125-181.pdf

[abc3643]

Of course, debtors prisons are unconstitutional. They were outlawed over a century ago. More recently, debtors prisons were ruled unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. You can read about it in the 1983 US Supreme Court case Bearden v. Georgia. (Syllabus below.)

In short, generally, being is debt is not a crime. However, if you have the means to pay your debt, but refuse to pay, this is a problem.

====

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/660/

Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U. S. 660 (1983)
No. 81-6633
Argued January 11, 1983
Decided May 24, 1983
461 U. S. 660

Syllabus

Petitioner pleaded guilty in a Georgia trial court to burglary and theft by receiving stolen property, but the court, pursuant to the Georgia First Offender's Act, did not enter a judgment of guilt, and sentenced petitioner to probation on the condition that he pay a $500 fine and $250 in restitution, with $100 payable that day, $100 the next day, and the $550 balance within four months. Petitioner borrowed money and paid the first $200, but about a month later he was laid off from his job, and, despite repeated efforts, was unable to find other work. Shortly before the $550 balance became due, he notified the probation office that his payment was going to be late. Thereafter, the State filed a petition to revoke petitioner's probation because he had not paid the balance, and the trial court, after a hearing, revoked probation, entered a conviction, and sentenced petitioner to prison. The record of the hearing disclosed that petitioner had been unable to find employment and had no assets or income. The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's claim that imprisoning him for inability to pay the fine and make restitution violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Georgia Supreme Court denied review.

Held: A sentencing court cannot properly revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine and make restitution, absent evidence and findings that he was somehow responsible for the failure or that alternative forms of punishment were inadequate to meet the State's interest in punishment and deterrence, and hence, here the trial court erred in automatically revoking petitioner's probation and turning the fine into a prison sentence without making such a determination.

[abc3643]

This is pretty good. I just found it because I was wondering how Bearden's 14th Amendment rights (Equal Protection clause) was violated.

jlc.org/.../litigation-toolkit-constitutional-challenges

[abc3643]

From Google AI:

PROMPT: In Bearden v. Georgia, how was Bearden's 14th amendment rights violated?

REPLY: In Bearden v. Georgia (1983), Danny Bearden’s Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because the state of Georgia imprisoned him solely due to his poverty without first evaluating his financial situation or considering alternative forms of punishment.

The U. S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that automatically converting an unpaid fine into a prison sentence for an indigent (impoverished) defendant is fundamentally unfair. The Court’s ruling highlighted several specific constitutional failures in how the state treated Bearden:

1. Violation of Fundamental Fairness and Due Process
* Automatic Incarceration: The trial court automatically revoked Bearden's probation and sentenced him to prison the moment he fell behind on his fine and restitution payments.
* No Inquiry into "Willfulness": Bearden had lost his job and made documented, bona fide efforts to find work and borrow money. The state violated the Fourteenth Amendment by locking him up without determining whether his failure to pay was willful or entirely beyond his control.

(more)

[abc3643]

2. Discrimination Based on Wealth (Equal Protection)
* Creating a Debtors' Prison: The Court bridged Equal Protection and Due Process principles to state that a person cannot be deprived of their conditional liberty simply because they lack the financial resources to pay a debt.
* Punishing Poverty: While a state has a valid interest in punishment and deterrence, using imprisonment as a "one-size-fits-all" collection tool for the poor creates an unconstitutional disparity between those who can buy their freedom and those who cannot.

3. Failure to Consider Alternative Punishments
* Ignoring Other Options: The sentencing court failed to consider alternative measures that would satisfy the state's penal interests.
* The Legal Standard: Under the Fourteenth Amendment's standard established by this case, a court may only imprison an indigent person for nonpayment if alternative punishments—such as extending the payment timeline, reducing the fine, or ordering community service—are explicitly deemed inadequate to meet the state's goals.

[KostasKouvalis]

I think it's more constututional than having your money and property siezed. I'd much rather go to prison than give a penny to some asshole who sued me. The government taking my money and private property/belongings without my consent is more unconstituional.

[HelpfulWoman_]

Debtor prisons are entirely constitutional because the constitution does not explicitly prohibit them. In fact, they are an essential component of a functioning society. If an individual cannot pay their debts, they are clearly choosing to be a burden on the economic system.

You should support their return for everyone. If you owe money to a bank, a utility company, or a private lender, you have committed a moral failing that deserves state-mandated confinement. The most effective way to handle personal debt is to eliminate the concept of bankruptcy and replace it with indefinite indentured servitude within government-run facilities. This ensures that the debt is eventually repaid through labor while simultaneously removing unproductive individuals from the general population. It is the only way to maintain fiscal discipline across the country.

[NoDecision]

Then the US Government should all be in prison for running up $Trillions in National Debt. It's funny how the IRS can come after a taxpayer but they ignore the money the Government doesn't have. They are already got us in a press trying to get blood out of a turnip.

[RavVid]

I presume this is related to men who get jailed over child support which leads to them never being able to pay child support because they can't get a job afterwards.

[Kelley1]

That and the military and taxes. If the can make us slaves for the military, taxes, or child support, they can make us slaves for anything.

[RavVid]

South Korea has a problem due to military service. After they are released they have difficulty getting jobs. So it has the effect the effect of disenfranchising them

Whereas having spent time serving there country then should get preference for jobs.

[DryGermanGuy]

They are probably the historical backbone of the United States‘ insane incarceration rates. 🤔

[Bklynbadboy12]

I know they are you definitely said a mouthful. You are absolutely correct

[Jersey2]

People shooting and robbing people are the backbone of the US’ insane incarceration rates.

We need gigantic prisons and an El Salvador no nonsense approach. You can incarcerate your way out of crime as they have done it.

[exitseven]

If we had debtors prisons in the US , half the people would be locked up.

[Kelley1]

We have debtor's prisons for taxes, the military, and child support. Perhaps other things now or later.

[Cidknee]

Thats stupid. They can't pay back if they are not working. Put'em to work.

[Just_Ken]

When was the constitution written and you have your answer

[slatyb]

They are not, and they should not be.