Alex Jones

[lawdog77]

Acknowledging that jail is often a necessary last resort when it comes to child support deadbeats = let's reinstate debtors' prison is quite a leap. Like, Evel Knievel over Snake River.
And again, while it is possible the bring criminal charges against deadbeats, the great majority of incarcerations are handled via civil contempt, for obvious reasons. If ghe ultimate goal is to compel payment, bringing in another set of lawyers and another judge and another monthslong legal process is neither the most efficient or most effective means.

Unless I am misreading, you are shifting goalposts.  Some here are arguing to throw him in jail if he does not pay this judgment. I apologize if you are not advocating that.

[Pakuni]

Unless I am misreading, you are shifting goalposts.  Some here are arguing to throw him in jail if he does not pay this judgment. I apologize if you are not advocating that.

I am not advocating for that.
I only jumped when Babyblue wrote that locking people up for failing to pay civil judgements is a very bad idea. In most civil matters, I agree. But I think child support is a notable exception. From my (albiet limited) experience, many people who face jail for nonpayment of child support are in that position because they don't want to pay, not because they can't pay.

[lawdog77]

I am not advocating for that.
I only jumped when Babyblue wrote that locking people up for failing to pay civil judgements is a very bad idea. In most civil matters, I agree. But I think child support is a notable exception. From my (albiet limited) experience, many people who face jail for nonpayment of child support are in that position because they don't want to pay, not because they can't pay.

As Baby Blue explained its really apples and oranges.

My experience is the opposite. Those that have the money to pay, are generally garnished (except the job hoppers), many of those that are jailed are done so because they don't have the $$, and dont have the $$ to hire an attorney to make an appearance to stop it.

[WhiteTrash]

I hope Jones is punished to the greatest extent possible under the law. And I wouldn't be upset if he stepped in front bus on accident.

If I step back and try to be objective,  I don't think he is a direct threat to anyone that would make me feel comfortable having the tax payers fund his time in jail. As most have pointed out, debtor prisons are a thing of the past for good reason.

If he earns money, take it. If he can't make money then I hope the victims of his disgusting actions and words don't need the money. I think I'd hope for that.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

As Baby Blue explained its really apples and oranges.

My experience is the opposite. Those that have the money to pay, are generally garnished (except the job hoppers), many of those that are jailed are done so because they don't have the $$, and dont have the $$ to hire an attorney to make an appearance to stop it.

An actual lawyer vs the World's Smartest Man^tm.  Stay tuned to see who will win. 

[Pakuni]

An actual lawyer vs the World's Smartest Man^tm.  Stay tuned to see who will win.

That's insensitive.

[Pakuni]

As Baby Blue explained its really apples and oranges.

My experience is the opposite. Those that have the money to pay, are generally garnished (except the job hoppers), many of those that are jailed are done so because they don't have the $$, and dont have the $$ to hire an attorney to make an appearance to stop it.

You don't need an attorney to dispute a rule to show cause, and if you want one and can't afford one, there are options like Prairie State.
It's very, very unlikely that a judge is sending someone to jail if they pay what they can while showing an inability to pay the full amount. 

[lawdog77]

You don't need an attorney to dispute a rule to show cause, and if you want one and can't afford one, there are options like Prairie State.
It's very, very unlikely that a judge is sending someone to jail if they pay what they can while showing an inability to pay the full amount.

Sorry, but that's not how it works in the real world. Most of the people that cannot pay do not understand what a rule to show cause is, nor do they understand that an ability to pay is the critical question in the contempt hearing. They simply freak out and dont appear, or go in front of a "hanging judge" who follows the policies of "this is not a criminal contempt charge, so the only basic due process (notice and opportunity to speak) are given.

[Pakuni]

Sorry, but that's not how it works in the real world. Most of the people that cannot pay do not understand what a rule to show cause is, nor do they understand that an ability to pay is the critical question in the contempt hearing. They simply freak out and dont appear, or go in front of a "hanging judge" who follows the policies of "this is not a criminal contempt charge, so the only basic due process (notice and opportunity to speak) are given.

I'll just say this and end it.
You literally are shifting the goalposts here. You've gone from "people are jailed because they can't afford to pay and can't get an attorney" to "people are jailed because they freak out and skip court."
In that case, it's not the inability to pay that lands them in jail.
And I don't think one needs to understand the legal definition of rule to show cause to understand an order that says "show up in court on this date and explain why you aren't paying child support." And if they really can't understand that, why are they freaking out?

[MU82]

Liens. Garnishments. Levies. Make his life a living hell (and they will). I wouldn't care one iota if Jones were sent to prison -- he's a bad guy -- but the remedy for failing to pay a civil judgment shouldn't normally be prison. This isn't a political debate, that would just be a horrible broad policy affecting millions of people designed to stick it to one piece of crap.

The child support example is one that is either criminal or invites contempt of court because it implicates child endangerment. Weird that this is even a debate.

I'm even less of a legal expert than a few others here, so I'll defer to you. Although if both he and his company are declared bankrupt, and if he finds some clandestine way to hide his money, then I don't know what you are garnishing or levying.

I guess I just like the idea of Alex Effen Jones making "special friends" in prison.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

That's insensitive.

You'll survive.

[lawdog77]

I'll just say this and end it.
You literally are shifting the goalposts here. You've gone from "people are jailed because they can't afford to pay and can't get an attorney" to "people are jailed because they freak out and skip court."
In that case, it's not the inability to pay that lands them in jail.
And I don't think one needs to understand the legal definition of rule to show cause to understand an order that says "show up in court on this date and explain why you aren't paying child support." And if they really can't understand that, why are they freaking out?

I wouldn't know where to find a goalpost, much less shift it. To your point, why are they freaking out? Because they don't have the money to pay, and don't understand the hearing process. If you have ever read a show cause, they are not that easy to understand. Many who dont show up, think they are going to jail irregardless of what happens at the hearing. There's a pretty informative law review article from cornell covering this topic, and how many indigent are being jailed for this.

Should those that refuse to pay child support be jailed? In my opinion, hell yes. Unfortunately, the system is broken. Many who cannot pay are jailed, while others who can don't pay the consequences.