The text here takes the stance that debtors prisons don't work for this purpose. However, I don't see evidence of such here. To show it doesn't work requires considering within the policy and in the absence of the policy. Less than 100% effectiveness is different from not working. We do have some data because of different policies between states. For accurate conclusions, that would need to be analyzed to account for extraneous factors, as well. I would guess there are academic papers which have attempted to. I wonder if they have consensus.
The arrears for child support payments just keep growing and becoming more unmanageable for the person paying it. They can't pay money they don't have, and it doesn't keep them from having anymore children. It just keeps them from spending time with their kids. The book I mentioned has even more resources and studies cited, but a common theme it brings up is that a father's time is much more important than the money he provides to his children. Keeping him locked away is only going to hurt his children.
I did see that you included some kind of bibliography at the end, but in the text of your post I did not see evidence (or citations) that debtors prisons don't work for this societal challenge. As I said, lack of 100% effectiveness is not the same as not working. You are providing evidence that not all people pay their debts and some kind of argument as to why there are some disadvantages to this system. That is different from this system not working. To know if it is working requires comparing to no system, and knowing the best system requires comparing between systems. I glanced at the document you just linked, and I still did not see any evidence that this system (debtors prison) works less well than simply asking for the money. I am willing to look at any section I am pointed to.
I wasn't formulating my own argument, just pointing out the gap in yours: to say it doesn't work would require comparing to not having it.
I don't know what would happen with vs. without the debtors prisons but let's speculate:
Currently, there are people who get into debtors prison, and perhaps word spreads. Presumably, this discourages some others from intentionally not paying.
Supposing debtors prison did not exist: I assume that even more people would not pay.
This does not dispute that there are people who "cannot" pay , but if there were only fines or warnings, I think even more would not pay.
I think it is worth discussing what the best solution is, but I would start with the position that debtors prison does work as a deterrent, just as prison deters murder. I accept that it does not work as an absolute deterrent, and also that there could be improvements.
If we want to find the best solution, I think it is actually worth analyzing the case of a murderer. If we start with the position that murderers with kids should still be incarcerated then we can ask what happens to their kids. For sure less money if it was a two income household. Then should we: a) do nothing, b) let them earn significant money in prison as long as it all goes to kids, c) pay for kids expenses out of government pockets, d) other.
I think that whatever solution is considered there is instructive to what options we should consider for those who have not paid child support.
'And just in case you still think, “But that was then! This is now! We can do it right this time!” I like your enthusiasm, Thanos, but I need you to chill. There’s no way to structure this so that it’s fair and doesn’t violate anyone’s freedoms—we all have biases. And as always, if history has taught us anything, power shifts. You might advocate for something now that later puts you at a disadvantage.'
But this is more of an ad hominem attack than an argument, and the talking down part of it was what really struck me as disrespectful. If we look at the actual argument, it is quite weak. Enforcement of prison sentences for manslaughter is subject to biases too, yet we do enforce it. The argument that we should not have a program because it could be abused is a weak argument against whether the program should be considered.
With manslaughter, you have already committed a crime (or at least been accused of one) and had the opportunity to be judged before a jury of your peer. If found guilty, the state has a right to set a punishment. Yes it is subject to biases, but there is also due process.
The major issue behind forced sterilization that is problematic is that it punishes you for a crime you haven't committed. There's no law in the US about being a less-than-amazing-parent, and there shouldn't be. I think especially in this debate over abortion and regulating women's bodies, the idea of regulating a human's ability to reproduce is a violation of their rights. Also, with all of the parenting blogs out there judging other parents for the tiniest things about how they raise their children, one person's discipline could be another person's "abuse." The government leaves most parenting decisions up to parents for a reason.
You seem to have this one figured out, so how about you tell me: All crimes are offenses, but are all offenses crimes?
Revoking someone's ability to reproduce is pretty serious and permanent—what happens when we make mistakes?
Can you think of a time where mandatory sterilizations worked?
How do you make sure that it's not just poor people, immigrants, people with down syndrome getting sterilized? Death row is filled with people who are either black or who have killed a white woman, and people who are $68k deep in child support payments are mostly owed by people making less than $10k a year. How would a policy like this be any different?
You wrote "You seem to have this one figured out, " but I am just replying to what you wrote.
In some cases, not paying child support is a crime. I assume that is why those specific people can be incarcerated.
You wrote:
"Revoking someone's ability to reproduce is pretty serious and permanent—what happens when we make mistakes?"
That is a fine question to ask but not related to the point of yours I was replying to. The same thing occurs with jail time: if someone loses free living of years of their life, that is also quite serious.
Additionally, here we are talking about repeat offenders - that means they have at least one child already. To me, that is relevant.
You wrote:
"How do you make sure that it's not just poor people, immigrants, people with down syndrome getting sterilized?"
Again, this was what I replied to originally: selective enforcement could happen with anything - manslaughter, murder, etc. But we don't simply enforce nothing as a result. So arguing selective enforcement is not a convincing argument.
The point of seriousness does have parallels to death sentences. To address that , there is tube tying that is reversible for both men and women. The reversal doesn't always work, but this would still pull away from complete sterilization. To me, that reduces it to comparable risk as putting someone in jail for some years.
You wrote:
"Death row is filled with people who are either black or who have killed a white woman, and people who are $68k deep in child support payments are mostly owed by people making less than $10k a year. How would a policy like this be any different?"
I guess it is not different in the sense that it would impede making more children? I don't understand how that part is relevant.
The text here takes the stance that debtors prisons don't work for this purpose. However, I don't see evidence of such here. To show it doesn't work requires considering within the policy and in the absence of the policy. Less than 100% effectiveness is different from not working. We do have some data because of different policies between states. For accurate conclusions, that would need to be analyzed to account for extraneous factors, as well. I would guess there are academic papers which have attempted to. I wonder if they have consensus.
I did cite a large-scale study in the endnotes here: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/29736/1001242-Assessing-Child-Support-Arrears-in-Nine-Large-States-and-the-Nation.PDF
The arrears for child support payments just keep growing and becoming more unmanageable for the person paying it. They can't pay money they don't have, and it doesn't keep them from having anymore children. It just keeps them from spending time with their kids. The book I mentioned has even more resources and studies cited, but a common theme it brings up is that a father's time is much more important than the money he provides to his children. Keeping him locked away is only going to hurt his children.
I did see that you included some kind of bibliography at the end, but in the text of your post I did not see evidence (or citations) that debtors prisons don't work for this societal challenge. As I said, lack of 100% effectiveness is not the same as not working. You are providing evidence that not all people pay their debts and some kind of argument as to why there are some disadvantages to this system. That is different from this system not working. To know if it is working requires comparing to no system, and knowing the best system requires comparing between systems. I glanced at the document you just linked, and I still did not see any evidence that this system (debtors prison) works less well than simply asking for the money. I am willing to look at any section I am pointed to.
Okay, it sounds like you are formulating your own argument. What does a world without this system look like?
I wasn't formulating my own argument, just pointing out the gap in yours: to say it doesn't work would require comparing to not having it.
I don't know what would happen with vs. without the debtors prisons but let's speculate:
Currently, there are people who get into debtors prison, and perhaps word spreads. Presumably, this discourages some others from intentionally not paying.
Supposing debtors prison did not exist: I assume that even more people would not pay.
This does not dispute that there are people who "cannot" pay , but if there were only fines or warnings, I think even more would not pay.
I think it is worth discussing what the best solution is, but I would start with the position that debtors prison does work as a deterrent, just as prison deters murder. I accept that it does not work as an absolute deterrent, and also that there could be improvements.
If we want to find the best solution, I think it is actually worth analyzing the case of a murderer. If we start with the position that murderers with kids should still be incarcerated then we can ask what happens to their kids. For sure less money if it was a two income household. Then should we: a) do nothing, b) let them earn significant money in prison as long as it all goes to kids, c) pay for kids expenses out of government pockets, d) other.
I think that whatever solution is considered there is instructive to what options we should consider for those who have not paid child support.
You wrote:
'And just in case you still think, “But that was then! This is now! We can do it right this time!” I like your enthusiasm, Thanos, but I need you to chill. There’s no way to structure this so that it’s fair and doesn’t violate anyone’s freedoms—we all have biases. And as always, if history has taught us anything, power shifts. You might advocate for something now that later puts you at a disadvantage.'
But this is more of an ad hominem attack than an argument, and the talking down part of it was what really struck me as disrespectful. If we look at the actual argument, it is quite weak. Enforcement of prison sentences for manslaughter is subject to biases too, yet we do enforce it. The argument that we should not have a program because it could be abused is a weak argument against whether the program should be considered.
With manslaughter, you have already committed a crime (or at least been accused of one) and had the opportunity to be judged before a jury of your peer. If found guilty, the state has a right to set a punishment. Yes it is subject to biases, but there is also due process.
The major issue behind forced sterilization that is problematic is that it punishes you for a crime you haven't committed. There's no law in the US about being a less-than-amazing-parent, and there shouldn't be. I think especially in this debate over abortion and regulating women's bodies, the idea of regulating a human's ability to reproduce is a violation of their rights. Also, with all of the parenting blogs out there judging other parents for the tiniest things about how they raise their children, one person's discipline could be another person's "abuse." The government leaves most parenting decisions up to parents for a reason.
You specifically titled the section I replied to as "Sterilize Repeat Offenders" so that is not sterilizing a person who has committed no crime.
If you are concerned about due process, juries can certainly be included (though due process was not your original point that I was replying about).
You now wrote:
"I think ...regulating a human's ability to reproduce is a violation of their rights "
That is fine as part of your position, but that is a different argument/position than the one I was replying to.
You seem to have this one figured out, so how about you tell me: All crimes are offenses, but are all offenses crimes?
Revoking someone's ability to reproduce is pretty serious and permanent—what happens when we make mistakes?
Can you think of a time where mandatory sterilizations worked?
How do you make sure that it's not just poor people, immigrants, people with down syndrome getting sterilized? Death row is filled with people who are either black or who have killed a white woman, and people who are $68k deep in child support payments are mostly owed by people making less than $10k a year. How would a policy like this be any different?
You wrote "You seem to have this one figured out, " but I am just replying to what you wrote.
In some cases, not paying child support is a crime. I assume that is why those specific people can be incarcerated.
You wrote:
"Revoking someone's ability to reproduce is pretty serious and permanent—what happens when we make mistakes?"
That is a fine question to ask but not related to the point of yours I was replying to. The same thing occurs with jail time: if someone loses free living of years of their life, that is also quite serious.
Additionally, here we are talking about repeat offenders - that means they have at least one child already. To me, that is relevant.
You wrote:
"How do you make sure that it's not just poor people, immigrants, people with down syndrome getting sterilized?"
Again, this was what I replied to originally: selective enforcement could happen with anything - manslaughter, murder, etc. But we don't simply enforce nothing as a result. So arguing selective enforcement is not a convincing argument.
The point of seriousness does have parallels to death sentences. To address that , there is tube tying that is reversible for both men and women. The reversal doesn't always work, but this would still pull away from complete sterilization. To me, that reduces it to comparable risk as putting someone in jail for some years.
You wrote:
"Death row is filled with people who are either black or who have killed a white woman, and people who are $68k deep in child support payments are mostly owed by people making less than $10k a year. How would a policy like this be any different?"
I guess it is not different in the sense that it would impede making more children? I don't understand how that part is relevant.