Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I May be Going to Debtor's Prison [View all]
Kaleva
(40,145 posts)263. This is what he said at Kos about the arrest:
"There was no finding of BAC, and the officer stated in court that my driving was not at all erratic, but because I admitted I was dehydrated, hadn't slept in days, and had a single drink, I wound up with a DWAI."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/07/1089502/-I-May-be-Going-to-Debtor-s-Prison
According to one site, in NY, the minimum fine is $300.00 for the 1st offense, a maximum of 15 days in jail, and a suspended license for 90 days. He probably didn't get any jail time but he got at least a $300.00 fine and couldn't drive for 3 months.
http://www.ithacadwi.com/Difference_Between_DWAI_vs_DWI.html
According to the arrest report, he had refused a Breathalyzer test.
"Finally, in New York anyone who refuses to take a chemical test can receive a driver license revocation of at least one year and must pay a $500 civil penalty ($550 for a driver of commercial vehicles with a CDL) to apply for a new driver license."
http://www.drunkdrivinglawyers.com/refusing-breathalyzer-test-dui.htm
He didn't say what his punishment was but considering his situation, it was probably hefty.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
330 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
what is going to happen when the jails are run over with people like this? Where are they going
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#44
What can you do if that is all that is out there. Lets face it if your in your 40s, 50s,60s you
southernyankeebelle
May 2012
#47
I bet like 98% would love living in squalor just to get back at their x wives, he chose to be poor
Dragonfli
May 2012
#191
I'm always guilty of that -- thanks for the reminder. And for those who are cautioning against
gateley
May 2012
#171
it's almost a "cool story bro" type of story, don't know what to believe on this one.
dionysus
May 2012
#280
I did not say it wasn't true, I said it wasn't the whole truth, and lacks any real owning of his
Lionessa
May 2012
#23
He reminds me of a man I know with bipolar disease, who flits from one job to another
pnwmom
May 2012
#41
One line summary - In the US you may be sent to jail if you can't pay your child support. n/t
PoliticAverse
May 2012
#7
if you can't, you go back to court. Like not paying your taxes, it doesn't just "go away".
crazyjoe
May 2012
#39
Collective punishment is wrong. And laws should not be written based on what 'some people did'
sabrina 1
May 2012
#131
What is better for children is not being raised in struggling single parent households
Pithlet
May 2012
#134
And having a parent thrown in jail benefits children, in what way? For most children it is
sabrina 1
May 2012
#244
Really? If someone simply cannot pay, sending them to jail will solve that? How?
sabrina 1
May 2012
#257
I get that jail isn't the solution for everything. I'm not a law and order type.
Pithlet
May 2012
#260
"Most fathers who are not paying child support are not paying because they CAN'T"
WinniSkipper
May 2012
#262
Feel free, not sure why it should be a problem. I have been to fathers groups with friends who
sabrina 1
May 2012
#268
No, I did not initiate this discussion. The obligation for proof is on those who made the initial
sabrina 1
May 2012
#294
Now you've really gone way off the tracks regarding this discussion. What a gigantic, humongous
sabrina 1
May 2012
#300
Since when do people on the left give a crap about what the Right, who are wrong about
sabrina 1
May 2012
#306
He never tried to petition the court to adjust his payment to a level he could afford.
Kaleva
May 2012
#266
First, thank you for your post. I wish you and your children all the best. I am sure it is not easy
sabrina 1
May 2012
#273
Courts often decide people can pay when in fact they cannot. Ever attend a father's rights group?
sabrina 1
May 2012
#259
True enough, but semantics, much like fabreeze seeks to take away the bad odor /nt
Dragonfli
May 2012
#194
OP needs to edit this to include that it is due to failure to pay child support...
Earth_First
May 2012
#28
Yep, Non-Custodial Parents are one of the untermenschen of modern society. No one cares about them
stevenleser
May 2012
#195
I can't argue with providing for your kids, but it seems to me that society could have benefited
dkf
May 2012
#329
Poorly-written "poor me" screed. He's facing jail for missing child support payments, not cc debt
REP
May 2012
#32
You are right, absolutes are seldom true. I can say though, that I have yet to see a post of yours
Dragonfli
May 2012
#196
I'm sorry; thought I was responding to someone else. I don't recognize you at all.
REP
May 2012
#223
Also, here's what a family lawyer in Texas says about father's chances in Texas:
Pithlet
May 2012
#67
They don't request support ecause if they demand mom's support for the kids, she'll demand custody.
lumberjack_jeff
May 2012
#88
He's not wrong as the only person responding to you with a link pointed out.
stevenleser
May 2012
#197
Thank you, that's what I thought. I have asked for some links to prove what has been said here,
sabrina 1
May 2012
#265
I'm assuming he's serving jail time in lieu of failure to pay past child support.
Selatius
May 2012
#51
Imprisoning poor people after assigning them debts they could never pay is wrong
Taitertots
May 2012
#55
It doesn't matter what it costs. The only thing that matters is what he can pay. n/t
lumberjack_jeff
May 2012
#68
$7800 = 1/4 of male median income. which suggests that there's a lot of men who are working
HiPointDem
May 2012
#74
It amazes me how so many can form such strong opinions over something they didn't bother to read.
The Doctor.
May 2012
#101
That is NOT a reason for his problems. Millions of people get DWIs. Btw, I see this was brought
sabrina 1
May 2012
#270
I suspect this item on the POLICE BLOTTER might explain why the wife left....
msanthrope
May 2012
#116
Well, that makes it alright to lock him up and throw away the key. He was pulled over for a DWI.
sabrina 1
May 2012
#133
How many DWIs does she have? Do we know? And suppose she does, what has that got to do
sabrina 1
May 2012
#241
And it might not. But don't let doubt get in the way of a nice character assasination.
The Doctor.
May 2012
#162
Well, the writer had no problem assassinating the character of his former wife.
lapislzi
May 2012
#298
And it might not. And if he was a wealthy Corporate CEO, the issue of DWIs would not even be raised.
sabrina 1
May 2012
#238
You really think having an addiction has nothing to do with the ability to pay child
msanthrope
May 2012
#251
Who said he is an addict? But if he is, of cours it would affect his ability to pay support. Just
sabrina 1
May 2012
#255
I think his letter very clearly spells out his problems. Denial is a powerful thing. nt
msanthrope
May 2012
#258
Well, anyone in that thread at DK could have googled him, possibly they did. It doesn't
sabrina 1
May 2012
#290
Well, I will tell you why most criminal defendants refuse a breathalyzer...it's because they are
msanthrope
May 2012
#301
No, it doesn't. It spells out a very common story in this country of someone who has been trying
sabrina 1
May 2012
#269
Well, they say the first step is admitting that everyone else has a problem.
msanthrope
May 2012
#275
Lol, I know that things like 'chronology' aren't important when trying to lambaste someone...
The Doctor.
May 2012
#157
I don't think he helped his case by giving his name and publicly accusing his ex of perjury.
Kaleva
May 2012
#143
... are indicative of the nation's attitude toward the poor and unfortunate.
The Doctor.
May 2012
#150
Do you consider 'non-custodial parents' part of those single parent families?
stevenleser
May 2012
#173
It's not irrelevant. You dont see the non-custodial parent as a parent and you are right.
stevenleser
May 2012
#177
Then you misunderstood what I was asking (maybe I didnt phrase it well), but my point remains.
stevenleser
May 2012
#179
Yes. I was tying to explain that families run by a single parent are the poorest.
Pithlet
May 2012
#180
You WERE clear, hence my point. You dont think of the non custodial parent as a parent.
stevenleser
May 2012
#182
You excluded them, I am just pointing out what is apparent from your own phraseology
stevenleser
May 2012
#184
I'm not sure what question you are answering since I asked about a dozen or more, but...
stevenleser
May 2012
#186
"Any question about how different some of these responses would be if this were a woman...
99Forever
May 2012
#166
Right, he tried, he failed, he should be punished for failing to make enough money.
The Doctor.
May 2012
#193
Yep, we care about the 99%... unless they are a non-custodial parent. NCP's can go to hell.
stevenleser
May 2012
#198
This is an easy question to answer. The bad parents you describe should have their parental rights
stevenleser
May 2012
#208
It would cost more to keep him in prison than to give him a job on a road crew or something.
limpyhobbler
May 2012
#174
You would be surprised how many people become less mentally stable when you take their kids away
stevenleser
May 2012
#205
Sure it does. Its only in the situation of a divorce when it doesnt. Consider
stevenleser
May 2012
#210
Nope, if they are then it is temporary during foster care. Once adopted, the payments stop.
stevenleser
May 2012
#224
That distinction isnt relevant to the divorce/custody situation, is it? nt
stevenleser
May 2012
#231
Nope, I am saying that parents who would not have their children taken away if they were alone
stevenleser
May 2012
#228
Its important to remember that "Its for the children" has been used to justify some of the worst
stevenleser
May 2012
#272
The actual studies on the subject say the exact opposite. Everyone is happier in shared situations
stevenleser
May 2012
#212