Check out http://www.blackprof.com/?p=877.
In general http://www.blackprof.com is a great blog. My favorite professor writes on it, as well as many other brilliant people.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The problem with "he should of thought of that before he broke the law."
More than a dozen of states prohibit downward modification of child support during incarceration. See, e.g., In re A.M.S. ex rel. Farthing v. Stoppleworth, 694 N.W. 2d 8, 9 (N.D. 2005). This means that if a father has a $400/month child support obligation, he retains this obligation if imprisoned. A parent does not cease to be a parent when he's imprisoned, but I have two major problems with this.
One: It creates a ridiculous, illogical, horrible cycle, which is bad not only for the prisoner, but the children and society as a whole. When the prisoner is released, he is in contempt of court for not having paid child support. This means as soon as he gets a job his wages are garnished. It also means that the person can be prosecuted for having not paid child support (even though he was physically and lawfully incapable of paying it), which can result in just sending him right back to prison. Assuming he isn't arrested again immediately for not paying child support, garnishing his wages stacks the cards highly in favor of him being incarcerated again for something else.
How can we expect people to re-assimilate under these conditions? Gainful employment is probably the most effective prophylactic regarding recidivism. Not only does society make it practically impossible for a convict to have a respectable job, but apparently if he has kids (and isn't married to their mother) even if he gets a respectable job, it won't be gainful. How can we expect these people to lead lawful lives if we make it impossible for them?
Two: This discriminates against parents who are not married to their children's other parent. A married person does not have child support obligations. Thus, a married person can be incarcerated and not be faced with this problem, even though his children are equally unsupported while he's in prison.
I fully recognize that this is an unsolvable problem. Children need support no matter where their parents are, or what their parents did, but this approach only compounds the problem; it doesn't provide support for the children. Excluding the few months of garnished wages, it most likely reduces their chance of future support. If their parent gets arrested again (whether as a result of no gainful employment or arrest for not paying child support), support again becomes an impossibility. Moreover, without even giving it much thought, I can call to mind a litany of costs to society: crime victimization, cost of prosecution, cost of incarceration, state support of child, et cetera (not to mention the indirect costs, such as the children's own delinquency).
This is just one of many examples of how society's indifference to the problems of convicts is perpetually harmful to us. People commit crimes and must be held responsible, but we can't shrug off every one of the following complications with "he should of thought of that before he broke the law." These things effect everyone, not just the criminal.
On a only tangentially related - but interesting - note, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a probation condition prohibiting a man from having any more children, because he was already not supporting nine children. State v. Oakley, 629 N.W.2d 200 (Wisc. 2001). This means if the guy had any more kids before he provided support for his existing kids, he was going to prison. Draconian maybe, but in this case I think the court was right. He refused to support any of the children, despite many court orders, and he abused the children. If he were immediately put in jail, he would definitely not be able to support the children and he wouldn't be able to have any anyway. This option at least gives him the opportunity to support them. While sending him to prison wouldn't fix the problem, it might have at least forced him to take his obligations seriously, and prevented him from victimizing future children (and mothers).
I don't know if he did ever support his children, have other children, or go to prison. I do know that part of the reason he wasn't paying child support was because he was a convict and couldn't get a job (but that doesn't excuse having nine kids under those circumstances). David Ray Papke, State v. Oakely, Deadbeat Dads, and American Poverty, 26 W.New Eng. L. Rev. 9, 10-13 (2004). Then again, the cost of incarcerating him is far more than the children could need for support, but what can you do? If we paid for the kids, but didn't make the father pay any consequences, it would create motivation for parents to abandon their kids and make the state support them.
One: It creates a ridiculous, illogical, horrible cycle, which is bad not only for the prisoner, but the children and society as a whole. When the prisoner is released, he is in contempt of court for not having paid child support. This means as soon as he gets a job his wages are garnished. It also means that the person can be prosecuted for having not paid child support (even though he was physically and lawfully incapable of paying it), which can result in just sending him right back to prison. Assuming he isn't arrested again immediately for not paying child support, garnishing his wages stacks the cards highly in favor of him being incarcerated again for something else.
How can we expect people to re-assimilate under these conditions? Gainful employment is probably the most effective prophylactic regarding recidivism. Not only does society make it practically impossible for a convict to have a respectable job, but apparently if he has kids (and isn't married to their mother) even if he gets a respectable job, it won't be gainful. How can we expect these people to lead lawful lives if we make it impossible for them?
Two: This discriminates against parents who are not married to their children's other parent. A married person does not have child support obligations. Thus, a married person can be incarcerated and not be faced with this problem, even though his children are equally unsupported while he's in prison.
I fully recognize that this is an unsolvable problem. Children need support no matter where their parents are, or what their parents did, but this approach only compounds the problem; it doesn't provide support for the children. Excluding the few months of garnished wages, it most likely reduces their chance of future support. If their parent gets arrested again (whether as a result of no gainful employment or arrest for not paying child support), support again becomes an impossibility. Moreover, without even giving it much thought, I can call to mind a litany of costs to society: crime victimization, cost of prosecution, cost of incarceration, state support of child, et cetera (not to mention the indirect costs, such as the children's own delinquency).
This is just one of many examples of how society's indifference to the problems of convicts is perpetually harmful to us. People commit crimes and must be held responsible, but we can't shrug off every one of the following complications with "he should of thought of that before he broke the law." These things effect everyone, not just the criminal.
On a only tangentially related - but interesting - note, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a probation condition prohibiting a man from having any more children, because he was already not supporting nine children. State v. Oakley, 629 N.W.2d 200 (Wisc. 2001). This means if the guy had any more kids before he provided support for his existing kids, he was going to prison. Draconian maybe, but in this case I think the court was right. He refused to support any of the children, despite many court orders, and he abused the children. If he were immediately put in jail, he would definitely not be able to support the children and he wouldn't be able to have any anyway. This option at least gives him the opportunity to support them. While sending him to prison wouldn't fix the problem, it might have at least forced him to take his obligations seriously, and prevented him from victimizing future children (and mothers).
I don't know if he did ever support his children, have other children, or go to prison. I do know that part of the reason he wasn't paying child support was because he was a convict and couldn't get a job (but that doesn't excuse having nine kids under those circumstances). David Ray Papke, State v. Oakely, Deadbeat Dads, and American Poverty, 26 W.New Eng. L. Rev. 9, 10-13 (2004). Then again, the cost of incarcerating him is far more than the children could need for support, but what can you do? If we paid for the kids, but didn't make the father pay any consequences, it would create motivation for parents to abandon their kids and make the state support them.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Politicians Will Be Politicians
On August 2, 2007, Senator Kyl (R-AZ) voted against the State Child Health Insurance Program bill. Two and half months later, he's criticizing democratic earmarks because he says the money should be used for children's health care (among other things).
I can't even really blame Sen. Kyl. Who doesn't want to have their cake and eat it too? He can stick to the ranks, vote against SCHIP, maintain his relationship with his fellow republicans on the Hill, yet say he supports children's health care and retain his voter support. He can even criticize the democrats while he's at it. It's really the best political choice, regardless of how he actually feels about children's health care.
And yes, this is why politics suck. But whose fault is it? Ours. It's the voters' fault for making our decisions based on rhetoric and media characterizations (if even that). Most Americans never delve any deeper. Senator Kyl says something that makes sense, like 'we shouldn't be earmarking money for a Woodstock museum, we should be spending it on children's health care,' and most voters are sold. They believe that Senator Kyl is a logical man who supports health care. It's of no consequence that he voted against a bill to provide health care to millions of American children. How many Americans look up voting records? How many even know where to look?
Here I think many might place blame on the news media. Why don't they report this stuff? Why don't they tell the public how its representatives vote? Because the public doesn't care. New media need the ratings or subscribers to get sponsors, and policy issues don't get that - Anna Nicole Smith does. Again, the responsibility is ours. If we cared about how our senators and representatives were voting, it would be reported.
This also exemplifies why I can never vote for a Republican in a federal election. Politicians, especially junior politicians, lose much of their individuality on the Hill. It takes a solid amount of political capital to break party ranks. Unless a rep has the ability to stand on her own two feet, she needs the support of the party. Consequently, successful politicians rarely do it. Besides, as evidence by Sen. Kyl, why should they? This means that even if I sincerely believed a Republican supported my issues, I know I could not rely on her to vote in support of them. It's just not the way our system works. It's 100% possible that Sen. Kyle really believes we should be spending money on children's health care, but as you can see, that does not translate into a vote.
So next time you get ready to criticize a politician for double-talk (or a person for straight-ticket voting) remember we have a system that demands it. Rather than lambasting the politicians, educate yourself about the issues and break the cycle.
I can't even really blame Sen. Kyl. Who doesn't want to have their cake and eat it too? He can stick to the ranks, vote against SCHIP, maintain his relationship with his fellow republicans on the Hill, yet say he supports children's health care and retain his voter support. He can even criticize the democrats while he's at it. It's really the best political choice, regardless of how he actually feels about children's health care.
And yes, this is why politics suck. But whose fault is it? Ours. It's the voters' fault for making our decisions based on rhetoric and media characterizations (if even that). Most Americans never delve any deeper. Senator Kyl says something that makes sense, like 'we shouldn't be earmarking money for a Woodstock museum, we should be spending it on children's health care,' and most voters are sold. They believe that Senator Kyl is a logical man who supports health care. It's of no consequence that he voted against a bill to provide health care to millions of American children. How many Americans look up voting records? How many even know where to look?
Here I think many might place blame on the news media. Why don't they report this stuff? Why don't they tell the public how its representatives vote? Because the public doesn't care. New media need the ratings or subscribers to get sponsors, and policy issues don't get that - Anna Nicole Smith does. Again, the responsibility is ours. If we cared about how our senators and representatives were voting, it would be reported.
This also exemplifies why I can never vote for a Republican in a federal election. Politicians, especially junior politicians, lose much of their individuality on the Hill. It takes a solid amount of political capital to break party ranks. Unless a rep has the ability to stand on her own two feet, she needs the support of the party. Consequently, successful politicians rarely do it. Besides, as evidence by Sen. Kyl, why should they? This means that even if I sincerely believed a Republican supported my issues, I know I could not rely on her to vote in support of them. It's just not the way our system works. It's 100% possible that Sen. Kyle really believes we should be spending money on children's health care, but as you can see, that does not translate into a vote.
So next time you get ready to criticize a politician for double-talk (or a person for straight-ticket voting) remember we have a system that demands it. Rather than lambasting the politicians, educate yourself about the issues and break the cycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)