|
August 12, 2009
Some debts are more immoral
Think we don't have debtors prison in these enlightened times? Well, think again. Not only are deadbeat dads routinely imprisoned, but via Dr. Helen, I just learned about an incident in which the "dad" went to prison for a child that wasn't his: Frank Hatley, 50, spent 13 months in jail for being a deadbeat dad before his release last month. A judge ordered him jailed in June 2008 for failing to support his "son" -- a child who DNA tests proved was not fathered by Hatley.The state maintains that he still owes his back payments and is not entitled to a refund of any of the payments he's made, since he made them under a consent agreement based upon the belief the child was his. (Which is like saying that if you're overcharged for taxes on income you never earned but you pay under the mistaken belief you do owe the taxes, that's just too damned bad.) As to the nature of imprisoning people for debt, I'm curious about the theories of immorality. The idea behind debtor's prison was that it was a form of dishonesty to promise to pay money and then not pay it. I can see that, although it's a bit weak, because many people get into debt because of circumstances unforseen at the time of the obligation, and if the result is economic ruin, they can find themselves unable to pay. Also, it takes two to create debt, and while you can always say the borrower did a stupid job of running his affairs, it's also stupid to loan money to an obviously bad risk. If I lent $500.00 to a homeless wino I met on the street and then expressed surprise when he failed to pay me back as promised, most people would rightly consider me more foolish than the wino. It also takes two to have a child, yet for reasons which have never been clear to me, only men are treated as the responsible party. Let's compare the creation of a child support obligation to the creation of ordinary debt. Unlike most borrowers, who read and sign documents before credit is ever extended to them, a baby results from sexual intercourse between two people, usually in the heat of emotional passion, and often when the parties have been imibining in mood-altering substances of one form or another. They do not know with any degree of certainty that a baby will result; in fact the vast majority of coital acts do not result in pregnancy. By what standard, then, is the failure -- especially by a non-custodial parent -- to honor the obligation to support a child so much more morally egregious than the failure to abide by a legal contract entered into at arm's length? Simply because there is a child? If that were the case, then why isn't the mother also obligated to pitch in? Furthermore, the mother is legally entitled to get out of the entire obligation -- either by abortion before the baby is born, or by adoption afterwards. The father has absolutely no say, and a non-custodial father has less than no say. But let's assume that the insemination of a woman (if it happens to lead to the creation of a child) is more culpable than the signing of a loan document. How do we get from there to it being a criminal offense with imprisonment as the penalty? Any why only for the man, who had no right to ameliorate the situation by offering the child up for adoption, and who likewise has no right to participate in raising the child? It's as if it's his child only for the purpose of paying the state, but for no other purpose, while the mother always gets to be the mother, gets money from the state, and owes the state nothing in return. Little wonder that some men consider that monthly check the mother gets to be partially theirs. After all, if it weren't for their contribution, the child who creates the income stream wouldn't exist! On a last but only peripherally related point, notice that the state took the mother at her word as to the father's identity. No doubt he is listed on the birth certificate. People do lie about such things, and they form the basis for government records. How many people know to a scientific certainty that their mama didn't lie? How many readers have had their DNA tested? (I can't imagine why I would think such a silly point is worthy of discussion, though....) posted by Eric on 08.12.09 at 05:24 PM
Comments
Wait until they figure out how to bring back indentured servants via debt bondage. True story, my step-father's great to the something grandfather came over on the Mayflower as an indentured servant. That ancestor has a house at Plymouth Plantation but he's never there. Obviously trying to skip out on his debt. Veeshir · August 12, 2009 09:20 PM In genealogy, this is called a "non-paternal event" which is sort of silly as obviously somebody was the daddy. We had my father's DNA tested because we could find nothing beyond his great-grandfather and that was the phrase used as a possible explanation for why his DNA didn't come anywhere close to the thousands of others with his last name who had been tested. It did match very closely with another last name, thus the suggestion that the last name wasn't gained in the traditional way. Donna B. · August 13, 2009 05:01 AM Imprisonment for failure to pay child support is punitive and retributive in nature, in fact if not in original intent. Men can't work in jail, and often lose their jobs, vehicles or professional licenses for being jailed. Therefore, making them pay up can't be the functional reason for imprisonment. Further, payroll garnishmnent is an effective enough tool that in many cases, if the money isn't being paid its because it isn't being made in the first place. I worked with a guy years ago who was effectively homeless (friends' couches, not under bridges homeless) and without a vehicle because his court-ordered support consumed practically all his wages. No appeal; pay or go to jail. There's a vague feeling among a lot of men that "deadbeat dads" had it coming, and it can't happen to them, but those kind of things happen routinely, they just don't make the news. As far as paternity numbers, one source says 2% of the general population in America have misplaced paternity, but the figure goes up to 30% among fathers who suspect enough to have a private test done. That's down from earlier reports going as high as 10% of the general population. Apparently it poses an ethical problem for doctors administering new dna tests for diseases: tell both parents? tell the mother only? tell the adult child? tell the underage child? A quandary. Given the consequences on display in the article linked, I'd say test if you have any doubts at all. $100 test, cotton swab to the cheek; the mother never even has to know, and if it comes back wrong get a good lawyer and a professional test done. Incentives are a bitch. Dave R. · August 17, 2009 03:44 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2009
July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Mass. Wait Times
activist narrative becomes government mainstream? Government Takeover Of Health Care No Longer An "Option" a crime is a game is a context Girlcott Whole Foods! Godwin Must Protest Here I go again, misinterpreting "end of life" consultations to death.... Bewitching symbolic resemblances just burn me up! "real people who are fired up who weren't engaged before" Can't they even leave me alone when I'm dying?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
How do we get from there to it being a criminal offense with imprisonment as the penalty?
Maybe because if they're irresponsible enough not to pay for their own sprogs nothing much else is likely to work on 'em.
That's about as far as I go in making excuses for the ludicrous inequality in treatment of the sexes. Both parent should be held equally accountable for the kid.