In the article, it's mentioned that people there are held in jail for decades for debts below $1000. That's the "debt trap" in the title.
I'd argue that I'd rather let someone steal than let them rot in jail for such a long time, for such a low monetary value, be it from debt or from theft. I understand you may disagree, that's why we do politics.
Additionally, which country has the best "rule of law", comparatively? Talking in absolutes in that regard is moot in my opinion.
> In the article, it's mentioned that people there are held in jail for decades for debts below $1000. That's the "debt trap" in the title.
Eh, lots of people are in jail in the US primarily due to their inability to pay court fees. Many because they couldn't pay the public defender fees.[1] Lots of cases where the accumulation of court fees dwarfs the financial costs of their original crime, and are punished much more for not being able to pay for fees than for their original crime.
Oh, and in some states they suspend your driver's license for nonpayment of these fees. This makes it even harder to work and earn money.
>>I'd argue that I'd rather let someone steal than let them rot in jail for such a long time, for such a low monetary value, be it from debt or from theft.
There is a middle ground between these two extremes. Also, if you want to compare costs, you have to factor in the deterrence effect of the latter, which will translate to much less lost in theft, and in additional store security.
I'd argue that I'd rather let someone steal than let them rot in jail for such a long time, for such a low monetary value, be it from debt or from theft. I understand you may disagree, that's why we do politics.
Additionally, which country has the best "rule of law", comparatively? Talking in absolutes in that regard is moot in my opinion.