Please do not contribute quotes to me that I did not make. I expect an apology for this. Or is alsotoo small to worry with.
AZkopperwrote that.
Now you are comparing apples and oranges. Each situation has procedures proscribed for redress. In most states, the public utility can terminate your service for non-payment and will only reconnect after either paying or reaching satisfactory arrangements and further paying a substantial deposit. The law does not authorize arrest or prison time - I realize that you were being overly sarcastic, sir.
Yes, dissent is good in some instances, but also realize that, with dissent, you may wind up in the calaboose.
So really your point is that the law is flawed, as oppesed to your opening comment:
Remember, she was arrested, taken to the police station for booking, and informed of the bond required to secure her release. The police report states that she was able to satisfy the total bond (a little supposition on my part that it included the cost of the books and overdue fees as well as a surety).
As for the discussion of whether this should have been settled by civil judgement (garnishing her wages) we have this:
If you know anything about garnishment actions, you know that it takes time and several court appearances to perfect a garnishment, and then time and administrative costs to collect, record and disburse a garnishment. Courts rountinely add on fees to cover those expenses, which would raise the total well above the $180 Ms. Dalibor paid for the books and her overdue fees.
Redress of wrongs has two components: 1) restitution to status quo ante (the way things were before the act) and 2) demonstration of the power of magesty. This is the method used to demonstrate to others that it is not a Good Idea[suP]TM[/suP] to violate the law, because there will be a penalty to pay and the penalty is not pleasant. Admittedly I'm not sure that theft of library books is so rampant in Grafton, Wisconsin that they need to make deterrance a big thing - but then again if you read the police report you will see that there were at least half a dozen miscreant scofflaws besides Ms. Dalibor, each adding to the taxpayers' expenses of maintaining a public library.
That, as opposed to your When one defends the law in this case, the same reasoning supports a law to arrest people for failing to pay a debt owed to a public utility. It's an apt comparison, not disingenuous at all.943.20
(1)Acts. Whoever does any of the following may be penalized as provided in $xhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-123985]sub. (3):
(a) Intentionally takes and carries away, uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of movable property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of such property.
(b) By virtue of his or her office, business or employment, or as trustee or bailee, having possession or custody of money or of a negotiable security, instrument, paper or other negotiable writing of another, intentionally uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of such money, security, instrument, paper or writing without the owner's consent, contrary to his or her authority, and with intent to convert to his or her own use or to the use of any other person except the owner. A refusal to deliver any money or a negotiable security, instrument, paper or other negotiable writing, which is in his or her possession or custody by virtue of his or her office, business or employment, or as trustee or bailee, upon demand of the person entitled to receive it, or as required by law, is prima facie evidence of an intent to convert to his or her own use within the meaning of this paragraph.
(c) Having a legal interest in movable property, intentionally and without consent, takes such property out of the possession of a pledgee or other person having a superior right of possession, with intent thereby to deprive the pledgee or other person permanently of the possession of such property.
(d) Obtains title to property of another person by intentionally deceiving the person with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. "False representation" includes a promise made with intent not to perform it if it is a part of a false and fraudulent scheme.
(e) Intentionally fails to return any personal property which is in his or her possession or under his or her control by virtue of a written lease or written rental agreement after the lease or rental agreement has expired. This paragraph does not apply to a person who returns personal property, except a motor vehicle, which is in his or her possession or under his or her control by virtue of a written lease or written rental agreement, within 10 days after the lease or rental agreement expires.
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&q=robbery
I appreciate the English lesson - I did not define everything you said as disingenuous. "My point is that you are being disingenuous when you even sarcastically suggest prison time for an unpaid utility bill as if the comparison were valid."
R,e,p,e,a,t - she was not "place(d)...in the custody of the state over a matter of two library books." So what caused her to be picked on by the system? She ignored the court order!
Is there a statute (cite please) allowing the arrest for this or are you just hypothesizing to support your conclusion. This is indeed disingenuous.
She must have thought so as she did nothing to protect/defend herself.
I do not doubt your sincerity nor question your resolve to defend transgressions of our freedoms. On the other hand, I give little credence to spurious arguements.
How would putting her in jail get the books back?
