At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Hello
My sister-in law went to court for credit card debt . The judge ordered her to get a job she is 50 and never worked. Can a judge order her to get a job? This is in the state of Maine. He said if she didnt have a job in 2 months she will be in contemt. Thank -you
You're all probably right about the unconstitutionality of judges ordering defendants to get jobs. But I've personally heard judges order people to get jobs in open court.
Well what about in Alabama where the judge ordered 2 men who were convicted of stealing to wear signs outside of the store they stole from saying "I'm a thief".
And one judge ordered men convicted of soliciting sex to wear chicken suits with signs...
A judge can rule what he deems neccesary as punishment.....thus if a person charges up credit cards, but refuses to work to pay off the debt, the punishment should be for that person to work and make money to spend it!
Not all judges obey the law - especially in Alabama! Don't you remember the Alabama judge who was impeached very recently because he refused to obey the Supreme Court to remove something from the public arena that had the 10 commandments on it?
Besides, we're not talking about what the sanctions "should" be. We're talking about what the sanctions "are".
Well what about in Alabama where the judge ordered 2 men who were convicted of stealing to wear signs outside of the store they stole from saying "I'm a thief".
And one judge ordered men convicted of soliciting sex to wear chicken suits with signs...
A judge can rule what he deems neccesary as punishment.....thus if a person charges up credit cards, but refuses to work to pay off the debt, the punishment should be for that person to work and make money to spend it!
Judges must follow the rules like you and I. If they dont why have rules? Judges have gotten use to the abuse of power and I personally dont have to take it. I currents have 3 formal complaint against a judge in my county, have place the court on Judicial Notice of Lack of confidence. Violations for oath of office filed, and copies to the Governor. I will not back off from this until this judge is removed from office.
We the People can effect change, but one must voice their opinion
I absolutely agree that the government is out of control and needs to step back from the boundaries which they so blatantly and frequently cross. I myself have filed a complaint against a judge in the circuit court in my district; he's a complete moron who doesn't pay attention to testimony or evidence and then bases his judgments on what he thinks happened but never did.
The difference is that this woman has a financial obligation. She signed a contract stating that she would repay her debt. She did not do so. She ran up a bill and is now trying to wash her hands of it by saying, "I don't have a job; too bad, so sad." The judge has every right to order her to get a job so that her creditor can obtain their judgment.
As I said, this is no different than a divorce or a child support case. When a party files for child support, they must have a job or be actively seeking one so that they are not abusing the system. This woman is an abuser of the system. If she didn't have a means to repay her credit card debt, then she shouldn't have gotten one in the first place.
The judge has every right to order her to get a job so that her creditor can obtain their judgment.
Hello this:
You'll have to show me the law that gives them that right.
In fact, you can't - because a judge doesn't have that right at all. Rights are derived from the Constitution or the law. That's it - nowhere else. They're not made up as you made up this right.
I'll repeat my earlier post. If you actually read a law, you would find that the legislature (whose job is to MAKE law), wrote as part of the law, what happens to people who violate it. The sanctions are listed. A judge, once the finding of guilt has occurred in a criminal case, can sentence a defendant to ONLY what the listed sanctions are - nothing more. A defendant can't get life in the slam for smoking a joint because a judge wants him to. That doesn't happen here.
In a civil case, however, a judge can only render a judgment for the aggrieved party. He can't help the aggrieved party collect. Let me say that again - he can't help the aggrieved party collect. Debtor’s prison along with stocks and other public humiliations have been outlawed. We DID do them. We don't anymore.
Do not confuse the above with child support enforcement. In those cases, a judge may order a person to pay, and if he doesn't, he can be held in civil contempt of court and be put in jail.
Now, if you want to talk about how the world SHOULD be, that's another subject. However, here on the law board, we tell it like it IS.
The judge has every right to order her to get a job so that her creditor can obtain their judgment.
The judge, i.e. the government, has powers that we the people grant. The judge does not have the power to force someone to work. He has the power to grant a judgement in favor of the plaintiff and they can move forward to collect.
Whoa guys. I think you are all doing a little apples and oranges deal. Judges often have a wide latitude in imposing sentencing. Not all of those sentences however, would stand up under appeal. Remember the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
What a judge can do and what an appeals court will uphold are different animals. A judge can order a defendent to get a job in order to pay back a debt they incurred, and even cite her for contempt if she doesn't. But its unlikely that would be held up on appeal. But then the defendant might not challenge it. Judges often do things they know won't hold up under appeal because they feel they won't be challenged. And the only punishment they would recive is a possible loss of their judgeship, if they find themselves reversed too often. Some judges hate to be reversed so are very conservative. Others are more concerned about justice so will be more creative in their rulings.
Judges often have a wide latitude in imposing sentencing.
Hello again, Scott:
Judges don't "have" wide latitude. They TAKE wide latitude, and if appealed as you noted, would be reversed. Therefore, they have to follow the law, unless of course, they don't care if they're reversed. Some maverick judges don't care, I grant you. That doesn't make what they do legal.
Agreed, But I think many judges "take" a wide latitude because they know the defendants are unlikely to be aware of their rights on appeal. Remeber, also was posted inthe Small Claims forum where things are a bit more informal.
Linear Mode
