On 2008-09-05, Bob wrote:
On Sep 4, 9:21*am, Brent P wrote:

Again, I'll bring up writing a check that is against an account that
does not exist and writing a check that overdraws your account. The
former is theft, the later is a breach of contract. The former is crime,
the later has mere privately imposed penalties (by the merchant and the
bank).
You are mistaken. If it is done intentionally, the latter is also a
crime. That banks don't generally demand prosecution doesn't
decriminalize it.

Um, intent is exactly the difference I highlighted. Duh.

No, actually you didn't highlight any difference in intent. You merely
assumed that any overdrafts would of course be unintentional. Are you
saying then- returning to the context of this sub thread- that
habitual non-payment of child support is always, usually, or even
occasionally unintentional? If so, you live in a dream world. If not,
then why should it *not* be criminalized?

Geebus. No Mr. strawman, 'did you stop beating your wife?' question
asker who pulls things out his imagination.

As to assuming unintentional overdrafts, if one overdraws HIS OWN VALID
ACCOUNT with the intent of THEFT, he's got to be the STUPIDEST CRIMINAL
the world has EVER seen. Because he just gave the people he stole from
his name, address, bank info, and countless other information. That's
got to be like robbing someone's home and INTENTIONALLY leaving one's
wallet with ALL THE USUAL CONTENTS in it on the dining room table.