Should debtors who voluntarily incurred debts such as purchase of a home theater system be able to receive the same benefits of filing bankruptcy as individuals who incurred debts involuntarily, such as emergency medical bills? Explain and support your answer with scholarly sources.
To answer this question, we need to examine the principles underlying bankruptcy laws and consider the rationale behind treating different types of debt differently. Here's how you can approach finding scholarly sources to support your answer:
1. Clarify key terms: Start by defining terms like "voluntarily incurred debts" and "involuntarily incurred debts" to have a clear understanding of the question.
2. Research bankruptcy laws: Familiarize yourself with the general principles and objectives of bankruptcy laws in your jurisdiction (e.g., the United States Bankruptcy Code). This will help you understand the overarching goals of bankruptcy and how different debts are treated.
3. Consider different perspectives: Find scholarly articles or legal resources that discuss the justification for treating different types of debts differently in bankruptcy proceedings. Look for arguments from legal scholars, experts, or legal precedents that address the comparative treatment of voluntary and involuntary debts.
4. Analyze societal impact and policy considerations: Examine the economic and social ramifications of treating voluntary and involuntary debts the same in bankruptcy proceedings. Consider how treating both types of debts equally might incentivize reckless spending or discourage responsible financial behavior.
5. Support your answer: Formulate an argument based on the information gathered and cite scholarly sources to provide evidence and support your position. Ensure that your sources are reliable, peer-reviewed, and come from reputable academic or legal publications.
Remember, the goal is to present a well-rounded and well-reasoned answer based on scholarly sources. It's important to critically analyze opposing viewpoints and present a balanced argument.