I keep seeing headlines about the person arrested for student loans. When you read the article, you find the arrests are for failing to appear in court.

I am confused by this. I thought in civil cases the only penalty for a defendant not appearing is that the defendant is likely to lose the case. I also thought it was perfectly acceptable not to show up if the defendant agrees with the plaintiffs that he legally owes the money. He would only show up if he disagreed, say if he thought the plaintiff changed the documents after they were signed or forged his signature.

Why would we arrest people and drag them into court? They can just say, “yeah, you're right. I owe the money.” Then the court gets to the same outcome as if the defendant hadn't appeared. So what does it matter if he's there?

When the defendant loses, the court issues a judgment against the defendant, and the plaintiff can use that judgment to take the defendant's stuff to make the debt good. If the debtor has almost no wealth and little income, it's wise for the creditor to tread lightly because if the creditor starts taking the debtor's ability to live, the debtor can declare bankruptcy. Nowhere in this whole scenario is there a debtors' prison.

Where the heck does law enforcement get involved in this? If I did work for a startup that failed and I sued them, would law enforcement drag them into court to say, “Yeah, we promised things to our investors, vendors, employees, and it didn't work. So we're not paying.” What would be the point of dragging them into court?

Does someone knowledgeable about contracts law understand this? Do student loans exist outside the normal system of contractual agreements people make?