Justice Department: States Should Not Jail Poor People Over Fine Nonpayment

[Rob L 3,811]

by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

• SHARE
• Share
• Tweet
• Share
• Email
• Print
• Comment

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is discouraging state court systems from jailing defendants who fail to pay fines or fees, warning against practices that it says run afoul of the Constitution and erode community trust.

A letter being sent Monday by the federal government to state court administrators makes clear that judges should consider alternatives to jail for poor defendants who don't pay their fines. It also says defendants should not be locked up without a judge first establishing that a defendant who failed to pay did so willfully.

RELATED: Resurgence of 'Debtors' Prisons' Alarms Reformers

The memo comes out of a December meeting involving judges, court administrators, prosecutors and others to discuss improvements in how court fees and fines are assessed.

The new guidance comes amid concerns that some local courts are effectively punishing poor people for their poverty by imposing crippling fines and fees that, when unpaid, can result in jail time. That practice was exposed last year in a scathing federal report on the Ferguson, Missouri city government in which the Justice Department concluded that the municipal court prioritized revenue over safety and routinely issued arrest warrants to residents who had failed to pay fines for petty offenses.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, joined by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2016, about Ferguson, Missouri. Carolyn Kaster / AP

Though the state court system operates independently of the Justice Department, the memo is intended to put local judges on notice that ordering jail time for unpaid fines can violate federal law, open the door to constitutional challenges and trap residents in a cycle of escalating debt, unnecessary incarceration and unemployment.

"Furthermore, in addition to being unlawful, to the extent that these practices are geared not toward addressing public safety, but rather toward raising revenue, they can cast doubt on the impartiality of the tribunal and erode trust between local governments and their constituents,' reads the letter from Vanita Gupta, the head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

RELATED: Another State Accused of Illegally Jailing Poor

The letter also says courts must give defendants adequate notice when enforcing fines or fees, should not use arrest warrants to coerce the payment of court debt and should not impose bonds that a defendant has no ability to pay.

Also Monday, the Justice Department was announcing $2.5 million in competitive grants to state and local governments that want to explore changes in how court fees and fines are assessed and enforced.

[TBoneTX 46,262]

The letter also says courts must give defendants adequate notice when enforcing fines or fees, should not use arrest warrants to coerce the payment of court debt and should not impose bonds that a defendant has no ability to pay.

A suburban city near me has been advertising a "warrant roundup," saying that if folks with outstanding warrants (I think for traffic tickets, but maybe more) come in to take care of them, there will be no other repercussions. This seems to handle the "adequate notice" of above, but the other two elements of coercion and financial imposition might be in doubt.

[OriZ 3,157]

Well, duh. I definitely agree and you would think that would be a given. If you HAVE the money and won't pay it that's different. If you don't have the money how is jailing you going to help you get the money?

[Dakine10 5,452]

Well, duh. I definitely agree and you would think that would be a given. If you HAVE the money and won't pay it that's different. If you don't have the money how is jailing you going to help you get the money?

Willful refusal to pay a fine is a different scenario. The biggest inconsistency is how judges make that determination. There is not universal guidelines. Ideally they would look at income, debt and things like that but I have read about judges making the decision base on what you're wearing at the court appearance.

It shouldn't come down to you have a nice jacket so you must be able to pay. Judges are wrong too often for that.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Willful refusal to pay a fine is a different scenario. The biggest inconsistency is how judges make that determination. There is not universal guidelines. Ideally they would look at income, debt and things like that but I have read about judges making the decision base on what you're wearing at the court appearance.

It shouldn't come down to you have a nice jacket so you must be able to pay. Judges are wrong too often for that.

makes no sense to do it that way, lots of people i know donate clothing that is practically new. my mom has been known to buy nice coats on clearance, hold on to the through the summer, just to give away the following fall with the tags still on. there are non profits that pretty much only give people makeovers and decent clothes for job interviews. ugh, maddening.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Instead of fining people that cannot afford to pay, they should be sentenced to some type of community service. as the old saying goes, "you can't get blood from a stone".

makes no sense to do it that way, lots of people i know donate clothing that is practically new. my mom has been known to buy nice coats on clearance, hold on to the through the summer, just to give away the following fall with the tags still on. there are non profits that pretty much only give people makeovers and decent clothes for job interviews. ugh, maddening.

Does your Mom wear the coats to court with the tags still on them?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Instead of fining people that cannot afford to pay, they should be sentenced to some type of community service. as the old saying goes, "you can't get blood from a stone".

also, on the flip side - a 100$ fine to a person with money isn't really the same thing to a person who might save a year for an extra 100$..kwim?

Does your Mom wear the coats to court with the tags still on them?

please, that look went out with kriss kross.

[OriZ 3,157]

Willful refusal to pay a fine is a different scenario. The biggest inconsistency is how judges make that determination. There is not universal guidelines. Ideally they would look at income, debt and things like that but I have read about judges making the decision base on what you're wearing at the court appearance.

It shouldn't come down to you have a nice jacket so you must be able to pay. Judges are wrong too often for that.

I definitely agree. They should look at how much you are actually able to pay, if you have any disposable income at all. If you don't, well there are other ways besides jail to make sure you can at least pay something or contribute in some other fashion.

[ExPatty 502]

For the most part, despite obvious ways this can be abused, I'm for it. But I'd like the DOJ to start using these supposed interpretations of the constitution to do a great deal more, if they are genuinely concerned with unreasonable punishments. No more civil forfeiture, no more mandatory sentences for any crime ever, no more capital punishment. Everybody knows the US has too many people in prison.

[Dakine10 5,452]

makes no sense to do it that way, lots of people i know donate clothing that is practically new. my mom has been known to buy nice coats on clearance, hold on to the through the summer, just to give away the following fall with the tags still on. there are non profits that pretty much only give people makeovers and decent clothes for job interviews. ugh, maddening.

It's not a reliable way to determine if someone can't pay or if they have willfully decided not to pay. It's troubling to me when the justice system is willing to sacrifice innocent people because they are so over eager to catch the guy who is pulling a fast one.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Instead of fining people that cannot afford to pay, they should be sentenced to some type of community service. as the old saying goes, "you can't get blood from a stone".

Fine's have become more of a source of revenue for some districts than a punitive measure. They are very aggressive, even creative about getting the money.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I definitely agree. They should look at how much you are actually able to pay, if you have any disposable income at all. If you don't, well there are other ways besides jail to make sure you can at least pay something or contribute in some other fashion.

The cost of keeping someone in jail should be enough to make them look at every other option available. It doesn't make sense to spend thousands of dollars incarcerating someone over a few hundred dollars.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Fine's have become more of a source of revenue for some districts than a punitive measure. They are very aggressive, even creative about getting the money.

If the gov't really wanted to be creative they would use the community service angle to eliminate having to pay for services that anyone could do, such as cleaning up parks or cleaning and painting gov't facilities. They already use prisoners for some of this, why not people who cannot afford to pay fines? I bet in the long run it would be cheaper than constantly running someone through the system in order to collect a measly fine.

[smilesammich 10,727]

The cost of keeping someone in jail should be enough to make them look at every other option available. It doesn't make sense to spend thousands of dollars incarcerating someone over a few hundred dollars.

unless the government is actually making money keeping the jails full. they ain't full of the rich, that's for sure.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Willful refusal to pay a fine is a different scenario. The biggest inconsistency is how judges make that determination. There is not universal guidelines. Ideally they would look at income, debt and things like that but I have read about judges making the decision base on what you're wearing at the court appearance.

It shouldn't come down to you have a nice jacket so you must be able to pay. Judges are wrong too often for that.

A guy in an ill fitting suit-the defendant