SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Department of Justice Throws Its Weight Behind Ending the Jailing of the Poor for Unpaid Fines
The fight against modern-day debtors' prisons just got a new champion: the Department of Justice.
Mar 16, 2016
The fight against modern-day debtors' prisons just got a new champion: the Department of Justice.
On Monday the department called upon state court leaders to ensure that court rules and procedures on fine and fee collection afford due process and equal protection of the law and align with sound public policy. The timing could not have been better because yesterday the ACLU reached a settlement in our lawsuit against Biloxi, Mississippi, which challenged the jailing of poor people if they could not pay the entire amount of their outstanding court fines and fees up front, in full, and in cash. The agreement provides a critically important model on how to implement the Justice Department's recommendations and do even more to treat the rich and poor equally and fairly when they step into court.
The Justice Department came to a pretty simple conclusion that should not be controversial: People should never be locked up behind bars for being unable to pay court fines and fees they cannot afford. But local governments across the country are using threats of jail and actual imprisonment to secure payments toward court fines and fees. The ACLU has exposed and challenged these practices in places as diverse as DeKalb County, Georgia; Benton County, Washington; Eastpointe, Michigan; and Biloxi, Mississippi.
In one stroke, the Justice Department has dramatically amplified our efforts. It has issued a strong letter to state chief justices and court administrators making it clear that the 14th Amendment prohibits jailing people for nonpayment of court fines and fees without procedural safeguards. These measures include an ability-to-pay hearing before a neutral judge on whether a person's nonpayment was willful or due to poverty, meaningful alternatives to jail for people who cannot afford to pay, and legal representation in certain collection enforcement actions.
DOJ's letter also echoes longstanding ACLU concerns about the bias introduced when municipalities enlist for-profit probation companies that have a direct financial stake in the debts they are hired to collect. Employees hurt the company bottom line when they help courts identify indigent people whose payment of company service fees should be waived. The ACLU has sued the for-profit probation company Judicial Corrections Services, Inc. in Georgia and Biloxi.
But there is a way for municipalities to stay on the right side of the Constitution. Yesterday's settlement with Biloxi, Mississippi, provides a step-by-step guide on how court leaders can heed the Justice Department's call to bring their court rules and practices in line with constitutional standards when imposing and collecting fines and fees.
The sweeping reforms adopted by Biloxi include the elimination of for-profit probation companies from the collections process and the adoption of detailed new court procedures, including a "bench card" to guide judges on how to avoid jailing people who are too poor to pay. Biloxi has also established a full-time public defender's office to protect indigent people's right to counsel, and it also will make payment plans, community service, and a host of other alternatives to jail available for those who cannot afford to pay court fines and fees. Judges will even consider ability to pay at sentencing to avoid imposing cripplingly high fines and fees that the poor cannot even hope to repay.
These reforms are transformative. They provide a map for other cities to follow in heeding the Department's call, long before being sued.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 ACLU
Nusrat Choudhury
Nusrat Choudhury received her B.A. from Columbia University, and is a graduate of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Yale Law School. Prior to joining the Racial Justice Program (RJP), Choudhury worked as an attorney in the ACLU National Security Project and a Marvin A. Karpatkin Fellow in RJP. Choudhury also served as a law clerk for Judge Barrington D. Parker in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and for Judge Denise Cote in the Southern District of New York.
The fight against modern-day debtors' prisons just got a new champion: the Department of Justice.
On Monday the department called upon state court leaders to ensure that court rules and procedures on fine and fee collection afford due process and equal protection of the law and align with sound public policy. The timing could not have been better because yesterday the ACLU reached a settlement in our lawsuit against Biloxi, Mississippi, which challenged the jailing of poor people if they could not pay the entire amount of their outstanding court fines and fees up front, in full, and in cash. The agreement provides a critically important model on how to implement the Justice Department's recommendations and do even more to treat the rich and poor equally and fairly when they step into court.
The Justice Department came to a pretty simple conclusion that should not be controversial: People should never be locked up behind bars for being unable to pay court fines and fees they cannot afford. But local governments across the country are using threats of jail and actual imprisonment to secure payments toward court fines and fees. The ACLU has exposed and challenged these practices in places as diverse as DeKalb County, Georgia; Benton County, Washington; Eastpointe, Michigan; and Biloxi, Mississippi.
In one stroke, the Justice Department has dramatically amplified our efforts. It has issued a strong letter to state chief justices and court administrators making it clear that the 14th Amendment prohibits jailing people for nonpayment of court fines and fees without procedural safeguards. These measures include an ability-to-pay hearing before a neutral judge on whether a person's nonpayment was willful or due to poverty, meaningful alternatives to jail for people who cannot afford to pay, and legal representation in certain collection enforcement actions.
DOJ's letter also echoes longstanding ACLU concerns about the bias introduced when municipalities enlist for-profit probation companies that have a direct financial stake in the debts they are hired to collect. Employees hurt the company bottom line when they help courts identify indigent people whose payment of company service fees should be waived. The ACLU has sued the for-profit probation company Judicial Corrections Services, Inc. in Georgia and Biloxi.
But there is a way for municipalities to stay on the right side of the Constitution. Yesterday's settlement with Biloxi, Mississippi, provides a step-by-step guide on how court leaders can heed the Justice Department's call to bring their court rules and practices in line with constitutional standards when imposing and collecting fines and fees.
The sweeping reforms adopted by Biloxi include the elimination of for-profit probation companies from the collections process and the adoption of detailed new court procedures, including a "bench card" to guide judges on how to avoid jailing people who are too poor to pay. Biloxi has also established a full-time public defender's office to protect indigent people's right to counsel, and it also will make payment plans, community service, and a host of other alternatives to jail available for those who cannot afford to pay court fines and fees. Judges will even consider ability to pay at sentencing to avoid imposing cripplingly high fines and fees that the poor cannot even hope to repay.
These reforms are transformative. They provide a map for other cities to follow in heeding the Department's call, long before being sued.
Nusrat Choudhury
Nusrat Choudhury received her B.A. from Columbia University, and is a graduate of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Yale Law School. Prior to joining the Racial Justice Program (RJP), Choudhury worked as an attorney in the ACLU National Security Project and a Marvin A. Karpatkin Fellow in RJP. Choudhury also served as a law clerk for Judge Barrington D. Parker in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and for Judge Denise Cote in the Southern District of New York.
The fight against modern-day debtors' prisons just got a new champion: the Department of Justice.
On Monday the department called upon state court leaders to ensure that court rules and procedures on fine and fee collection afford due process and equal protection of the law and align with sound public policy. The timing could not have been better because yesterday the ACLU reached a settlement in our lawsuit against Biloxi, Mississippi, which challenged the jailing of poor people if they could not pay the entire amount of their outstanding court fines and fees up front, in full, and in cash. The agreement provides a critically important model on how to implement the Justice Department's recommendations and do even more to treat the rich and poor equally and fairly when they step into court.
The Justice Department came to a pretty simple conclusion that should not be controversial: People should never be locked up behind bars for being unable to pay court fines and fees they cannot afford. But local governments across the country are using threats of jail and actual imprisonment to secure payments toward court fines and fees. The ACLU has exposed and challenged these practices in places as diverse as DeKalb County, Georgia; Benton County, Washington; Eastpointe, Michigan; and Biloxi, Mississippi.
In one stroke, the Justice Department has dramatically amplified our efforts. It has issued a strong letter to state chief justices and court administrators making it clear that the 14th Amendment prohibits jailing people for nonpayment of court fines and fees without procedural safeguards. These measures include an ability-to-pay hearing before a neutral judge on whether a person's nonpayment was willful or due to poverty, meaningful alternatives to jail for people who cannot afford to pay, and legal representation in certain collection enforcement actions.
DOJ's letter also echoes longstanding ACLU concerns about the bias introduced when municipalities enlist for-profit probation companies that have a direct financial stake in the debts they are hired to collect. Employees hurt the company bottom line when they help courts identify indigent people whose payment of company service fees should be waived. The ACLU has sued the for-profit probation company Judicial Corrections Services, Inc. in Georgia and Biloxi.
But there is a way for municipalities to stay on the right side of the Constitution. Yesterday's settlement with Biloxi, Mississippi, provides a step-by-step guide on how court leaders can heed the Justice Department's call to bring their court rules and practices in line with constitutional standards when imposing and collecting fines and fees.
The sweeping reforms adopted by Biloxi include the elimination of for-profit probation companies from the collections process and the adoption of detailed new court procedures, including a "bench card" to guide judges on how to avoid jailing people who are too poor to pay. Biloxi has also established a full-time public defender's office to protect indigent people's right to counsel, and it also will make payment plans, community service, and a host of other alternatives to jail available for those who cannot afford to pay court fines and fees. Judges will even consider ability to pay at sentencing to avoid imposing cripplingly high fines and fees that the poor cannot even hope to repay.
These reforms are transformative. They provide a map for other cities to follow in heeding the Department's call, long before being sued.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.