Covering the class action lawsuit of lead plaintiff Richard Earl Garrett against the town of Harpersville, Ala, New York Times reporter, ETHAN BRONNER, essentially described how today debtors prisons evolved from our communities’ dependence on revenue. Titled Probation Fees Rise, Firms Profit and the Poor Go to Jail, besides Mr. Garrett’s decade of public debt turmoil, a woman is told about who was fined $179 for speeding and then failed to show up in court because the ticket bore the wrong date so her license was revoked. When pulled over the next time, of course, driving without a license, her fees had added up to more than $1,500. Unable to pay, she was handed over to a private probation company and jailed and charged an additional fee for each day behind bars.
Lisa W. Borden, a partner in Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Camp; Berkowitz, a large law firm in Birmingham, Ala., has spent a great deal of time on the issue. Her assessment is, “With so many towns economically strapped, there is growing pressure on the courts to bring in money rather than mete out justice. Companies they hire are aggressive. Those arrested are not told about the right to counsel or asked whether they are indigent or offered an alternative to fines and jail. There are real constitutional issues at stake.”
The Times reporter notes half a century ago in a landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled the accused had to be provided a lawyer if they could not afford one. But in misdemeanors, the right to counsel is rarely brought up, even though defendants run the risk of jail. While probation companies promise revenue to the towns, saying they also help offenders, defendants still often end up lost in a legal Twilight Zone.
William M. Dawson, a Birmingham lawyer and Democratic Party activist, filed the lawsuit for Mr. Garrett and others against the local authorities and the probation company, Judicial Correction Services that’s based in Georgia. Interviewed, Mr. Dawson said, “The Supreme Court has made clear that it is unconstitutional to jail people just because they can’t pay a fine.” Something most all of us had seemed to already accept as part of a civilized society.
In Georgia three dozen for-profit probation companies operate in hundreds of courts where there have been similar lawsuits. In one suit an Iraq war veteran, who lost his job, was jailed for failing to make $860 a month child support payments. Another victim of circumstances, with a monthly income of $243 in veterans’ benefits, was charged with public drunkenness, assessed $270 by a court and put on probation through a private company. The company added a $15 enrollment fee and $39 in monthly fees. That put his total for a year above $700, which the person struggled to meet before being jailed for failing to pay all his debt.
John B. Long, a lawyer in Augusta, Georgia, who is taking the issue to a federal appeals court this fall said, “These companies are bill collectors, but they are given the authority to say to someone that if he doesn’t pay he is going to jail. There are things like garbage collection where private companies are O.K. No one’s liberty is affected. The closer you get to locking someone up, the closer you get to a constitutional issue.”
The issue of using courts to produce income was investigated in a recent study by the nonpartisan Conference of State Court Administrators, “Courts Are Not Revenue Centers.” The report said in traffic violations, “court leaders face the greatest challenge in ensuring that fines, fees and surcharges are not simply an alternate form of taxation.”
Plus Scott Vowell, the presiding judge of Alabama’s 10th Judicial Circuit, said his state’s legislature, like many, was pressuring courts to produce revenue, and that some legislators even believed courts should be financially self-sufficient.
A Fine Society.
The Times article also noted a 2010 study, by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, that examined the fee structures in 15 states, including California, Texas and Florida, with the largest prison populations. The sudy found, “Many states are imposing new and often onerous ‘user fees’ on individuals with criminal convictions. Yet far from easy money, the fees impose severe and often hidden costs on taxpayers and indigent people convicted of crimes. Creating new paths to prison for those unable to pay their debts by making it harder to find employment and housing as well as meeting child support obligations.”
Over a decade ago many states abandoned pursuing misdemeanor fees because it was time-consuming and costly. Companies such as Judicial Correction Services saw an opportunity by charging public authorities nothing and making their money adding fees onto the defendants bills.
Yale Law School’s Stephen B. Bright, president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, said courts were increasingly using fees “for such things as retirement funds for various court officials, law enforcement functions such as police training and crime laboratories, victim assistance programs and even courts’ computer systems. In one county in Pennsylvania, 26 different fees totaling $2,500 are assessed in addition to the fine.”
Mr. Dawson’s Alabama lawsuit also alleges that Judicial Correction Services does not discuss alternatives to fines or jail and that its training manual “is devoid of any discussion of indigency or waiver of fees.”
In a joint telephone interview, two senior officials of Judicial Correction Services, Robert H. McMichael, its chief executive officer, and Kevin Egan, its chief marketing officer, rejected the allegations.
They said the company does try helping those in need, but that the authority to determine who is indigent is the court’s and not the company’s. “We hear a lot of ‘I can’t pay the fee,” Mr. Egan said adding, “It is not our job to figure that out. Only the judge can make that determination.” Mr. Egan said, “Our job is to keep people out of jail. We have a financial interest in getting them to comply. If they don’t pay, we don’t get paid.” Mr. Bright, of the Southern Center for Human Rights, complained that with the private companies seeking a profit, courts in need of income and the most vulnerable caught up in the system, “we end up balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest people in society.”
