Some are calling it a return to debtors? prisons, where the indigent defendant may be incarcerated for the inability to pay fines. That was the case for Timothy Fugatt and his wife Kristy, as reported by PBS Newshour.
The couple had received tickets for minor traffic violations and both were ordered to appear in court in Childersburg, Alabama. They told the judge of their special circumstances, in which their son, Cole, was born with a rare brain disease, which had consumed most of their time. They were found not guilty of the infractions. However, the judge said they would still be responsible for the court costs, which at that time totaled approximately $500.
With a dying child, steady employment was a challenge and they couldn’t afford to pay the fees. They were turned over to an agency known as a ?private probation service? ? a privatized form of probation officers used to collect the debt. These services are used across the country.
The Fugatt’s agency was called Judicial Corrections Services (JCS). As time went on, JCS monthly fees continued to accrue. Eventually the bill inflated to nearly $2500. The couple was told if the fees were not paid a warrant for arrest would be issued. And, that’s exactly what happened. They were arrested, held for a few hours, and only released after a relative paid a portion of the fees.
Now the couple has decided to join a lawsuit against JCS and the town of Childersburg. The lawsuit states it is unconstitutional to incarcerate people unable to pay their court costs.
David Dinelli of the Sothern Poverty Law Center, who is not involved with the Fugatt’s lawsuit, says over 1000 people are going to jail in Alabama each month for unpaid fines. He told PBS Newshour,
?Everyone thinks that debtor’s prison is over. It’s behind us. It isn’t. As a matter of practice, and in some cases, policy, the courts ask one question, ?Can you pay the fine.? If you can’t then you have to what’s called ?sit it out in jail.? That is unconstitutional unless the court first conducts an inquiry into whether they’re indigent and the causes for their inability to pay the fine. Routinely what’s happening here is that no such inquiry is undertaken.?
John Carlos Frey of PBS Newshour asked Mayor Meeks of Childersburg about the incarceration of people unable to pay the fees.
?I mean, is it not unconstitutional to jail somebody who cannot pay their fee??
To which the mayor replied,
?I don’t know, again, if the court system is satisfied with it under state Supreme Court jurisdiction?I know that we contract, we are one of the many, many cities in Alabama that uses contract service, and the reason being because of not having enough personnel, we have . . .?
The good news, is after the story aired, Childersburg (and a few other towns) have implemented policies to stop jailing people for lack of payment. However, the issue is still ongoing in other places across the country.
Human Rights Watch issued a report earlier this year outlining the patterns of abuse that often accompany privatized probation companies. They included the following example,
Consider the different fates of three hypothetical offenders who are each sentenced to pay a $1,200 fine by this court:
- The first offender pays the $1,200 fine in court on the day of their hearing. She goes home that day free of any further obligations, financial or otherwise. She is not put on probation at all and owes nothing in probation fees.
- The second offender can afford to make monthly payments of $335. She will pay off her fines and leave probation after four months, having paid $140 in supervision fees and $1,340 in total.
- The third offender can only afford to pay $85 per month. She will leave probation after 24 months, having paid $840 in supervision fees and $2,040 in total.
The third offender pays 52 percent more than the second offender and 70 percent more than the first?precisely because she is less able to afford it. The following graph illustrates the same problem visually, using an initial fine of $2,000:
The Human Rights Watch report also states,
?Vast numbers of arrest warrants are issued every year for offenders on private probation. In Georgia alone, 124,788 arrest warrants were issued for offenders on private probation in 2012.?
It continues,
?It works like this: an offender is arrested and put behind bars, nominally in order to await a probation revocation hearing. The probation revocation hearing never takes place. Instead, the company probation officer negotiates with the jailed probationer for partial payment of what they owe. If they can come up with an agreed-upon sum, often just a few hundred dollars, the probation officer asks the judge to order their release and they remain on probation. Often, the offender never appears in court at all.
In some cases, company employees approach jailed probationers? families and negotiate with them for payment. This disturbing practice essentially sees some company probation officers use the courts to jail offenders in order to use them as hostages in financial negotiations with spouses, parents and other relatives who are desperate to get them released.?
Obviously, this is just another tactic in the war waged against the poor.
Let us know your thoughts at the?Liberal America?Facebook page. Sign up for our?free daily newsletter?to receive more great stories like this one.
Elizabeth Preston is a senior writer and an editor for Liberal America. She is a thirty-something wife and mother of three living in Florida. She is a fierce liberal with a passion?for equality and justice. As?a skeptic by nature she is?often the Facebook friend that rains on the urban legend parade with fact checking. Follow her on?Facebook,?Twitter,?and check out her personal blog,?My Four Ha? Pennies.
