Findlaw and the AP report on a lawsuit filed today concerning an alleged "debtor's prison" in the city of New Orleans. The news sources state that "hundreds of people have been locked up" in The Big Easy for failure to pay court fines, without first having a hearing on whether they are able to pay. The lawsuit alleges that the result is unconstitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that "a person cannot be imprisoned solely for the inability to pay a fine or restitution."
At first blush, the cited examples are shocking. For instance,
- One man was allegedly returned to jail because of prior unpaid debts, where he stayed for weeks until his family could scrape together... a $100 payment.
- Another man was alleged taken from his home during a night raid by armed police who pointed guns at him and his family. The (only) reason: he had accumulated more than $1,600 in court costs and fees.
I have not yet read the suit as filed, but its apparent emphasis on lack of hearings to determine ability to pay raises an important consideration: willfulness of action. While some attorneys banter about the phrase "debtor's prison" any time someone is jailed after failing to pay a fee, there are some circumstances where a criminal defendant or civil respondent fails to show at hearings as ordered by a judge. In those instances, the crime for which the person is jailed is not indigence. Instead, he or she is locked up for disobeying the judge's order to appear before the court.
UPDATE: According to NHPR, the ACLU recently issued a report stating that NH judges are also engaged in the practice of jailing for unpaid fines.
No comments:
Post a Comment