Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/206250556/Modern-Day-Debtor-s-Prison-Final
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 02:35:14
Document Index: 457608220

Matched Legal Cases: ['in fine', 'in fine', 'in fine', 'in fine', 'in fine', 'in fine', 'Art. 1']

Modern Day Debtor's Prison Final | Prison | Fine (Penalty)
A report from the ACLU of Washington on the ways court-imposed debts punish people for being poor.
saveSave Modern Day Debtor&amp;#39;s Prison Final For Later
TheOutskirtsOfHope2013_04
Michigan Incarcerates Menatlly Ill, Freep
2013 Criminal Law Exam Essay Questions
G048303 (Patients' Second Request for Judicial Notice) Modiano v. City of Anaheim (California Disabled Persons Act) Second Request for Judicial Notice
unseeing published schept
People v Abilong
Case Brief Sunil Batra
Ingles1, Derecho Penitenciario
01_HighRisk_2004
CRIMINAL SOCIOLOGY.docx
MODERN-DAY DEBTORS PRISONS: The Ways Court-Imposed Debts Punish People for Being Poor
Men and women charged with and convicted of crimes are overwhelmingly poor.1 According to the Washington Office of Public Defense, 8090% of people charged with felonies are found to be indigent by the courts.2 The majority of those incarcerated lack a high school diploma, have below-average literacy levels,3 and have few job opportunities.4 It is not surprising, then that up to 60% of former inmates remain unemployed one year after release from prison.5 Without adequate education and employment, people often struggle to pay for even the most basic of necessities food, shelter, utilities, childcare, and transportation. court hearings, contempt charges, and arrest warrants. The practice of imposing and collecting excessive LFOs results in a counterproductive system that punishes people simply for being poor and brings little to no benefit to the government or the general public. It even results in some poor people being locked up in jail because they cannot afford to pay debts a modern version of the despised debtors prison.
Regardless of the rationale behind imposing LFOs on persons convicted of crimes, in practice this system places severe, longWashingtons criminal justice practices should lasting burdens on persons living in poverty. seek to increase the Furthermore, there are likelihood that people will ... court-imposed debt presents few checks and balances a formidable barrier, pushing in place to protect people successfully re-enter their communities. Yet court- people deeper into poverty and from unfair collection and imposed debt presents prolonging their involvement in enforcement practices a formidable barrier, that fail to take into the criminal justice system. pushing people deeper account an individuals into poverty and prolonging their involvement current financial situation, as required by law. with the criminal justice system.6 Under these circumstances, no one wins. Nearly every person convicted in a Washington Impoverished persons suffer because LFOs court receives a bill for Legal Financial keep them tied to the criminal justice system, Obligations at sentencing.7 Known more often obstructing housing and employment commonly as LFOs, these include the fees, opportunities and preventing them from fines, costs, and restitution imposed by the rebuilding their lives. Children may be court on top of a criminal sentence.8 The separated from their mothers and fathers who average amount of LFOs imposed in a felony are jailed for non-payment, and households case is $2540 an amount so large that poor break up. The public does not benefit, as there defendants simply cannot pay it in a lump sum. are significant costs incurred in collecting and After imposition, LFOs increase rapidly due to sanctioning persons who are too poor to pay the application of a statutorily-mandated high LFOs. And incarcerating indigent defendants interest rate and other fees. Those who cannot neither deters crime nor serves a rehabilitative afford to pay often face a demoralizing cycle of purpose. The funds used to jail people for non-
payment would be better used on alternatives to incarceration, community outreach, education, and anti-poverty efforts. CONSIDER THESE FACTS: Many courts routinely impose LFOs without considering whether a person is able to pay them, contrary to state law. People convicted of crimes in Washington are ordered to pay high amounts of fines, fees, and court costs. In superior court, the average LFO is $2540 per case. Yet courts regularly fail to consider an individuals ability to pay when imposing discretionary court costs, as is required by state law. LFOs can amount to a lifetime sentence. After it is imposed, an LFO debt can grow quickly due to a 12% statutorily-mandated interest rate and added collection fees of $100 per year. A person making $20 payments per month in an effort to repay the average LFO debt may be unable to succeed even after years of regular payment. LFOs cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and many never expire. People who are unable to pay can end up behind bars as a result of procedures that violate their rights. Courts have the power to incarcerate debtors for non-payment of LFOs and routinely use that power without considering a persons ability to pay LFOs, in violation of state and federal constitutions and case law.
In Benton County, approximately 20% of people booked into county jail are serving time because of LFO non-payment. This staggeringly high rate of incarceration is entirely counterproductive. It wastes valuable state and local resources while making repayment more difficult for some due to job loss and further indebtedness resulting from incarceration. The threat of incarceration forces impoverished people to choose between meeting their most basic needs and paying for LFOs. Some Washington counties require individuals to transfer public payments for subsistence to pay for LFO debt, even though those benefits cannot lawfully be garnished or attached to pay other debt. This report spotlights LFO practices throughout Washington state, in the hope that the courts and legislature will reexamine and reform existing policies concerning criminal justice debt. Focusing on four counties, we document problems with LFO practices and profile individuals who have been impacted. Finally, we recommend alternative practices that state lawmakers should enact and courts should employ to create a better LFO system in Washington state. These changes will ensure that LFOs are imposed and collected in conformance with state and federal law, hold accountable those who can afford to pay, increase payments of restitution to victims, and reduce unnecessary barriers for poor people seeking to reenter society.
The ACLU of Washington (ACLU) and Columbia Legal Services (CLS) have increasingly heard from impoverished individuals struggling with LFOs. Some are currently incarcerated for failing to pay LFOs; others are trying to make payments and find ways to access relief and avoid sanctions. While we have heard from low-income individuals throughout the state, complaints about practices in a few particular jurisdictions stand out: Benton, Clark, Clallam, and Thurston counties. This past spring the ACLU and CLS launched an investigation into LFO policies and practices in Washington state. We sought to determine how courts in different jurisdictions impose and collect LFOs from people with scant resources. We conducted court observations, reviewed court records, and interviewed debtors, attorneys, and community members in Benton, Clark, Clallam, and Thurston Counties. This investigation provided firsthand evidence of the impact LFOs have on Washington residents, their families, and our communities. Our investigation uncovered problems in each of these counties, including the following: Courts impose discretionary LFOs (including court costs) without considering a persons present or future ability to pay. While state law says restitution payments to victims should take precedence, county clerks offices garner annual LFO collection fees prior to using LFO payments to provide restitution to victims. The states excessive interest rate for LFOs creates insurmountable debt for already impoverished people, prolonging their involvement with the criminal justice system and imposing severe barriers to reentry into their communities. Courts require that persons use public assistance for basic needs to pay off LFOs. Courts incarcerate persons for nonpayment even when they are destitute and unable to pay.
Most of the individuals we spoke with explained a defendants ability to pay before imposing that they would like nothing more than to LFOs. Even when they do inquire, Washington satisfy their LFOs. Yet, those who cannot afford law provides no standard or methodology to to immediately pay LFOs find themselves facing determine whether someone has the ability to ever-increasing debt. This begins at sentencing, pay. The result is wide disparities in the amount where courts often impose of LFOs imposed in different LFOs without considering the They remain tethered jurisdictions throughout the defendants poverty. From this to the criminal justice state. For example, in some point, the debt quickly increases counties, an indigent individual system for decades. due to usurious interest rates is ordered to pay only the and the imposition of annual mandatory LFOs, while in other collections fees. As a result, even those who counties, including all four that we investigated, make regular payments are unable to fully pay an indigent defendant routinely receives a score off LFOs. They remain tethered to the criminal of discretionary LFOs that he or she may never justice system for decades. be able to pay. Imposition of LFOs Superior courts are empowered to impose over 20 different LFOs, including the costs of using public defense,9 fees for requesting a jury trial,10 criminal filing fees,11 and the costs incurred by the county or city for serving a warrant.12 Some LFOs are mandatory, and a court must impose them regardless of a defendants poverty. Mandatory LFOs include the $500 Victim Penalty Assessment (VPA) and the $100 DNA database fee.13 But most LFOs are not mandatory, and judges have wide discretion to impose or waive them. Before ordering that a defendant pay discretionary court costs, state law requires the court to take into account the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden imposed by LFOs.14 In addition, if a court finds that the defendant is indigent and does not have the current or future ability to pay costs, courts are permitted to waive all or part of the non-mandatory LFOs.15 Unfortunately, courts often fail to inquire into Interest and Collection Fees An impoverished persons situation only gets worse after LFOs are imposed due to the interest rate that accrues on LFO debts. By law, superior court-ordered debt begins to accrue interest from the date of imposition at the exorbitant rate of 12% per year including while an individual is incarcerated and therefore earning little to no money to pay off the debt.16 District and municipal court LFOs may also accrue 12% interest if the case is assigned to a collections agency and placed in collection status.17 The 12% rate is almost twice the current rate for interest in some civil cases, such as personal injury cases.18
Giving first priority to the collection fee runs contrary to state law ... Nevertheless, taking collection fees first appears widespread.
The interest rate disproportionately impacts low-income persons, because those with the
financial means to pay their LFOs quickly can avoid interest accrual that exacerbates debt burdens and prolongs criminal justice involvement.
and assessments imposed, unless otherwise ordered by the court.23 Nevertheless, taking the collection fee first appears widespread.24
Clark County provides a prime example of Court collection fees add to escalating LFO the problems that result from the imposition debts. Court clerks in the jurisdiction where of a high mandatory interest rate and the the LFOs were imposed are responsible for discretionary annual collection fees on poor monitoring and collecting LFOs.19 Superior court defendants.25 In Clark County, the courts clerks are authorized to charge routinely impose discretionary individuals up to $100 annually Court collection fees LFOs without considering a for collection of outstanding defendants ability to pay them. add to escalating 20 LFOs. Many clerks collect this For example, virtually every LFO debts. fee every year on every open indigent defendant in Clark 21 LFO account. Even worse, many superior court County Superior Court is ordered to pay a clerks extract the collection fee from individuals minimum of $800 for the cost of his or her monthly payments before distributing payments public defender. to other LFOs.22 For example, if a person pays $150 a year towards LFOs, the clerk will first When both mandatory and discretionary deduct the $100 collection fee before applying LFOs are taken into account, the median LFO the remaining $50 to restitution, fines, and amount ordered in a single case in Clark court costs. County Superior Court is $2072 an excessive amount for a poor person.26 Every year, this Giving first priority to the collection fee amount accrues 12% interest and the court runs contrary to state law, which prioritizes clerk imposes a $100 annual collection fee restitution to victims over all other financial per open account.27 Yet, on average, the county obligations. By law, [u]pon receipt of an clerk collects only $117 per year per account. offenders monthly payment, restitution shall Therefore, in the average case, a person owing be paid prior to any payments of other monetary LFOs in Clark County is barely able to pay the obligations. After restitution is satisfied, the annual collection fee over the course of a year and makes hardly a dent in the underlying LFO county clerk shall distribute the payment balance. proportionally among all other fines, costs,
Individuals who owe LFOs are often forced to make payments from funds necessary to meet their basic needs. This problem is particularly acute when a persons only income comes from public benefits, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). These programs have been established to help the most vulnerable meet their basic needs, such as food, housing, and child care. Yet, because failure to pay LFOs can result in jail time or other sanctions, recipients of public assistance often feel that they have no choice but to turn their payments for necessities over to the courts, to the detriment of their families or their own well-being.
In Washington, people whose only income information about a persons eligibility for comes from public assistance are the very needs-based assistance, but then count these definition of poor and live funds as income when ... recipients of public assistance well below the poverty setting payment plans. often feel that they have level. Under state law This practice occurs in no choice but to turn their and court rules, persons Thurston County, which who receive needs- payments for necessities over to includes the state based public benefits are capital, Olympia. Even the courts, to the detriment of entitled to the assistance their families or own well-being. after public defenders of a public defender in successfully fought to a criminal case and to the waiver of civil protect two individuals from being forced to case filing fees.28 Furthermore, because pay public benefits to LFOs, courts in Thurston public assistance recipients depend on these County have not changed their policy. Courts payments for basic needs, public benefits will also sanction those known to subsist on generally cannot be garnished or attached in needs-based assistance if they fail to pay LFOs. order to pay creditors.29 This practice is unlawful, as federal statutes prohibit garnishment and seizure of public Nevertheless, we observed judges and court assistance payments. The practice is also unfair, clerks in a number of counties ordering and particularly when people are forced to surrender allowing individuals to pay LFOs (including money necessary for their basic needs to cover court costs) from public payments for basic court costs such as filing fees and the cost of needs. Most court clerks request specific public defense.
Individuals unable to pay their LFOs may before a court can order jail time for failing face an array of court sanctions, including to pay criminal debt, it must first inquire being locked up.30 In Benton County, our into the defendants ability to pay.34 The court investigation revealed should inquire into a Benton County superior and that approximately 20% defendants financial district courts regularly fail to of the people in custody resources, reasonable on any given day are consider ability to pay, and instead expenses, and goodbeing sanctioned for aggressively use incarceration as faith effort to acquire 31 non-payment of LFOs. the money to pay.35 A a collections tool. While Benton County defendant cannot be provides the most extreme example of this incarcerated unless, considering those factors, practice, other counties in Washington also he has the ability to pay but refuses to do so. incarcerate debtors for non-payment.32 Despite this clear guidance, both Benton County Debtors prisons are illegal. In Bearden v. superior and district courts regularly fail to Georgia (1983), the United States Supreme Court consider ability to pay, and instead aggressively held that a person cannot be incarcerated for use incarceration as a collections tool. How failing to pay his criminal debt if his failure to does this happen? First, Benton County imposes pay was due solely to his poverty.33 Therefore, a wide variety of discretionary LFOs without
considering defendants ability to pay. Payment plans are set according to the amount owed, not an individuals financial circumstances. Then, people who cannot pay the full monthly amount are ordered to appear at a failure to pay hearing.36 Both the district and superior courts hold these hearings weekly, processing up to a hundred individuals in an hour or two. Those who fail to appear have warrants issued for their arrest, and are ordered to pay a $100 fee per warrant issued, which is added to existing LFOs. Those who appear are rushed through a truncated process designed to force payment. In Benton County District Court, the judge is the primary collection officer. At the failure to pay hearing, if a person has not previously missed payments, he is typically allowed to restart his payment plan. Occasionally, the court will lower monthly payments, although the courts stated policy is to require a minimum of $25 per month. If the court refuses to restart, the person is ordered to pay the entire amount owing or report to work crew.
A person who cannot complete work crew, or who is not eligible to participate, is ordered to jail. For example, the ACLU spoke with one individual who became seriously ill while participating in work crew, did not report, was charged with escape, and then jailed for nonpayment. People who sit out their fines, earn $50 of credit per day spent in jail.38 So, a person ordered to sit out $1000 in fines will spend 20 days in jail. Benton Countys debtors prison results in extremely long sentences, and often individuals end up spending more time in jail for nonpayment of fines and fees than they did for the underlying offense. In Benton County Superior Court, the process similarly disregards federal and state constitutions and case law. At superior court failure-to-pay-fine hearings, the court clerks informally negotiate pay or appear agreements with individuals (meaning they must either pay the amount owed or appear before the court). Individuals are often told that they can avoid jail time by signing these agreements, and most do so without the assistance of counsel.
Benton Countys work crew program is a form of partial custody supervised by a community The court often accepts these agreements without corrections officer.37 People on work crew inquiring whether the defendant can actually perform manual labor for 9-10 hours, 4 days a afford to pay. If an individual fails to make the week, and earn $80 credit monthly payments, the One individual became against fines per day. clerk then negotiates seriously ill while Therefore, a person ordered pay or stay agreements, to work off $800 in fines participating in work crew, where individuals agree to would need to participate did not report, was charged pay a particular amount or in work crew for 10 days. serve jail time. Again, these with escape, and then Work crew participants are agreements are agreed jailed for non-payment. required to pay $5 per day to without the assistance up front in order to participate. So, a person of counsel and are sometimes entered into ordered to work crew for 10 days would need without court inquiry into an individuals to pay $50 to participate. For the indigent, the financial circumstances. They also unfairly cost of participating in work crew is prohibitive. contain findings that non-payment is willful. An In addition, people who have previously failed to individual who cannot pay the ordered amount report, or who have been convicted of certain is almost invariably incarcerated. People do not offenses, are not eligible for work crew. earn any credit against superior court LFOs if they are sentenced to jail for non-payment. They
leave owing as much as they did upon entering jail, plus interest that accrued during that time. In both district and superior courts, there is little meaningful inquiry into the reasons for non-payment. At no point in the district court process did we see the court (1) advise people that ability to pay is a crucial issue; (2) inquire into a defendants actual financial resources and expenses; (3) consider waiving or reducing any LFOs due to manifest hardship; or (4) consider any alternatives to incarceration besides work crew, which is not a viable alternative for the indigent, because participants must pay $20 per week to participate. And while some superior court judges advised people that ability to pay is a crucial issue, many individuals facing incarceration had already signed agreements and admitted that they had the ability to pay without being advised of their right to assistance of counsel. The end result was regular incarceration for non-payment, even for those clearly without the means to pay.
only income was public assistance. This system is costly, both for the government and individuals. The Benton County Jail spends $68.59 to incarcerate a person for one day.39 It costs $125,000 per year to run a work crew of 8-12 individuals.40 These figures dont account for the salaries of clerks who staff collections units, judicial time for collections hearings, and the costs of issuing and serving warrants for non-payment. It is clear that Benton County and its cities are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on LFO collections. Futhermore, most individuals in Benton County, or other counties, do not have the assistance of lawyers to protect their rights. Defendants who face the possibility of jail time because of nonpayment have the right to a court-appointed attorney.41 Yet, in the hearings observed by ACLU and CLS attorneys, defendants were not told that they had the right to counsel. Most often, the judge said something along the lines of, Im inclined to order jail time. Do you want to talk to an attorney before I do that? This informal statement is not enough to inform people of their rights.42 Most of the people serving time for non-payment did not understand that they had the right to an attorney, that their ability to pay their LFOs was a crucial issue, or that an attorney could help them make arguments to avoid jail time. This system does not magically make indigent people able to pay LFOs. Instead, people incarcerated for non-payment lose their housing, jobs, and other opportunities to productively re-enter society. As the following profiles illustrate, the impact on individuals and their families is severe.
... judges ordered incarceration for non-payment when debtors were homeless, unemployed, or had mental health or addiction issues preventing them from gaining employment.
ACLU and CLS attorneys observed both district and superior court judges order incarceration for non-payment when debtors were homeless, unemployed, or had mental health or addiction issues preventing them from gaining employment. We also observed the district court order incarceration of single parents supporting young children and people whose
Virginia Dickerson was in and out of the criminal 2011. Since Virginia was released from prison justice system from 1997-2009 on drug and 9 months ago after serving her time, she has driving-related charges. Since then, she has been trying hard to pay her fines, but feels like made major steps toward the collections systems Ive done my time...it seems turning her life around. set people up for failure. it doesnt matter if Ive tried She has been sober for When I got out of prison, to pay or if I cant pay. If I miss the past 32 months, is I was supposed to start living in stable housing, paying $50 a month a month or cant make a full has created a parenting to the Benton County payment, Ill get a warrant and plan for her child, and District Court and $40 go to jail. Im trapped. is working full-time as per month to Superior a server in a restaurant. She also is active in Court. But I couldnt find a job. I was willing to community groups and mentors at-risk youth. do any work, but its really hard to get work with a felony record. So, I went to the District Court Still, Virginia lives under constant pressure to ask for an extension on paying my fines. They due to LFOs. Between 2010 and 2011, Virginia denied me. I couldnt get them to reconsider my was ordered to pay the Benton County Superior payment plan until after Id already failed to pay Court over $5000 in fines and penalties plus the full amount for several months. $1920 in court costs and attorneys fees because of two drug-related convictions. She was also Virginia is currently required to pay $35 a month ordered to pay the Benton County District Court to the district court and an additional $40 per $525 in fines and $593 in court costs and fees month to Superior Court. She has managed to for a possession of marijuana conviction in keep up with her District Court payments so far,
but has not been able to pay the full amount to Superior Court each month. Sometimes, I have to choose between paying for transportation to my job or for food and paying the full amount on my LFOs. Because of this, Virginia lives in constant fear that she will have a warrant issued for her arrest or be incarcerated. Ive been locked up in the past for not paying court fines. It didnt matter that I was homeless at the time. The very clear message was that I needed to pay exactly what I was ordered, or I would go to jail. And I didnt have the money so I went to jail. Now, even making her best efforts to pay, Virginia feels that she will never be able to get out from under her court-imposed debt. My
superior court fines are collecting 12% interest and it just keeps growing. Id love to pay extra every month, but I just cant. I make minimum wage and by the time I pay my fines, rent, food, phone bill, transportation to work, and the costs of getting my license reinstated, theres nothing left. Virginia takes responsibility for her past, and shes doing her best to try to rebuild her life. I understand that I made choices in my life that landed me where I am today. But Ive done my time. If Im paying what I can, that should be acceptable. But it seems it doesnt matter if Ive tried to pay or if I cant pay. If I miss a month or cant make a full payment, Ill get a warrant and go to jail. Im trapped.
VIRGINIA DICKERSON BY THE NUMBERS Original amount owed to the Benton County Superior Court...........................................................$6,920 Interest accrued since December 2010...................$2,124 Estimated time to full payment of principal............ 14.75 years (assuming $40/month payment and 12% interest) Estimated time to payment of principal & interest.. 28.25 years
David Ramirez has not been convicted of a He said, I didnt have that kind of money, crime in 10 years, but the LFOs from his one and they wouldnt take a partial payment. felony case continue to haunt him. In 2003, David So I basically lived in fear of arrest for a year pled guilty to one count of residential burglary until a lawyer in my church agreed to help me after he entered his exnegotiate a lower payment Ive had judges tell me that wifes home without to quash the warrant. they dont care what my other permission. He was David was unemployed obligations are, LFOs come ordered to pay $2144 and dependent on public first. First before anything. First assistance at the time, in restitution and over $1147 in penalties and but after 6 months, he before food and shelter. costs. I wasnt making was able to borrow enough much money at the time, maybe earning about money to quash the warrant. Once the warrant $10 an hour. I also had to pay $500 per month was removed, David was able to get back on a in child support. So money was very, very tight. payment plan, and hes been paying regularly since. David is still paying $30 per month For years, David has been under constant towards LFOs despite the fact that hes been pressure to pay his LFOs in full or face raising 4 children and his familys sole income incarceration. If you miss payments, they is public assistance. He has been unable to can issue a warrant for your arrest, David get back to work in his former field because of explained. To get the warrant removed, you medical problems, so his family relies entirely have to pay the entire amount you owe, plus on about $400 from temporary assistance to an extra $100 warrant fee. For example, when needy families and food stamps. David had a warrant issued in 2008, he was told that he needed pay $800 to get it removed. The familys budget is tight, and David often has
to choose between meeting his familys needs and paying his fines. Sometimes, I have to choose between paying the electricity bill and paying LFOs, or between buying my kid a winter coat and paying LFOs. The message the courts have sent to me over and over again is that if I dont pay in full every month, Ill go to jail and Ill lose everything. Ive had judges tell me that they dont care what my other obligations are, LFOs come first. First before food and shelter. It doesnt matter what my family suffers, so long as the court gets paid. Even more frustrating
for David, all that he owes at this point is interest. I have a balance of $1838.74, and thats exactly what I owe in interest. Its discouraging to keep paying and see that interest amount grow. Its exhausting. Still, David remains hopeful, for himself and his kids. I believe in America, you know? I love this country. I want to start a business and provide for my family. My kids are straight A students, and I want them to go to college. But right now, I feel like the fines keep me from getting up and breathing and being the person I want to be.
DAVID RAMIREZ BY THE NUMBERS Original amount owed.................................................... $4,291 Added debt for warrants and interest...........................$2,138 Warrant fees: $300 Interest: $1838 Outstanding balance....................................................... $1,838 Time to payment of interest............................................5 years
In 2012, Angela Albers spent 21 days in jail then the court issued a warrant for my arrest. because she was unable to pay fines and court Right after the warrant was issued, I found costs related to misdemeanor convictions from a job and sent a friend to pay $160 from my 2008 and 2010. My difficulties all started in first paycheck. But the clerk wouldnt take my 2008 when I got a ticket for failing to stop at money. She said I had to pay the entire amount a stop sign, Angela I was behind, plus $200 I was getting $126 a week from said. At the time, I was in warrant fees. That unemployment. It wasnt even going through a divorce was almost $500 and I enough to pay for rent and food, didnt have that kind of and I forgot to pay the ticket. My license was money. Angela turned much less fines. I tried to talk suspended without my herself in a few months to the clerk and explain my knowledge. Angela was situation, but the clerk just told later; after being jailed, pulled over and charged she was able to get me that I had to pay the $100 twice with driving with her payments restarted per month the court ordered. a license suspended after she explained to (DWLS), a misdemeanor. One of those times, the court that she had found a job. But she fell police found a pipe in her car and charged her behind again. I was making minimum wage with possession of drug paraphernalia. All told, and a huge portion of my check was going to Angela was ordered to pay the district court pay child support. Once I paid for rent and food, $1550 in fines and $1399 in court costs and some months I couldnt make the full payments attorneys fees. on fines. Angela was expected to begin making monthly payments of $90 immediately. But without a job, she could not make the payments. I was looking for work every day, but wasnt able to find it. I missed payments for three months, and Still, Angela made LFO payments when she could. She succeeded in completely paying off one case and made significant progress on another. But then, she lost her job and could not find another one. I was getting $126 a week
from unemployment. It wasnt even enough to pay for rent and food, much less fines. I tried to talk to the clerk and explain my situation. But the clerk just told me that I had to pay the $100 per month the court ordered. In 2012, the court ordered Angela to work off the balance of her fines. I begged to have my fines restarted, or to have payment delayed until I could get another job. But the judge refused. Angela says that no one asked her about her income and expenses, and the court refused to restart her fines even after she explained that she was unemployed. I wasnt even aware that my financial situation mattered. The judge told me that I had restarted my fines for the last time and that the cases were too old. The only options were to pay off my fines in full, work them off, or go to jail. Angela served 91 hours on the county work crew, cleaning debris out of the river and weeding on public property. She was forced to
pay $20 a week just to participate in work crew. Unfortunately, she was removed from the work crew after a positive urine analysis and was forced to jail for 21 days, earning $50 against her fines per day in jail. I lost everything. I couldnt make my rent payments and I lost my home. I had to move out of state to live with friends. I couldnt see my children and it interrupted my relationship with them. Angela takes full responsibility for the mistakes she has made. I dont make any excuses for my past behavior, and I understand that paying a fine is part of the punishment. But it feels like a vicious cycle. The court and clerks dont try to work with you or recognize when youre trying your best. The more time youre there, the more warrants they issue, the more money you have to pay. And if you cant pay the exact amount they want, even if you could pay something, they judge you as a deadbeat before you even walk into the courtroom. Youre done before you even open your mouth.
ANGELA ALBERS BY THE NUMBERS Total owed to Benton County District Court................... $2949 Fines: $1559 Court Costs: $1399 Total paid to the court..................................................... $1490 Estimated cost the city spent on collection....................$1740 21 days in jail: $1344 9 days of work crew: $300 Estimated net loss by the government........................... $250
In May 2010, C.J. was convicted in Thurston County Superior Court and ordered to pay over $3000 in LFOs. His sole source of income is SSDI, benefits that the federal government provides to persons with disabilities who have limited income and resources. The court initially ordered C.J. to pay $25 per month towards his LFOs; however C.J. does not always have the financial resources to pay this amount. Therefore, he is ordered to regularly appear before the court to explain his failure to pay or be arrested for noncompliance and brought before the court if he does not appear. In early 2012, the Thurston County Clerks office discovered that C.J. would be receiving back payments of SSDI totaling almost $2000. The court then ordered C.J. to pay the full $2000 to his LFOs. C.J. refused to make the entire payment, and was appointed a public defender, Patrick OConnor, who challenged the order. The court agreed with Mr. OConnor that the SSDI payments could not be garnished or attached to pay LFOs. Unfortunately, the courts order only applied to C.J. for a particular review period. C.J. continues to live in poverty and worries constantly about being arrested for nonpayment of LFOs. He must also attend regular review hearings to prove that his failure to pay is due to poverty. Recently, the court again ordered him to pay $25 per month towards his LFOs despite no change in his financial circumstances. Furthermore, the county continues to issue warrants for non-payment, and C.J. has been jailed while awaiting court hearings to explain his failure to pay. Equally troubling is the fact that the court has ordered C.J. to pay a $100 warrant service fee, which is added to his existing LFOs. Following C.J.s case, Mr. OConnor brought the benefits issue to the attention of the judges in Thurston County and informed them of the problems associated with this practice. However, the court has yet to adopt a policy barring the use of needs-based benefits to pay for LFOs. Without a change in court policy, judges in Thurston County may continue to order individuals to pay LFOs using public benefits. In fact, the Thurston County public defenders recently challenged another court order requiring an individual defendant to use his Veterans Affairs benefits to pay LFOs. If there is a silver lining to these cases, it is that the public defenders in Thurston County have recognized and addressed LFO practices that unfairly burden poor individuals.
D.Z. was released from Benton County jail this summer after sitting out his fines for over two months. The 26-year-old Kennewick resident has struggled with addiction issues since he was about 16 years old. When he was 18, he was convicted of being a minor in possession of alcohol and of consuming alcohol. The court ordered him to pay $2076 in fines, fees, and court costs. Even though D.Z. had no income, he was put on a payment plan and ordered to pay $50 a month. D.Z. applied for dozens of jobs, but without a high school diploma, finding a job was tough. He was homeless and had trouble meeting his basic
needs. I wanted to pay my court fines, he said. making payments after his next paycheck came But I couldnt even start until I found a job. through. But the judge stated that court policy Struggling to find work, and battling addiction, was to allow only two restarts. D.Z. missed court dates to explain why he hadnt paid. The court then issued warrants for The judge ordered D.Z. to pay $2376 that day or his arrest. Once the warrants were issued, D.Z. serve 47 days in jail. He was also sentenced to an additional 10 days could not get rid of them in jail as a punishment It seems like the only thing the without paying a $100 for not showing up to matters to the court is money. fee per warrant. court hearings. D.Z. I want to pay my fines, but it said The judge made He was arrested twice doesnt make sense to have me it seem like it would for not paying his fines. sit in jail if I could be working and be better for me just D.Z. explained, Both getting the money to pay them. sit it out and get it over times, I went to the with, right? But I lost judge and said that I couldnt pay them. I tried to explain that I everything. I lost my job. I lost everything I didnt have a job, but that I was trying hard to owned. I left jail with just the clothes on my back. find one. I was basically homeless. The first time, the judge let D.Z. restart his payment plan. D.Z. was released from prison with a voucher The second time, he was also allowed to restart. for one months housing, and he is trying to But, D.Z. said, the judge told me this was find work again. His old job will not take him my last chance. If I couldnt pay my fines every back after his arrest. He is hoping to enroll in an apprenticeship program, to learn to be an month, I would have to sit them out in jail. electrician. That dream, though, is on hold. In 2013, D.Z. was ordered to pay $2376 or report Apprenticeship programs cost money, and D.Z. to work crew. Two months later, D.Z. finally still owes $750 to the courts. He knows that if found a job working the night shift at a fast he cannot pay those fines, he will likely end up food restaurant and making minimum wage. back in jail. He got one paycheck, and paid $350 in rent for clean and sober housing. The rest of the money D.Z. knows that he has made mistakes, but he went to food and paying for transportation to does not understand how the county benefits work. Then, police officers showed up at his from jailing him when he cannot pay fines. It workplace to arrest him for failure to pay his seems like the only thing that matters to the court court fines. He spent the weekend in jail, and is money. I want to pay my fines, but it doesnt then appeared before a judge. D.Z. tried to make any sense to have me sit in jail if I could be tell the judge that he had a job and could start working and getting the money to pay them.
D.Z. BY THE NUMBERS Total owed to Benton County...........................................$3130 Total paid.................................................................... $0 Estimated cost of incarceration......................................$3909 57 days @ $68.59/day
People in Washington should not be punished for being too poor to pay onerous obligations set by state law and local courts, after proceedings that are often unfair or unconstitutional. Rather, Washington public policy and practice must ensure that no one is jailed or faces other legal sanctions simply because he or she is too poor to pay court-ordered debts. LFOs should not be treated as a funding source for our court system. Rather, LFOs should be imposed for the purpose of providing restitution to victims and furthering successful re-entry of offenders. Incarceration should not be a tool to force payment from those already struggling to meet basic needs. costs, fines, or fees, setting monthly payment schedules, and determining whether sanctions are appropriate. The courts that now currently conduct an ability to pay analysis use divergent and highly subjective standards, leading to wide disparities from county to county in imposing and enforcing LFOs. The criteria for determining ability to pay should build upon existing guidelines that determine whether a person qualifies for a public defender. The result would be a uniform standard that is applied equally to all persons facing the imposition of LFOs or sanctions for failing to pay LFOs. 2) End transfer of public payments for necessities to pay for LFOs: Persons who receive state and federal benefits have already been deemed by the government to be indigent and to require assistance to meet basic needs. The receipt of benefits should be considered a per se finding of inability to pay, and the legislature should prohibit transfer or assignment of public payments for basic needs to pay off LFOs, other than restitution. 3) Eliminate the current 12% interest rate on non-restitution LFOs, and suspend all interest during incarceration: Eliminating the interest rate during incarceration will ensure that LFO debt does not grow excessively. Interest should not accrue until 90 days after an individual is released from incarceration. This will ensure that LFO debt does not multiply when a person is unable to earn enough money to pay it off. These practices will encourage regular payment and prevent LFOs from being needlessly punitive.
It should be public policy throughout Washington state that no one is jailed ... because he or she is impoverished and unable to pay debts.
There are better methods for imposing and collecting LFOs, ones that ensure that persons receive LFOs which reflect their ability to pay and then are held accountable when they choose not to make payments. To ensure that Washingtons LFO systems adhere to these values, we offer the following specific recommendations. These recommendations will not only relieve indigent persons of unfair and unnecessary burdens stemming from LFOs but also could save counties valuable resources spent on unsuccessful collection efforts. 1) Establish clear statewide criteria for determining a persons ability to pay LFOs: All courts must be required to consider the ability to pay when imposing discretionary
4) Distribute LFO payments to restitution prior to other fees and costs: Victims entitled to restitution should be paid before any other obligation. Court collection fees should not be assessed on individuals who are keeping up with their payments or are indigent, and in any case should not be paid before victim restitution. If clerks collections fees cannot be collected until after restitution is satisfied, victims will be paid more promptly. 5) Establish clear processes for waiver of all LFOs: Judges should have the discretion to waive any non-restitution LFOs when payment of the amounts would result in hardship that would result in a persons inability to meet basic needs or re-enter society. Defense attorneys should advocate for waiver of LFOs whenever there is reason to believe that imposition will cause such hardship. There should be a clear process to apply for such a waiver after sentencing, and the court should be required to consider waiver whenever contemplating sanctions for non-payment. 6) Ensure that individuals know their rights and have assistance of counsel whenever appearing in court or signing an order to be entered with the court for LFO collections. Our investigation found that most courts offered the assistance of counsel only at the very end of the collection process, after the court had
already determined that the failure to pay was willful and decided to impose jail time. Assistance of counsel and other procedural protections at an earlier stage in the process will ensure that persons are advised of their rights and responsibilities. The courts should also develop educational materials to make sure that individuals understand that ability to pay is a crucial issue, are informed about mechanisms for seeking relief, and are aware of their right to counsel. 7) Expand reporting requirements to account for the cost of collecting LFOs: County clerks are required to provide an annual report to the Washington State Legislature on the amounts of LFOs they collect for superior court cases.43 Unfortunately, this report does not account for the costs expended to collect LFOs, including staff time, court time, jail costs, and law enforcement costs. Policy-makers would benefit from more complete reporting that includes the costs of collection. We hope that the jurisdictions named in this report, as well as others throughout Washington, carefully examine this report and implement changes that will end excessive imposition of LFOs and the use of debtors prisons, and will guarantee that LFOs are imposed and collected reasonably.
See Alicia Bannon, Mitali Nagrecha & Rebekah Diller, Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry, Brennan Center for Justice (2010) at 4; see also Washington Office of Public Defense, Update on Criteria and Standards for Determining and Verifying Indigency (2007) (stating that between 80 and 90% of those charged with felonies in the United States qualify for indigent defense). See Washington State Office of Public Defense, Update on Criteria and Standards for Determining and Verifying Indigency (2007) at 17. See Bannon, et. al., supra n. 1 (nearly 65% of those incarcerated in the U.S. did not receive a high school diploma; 70% function at the lowest literacy levels). See Devah Pager et al, Sequencing Disadvantage: Barriers to Employment Facing Young Black and White Men with Criminal Records (2009) (finding that people with criminal history are half as likely to receive a follow up interview as people with similar skills and education but no criminal history). See Bannon, et. al., supra n. 1.
See Katherine Beckett, Alexes Harris, & Heather Evans, The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State, Washington State Minority and Justice Commission (Aug. 2008). See Beckett, et. al., supra n. 6.
RCWs 9.94A.760; 36.110.020. RCW 9.94A.030(30). RCWs 10.01.160; 10.46.190; 36.18.016. RCW 36.18.020(2)(h). RCW 10.01.160.
See RCW 7.68.035 (VPA); 43.43.7541 (DNA). The VPA is imposed regardless of whether the crime involved a victim. The DNA database fee is also collected whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony, regardless of whether the state has already collected his DNA.
See RCW 10.01.160(3); see also State v. Bertrand, 165 Wn.App. 393, 404 (Div. 2, 2011). See, e.g., RCW 9.94B.040; 10.01.160(4); 10.73.160. See RCW 10.82.090; 4.56.110(4); 19.52.020. Interest is simple, meaning it accrues every year. See RCW 3.62.020(5); 3.62.040(5).
As of Nov. 11 2013, many civil judgments accrue 5.25% interest. See RCW 4.56.110 (3)(b) (interest on civil judgments 2% above the federal reserves prime rate); Federal Reserve Bank, Daily Interest Rates, available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/ (last visited Nov. 11, 2013) (setting federal bank prime loan rate at 3.25%).
RCW 9.94A.760 (8); RCW 9.94A.753(4). LFOs are collected by the clerk of the court where the underlying conviction occurred. So, a conviction in King County Superior Court will be collected by the clerk of that court.
Superior courts, which handle all felony cases in Washington, impose LFOs. So do district and municipal courts, which handle misdemeanors and violations of city codes. LFOs and the collections processes differ significantly from court to court.
RCW 36.18.016(29); RCW 9.94A.780.
See Clark County Superior Court Collections Unit at www.co.clark.wa.us/courts/clerk/LFO.html. Many counties, including Clark County, also charge a per payment convenience fee for payments made online or through credit or debit cards. See http://www.clark.wa.gov/courts/clerk/lfo.html. Therefore, unless a person can appear in person to submit a cash payment, he will have to pay about 3% of each individual payment towards this fee, not his underlying LFO balance.
22 Washington Association of County Officials (WACO), Ninth Annual Report to the Legislature on the Collection of Court Ordered Legal Financial Obligations by County Clerks as Required by Senate Bill 5990, Chapter 379, Laws of 2003, (Feb. 5, 2013) at 4 (acknowledging that clerks collect the fee in advance). 23
RCW 9.94A.760(1).
See WACO Report, supra n.22, at 4 (To supplement the funding available to support this work, many clerks assess a statutory collection fee of up to $100 per year.).
We note that Clark Countys practices in this regard are not unusual. Similar practices appeared in every other county that we investigated, and it is likely that they exist statewide.
Beckett and Harris, supra n. 6, at 90. See WACO Report, supra n. 22 at Table 8.
28 See RCW 10.101.010(3) (defining people receiving TANF, food stamps, veterans disability benefits and SSI as indigent for the purpose of obtaining a public defender); General Rule 34(3)(A) (defining people receiving such benefits as indigent and entitled to waiver of filing fees); Jafar v. Webb, 177 Wn. 2d 520 (2013) (holding that GR 34 requires a total waiver of all civil filing fees for indigent people, and rejecting trial courts attempt to require partial fee payment over time).
See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 407(a) (SSI and SSDI exempt from garnishment); 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1) (same); 38 U.S.C. 5301 (benefits administered by the Veterans Administration exempt from garnishment).
See RCW 9.94B.040(3)(a)(i); RCW 10.01.180.
31 This estimate is based upon the ACLUs and CLSs review of jail rosters and court records between May and October of 2013. People who are in custody for non-payment of district court fines are listed as sitting out fines and we simply calculated the number of those individuals. To estimate how many people are in custody for non-payment of superior court fines, we identified those individuals who were listed on the jail roster as having non-compliance with the conditions of sentence. To weed out those whose noncompliance was not LFO-related, we reviewed court records to identify those people who, before reporting to jail, were ordered to pay a specific amount to LFOs or serve time in jail. Together, the numbers for those sanctioned for non-payment of district and superior court LFOs averaged about 20% of the jails daily inmate roster.
See Jody Lawrence-Turner, Debt to Society, The Spokesman-Review (May 24, 2009) (Stating that on any given day, up to 200 of the estimated 1,200 people incarcerated in Spokane Countys two correctional facilities are there for failing to pay LFOs; see also State v. Nason, 168 Wn. 2d 936 (2010) (discussing and ruling unconstitutional Spokanes former policy requiring people who hadnt paid LFOs to report to jail without a hearing). Our investigation revealed that Clark, Clallam and Thurston counties also regularly incarcerate individuals for non-payment of LFOs.
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983). See also WA Const. Art. 1, 17 (There shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in cases of absconding debtors.).
34 See Bearden, supra n. 33, 461 U.S. at 674 (stating that the lower court violated fundamental fairness by sentencing a person to prison for failure to pay without considering the reasons for inability to pay or the propriety of reducing the fine or extending time for payments). 35
See Bearden, supra n. 33, 461 U.S. 660. See also State v. Bower, 64 Wn. App. 227, 233 (Div. 1, 1992).
36 Court records indicate that warrants may also be issued even if a person hasnt missed a hearing to explain the reason for non-payment: in other words, a warrant is sometimes issued based simply on failure to pay. 37
See RCW 9.94A.725; 9.94A.731.
38 See RCW 10.01.180 (requiring credit against LFO balance for days served in jail on account of non-payment of district court fines). The Benton County jail also offers a trustee program, in which inmates serving a jail term work 12 hour shifts. Trustees earn $80 per day against LFOs, allowing many to shorten their stays.
See Kristen Kraemer, Paying District Court Fines with Jail Time Debated in Benton County, Tri-City Herald (Nov. 4, 2013).
See Kraemer, supra n. 39. See State v. Stone, 165 Wn. App 796, 814 (Div. 2, 2012).
A person cannot give up their right to counsel unless waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. See Stone, supra n. 41. This is a high standard, and the burden of proving voluntary waiver is on the State.
RCW 36.23.110.
This report was brought to you by the ACLU of Washington and Columbia Legal Services.
WWW.COLUMBIALEGAL.ORG
Documents Similar To Modern Day Debtor's Prison Final
Aminah Agustinah
Rprt Reintegration Full en May 2011
Registers to Be Maintained Under CA 2013 PCA
eo_38-a_1986
010 2016 Kcse Qt Exam Timetable
morrow jamie actionresearchdraft educ526
40093220 the Prison Industrial Complex in America Investment in Slavery by Kobutsu Malone
Something's Rotten: Pennsylvania's Shameful Record of Voter Suppression and the Partisan and Sometimes Racially Charged Motivations of Those Administering Its Elections
Specpro Case Digests Escheats Guardianship (1)
Forensic Evidence for the Accused v1
Road Fund Administration v The Government of Namibia
2013 Mock Trial Case
Third Cosby Unsealed Doc
Political Law Digests - Commsar
Shaw v. Weast, 4th Cir. (2010)
United States v. Michael Felton, 4th Cir. (2013)
John L. Jund v. The Town of Hempstead the Town of Hempstead Republican Committee the Nassau County Republican Committee, 941 F.2d 1271, 2d Cir. (1991)