Document: 399 U.S. 235 90 S.Ct. 2018 26 L.Ed.2d 586 Willie E. WILLIAMS, Appellant,v.State of ILLINOIS. No. 1089. Argued April 22, 1970. Decided June 29, Stanley A. Bass, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. James R. Thompson, appellee. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion Court. 1 This appeal from Illinois presents an important question involving a claim discriminatory treatment based upon financial inability to pay fine and court costs imposed in criminal case. The narrow issue raised is whether indigent may be continued confinement beyond maximum term specified by statute because his failure satisfy monetary provisions sentence. We noted probable jurisdiction1 set case oral argument with Morris v. Schoonfield, 508, 2232, 773, also decided today. 2 On August 16, 1967, appellant was convicted petty theft received sentence provided state law: one year imprisonment $500 fine.2 Appellant taxed $5 costs. judgment directed, as permitted statute, that if default payment at expiration sentence, he should remain jail pursuant § 1—7(k) Criminal Code 'work off' obligations rate per day.3 Thus, whereas year, effect here required confined 101 days period fixed since could not $505. 3 November appellant, while still inmate county jail, petitioned sentencing judge4 vacate portion order requiring imprisoned nonpayment alleged all stages proceedings, without funds or property money would 'be able get job earn costs, * released sentence.' State did dispute factual allegations5 trial granted State's motion dismiss petition 4 'for reason (appellant) legally entitled time relief requested has serve on when been served ability might same it date (of sentencing).' Appeal taken directly Supreme Court Illinois, which appears have rejected any suggestion premature went decide appellant's constitutional merits. It held 'there no denial equal protection law defendant fine.' People Williams, 41 Ill.2d 511, 517, 244 N.E.2d 197, 200 (1969).6 5 In addition renewing courts, advances host other claims7 which, light our disposition, we find unnecessary reach decide. challenges constitutionality argues primarily Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment prohibits authorized governing substantive offense flows present response asserts its interest collection revenues produced fines contends system, 1—7(k), rational means implementing policy. That substantial legitimate but purposes unlike collecting person circumstances where included judgment. further constitutionally infirm simply legislature achieved result some means. With general proposition quarrel generality does resolve issue. 6 As earlier, incarceration statutory stems separate albeit related reasons: neither those grounds can support type here, treat together disposition governs costs.8 7 custom imprisoning dates back medieval England9 long practiced this country. At almost States Federal Government statutes authorizing under such circumstances. Most permit allowed law, there limit length nonpayment.10 While antiquity practice nor fact steadfast legislative judicial adherence through centuries insulates attack, these factors weighed balance.11 Indeed, prior cases seems tacitly approved unpaid fines. See Hill United ex rel. Wampler, 298 460, 56 760, 86 L.Ed. 1283 (1936); Ex parte Jackson, 96 727, 24 877 (1878).12 8 need open reassessment ancient practices than explicitly mandated Constitution illustrated greatly increased use sanction made major cause country.13 Default traditionally justified ground coercive device ensure obedience court.14 commitment viewed part punishment increase penalty; rather, enabling enforce obligated pay. additional imprisonment, said, always avoided fine.15 9 conclude aggregate exceeds results involuntary are confronted impermissible discrimination rests pay, accordingly, below. 10 Griffin 351 12, 76 585, 100 891 (1956), marked significant effort alleviate against who unable meet litigation administration justice. holding provide transcript public expense prosecute violation Clause, declared '(t)here justice kind man gets depends amount has.' Id., 19, 591. years had frequent occasion reaffirm allegiance basic command applied equally persons.16 Subsequent decisions pointedly demonstrated passage heightened rather weakened attempts mitigate disparate indigents process.17 Applying teaching regulating offense. 11 A wide latitude fixing crimes. assert appropriately penalty, first instance, days. Nor advanced excessive commission particular However, once defined outer limits necessary penological interests policies, then subject certain class defendants solely their indigency. 12 clear, course, indigency committed crime. And scheme distinguish between basis But, said supra, 'a nondiscriminatory face grossly operation.' 17 n. 11, 590. Here Williams works invidious fine. extends apparently opportunity limiting satisfying fact, illusory choice who, definition, funds.18 Since only access avoid operative exposes risk maximum. By making contingent one's visited different consequences two categories persons make excess applicable requisite resources judgment.19 13 mere longer non-indigent not, give rise Clause. Sentencing judges vested discretion exceedingly difficult task determining appropriate countless variety situations appear. permits qualitative differences meting out requirement receive identical sentences. Thus New York, 337 241, 247, 69 1079, 1083, 93 1337 (1949), said: 'The belief prevails every like legal category calls regard past life habits offender.' 14 Nothing today's decision curtails prerogative judge because, previously, sovereign's purpose confining 'working out' After having into consideration range underlying exercise function, nothing now hold precludes imposing indigent, defendant, penalty prescribed law. 15 bears emphasis deal familiar pattern alternative '$30 30 days.' imprison duration financially permitting both cannot parlayed do so accomplish indirectly done directly. precluded accountable penal sanction. requires ceiling placed irrespective economic status.20 16 powerless judgments fine; indeed, inverse enable must suffer conviction. us canvass numerous alternatives enactment—or within scope authority—may resort suggested several plans, already utilized States, others resemble proposed various studies.21 free choose among solutions and, devise new ones.22 18 unaware place burden administering Perhaps fairer more accurate statement expose old infirmities apathy absence challenge stand. But imperatives priority over comfortable convenience status quo. 'Any supposed administrative inconvenience minimal, (the judgment) reached ordinary processes garnishment event default.' Rinaldi Yeager, 384 305, 310, 1497, 1500 (1966). 19 today power impose sanctions law; definition alternatives, any, lies courts. therefore appealed remand proceedings inconsistent opinion. 20 ordered. 21 Judgment vacated remanded. 22 BLACKMUN took APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT 23 STATE STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONCERNING INCARCERATION FOR FAILURE PAY FINE Alabama If paid possibly hard labor. worded fined differing amounts satisfaction There provision installment. Ala. Tit. 15, Sec. 341 (1958). Alaska 25 shall direct until satisfied. Rate credit: day (additional prisoner works.) Alas. Stat. 12.55.010 (1962). When prison fine, magistrate discharge conditions met. Id. 12.55.030. Arizona 27 satisfied, extend sentenced convicted. $1 day. Ariz. Rev. Ann. 13—1648 (1956). Arkansas 28 paid. Ark. 43—2315 (1964). 29 Specifically applying convictions misdemeanor providing 46 510. Providing collected proceeding defendant's property. 43—2606. California 31 less $2 misdemeanor, installments default. Cal.Pen. 1205 (1968). 32 exceed Colorado 33 offender otherwise discharged. Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 39—10—10 34 Persons estate discharged imprisonment. 39—10—9. Connecticut 35 convict fails lawfully imposed, Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. 18—63 36 $3 18—50. 37 crime punishable conditional him limited doing, imprisoned. 54—119. Delaware 38 courts named section up Del.Code Ann.Tit. 4103(a), (Supp. 1968). 39 situation, justices peace defauting 11. 4103(b). Florida 40 sentences Fla.Stat.Ann. 921.14 (Supp.1969). exceeding sixty 775.07. 42 951.16. Georgia 43 Fines immediately reasonable grant. Ga. 27—2901 (1969 Supp.). 44 Judge enforcing Lee State, 118 S.E.2d 599 (1961). Hawaii 45 satisfied immediate payment, Rev.Stat. 712 poor person, after thirty days, application circuit release. taking oath. Idaho 47 19—2517 (1966 48 Substantially provided, felonies misdemeanors, 18—303. 49 fashion six months. Ill.Rev.Stat. (1969) ch. 38, 1—7(k). 50 release person. 180—6. Indiana 51 Whenever felony Ind.Ann.Stat. 9—2228 52 9—2227a Iowa 53 762.32 (1950). 54 1/3 789.17. Kansas 55 Defendant ordered Kan.Gen.Stat.Ann. 62—1513 62—2109. 57 found 62—1515. Kentucky 58 rendered directing work labor Ky.Rev.Stat. 431.140 (1969). 59 Louisiana 60 fear. But: months less, total conviction offense, including default, La.Crim.Pro.Code Art. 884 (1970 Pocket part). Maine 61 Convict thereof, single Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.Tit. 1904 (Supp.1970). 62 Maryland 63 adjudged guilty due course Md.Ann.Code (1965). 64 (This amended Chapter 147 1970 Laws (approved 1970). 773.) 65 Installment payments counties for. 52, 66 (with modifications resulting shorter periods day). Massachusetts 67 Mass.Ann.Laws, 279, 1; 127, 144 68 144. execution suspended probation condition time, either installments. revoke suspension 1. 70 Discharge prisoners incarcerated 145, (when ten dollars); 146, three months). Michigan 71 doing Mich.Comp.Laws 769.3 72 Execution rendered, 600.4815. Minnesota 73 bail, balance Minn.Stat.Ann. 629.53 (1947). 74 641.10 Mississippi 75 Convicts fully Miss.Code 7899 (1957). 7906. Missouri 77 complied with. Mo.Ann.Stat. 546.830 (1953). 78 judge, prisoner, lieu 546.840. 79 551.010. 80 Magistrates' similar powers credit vary $10 each confinement. Secs. 543.260 543.270. Montana 81 Mont.Rev.Codes 95—2302(b) 82 Nebraska 83 magistrates party Neb.Rev.Stat. 29—2206 84 $6 29—2412. 85 offenders 26—2404. Nevada Nev.Rev.Stat. 176.065 (1967). 87 $4 Hampshire 88 performed. N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 618.6 89 618.9. Jersey penitentiary N.J.Stat.Ann. 2A: 166—14 91 large custody. 2A:166 15. 92 2A:166—16 disorderly defaults court. 2A:169—5 Mexico 94 N.M.Stat.Ann. 42—2—9 (Applies jails penitentiary—Compiler's Note). 95 makes affidavit sub. B. 97 convicts 42—1 York 98 (limitations: felony, year; third sentence.) N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. 470—d 99 Saffore, N.Y.2d 101, N.Y.S.2d 972, 218 686 Morth Carolina paid, N.C.Gen.Stat. 6—65 insolvent debtor's 23—24 North Dakota 102 N.D.Cent. 29—26—21 (1960). 103 (but fine.) Ohio 104 whole Rev.Code 2947.14 (1954). 105 106 above, 2947.20. Oklahoma 107 refuse fail it, Okla.Stat.Tit. 794 108 109 serving 57, Oregon 110 Ore.Rev.Stat. 137.150 (1963). 111 112 Indigents 169.160 Pennsylvania 113 action penalties. Pa.Stat.Ann.Tit. 257 conforms debtors, least 39, 323 114 authority allow installments, committed. 953 956 Rhode Island 115 adult correctional institutions R.I.Gen.Laws 13—2—36 116 117 director social welfare recommend confined, guidelines statute. South Offenders they forfeitures, S.C.Code 574 119 privilege debtors. 120 probation. 593. 121 S.D.Comp. 23—48—23 122 Tennessee 123 Tenn.Code 40—3203 (1955). 124 Credit: 41—1223 Texas 125 him, put sufficient amount. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Art. 43.09 Utah 126 77—35—15 127 Vermont 128 begin end original Vt.Stat.Ann. 13, 7222 129 twenty-four hours 7223. 130 Virginia 131 corporation commit Va.Code 19.1—339 (Supp.1968). 132 tried before record security given, 19.1—338. Washington 133 five Wash.Rev.Code 10.82.030 134 permitted. West 135 jurisdiction cases, provide, judgment, W.Va.Code 62—4—9 136 $1.50 62—4—10. 137 Confinement Wisconsin 138 Wis.Stat.Ann. 959.055 139 grant stay committing jail. 140 141 57.04. Wyoming 142 Any power, inflicted, Wyo.Stat.Ann. 7—280 (1959). 143 6—8. HARLAN, concurring result. 145 I concur wish dissociate myself 'equal protection' rationale employed justify conclusions. 146 analysis is, submit, 'wolf sheep's clothing,' masquerade supposedly objective standard subjective what legislation offends notions 'fundamental fairness.' Under rubric recent times effectively substituted own 'enlightened' philosophy older adherents discredited doctrine 'substantive' process. I, one, prefer terms process, determine arbitrarily infringes protected Due my dissenting Poe Ullman, 367 497, 541, 1752, 1776, 989 (1961), merely procedural safeguard; "bulwark arbitrary legislation.' Hurtado California, 516, page 532, 111, 119, 232.' Flemming Nestor, 363 603, 1367, 1435 (1960), Shapiro 394 618, 655, 1322, 1342, 600 matrix 'rule classifications 'suspect' criteria affect rights' will deny unless 'compelling' governmental interest,' 658, 1344 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Shapiro, Harper Board Elections, 383 663, 680, 1088, 169 (1966), Rhodes, 393 23, 41, 515, (1968), attempted weakness precedential jurisprudential foundation current sits. 34—36, 597—599, (1956) (dissenting opinion); Douglas 372 353, 360, 814, 818, 811 (1963) opinion). retrace views expressed except object again rhetorical preoccupation 'equalizing' analyzing rationality distinction relation purpose. 148 An process standards, correctly understood, view, conducive restraint approach couched slogans ringing phrases, classification 'invidious' distinctions, interest, blur shifting focus away nature individual affected, extent connection purpose, existence effectuating degree confidence reflects concern legitimately chosen. Accordingly, turn hand. 149 unquestionably determination larceny punished combination dollar Anyone stiffest known may, possesses funds, demands paying superimposed term. debt society, surely unequal, but, contrary, most equal, substitute lest subjected harsher impoverished. implications Court's were realized, require consequence comparable individuals; forced embark impossible developing system individualized fines, disutility entire marginal last taken, individuals. Cf. Michelman, Foreword: Protecting Poor Through Amendment, Harv.L.Rev. Today's holding, so-called decisions, e.g., supra; Anders 386 738, 1396, 493 (1967), offer pretense actually treatment. argued counsel right skilled advocate theoretically call However desirable enlightened theory equality be, blessing Amendment. Not 'every ill country cure 'principle,' (is equipped to) 'take lead' promoting reform branches government act. panacea blot welfare, Court, ordained body, thought haven movements.' Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 624—625, 1362, 1414, 566 (1964) II 150 reluctance carry logical accents deem true considerations involved case, namely, impermissibly affected fashion. supra. usually deemed arguably (see supra), generally demonstrating ends borne Swann Adams, 385 440, 447, 569, 573, 501 (1967)), presumption regularity comes acceptable instances, blind affected. 151 matter subscribed admonition Skinner Oklahoma, 316 535, 1110, 1113, 1655 (1942), cautioned pressed 'basic liberty' concerned. U.S., 543, S.Ct., 1777. viewpoint implicit breadth accorded 'noncontractual benefit program.' 611, 1373. 'interest substance fall afforded Process Clause,' 'withholding noncontractual program *, recognize interpose bar manifests patently classification, utterly lacking justification.' Ibid. 152 implication however, deference owed cases. regulates conduct incidentally affects freedom expression although effectuate invalid imposes right, means, entailing imposition, exist. NAACP Alabama, 357 449, 1163, 1488 (1958); Lovell City Griffin, 303 444, 666, 949 (1938); Garner Louisiana, 368 157, 185, 248, 263, 207 (1961) (concurring judgment); O'Brien, 391 367, 388, 1673, 1685, 672 (1968) 153 These dispositive us, show squint deprives liberty—his free. punishing substantial, cf. Brennan Allen, 397 337, 347, 1057, 1063, 353 (1970), 'balance Nation, built postulates respect liberty individual, struck organized society,' U.s., 542, 'having history teaches' outweighs bring full play usual salutary rationality. III 154 deterrence, retribution rehabilitation—satisfied disclaimed, serious mind whether, itself indifferent consistently refrain offering installment plan. 155 conceivable justifications so. obvious likely justification convenience. Given think declaring rely latter given restrictive alternatives. Mullane Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 306, 652, 865 156 second serves time. clear rehabilitative retributive interest. then, lump-sum sustained deterrence effective exacted lump sum, highly doubtful proposition, since, apart humiliation associated token evidenced forfeiture, deterrent apt derive pinch purse payment. 157 represents considered evincing trade-off punish accumulated assets unlikely, provision, phrased discretionary equates sum. process—that better payable time—is represent invalid. 158 conclusion declares forfeiture procedure sending extending of, individuals possess assets.* reserve constitutional. follows, fortiori, herein casts doubt conventional days' decides Note, Discriminations Against 435 Such evinces perfectly adequately others, money—whether virtue reasons—can Still ultimately court, undertake 159 premises join vacating remanding off afford instruct permissible pending problem legislature. Rosado Wyman, 397, 421—422, 1207, 1222—1223, 442 Welsh 398 333, 344, 1792, 1798, 308 (1970). 396 1036, 689, 680. Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 16—1 proscribes $150 value. Section 1961 provides: 'Working Fines. 'A enforced manner entered civil action; Provided, non-payment $5.00 imprisonment; further, proviso hereof months.' post-conviction filed Civil Practice Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, 110, 72. Parenthetically note post pretrial bail $2,000 May 1968, completed service spent custody trial. He began $505 28, counsel, $500; 10% deposit posted Legal Aid Service. bond, yet moot. dealt exclusively sum stemming Its contains discussion arising even though tendered. instance violates and/or Clause(s) diem figure unreasonable irrational. 20, infra. W. Holdsworth, History English Law (3d ed. 1927); J. Bishop 940, p. 693 (9th 1923); Stephen, England (1883). also, Comment, Fines, Imprisonment, Poor: 'Thirty Dollars Thirty Days,' Calif.L.Rev. 778, 780—787 National Defender Association, Amicus Curiae, brief containing extensive appendix includes helpful annotations. reproduced corresponding federal U.S.C. §§ 3565, 3569. Imprisonment Indigent Nonpayment Mich.L.Rev. 938 Walz Tax Comm'n 4, 1970, 664, 678, 1409, 1420, 697 that, 'Nearly ago Holmes stated: "If thing practised hundred common consent, strong it. *' Jackman Rosenbaum 260 31, 9, 10, (1922).' note, issues flowing lack presented resolution. See, American Bar Foundation, L. Silverstein, Defense Cases Courts (1965); S. Rubin, Correction 253 Desmond's excellent historical development 271 Peeples District Columbia, A.2d 845, 847 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App. 1950). 577 (1966); (1963); Smith Bennett, 365 708, 895, Goldberg, Equality Governmental Action, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 205, 221 willful refusal Smith, 280, P.2d 1098 (1939). What regarding applies force Although actual reflect quite considerations, see Litigation Costs: Hidden Barrier Indigent, Geo.L.J. 516 instances: ensuring compliance expanding plan currently used States. E.g., Cal.Penal 1205; (1948); Pa.Stat.Ann., 953—956 Association Project, Standards Justice, Alternatives Procedures 2.7(b), pp. 117—123 (Approved Draft suggests parole during U.S.C.App. 456. Model Penal 7.02(3)(a) (Proposed Official 1962). Wade, 388 218, 239, 1926, 1149 regard, agent determines plus alone,

Category: 1