Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:07 pm
Time: 12:07 pm
Results for debtors prison
6 results foundAuthor: Salas, Mario Title: Driven by Dollars: a State-by-State Analysis of Driver's License Suspension Laws for Failure to Pay Court Debt Summary: Across the country, millions of people have lost their licenses simply because they are too poor to pay, effectively depriving them of reliable, lawful transportation necessary to get to and from work, take children to school, keep medical appointments, care for ill or disabled family members, or, paradoxically, to meet their financial obligations to the courts. State laws suspending or revoking driver's licenses to punish failure to pay court costs and fines are ubiquitous, despite the growing consensus that this kind of policy is unfair and counterproductive. Forty-three states and the District of Columbia use driver's license suspension to coerce payment of government debts arising out of traffic or criminal convictions. Most state statutes contain no safeguards to distinguish between people who intentionally refuse to pay and those who default due to poverty, punishing both groups equally harshly as if they were equally blameworthy. License-for-payment systems punish people-not for any crime or traffic violation, but for unpaid debts. Typically, when a state court finds a person guilty of a crime or traffic violation, it orders the person to pay a fine or other penalty along with other administrative court costs and fees. If the person does not pay on time, the court or motor vehicle agency can-and in some states, must-punish the person by suspending his or her driver's license until the person pays in full or makes other payment arrangements with the court. By cutting people off from jobs, license-for-payment systems create a self-defeating vicious cycle. A state suspends the license even though a person cannot afford to pay, which then makes the person less likely to pay once he or she cannot drive legally to work. The person now faces an unenviable choice: drive illegally and risk further punishment (including incarceration in some states), or stay home and forgo the needs of his or her family. In this way, license-for-payment systems create conditions akin to modern-day debtor's prisons. Despite their widespread use, license-for-payment systems are increasingly drawing critical scrutiny from motor vehicle safety professionals, anti-poverty and civil rights advocates, and policymakers. New state-based advocacy campaigns across the country have produced reforms by way of the courts, legislatures, and executive agencies. To provide national context for these efforts, we analyzed license-for-payment systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to generate conclusions about the prevalence and uses of license-for-payment. Our key findings include: - 43 states (and D.C.) suspend driver's licenses because of unpaid court debt;6 - Only four states require an ability-to-pay or "willfulness" determination before a license can be suspended for nonpayment; - 19 states-almost 40% of the nation-have laws imposing mandatory suspension upon nonpayment of court debt; and, - Virtually all states that suspend for unpaid court debt do so indefinitely, with rules that prevent reinstatement until payment is satisfied. All over the country, people are struggling to earn a livelihood and meet the needs of their families while their licenses remain indefinitely suspended because of court debt they cannot pay. At a time of historic income and wealth inequality, states should urgently reexamine whether the policy's immense costs to individuals, communities, and states overwhelm its benefits. At a minimum, license-for-payment states should review their policies to ensure their systems provide due process, with adequate safeguards in place to make certain no person is punished because of poverty. Details: Charlottesville, VA: Legal Aid Justice Center, 2017. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Driven-by-Dollars.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Driven-by-Dollars.pdf Shelf Number: 151445 Keywords: Court DebtDebtors PrisonDrivers License SuspensionPayment of FinesTraffic FinesTraffic Infractions |
Author: Braden, Myesha Title: Too Poor To Pay: How Arkansas's Offender-Funded Justice System Drives Poverty and Mass Incarceration Summary: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has observed that people of color, the poor, and people with disabilities - who suffer poverty at twice the rate of persons without disabilities - are disproportionately impacted by inability to pay court-imposed costs, fines and fees associated with misdemeanors and low-level offenses. In Arkansas, thousands have been jailed, often repeatedly, for weeks or even months at a time, simply because they are poor and cannot afford to pay court costs, fines and fees. They face numerous collateral consequences in addition to loss of freedom, including loss of employment, homelessness, and some have lost custody of their children when they were unable to pay fines and fees established by the state legislature to offset the growing costs of maintaining Arkansas' massive criminal justice system. Details: Washington, DC: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 2019. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2019 at: https://indd.adobe.com/view/f3b39ab5-1da5-409e-97a6-a0b060d2f578 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://indd.adobe.com/view/f3b39ab5-1da5-409e-97a6-a0b060d2f578 Shelf Number: 155217 Keywords: Court CostsDebtors PrisonFines and FeesPoverty |
Author: Harvey, Thomas Title: ArchCity Defenders: Municipal Courts White Paper Summary: ArchCity Defenders represents St. Louis' indigent on a pro bono basis in criminal and civil legal matters while working closely with social service providers to connect clients with services. Our primary goal is to remove the legal barriers preventing our clients from accessing the housing, job training, and treatment they need to get on with their lives. In the five years we have been doing this work, we have primarily focused on representation in the municipal courts that have jurisdiction over infractions for mostly traffic-related offenses. Our direct representation of clients in these courts and the stories they shared of their experiences prompted us to conduct a court watching program to more closely observe the impact the municipal court system has on our clients' lives. Clients reported being jailed because they were unable to pay fines. Some who have been incarcerated for delinquent fine payments have lost jobs and housing as a result. Indigent mothers "failed to appear" in court and had warrants issued for their arrest after arriving early or on-time to court and being turned away because that particular municipality prohibits children in court. Family members were forced to wait outside courtrooms while loved-ones represent themselves in front of a judge and a prosecutor. Many recounted being mistreated by the bailiffs, city prosecutors, court clerks, and even some judges. Each implicitly-condoned injustice carried out in St. Louis' municipal courts is a serious cause for concern. These practices violate the clear mandates of the United States Constitution, and they destroy the public's confidence in the justice system. Furthermore, indiscriminately ticketing and fining the poorest in any community exacerbates the plight of low-income families by imposing heavy financial burdens on those least equipped to bear it. The result: the poorest St. Louisans watch an unnecessarily expensive and incredibly inefficient network of municipal courts siphon away vast amounts of their money to support a system seemingly designed to maintain the status quo, no matter how much it hurts the communities the system is supposed to serve. Details: St. Louis, MO: The Authors, 2014. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2019 at: http://www.archcitydefenders.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ArchCity-Defenders-Municipal-Courts-Whitepaper.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.archcitydefenders.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ArchCity-Defenders-Municipal-Courts-Whitepaper.pdf Shelf Number: 155258 Keywords: Court Reform Debtors PrisonFees and Fines Indigents Legal Aid Municipal Courts |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Title: At All Costs: The Consequences of Rising Court Fines and Fees in North Carolina Summary: The United States formally abolished "'debtors' prisons" - the incarceration of people who fail to pay off debts - nearly two centuries ago. But today in North Carolina, thousands of low-income people are in jail, trapped in a cycle of debt, or both, because they cannot afford the unconstitutional fines and fees that courts order them to pay when convicted of any crime, even as minor as a speeding ticket. The cost and number of fines and fees have skyrocketed across North Carolina in recent years, thanks to a series of legislative changes enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly and the day-to-day decisions of judges who have too often bent to the legislative desire to turn the judiciary to debt collection. In courtrooms across the state, there is no consistent standard for when and how fines and fees are imposed, and too many judges do not fulfill their constitutional obligation to inquire about an individual's financial status before ordering them to pay fines and fees, as required by law. As a result, judges routinely order low-income North Carolinians - a disproportionate number of them people of color - to pay fines and fees that they cannot afford. Failure to pay will result in more fines, fueling a cycle of debt that forces people to forgo the basic necessities of life in order to avoid jail and collateral consequences. In this racially-skewed, two-tiered system, the rich and the poor can commit the exact same offense, but the poor will receive harsher and longer punishments simply because they are poor. While some actors, from public defenders to state legislators to reform-minded judges, have fought for fairer processes and outcomes, too many North Carolina judges nevertheless routinely violate the rights of low-income people who appear in their courtrooms. This report examines the history of those court costs, how North Carolina has sought to turn the judiciary from its role as a neutral arbiter of justice toward service as a state debt collector, and how the resulting unjust system criminalizes poverty, violates people's rights, and preys on many of our state's most vulnerable residents. Details: Raleigh: Author, 2019. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 18, 2019 at: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_nc_2019_fines_and_fees_report_17_singles_final.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_nc_2019_fines_and_fees_report_17_singles_final.pdf Shelf Number: 155456 Keywords: Court CostsDebtors PrisonFines and FeesPovertyRacial Disparities |
Author: Highsmith, Brian Title: The Rent-To-Own Racket: Using Criminal Courts to Coerce Payments from Vulnerable Families Summary: In states across the country, the rent-to-own (RTO) industry is abusing the criminal system to extract payment from low-income consumers who have fallen behind on payments on abusive contracts. Under little-known laws often written years ago by the industry lobby, RTO companies are able to turn a dispute over a furniture set into threats of arrest, felony theft charges, and even incarceration. The objective of these efforts is not to discourage intentional theft, but rather to compel low-income consumers to make payments they cannot afford on predatory RTO contracts. This report examines this practice and the statutes that authorize it. According to the National Consumer Law Center's (NCLC) review, every state except three has a law that could be used to criminalize the failure to return rental property at the end of the lease term. As a result, vulnerable families on tight budgets who have lost the ability to keep up with onerous payments-due to common misfortunes like loss of income, rent increases, an accident or illness, divorce, or the need to care for a family member in distress-face devastating criminal consequences. This is true even in cases where the customers have already paid thousands of dollars on predatory contracts that are designed to escape important consumer protections. The RTO Industry Targets Vulnerable Consumers and Structures Abusive Transactions to Avoid Consumer Protections RTO businesses are typically appliance, electronics, and furniture retailers that arrange lease agreements for customers who cannot purchase goods with an upfront payment in full. About 4.8 million households are RTO customers annually. Although most of these customers enter the transactions with the expectation of buying an appliance or a computer, the transactions are structured so that customers obtain ownership only after the successful completion of months of payments (typically from 18 to 60 months). Nearly 4 in 5 RTO customers earn less than $40,000 annually, and 3 in 5 are racial or ethnic minorities. For families without access to savings that could be used to pay the full retail price, RTO contracts are effectively used to finance the purchase. Every RTO transaction involves very high and undisclosed effective interest rates, in which the customer generally pays as much as two to three times what a customer would pay with cash in a traditional retail store for the same appliance. Yet the industry, through industry-friendly legislation, has largely succeeded in maneuvering its contracts out of range of most federal and state consumer protection laws. The RTO Industry Uses the Threat of Criminal Charges to Enforce its Abusive Contracts As a result of the industry's efforts to avoid meaningful consumer protections, RTO transactions are both exorbitantly expensive and targeted at those who can least afford it. But even worse, the RTO industry uses the criminal system to extract wealth from low-income consumers by using the threat of arrest and criminal sanctions to obtain payments, and by initiating criminal theft charges against borrowers who fall behind on payments. In doing so, the RTO industry-enabled by state criminal statutes and prosecutors' offices-contributes to the criminalization of poverty and the resurgence of "debtors' prisons" that were formally abolished long ago. Details: Boston: National Consumer Law Center, 2019. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2019 at: https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminal-justice/report-rent-to-own-racket.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminal-justice/report-rent-to-own-racket.pdf Shelf Number: 155512 Keywords: Consumer Protection Criminal Justice Debt Criminalizing Poverty Debtors PrisonPoverty Vulnerable Families |
Author: Murphy, Don K. Title: Why Crime Doesn't Pay: Examining Felony Collections Summary: What makes collecting in felony cases so difficult? In 2013 alone $278 million dollars were assessed on felony cases state-wide. The collection rate for felony costs was below 14%. That left a collections gap of over $240 million dollars in 2013. While each felony defendant may receive different sanctions, all of them are assessed fines and costs. If these costs are part of the court's sentencing sanctions, what prevents them from being satisfied? What can be done to improve things? This project explored the potential for felony collections both state-wide in Florida and in the local courts of Volusia County. Research identified expectations for felony collections and asked what factors inhibit achieving a better collection rate for these cases. An analysis was then performed to identify the types of investments that should be made by the courts to gain a better collection rate for the felony sanctions assessed each year in Volusia County. The literature review initially began with the National Center for State Courts' CourTools performance measures as a means to seek best practice guidelines on the collection of court fines and fees from a national perspective. However, CourTool Measure 7 focused on misdemeanor case performance rather than felony case types. The literature review continued with a look at best practices in collections that are used in trial courts by examining collections handbooks published by the National Center for State. The project also examined the experiences of four specific state trial courts in Texas, Michigan, Arizona, and California to understand techniques used in these jurisdictions to collect criminal fines and costs. Finally, Florida legislation was analyzed that defines the obligations of court collections. In addition to the literature review, surveys were conducted with collectors in Clerk's offices across Florida to better understand how collections are performed. Court collections experts were surveyed separately to gain insight from long standing collection practitioners concerning their opinions on the challenges and opportunities to improve collections in felony cases. Annual statistics were reviewed from the state mandated Assessments and Collections Report and a five year statistical review was conducted of Volusia County felony cases to explore the characteristics that make collections difficult to obtain, including prison sanctions, defendants who lack the means to pay, and the high dollar assessments required in drug trafficking cases. Literature suggested and results in both surveys supported the finding that felony collections are especially difficult. Two separate data reviews confirmed the depth of the challenge and potential causes that inhibit felony collections. According to the collector's survey, prison sentences contribute to collections difficulties. The Volusia report indicated that over 35% of felony defendants sentenced in Volusia County went to prison over the past five years. Defendants not in prison also faced difficulties paying. Over 70% of all felony defendants were declared indigent by federal guidelines, which determines a defendant's ability to pay costs. Collections were also inhibited by the very large assessments assigned to drug trafficking cases; in Volusia County over the past five years, 1% of all defendants sentenced were for drug trafficking offenses. This accounts for up to 62% of all outstanding felony debt. The Florida Department of Corrections (DOC), is involved with 93% of all sentenced felons. Survey results and an interview with DOC suggested that dialogue between collectors and DOC is limited. DOC staffing constraints require focus primarily towards additional criminal behavior and victim protection, leaving limited time to work with felony payment obligations, and in many cases, defendants' cases are closed with payments due. Felony cases received longer prison sanctions, carried larger fines and costs, and the costs were assessed against defendants with limited abilities to pay. Felony collections have definite challenges that require different types of attention. Working these cases the same as other collections cases will continue to produce unsatisfactory results. Knowing what it takes to collect felony assessments requires an improved focus on factors that inhibit collections from the organizations involved. Legislators require assessment and collection results each year in Florida; these numbers demonstrate a sizeable collections gap. By including factors that inhibit collections in state reporting, reviewers see the challenges associated with collections efforts. Clerks recently introduced these collection inhibitors to the current Assessment and Collections Report to better reflect these factors. Felony cases carry longer sanctions. Adjusting felony collection timelines beyond 12 months would more properly demonstrate efforts made on cases over a period of three years once defendants are released from prison. While in prison, Florida should consider requiring defendants to pay court sanctions. Collections practices in Michigan and Texas confirmed that this process can work and that paying while in prison acknowledges the sanction ordered by the court. It is necessary to orient all court participants towards a program where felony collections become a priority to ultimately improve collections received. Educating participants about the causes will contribute to the solution. Crime can pay in these cases - but it is necessary to take time to properly educate participants about the nuances of felony collections as well as a collaborative approach to felony collections with all justice partners contributing towards the solution. Details: Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, National Center for State Courts, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 26, 2019 at: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Education%20and%20Careers/CEDP%20Papers/2015/Why%20Crime%20Doesnt%20Pay-Examining%20Felony%20CollectionsMurphy.ashx Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Education%20and%20Careers/CEDP%20Papers/2015/Why%20Crime%20Doesnt%20Pay-Examining%20Felony%20CollectionsMurphy.ashx Shelf Number: 155567 Keywords: Court FinesDebtors PrisonFelony ConvictionsFelony OffendersFines and Fees |