Ezekiel Edwards

Paying Debts to Society (and to the criminal justice system)

Last week, Adam Liptak wrote an article in the New York Times titled "Debt to Society Is Least of Costs for Ex-Convicts" in which he exposed the burdensome fines that various states impose on people even after they have completed their prison terms. These post-incarceration debts can result in thousands of dollars in court costs (including $127,000 for a man who spent 44 years in prison) as well as fees for court-ordered drug tests, probation, DNA samples, global positioning devices, and various court-mandated programs --- even costs for seeking court-appointed counsel in certain states. In Washington, until someone has paid off these debts they are deprived the right to vote. For a society that claims to want offenders to reintegrate into society (and punishes them when they fail to do so), weighing ex-offenders down with often insurmountable debt seems like a self-defeating way of achieving that goal.

In New York, a misdemeanor conviction (for possession of a bag of marihuana or entering the subway without paying, for example) automatically carries with it a surcharge of $160, which must be paid within two months. If a person fails to pay, he cannot be put in prison, but rather civil judgment is entered against him, thereby tarnishing his credit, making it more difficult for him to lease or buy a house, a car, an apartment, obtain a credit card, or secure a loan. Although a lawyer can ask the judge to enter civil judgment immediately upon sentencing when it is clear that the person will be unable to pay the surcharge within two months, the surcharge can never be waived. Regardless of whether the person standing before the judge is an unemployed mother of three children, a disabled Vietnam War Veteran, a 16-year-old full time high school student, or someone with serious health issues who requires frequent hospitalization, in every case either they must pay the hefty surcharge or watch their credit suffer. Moreover, if someone is receiving an upstate jail sentence, the surcharge is taken automatically out of the inmate's commissary funds. If a person is sentenced to a fine (which always accompanies certain convictions, such as those involving marihuana or driving without a valid license), the person must pay within two months, or else a warrant will be issued for her arrest, and she will receive an alternative sentence of jail.

When Liptak writes that "these ever-mounting fees are intended to help offset some of the enormous costs of operating the criminal justice system," he is referring to a system made so expensive by a ballooning prison population caused primarily by the frenzied nationwide imprisonment of drug offenders. The more people we put in jail, and the longer we keep them there, the higher the costs.

Some argue that surcharges are necessary to cover certain costs, and that the people most appropriate to shoulder this burden are those who have broken the law and "created" those costs. But Liptak quotes a Georgia judge who observes that his state's many fees originated as an indirect way to force poor people to pay for the free lawyers guaranteed to them by the Supreme Court. In other words, the justification that fines and surcharges (and the ominous increase in types and amounts) arise from unavoidable court costs may in fact be pretext for pernicious purposes (such as punishing defendants or keeping poor people destitute). The reality is that the vast majority of defendants --- particularly in places like the Bronx, one of the most poverty-stricken counties in the United States --- are poor, many are unemployed, have children to support, live in public housing or are homeless, etc., and simply cannot pay surcharges or fines (yet can no more afford having bad credit or, in the case of a fine, going to jail for non-payment).

Levying surcharges on the poorest residents of the poorest borough is counterproductive. Having unpaid debts adds to the immense monetary pressure many people feel while intensifying the financial obstacles they face. This, in turn, can add to their emotional and psychological strain, at times even further encouraging unlawful acts (such as avoiding payment of one's subway fare or selling narcotics). What sense does it make to put unemployed people under further financial stress? What purpose is served by blemishing or further ruining a poor person's credit history? Why demand that a mother of two infants arrested for stealing diapers pay a surcharge?

It is time for the law to reflect people's financial realities. When it comes to the imposition of someone's sentence, courts need to be able to consider the person's economic situation. Justice is supposed to be blind, but not cruel. If someone is unable to pay a surcharge, then they should be exempt from payment following their sentence, without such exemption resulting in bad credit; if they are unable to pay a fine, they should NOT face jail. To insist otherwise is shortsighted, impractical, and unfair.

Ezekiel Edwards: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 8:00 AM, Feb 28, 2006 in Criminal Justice | Economic Opportunity
Permalink | Email to Friend