Champaign County Jail Being Run As Debtor’s Jail
The debtor’s jail, once considered a relic of the 19th century, has now been re-instituted in Champaign County. We have received news of several inmates who have been incarcerated in the county jail for outstanding debts from traffic tickets. Because these individuals have been held in contempt of court on petty offenses, they have not been appointed a Public Defender. In one case, a man named Michael Alexander has been held for six weeks without seeing an attorney. If there is no intervention, he will languish in the jail until his next court date.
This kind of bill collecting had become common during previous State’s Attorney John Piland’s administration. Champaign County Health Care Consumers exposed the way Carle Hospital was using the court system to collect on its debts, and Carle’s tax exempt status was revoked. The current State’s Attorney Julia Rietz won her campaign in 2004 by promising she would put an end to this kind of legal retaliation. Yet while the head was cut off, the body remains. Now the Champaign County criminal justice is collecting on the bills of its own debtors.
Michael Alexander has been in the county jail for six weeks for traffic tickets that range from driving without insurance, to not wearing a seatbelt. The tickets date back to 1995 and somehow amount to an astronomical $24,000. The prosecution for his outstanding traffic tickets began in 2005, the year Rietz took office. Alexander’s case is not unique. The process is as follows.
Attorney Chris Kanis, who prosecutes in the traffic court, files a rule for an individual to show cause for why they cannot pay their debts. Most of these cases have been before Presiding Judge Difanis. If an individual cannot pay their debt or misses a court date, they can be held in contempt of court. If they do not have 10% of their debts for bond, the judge hits them with a purge order. They then sit in jail until another court date, which can be up to 60 days later, without being appointed a Public Defender.
In the case of Michael Alexander, he is incapable of paying the $2,400 bond, let alone his staggering $24,000 debt. He is black and poor. He has been homeless. A convicted felon, he has had trouble finding work.
This does not make sense to taxpayers. If it costs an average of $50 per day to house an inmate, the County will spend $3,000 collecting on a bill this individual is unlikely to ever pay. The County is spending more money than it will ever make in return.
How many are in the jail for unpaid traffic tickets? In other cases we have heard about, individuals may be mentally ill or on welfare and cannot pay back fines.
These debt collectors at the county courthouse are operating a modern-day sharecropping system where poor folks, many of them African American, are forever beholden to paying off debts to the Champaign County court system.
As we will see this summer, the jail population will grow. Yet we will know that such numbers could be reduced. Despite claims by State’s Attorney Rietz that things have changed since the previous Piland administration, this bill collecting shows that it is business as usual. Sheriff Dan Walsh will again throw up his hands, saying he cannot stop overcrowding. Again, administrators of this brand of “justice” will return to their call for a new jail.
Helping
Who should we contact to protest this? What is the contact info for the lawyers and judges who are jailing these people? What administration officials can put an end to this practice. This is ridiculous and unconstitutional. Where is the ACLU?
Solidarity,
Comrade Ringo Kamens
A common ubiquitous problem
Yes, many people in jail (in Champaign County and elsewhere) are there because of unpaid fines, unreasonable bail, and petty offenses -- this is quite common and one good reason NOT to construct another jail in this county, otherwise they'll throw people in jail for even more trivial offenses. Generally, this procedure is an attempt on the part of the court to grab the bail money of a friend or a relative, which is soon forfeited to pay court costs or a portion of the total fine or debt. It's a little bit like being kidnapped at gunpoint and held for ransom! Should this money-extraction scheme fail (as it often does), then the defendant can remain in jail for weeks on end. What's unusual about this case is the colossal size of the total fine -- usually, such defendants languish in jail for much smaller fines or debts that are easily exceeded by the costs of collection.
Because many of these people move around frequently, it is easy to miss a court appearance because the summons is sent by 1st-class mail, rather than certified mail. In other words, there is the danger of it being sent to an obsolete address or stuck by accident in the wrong mailbox. Thus, some people find themselves in contempt of court without even realizing it -- until they find themselves being arrested and handcuffed for an offense that they weren't even aware of.
In this county or state, public defenders are available for people accused of felony offenses only, but not lesser offenses.
jh
jh, Your comment that people
jh,
Your comment that people are only allowed a public defender in the case of a felony is wrong. The law allows a pd anytime the potential sentence includes a possible jail term.
pb
something else that's wrong...
...is JH's apparent assumption that court hearing notice's are always sent by mail; they're not. In fact, in criminal cases, a defendant or his counsel is always told, by the judge, what the next hearing date is; in arraignment hearings, status hearings, hearings on motions filed by either party, trial hearings, and so on, the defendant or his counsel is always told when the next hearing is. they're also warned of the consequences of not appearing in court, on the day and time ordered by the judge.
I believe its common practice (again, in criminal cases) for court hearing notices to be sent by mail (to the defendant's last known address or to his counsel's address) if either side is filing a motion or asking for an earlier hearing date, before the next scheduled one.
In the case of traffic tickets, city ordinance violations, or notice's to appear in court issued by a police officer at the time of an incident, the court date that a defendant must show up to is noted on the ticket or notice. and the officer warns the suspect (or arrestee) at the time of the incident, what the possible penalty is for not showing up.
by the way, defendant's are also ordered, by the judge they are appearing in front of, to inform the Circuit Clerk's Office of any change in their mailing address or residence, in writing, precisely to avoid these problems. if "these people", as you so eloquently put it, fail to appear for a hearing, after being told precisely when and where to be, no one should be surprised that a warrant is put out for their arrest.
defendants (and their counsels) are given ample instructions as to when the next court date is, and what the penalty is for not showing up.
anon.
Debtor's Prison?
I don't think the characterization of these actions as a "debtor's prison" is correct. As previously noted, and as referenced in BD's article, debtor's prisons are used to imprison individuals that owe money to a private third-party. BD's example of the Carle billing practices accurately describe a debtor's prison - those individuals that owed money to a party other than the state were imprisoned.
Owing money for fines imposed by the people of Illinois is entirely different. I would agree that the jail were being used as a debtor's prison if those imprisoned owed money to a third-party, or even if they owed money to the county for something other than a fine (e.g., delinquent property taxes).
However, the attorney situation is disturbing. As the two most-recent comments indicated, these prisoners should be guaranteed a Public Defender. The fact that, even after six weeks, they have had no contact with an attorney indicates that there is a communication problem with the courts, the clerk, or the PD's office. This should be of serious concern to residents, not the practice of imprisoning criminals.
Follow-up
To follow this comment, I have a question/suggestion for BD. Brian, is there any way you could study the waiting times for contact with attorneys? There might be a serious issue here - any disparity (based on the type/severity of a charge, or the race/economic status/gender/age of the defendant) could reveal substantial problems with the local justice system that could and should be remedied.
Deficiencies still exist in the court system
"Your comment that people are only allowed a public defender in the case of a felony is wrong. The law allows a pd anytime the potential sentence includes a possible jail term."
Very well, I'll concede this point. However, if jail is not a possible consequence of a criminal offense (the punishment consisting of a fine, mandated public service, etc.), you'll still have to represent yourself in court or hire an attorney. But even in these cases, it is always possible to be found in contempt of court for one reason or another, and thus wind up in jail. Of course, if the services of an attorney had been available in the first place, this type of problem is more likely to be avoided.
". . . is JH's apparent assumption that court hearing notice's are always sent by mail; they're not."
I'm aware of these different procedures. However, there are criminal cases in Champaign County where the notice of a court hearing is sent by first-class mail, rather than certified mail. While it is true that a police officer writes down the date and time of a court hearing on a notice to appear in court, this can and sometimes does change. Should the mail delivery system fail, for whatever reason, the result will be a missed court hearing and a warrant of arrest may be issued.
Furthermore, even if the letter is sent to the correct address, the recipient may be away from home for an extended period of time (e.g., psychiatric hospitalization, visit with relatives, etc.), in which case they may not be informed of the changed date and time of the court hearing on a timely basis.
anonymous – June 4, 2007
anonymous – June 4, 2007 – 10:43am: "However, there are criminal cases in Champaign County where the notice of a court hearing is sent by first-class mail, rather than certified mail."
and those court hearings you're talking about, are hearings scheduled by either the defense or prosecution, to resolve a matter prior to any previously scheduled court appearance. If the defense files a motion to exclude some testimony or scientific test, it'll sometimes happen prior to the next scheduled court appearance. Note i am saying "next scheduled court appearance" for a specific reason; those hearings do not always require the defendant to be present, simply his defense counsel (if the defendant is acting as his own counsel, then he better be present at a hearing...). defendants are always told, by a judge, in open court, what the next court date is, and if they are required to be there.
"While it is true that a police officer writes down the date and time of a court hearing on a notice to appear in court, this can and sometimes does change."
it can only change if a judge orders it, and a judge would only change it if either party to the case files a motion to request it, and that requires a hearing, in open court, in which both parties are present to argue their position. again, only a judge can change a previously scheduled court hearing, and only a judge can excuse a defendant's presence. no one else can change a previously scheduled court hearing, not a cop, not the clerk's office, not the prosecuting attorney, no one else. if a suspect or alleged defendant is noticed to appear in court, then they better follow the notice's instructions, and appear on that day and time.
If, in a case of human error, a notice to appear is incorrectly entered and a defendant doesn't appear on that incorrect day, then their (very valid) defense is the notice, handed to them by a police officer, with a date and time on it.
"Furthermore, even if the letter is sent to the correct address, the recipient may be away from home for an extended period of time (e.g., psychiatric hospitalization, visit with relatives, etc.), in which case they may not be informed of the changed date and time of the court hearing on a timely basis."
of the two reasons you gave above, only hospitalization (of any sort, not just psychiatric) seems to be a valid excuse for missing a court hearing. Visiting relatives for an extended period of time and possibly missing a court date, when a defendant knows they have an ongoing case, could possibly be a valid excuse, depending on the context of the visit (e.g., a funeral versus a vacation for fun). Again, though, i keep coming back to the point i wrote above: a defendant is always told, in open court by a judge, what the next court date is and if their presence is required. if either party to a case files a motion on some matter (prior to any previously scheduled hearing), then a defendant's presence isn't always required.
anon
Notification in open court.
"Again, though, i keep coming back to the point i wrote above: a defendant is always told, in open court by a judge, what the next court date is and if their presence is required."
Which, in the case of Michael Alexander, seems to be what happened. https://secure.jtsmith.com/clerk/7d3jawq1ag36.asp
He had a hearing on February 5 of this year. He was at this court date. The case was continued to April 17, 2007. He didn't show up that time, so they issued a warrant for him. Doesn't say anything about him being hospitalized.
Contact
Comrade Ringo Kamens - you can join CU Citizens for Peace and Justice at our meetings every Saturday 4pm at the Independent Media Center, the old Urbana post office at Broadway and Elm.
Peace, BD
US-IMC
This article is also featured at US IMC:
http://indymedia.us/en/
County Jail
How about using these people only after convicted to clean up the rural county highways? I'm sure they would enjoy the fresh air. Other states use this free labor why not Illinois??? GLG.
Turns out I was wrong.
Brian did reply, just not here.
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/imc-web/2007-June/002275.html
Well, Brian, regardless of what your lawyer friend (who must remain anonymous for reasons I cannot fathom) says, it's STILL not a debtor's jail.
This is not a mere semantic difference or a red herring at all. There is all the difference in the WORLD between 1) someone who, by a horrible twist of fate, gets sick, and then loses their job and can't pay their medical bills and 2) someone who breaks a whole bunch of laws, blows off the fines, and then doesn't show up for court.
If it's not clear what the difference is, I'll explain it. In example 1), no laws were broken. In example 2), a whole bunch of them were. This is the WHOLE solitary point. You're saying, basically, that there's no difference between locking up an innocent person and locking up a guilty one.
I don't see how it's spewing hatred to simply point out that you're wrong about this. If you're going to run around calling yourself an "investigative journalist", you have to accept the fact that people aren't always going to take your "journalism" at face value, and are going to question you on it.
semantics
Slavery was also officially abolished in the 19th century, yet that doesn't mean its modern-day version doesn't exist today in the prison industrial complex locking down 2.2 million, over half of them African American.
BD
Maybe I should change my name to Kreskin...
"Also, one alternative might be that people who can't pay traffic tickets could be allowed to perform community service to pay them back. But, my guess would be, if they started doing that, you-know-who would notice that a lot of these people would be black, and then how long do you suppose it would be until we saw "Champaign County Brings Back Indentured Servitude" here on the UCIMC website? My guess would be several years, since it would take him that long to find out that it was going on. But still."
You complain that the guy can't afford to pay off his fines. When they offer people a way to pay off their fines, you call it slavery. What do you want? That they stop arresting people who drive recklessly?
Besides, that has nothing to do with this post. Nobody's making this guy do any work, for all I can tell.
Plus, I know someone already said it, but it can't be repeated often enough. Unlike slaves of old, this guy DID have the option to simply stop breaking laws.
You Might Suggest Your Own Advice to Your Buddies
Maybe when cops and jail guards stop breaking laws -- especially when they only actually get indicted on a handful of their own lawlessness -- then people might think there is something besides unremitting hypocrisy to statements such as "... it can't be repeated often enough... this guy DID have the option to simply stop breaking laws."
Uh huh.
Oh, so now Michael Alexander is claiming to be innocent of the charges he's accused of? Well, that's different, isn't it? If he claims that his convictions are false, then THAT should be the focus of the article Brian wrote. NOT the simple and rather obvious fact that criminals get locked up.
I didn't say jail guards or cops should be allowed to break laws. If that's what happened in Michael Alexander's case, then by all means, tell us about it.
Kind of a weird notion, though. We shouldn't lock up criminals until all cops are pure as driven snow. When I go on my inevitable shooting rampage, that's going to be my defense. "Hey, cops commit crimes too! So what the hell am *I* doing in jail?!?".
Also.
I don't know why I didn't mention this before, but here's what someone pointed out about this a long time ago:
"Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "
sorry Brian, that's not
sorry Brian, that's not slavery. almost to a man (of course we do have to recognize that there is an exception in wrongful convictions) those men and women made conscious decisions to break the law which landed them in prison.
pb
Wrong
I have no problem with criticism - I get it regularly from the Public i collective.
I do have a problem with you using the pretense of free speech to slander my name and promulgate your law-and-order philosophy.
I didn't see you posting to the article on the recent die-in, protesting that the students didn't actually "die."
For every one of my posts I get ten nastygrams.
This is not constructive criticism - but simply trolling.
BD
anonymous" "it can only
anonymous" "it can only change if a judge orders it, and a judge would only change it if either party to the case files a motion to request it, and that requires a hearing, in open court, in which both parties are present to argue their position. "
That's simply untrue. I know for a fact that the date, time, and location of a court hearing in a criminal case can change without any forewarning -- except that a notice of such changes is sent by 1st-class mail to the defendant without any prior input from the defendant (or his counsel, if there is any). I know this from personal experience!
Because the addressee may fail to receive such a letter through no fault of his or her own, it is then possible to be arrested without just cause and wind up in the county jail as a result. The local court system SHOULD send such letters by certified mail, but they don't (at least, not always). And so, there is more variability in how the local court system operates than you realize.
anonymous: "and the officer warns the suspect (or arrestee) at the time of the incident, what the possible penalty is for not showing up."
That's not necessarily true either. Some cops may provide such warning to an arrestee, but others don't bother to do this. Once again, I know this is the case from personal experience.
Basically, anonymous, your describing how the criminal justice system is supposed to operate according to the rule book, but in fact it occasionally fails to abide by these rules for one reason or another.
jh
jh, at what point do accept
jh,
at what point do accept personal responsibility for your actions and check with the court to see if there are any changes (however rare they may be)? additionally, you are responsible for making sure the circuit clerk has your current address so that you can receive notices.
that paragraph you quoted above is substantially correct. the only way your case will proceed in your absence is if you fail to keep on top of things and let it happen.
pb
Thank You!
I really mean it; no sarcasm implied or explicit. It's nice to have someone debate points I've brought up in previous posts, versus having them hidden for being "off-topic" (and i'm still waiting for some direction to UCIMC's web editorial policy page or statement).
To anonymous – June 6, 2007 – 5:37pm (meaning, JH): what type of case, if I may ask (as well as what type of hearing or appearance it was), was it that the date and time of the hearing was changed with no forewarning? Was the hearing that was changed one in which you were required to appear? how was the hearing originally scheduled for? did you (or your counsel) simply not receive timely notice? Please provide some context to your personal experience, as much as you feel comfortable sharing, so I can understand the circumstances better.
To counter your argument of sending notices by certified mail versus 1st-class mail, if a defendant has moved or left the area, it won't matter if the notice is sent by certified mail or 1st-class mail. My understanding of certified mail, is that it requires a signature of an adult or other responsible party to sign for it (i've not sent anything by certified mail in a VERY long time, so please excuse my ignorance). if no one is living at that address any longer, or is unwilling to sign for the certified mail, then the result is the same as if the notice was sent by 1st-class mail.
I agree with your final point, that some officers are more diligent and thorough about explaining the possible consequences to suspects and alleged defendants. However, even if the officer simply hands the suspect the notice to appear with no explanation, it then falls on the alleged defendant to appear at that day and time. Like PH (anonymous – June 6, 2007 – 7:23pm) asked, at what point do we ask people to take personal responsibility?
Again, thank you for responding to my post and debating it with me.
anon.
What's the Solution then?
I'm curious how these cases of traffic tickets are to be solved. If a defendant has no lawyer, no job, in jail, and owes on a ton of tickets, how is this case to be resolved? Judge asks, "Are you going to pay?" answer: "Can't your Honor, I have no job and I am in your jail." How does this end?
Also, consider that driving tickets are not always reckless moving violations. Most tickets are crimes of poverty: i.e. driving on a suspended license or driving with no insurance. Often, police use their officer discretion to run the license plates of black drivers, fishing for drug dealers, and see that their licenses have been revoked or suspended previously and pull them over. That's how most people rack up alot of tickets.
My personal experience as a white person driving in this county has been that when my car has faulty taillights or an out headlight, I can drive with immunity for about 6 months to a year before an officer will finally pull me over. I have had squad cars pull up right behind me with one of the taillights out and the muffler gone, and got no reaction from the police officer. The times I have been stopped, if I haven't paid for my insurance or my license is out of order for some reason, I have always been given a polite warning ticket. From my experience, it seems that officer discretion in this county is based on race and class. If you look like you are from the white middle class, you can do just about anything without being hassled by law enforcement. If you look like you're black or from the underclass, you can get a jaywalking ticket and should you get mouthy about it, expect a side order of resisting arrest. I realize that's not the way the ideal system is supposed to work, that's just been my personal experience.
What's the Solution then?
How is driving on a suspended license a poverty crime??? or no insurance??? You put gas in that car @$3.00 @gal. cheap insurance is a bout $1.00 a day. thats a sorry excuse.
Under the name Michael Alexander....
...there are 27 traffic tickets. Of concern are 3 tickets for carrying liquor in the car. 5 are for moving violations. 2 are for the passenger not having their seatbelt on. The remaining 17 traffic tickets are for license, registration, and insurance problems.
And if you look at the rest
And if you look at the rest of the details (including his misdemeanor and felony convictions), the only time the guy bothers to appear for his court dates is when he's already in custody. He obviously doesn't have a transportation problem as he keeps racking up moving violations. It seems the only time he isn't willing to drive illegally is when he's supposed to show up for court.
While it's hard to know from the Clerk of the Circuit Court website if there is only one Michael Alexander, it would seem very difficult to feel a lot of sympathy for someone with such a lengthy rap sheet of orders of protection, theft, battery, agg battery, domestic battery, and various traffic offenses.
Brian, I think this guy is playing you for a chump and making a fool out of you. And to take issue with your quote "This does not make sense to taxpayers. If it costs an average of $50 per day to house an inmate, the County will spend $3,000 collecting on a bill this individual is unlikely to ever pay. The County is spending more money than it will ever make in return."
This makes perfect sense to me. I don't want this guy out on the street and certainly not driving. I don't care what it costs.
pb
Life Sentence for Minor Traffic Offenses?
pb seems to feel that giving a Alexander a back-door life senetence for these tickets is somehow just or good public policy.
If Alexander had a DUI or, say, running over a bicyclist and killing him while downloading ringtones, then there might be a case for continuing to old him in in pre-trial confinement in the absence of ability to bond out and certainly for some sort of lengthy sentence if he'd ever hurt anyone.
Other than that, Alexander's case contains a lot of the elements that constitute the typical "driving while black" harassment of of certain groups in our community by the police as part of a "war on drugs" that targets these groups but not white neighborhoods, which often have much higher rates of drug use. It makes no sense to continue housing Alexander at the taxpayer's expense over the traffic issues.
How's a guy that can't pay
How's a guy that can't pay his traffic tickets going to post bond?
Not at all anon. I am all in
Not at all anon. I am all in favor of letting him go when his time is served. However, he appears to be (if all the michael alexander's in the circuit clerk's system are the same) a violent, repeat offender with little to no regard for social convention or the authority of the court. Police "troll" license plates all the time. It is perfectly legal and a good way to check for warrants. Looking at Alexander's lengthy record, he has been wanted on warrants almost continuously since 1994. There were plenty of reasons to stop him, especially in a smaller town like Rantoul where his license/warrant status would have been well known to local officers.
Comparing his case to that of Jennifer Stark is irrelevant. The State's Attorney desperately wanted to charge her with a greater offense but was hamstrung by the law which stated that a death caused by a vehicle could only be charged as a homicide if there was alcohol/drugs involved. That oversight has now been corrected (and arguably never should have existed in the first place).
Again, I think it makes perfect sense to keep him incarcerated on his substantial traffic fines because it really seems quite obvious that he needs to learn he shouldn't flaunt the system. I also agree that he shouldn't be allowed to bond out, given his predilection for failing to return except when brought in.
I would welcome seeing your source data that white neighborhoods in Champaign County have higher rates of drug use.
Walking while black
In Michael Alexander's case, he was not even driving when he was arrested.
It was his birthday, he was walking out of the Picadilly liquor store on First street
when he was approached by four plainclothes Champaign police.
Police asked him if he paid for the bottle, he said yes.
He was never charged with theft.
Police then said they were looking for underage drinkers (Alexander had just turned 30)
and asked for his ID.
When he gave them his ID, police found a warrant issued just two days previous.
For simply walking while black, he was illegally stopped.
Anyone care to uphold the constitution?
The local media likes to spend time covering a basketball player
but the far more common story of the many Michael Alexanders gets no attention.
If you don't like the Starks comparison, what about the Jamar Smith case?
Smith just finished a two week sentence in the jail for nearly killing somebody.
Alexander is jailed indefinitely for petty traffic tickets.
Why did Champaign police stop Alexander on April 21?
Unfortunately, racial profiling and illegal stops are routine treatment for black and poor people in Champaign County.
BD
I don't think you'll get
I don't think you'll get much sympathy for a guy that had outstanding warrants for his arrest. Sure, he might not have been brought in under the best circumstances, but he was still a wanted criminal. Had the police detained him for just the incident at Picadilly, I'd have a serious problem with the police. However, the police partially rely on "racial profiling and illegal stops" to track down people with warrants - how else will you find individuals unless you run their IDs?
See, this is at least a reasonable point.
The walking while black thing is bad, I admit. If you'd put this in your essay in the first place, you might have gotten a different response.
None of this changes the fact, however, that there's nothing particularly outrageous about him being in jail after racking up all thoe tickets.
Of course, maybe he just looks young. I'm white and almost thirty, and got carded by a cop in the parking lot of a gas station while I was carrying a six-pack. Dunno.
And, actually...
I just re-read your comment, and realized what Piccadilly you were talking about. I used to live right across from there, when I was in college, in an apartment building with dozens of other college students. From what I can recall, that store's clientele was nearly all college students, and, at the time, the clerks weren't always too diligent about checking for IDs inside the store. So, I guess the question is, did they just check HIS ID, or were they maybe cracking down on that sort of thing and just checking the IDs of everyone who came out? I know a lot of liquor stores station cops inside the store late at night to make sure underage people don't buy liquor. Maybe it was something like that? I don't really think you've got enough evidence to say he was just "walking while black". Maybe "walking while carrying alcohol in an area where there are a lot of potential underage drinkers".
If you don't like the Starks
If you don't like the Starks comparison, what about the Jamar Smith case?
Smith just finished a two week sentence in the jail for nearly killing somebody.
Alexander is jailed indefinitely for petty traffic tickets.
Well, there's still a substantial difference. Smith showed up to court and followed the court's directions - he appeared when needed, and paid his debt to society.
Alexander didn't follow the court's directions - he didn't appear when needed, and failed to pay his (relative to jail-time) miniscule debt to society.
And it's not illegal for any
And it's not illegal for any police officer to stop anybody walking anywhere and ask for their id.
And I'm not so sure about your characterization that Alexander is jailed "indefinitely". While I don't know what it is, there is a conversion program for changing dollars to days of time served. Is it not correct that once his "debt" is paid he will be released?
pb
That's the question...
"Is it not correct that once his "debt" is paid he will be released?"
that's the key question for me.....will there be a number of days the court can sentence Alexander in the event he has no way of paying the traffic fines? How does this get resolved if the man has zero way to get money unless somebody gives him a paying job tomorrow?
At the moment, I believe it's $45 a day Alexander costs the taxpayers putting him up at the jail.
Pursuant to 730 ILCS
Pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/5‑9‑3, it appears that Mr. Alexander should only be incarcerated for 6 months. However, there are two issues here: 1) Mr. Alexander should have had a hearing regarding this matter, so that he could show that his default was not intentional and 2) after the 6 month period, Mr. Alexander would still owe his fines. Further, 730 ILCS 5/5‑9‑3 empowers the State's Attorney to use "any and all means authorized for the collection of money judgments" to collect the fine. This, as explicitly stated, includes the use of private collection agencies. Any costs incurred in the recovery of funds would be charged to Mr. Alexander.
Reposted, not by BMTL
Our Increasingly Pointless Constitution
Well, that's all fine and good that some law provides legal cover for the interminable incarceration of Mr. Alexander, but it's also another case where such legal subterfuges essentially gut a right clearly enumerated in either our Constitution or Bill of Rights. For all practical purposes, the county jail has become a debtor's prison.
It's interesting that there are thousands of government contractors who owe fines and taxes who are not only not sitting in jail over such tomfoolery, but they are actually given more contracts while operating as scofflaws. See:
http://www.citizenworks.org/crw/3-27.html
I imiagine that most of these contractors are neither black nor poor. Apparently, this protects them from suffering the same fate as Mr. Alexander.
Champaign County Jail: A Lot Like Mississippi Jails
From:
http://minorjive.typepad.com/hungryblues/2006/01/index.html
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Before Katrina: Modern Day Debtors' Prison In Gulfport, MS
Gulfport, MS was in the news over the weekend with a jaw-dropping story. Saturday's US News & World Report told of a class action suit against the city, concerning what amounted to a debtors' prison before Hurricane Katrina:
Last July, a homeless man named Hubert Lindsey was stopped by police officers in Gulfport, Miss., for riding his bicycle without a light. The police soon discovered that Lindsey was a wanted man. Gulfport records showed he owed $4,780 in old fines. So, off to jail he went. Legal activists now suing the city in federal court say it was pretty obvious that Lindsey couldn't pay the fines. According to their complaint, he lived in a tent, was unemployed, and appeared permanently disabled by an unseeing eye and a mangled arm. But without a lawyer to plead his case, the question of whether Lindsey was a scofflaw or just plain poor never came up. Nor did the question of whether the fines were really owed, or if it was constitutional to jail him for debts he couldn't pay. Nobody, the activists say, even bothered to mention alternatives like community service. The judge ordered Lindsey to "sit out" the fine in jail. That took nearly two months.
[U]p until Hurricane Katrina hit, [Gulfport police were] beating the pavement looking for those who owed fines for things like public profanity--at $222 a pop. The result of Gulfport's fine-reclamation project was that while it collected modest sums of money, it also packed the county jail with hundreds of people who couldn't pay. The Southern Center for Human Rights filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Gulfport last July. Attorney Sarah Geraghty says that before bringing the case against the city, she witnessed hundreds of court adjudications involving Gulfport's poor in which no defense attorney was present or even offered. Many defendants, Geraghty said, were obviously indigent, mentally ill, or physically disabled, like Hubert Lindsey; some had been jailed for fines they had already paid. One mentally ill woman attempted suicide by jumping from an elevated cell in the county jail after she was picked up for having failed to pay several city fines; the lawsuit alleges that police then grabbed her again on the same charge a few months later, causing her to miss the surgery scheduled to fix the broken bones in her feet.
As we attempt to understand the observable disparities in who gets relief and what gets rebuilt, it is important to keep in mind the city's demonstrated attitude towards its poor. It is also important to keep in mind what strips of pavement the city was beating and whom it tended to be looking for. The Amended Complaint from the lawsuit, which attorney Sarah Geraghty has sent me, describes
a special force of police officers charged with patrolling the streets of Gulfport to arrest citizens who have failed to pay fines assessed by the Gulfport Municipal Court. These officers conduct periodic sweeps, during which they search the streets for people who look as though they might the City old fines. During these sweeps, the officers go into predominantly African-American neighborhoods and stop people in the streets without any independent reason or suspicion, but for the sole purpose of checking to see if they owe the City old fines. Those who owe fines are taken to jail.
The state of Mississippi has the highest percentage of Black Americans in the country [PDF]. Second is Louisiana. Mississippi and Louisiana are pretty much tied for the highest poverty rates in the US, both hovering just below 20% statewide. We cannot discuss the effects of Katrina and the issues around reconstruction without serious, ongoing considerations of race and poverty.
Further Reading
• Sun Herald, "A lawsuit alleges that practices in Gulfport's Municipal Court are creating a DEBTORS PRISON"
• Southern Center for Human Rights Indigent Defense Cases In The News
The Rest of the Story
Well, sometimes the simple answer is not so simple. It turns out that the city largely addressed the issues raised in the lawsuit, instead of pretending like they didn't exist, like trolls insist about Champaign County's legal system...
>>>>>>
Gulfport is indebted to those trying to keep debtors out
of jail and the city out of court
Sun Herald Editorial
August 7, 2005
Wthin weeks of taking office, Gulfport Mayor Brent Warr has demonstrated an admirable willingness to correct what appears to be a long-standing complaint with the city's Municipal Court - without being dragged into federal court. And just as admirably, those who have leveled the justifiable criticism at the Municipal Court have demonstrated a willingness to work with the mayor and city officials.
The problem: the city's municipal judges have a tendency to deal with indigent individuals who cannot pay their misdemeanor fines by sending them to the Harrison County jail. In some instances, this costs the city more money - $15 a day - than the fine.
Felicia Dunn Burkes, president of the Gulfport Branch of the NAACP, is among those who contend this situation is an injustice for everyone involved.
"The core truth is that the city reaps absolutely no benefit as a result of its policy of incarcerating misdemeanor offenders who cannot pay their court fines. It appears that the mayor recognizes that core truth and wants to find a mechanism whereby those who have committed misdemeanor offenses in the city can 'pay their debt to society' without further burdening our overcrowded and understaffed county jail," Burkes told the Sun Herald last week.
We especially appreciate Burkes' focus on "community service as an alternative penalty for certain misdemeanor offenses." Such an option, she said, might permit misdemeanor offenders to discover "through court-ordered volunteerism the joy of giving to others rather than always focusing on or complaining about themselves."
While a satisfactory resolution has yet to be reached, it is satisfying to see individuals in and out of City Hall working in good faith to reach one.
http://www.schr.org/indigentdefense/SCHR%20Cases/schr_gulfport5.htm
>>>>>
Warr promises to fix Gulfport court issues
ROBIN FITZGERALD
Wednesday August 3, 2005
GULFPORT - Mayor Brent Warr has promised to correct problems that have earned Gulfport Municipal Court the reputation of being "the worst in the state."
In comments at an NAACP meeting Tuesday night, Warr responded to allegations of illegal practices in city court by pledging fairness to all, to include indigent people who can't afford to pay misdemeanor fines within 30 days.
The city, facing a civil lawsuit in federal court, is accused of civil rights violations that include failing to consider defendants' ability to pay, to advise them of their right to an attorney and to accept payment arrangements for the indigent. Those who can't pay their fines go to jail.
"It's my responsibility to fix this," said Warr. "You hired me out of 10 others."
Warr spoke after representatives of the Southern Center for Human Rights shared complaints in a meeting of the Gulfport Branch of the NAACP at the Isiah Fredericks Community Center.
The Southern Center co-filed the lawsuit July 21 after a letter from City Attorney Harry Hewes stated city officials would not meet to discuss the complaints without having details and recommendations.
Hewes attended Tuesday night's meeting. He and the mayor also met with Southern Center representatives earlier Tuesday.
"I'm cautiously optimistic," Sarah Geraghty, a Southern Center attorney, said following the meeting.
The lawsuit, she said, still stands, but resolution outside of court depends on the city's willingness to resolve the problems.
Atteeyah Hollie, a Southern Center paralegal, said she has attended hundreds of court hearings across the state and found the worst practices in Gulfport Municipal Court.
The illegal practices, said Hollie, involve not only people who are homeless, disabled or retarded, but also people who work but need a payment arrangement.
"People's lives are being ruined because of these practices," she said.
Misdemeanor defendants who are jailed for nonpayment of fines receive a credit of $25 a day toward their fines. The city pays the county jail $15 a day to house them.
During the meeting, State Rep. Frances Fredericks, D-Gulfport, asked where the responsibility lies for putting judges in office or taking them out. The mayor nodded his head, indicating he has authority to appoint judges.
"It's embarrassing," Fredericks said later, "especially with Gulfport being the second-largest city in the state."
http://www.schr.org/indigentdefense/SCHR%20Cases/schr_gulfport3.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Suit claims Gulfport court has created debtors' prison
By ROBIN FITZGERALD
Sat, Jul. 23, 2005
GULFPORT - A federal lawsuit claims the City of Gulfport and its Municipal Court have created a modern-day debtors' prison.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday, alleges the city and court officials have abused their authority by putting indigent people in jail for failure to pay misdemeanor fines. It also alleges a special unit of police officers "troll the streets," primarily in predominantly black neighborhoods, looking for people who have past-due court fines.
The civil lawsuit represents only one side of a complaint.
The lawsuit was filed by the Southern Center for Human Rights and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Twelve of the 15 plaintiffs are black.
The complaint names as defendants the City of Gulfport, Municipal Judges Bill Atchison and Richard Smith and Court Administrator Bill Markopoulos.
"People who are rich are being treated differently than people who are poor," said Sarah Geraghty, a Southern Center attorney in Atlanta. "My understanding is that the Municipal Court has a new policy that everyone must pay misdemeanor fines within 30 days. For some people, this is impossible."
The Harrison County jail, long overcrowded, housed 994 inmates on Friday. Of those, 285 were held on misdemeanor charges from Gulfport, jail officials said. Municipalities pay the jail $15 per day per inmate.
The "most disgraceful" complaint, said Geraghty, involves Virginia Thomas, described as illiterate and mentally retarded.
"She is so impaired she cannot even write her own name. Her only source of income is a small monthly SSI check. She has been incarcerated for more than one month for old fines on five occasions. She's never been appointed a lawyer."
Members of the Southern Center and the NAACP have attended hundreds of misdemeanor hearings in Gulfport, said Geraghty.
"We have observed only one instance in which a judge appointed counsel to an indigent person. In that instance, it was after the defendant repeatedly begged for court-appointed counsel. It is really quite disgraceful how they treat these people."
The lawsuit does not seek money for the plaintiffs.
"We just want them to use a more appropriate and constitutionally sound way of dealing with indigent misdemeanors," Geraghty said.
Mayor Brent Warr and City Attorney Harry Hewes were not available for comment Friday.
http://www.schr.org/indigentdefense/SCHR%20Cases/schr_gulfport1.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'd be curious of what the entire story of the lawsuit's dismissal was. In Mississippi, something like that would not surprise me. Of course, in the era of Bush's packed-courts and politically-spun federal prosecutors, we can hardly put all the blame on some redneck racist Southerners, when much of thepointy-white hat agenda is dressed-up in fancy suits and enshrined in the White House and it's minions. But it's rather embarrassing to see people ignorant enough to pretend this is a non-issue in Champaign County, considering many of the same problems are present.
What are the Chances?
If Champaign County has 40,000 traffic tickets and 5,000 criminal cases a year, and the Champaign Police Department handles something like 20,000(?) 30,000(?) incidents a year.....
and compare that to how many times officers have really been shot at in this county,....
....what are the real statistical chances an officer could be shot working in this area?
There's no personal responsibility in this instance
pb: "jh, at what point do accept personal responsibility for your actions and check with the court to see if there are any changes (however rare they may be)? additionally, you are responsible for making sure the circuit clerk has your current address so that you can receive notices."
If the court, under its own initiative, changes the time, date, and location of a hearing, then it is the responsibility of the court to inform the defendant and plaintiff of these changes on a timely basis. There is no responsibility on the part of the defendant (or the plaintiff) to check for such changes in this regard.
In my particular case, the court sent information regarding these changes via 1st-class mail, which I received; I did not miss the court hearing, and my address did not change during this time period. If my address had changed, however, I would have informed the appropriate court authority.
What bothered me, however, was the fact that this letter was not sent by certified mail; if the court is willing to issue a warrant of arrest when a defendant fails to attend a court hearing under these circumstances, then notification of such changes should have been sent by certified mail, rather than 1st-class, it seems to me.
I know from past experience that 1st-class mail is not always reliable; I occasionally receive the 1st-class mail of my neighbors, and the neighbors occasionally receive my 1st-class mail as a result of postal delivery errors.
The change in my court date, time, and location occurred shortly after the extension of the court house was completed; I suspect that this change was precipitated by a change in location of the judge's courtroom, although I don't know this for certain.
anon.: "what type of case,
anon.: "what type of case, if I may ask (as well as what type of hearing or appearance it was), was it that the date and time of the hearing was changed with no forewarning? Was the hearing that was changed one in which you were required to appear? how was the hearing originally scheduled for? did you (or your counsel) simply not receive timely notice? Please provide some context to your personal experience, as much as you feel comfortable sharing, so I can understand the circumstances better."
I was charged with violation of a city ordinance for disorderly conduct, and was given a notice to appear in court by the arresting officer; I was not taken to jail. For this type of offense, there is no possibility of jail time; if convicted, you can be required to pay a fine of up to $500 and perhaps the judge may impose a public service requirement.
Later, I received a letter from the courthouse by 1st-class mail stating that the location, date, and time of the court hearing had been changed; I was required to attend this hearing -- I don't know if I could have hired a lawyer to represent me at this hearing instead. This was a pre-trial hearing in which, after having the charge(s) read, you were expected to plead guilty or not guilty. I pleaded not guilty to the charge, and a trial date was established during that hearing. As a result of the trial, I was found not guilty by the judge, and the charge was dismissed.
Regarding the change in the date, time, and location of the pre-trial hearing, I was provided with ample advance notification of this change by 1st-class mail. I would have preferred that this letter had been sent by certified mail, however, because 1st-class mail is not always reliable. If this letter had not been correctly delivered to my address, there is a good chance that I would have missed the court hearing and a warrant of arrest could have issued. Therefore, I would have preferred that this letter had been sent by certified mail. During this time period my address did not change; I was quite aware of the requirement to inform the court of any address change, and was prepared to comply with this requirement, if necessary.
I can think of many reasons why the court system would unilaterally change the date, time, and/or location of a court hearing: 1) sudden illness, death, or resignation of the presiding judge, 2) reassignment of a case to a different judge, 3) construction of a new building where the court hearing is to be held, 4) destruction of a courtroom by acts of sabotage or natural disaster, etc.
jh
More info for anon.
anon.: "To counter your argument of sending notices by certified mail versus 1st-class mail, if a defendant has moved or left the area, it won't matter if the notice is sent by certified mail or 1st-class mail."
Yes, I know. However, my address didn't change.
anon: "However, even if the officer simply hands the suspect the notice to appear with no explanation, it then falls on the alleged defendant to appear at that day and time. Like PH (anonymous – June 6, 2007 – 7:23pm) asked, at what point do we ask people to take personal responsibility?"
Clearly, it's the responsibility of the defendant (and/or their counsel) to show up at the appointed time and place of the court hearing, unless the defendent has been hospitalized, or was determined by a court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. The defendant also has the responsibility to inform the court of any change in address.
However, the court system also has its responsibilities; one of them, to inform the defendant (and plaintiff) of any unilateral changes in the date, time, or location of a court hearing on a timely basis using a reliable means of communication.
The odd thing about this is, I received notice of a court hearing (in an unrelated case involving my mother) by certified mail in which my presence was NOT required, and yet, when my attendance IS required under threat of possible arrest, then the notice of court hearing arrives by 1st-class mail. It seems like an odd discrepancy to me.
Thanks, JH
Thanks for detailing your specific circumstances. Regarding the ordinance violation, it seems that everyone did as they were supposed to, and everything went smoothly, admittedly something that doesn't always happen. And, as you noted in your post, it seems reasonable to assume that because the construction at the courthouse had finished, new courtrooms were added or expanded or otherwise changed, thus requiring a notification. One of my chief concerns with sending notices like that by certified mail, versus 1st class mail, is the increase in cost going from 1st class to certified; sending out scores of letters notifying defendant's of changed date and time could be very costly. If the courts themselves are changing the hearing date (meaning, neither the defense/prosecution or plaintiff/respondent are changing it), then I'd be much more in favor of sending notices by certified letter; I would think that the number of notices, sent by the courts themselves, would be relatively small, thus incurring a similarly small increase in cost.
and as to being notified by certified mail of a court hearing, the unrelated case involving your mother, the only thing I can think of is that, if it was a civil case, then one party or the other would have wanted you there; since neither party in a civil case has the same leverage as the state does in prosecuting a case, they may have wanted to insure you received notice. If the case was a criminal one, then I have no idea whatsoever.
Again, thanks for detailing your specific circumstances.
anon of old
anonymous
Michael Alexander, at least seems to have quite a few traffic tickets. They include driving without a license, no insurance, transporting alcohol, passenger not wearing seat belt. He has paid some of them. While I am not for jail because of debt, I can understand jail time for those who refuse to follow traffic and driving laws.
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
99TR23240
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
99TR06388
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
99TR06389
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
95T 25574
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
96TR22707
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
96TR14300
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
94T 03681
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
03TR25111
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
03TR25112
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
03TR25113
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
98TR14209
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
98TR14210
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
05TR26594
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
05TR26595
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
05TR26596
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
94T 03682
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
95T 21868
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
95T 21869
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
97TR05160
ALEXANDER MICHAEL ALEXANDER MICHAEL
00TR05422
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
99TR05192
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
99TR05193
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
05TR19404
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
98TR15934
ALEXANDER MICHAEL
98TR15935
97TR05161
Michael Alexander
Michael Alexander is back in jail for traffic tickets, fourteen of them to be exact.
The same ones he has been in jail for in the past. Mr. Alexander just did not go to court.
What was his excuse this time. How about we start holding people responsible instead of
making excuses for them
Excuses, Plenty to Go Around
Champaign County seems to be relying on excuses for running it's debtor's prison. Next they will be using the excuse of needing to lock up people for traffic tickets to build a new jail. I wonder how much that is going to cost?
It would seem to make more sense to offer some sort of plan to let people work out their debts. What's the excuse for failing to do that?