• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jeff Sessions Takes a Stand for Debtors Prisons

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jeff Sessions Takes a Stand for Debtors' Prisons

During the holiday season, many of us think about what we can do to help people struggling with poverty. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, on the other hand, decided just before Christmas to rescind a guidance meant to protect low-income Americans.

The 2016 guidance, issued by former President Obama’s Justice Department, urged state and local courts nationwide to abide by constitutional principles prohibiting the jailing of poor people who cannot afford to pay court fines and fees. Jeff Sessions’ action makes clear that he and his Justice Department are unconcerned by courts trampling on the rights of poor people.

These efforts revealed that poor people were being locked up in Georgia, Washington, Mississippi, and elsewhere without court hearings or legal representation when they could not pay fines and fees for traffic tickets or other civil infractions or criminal offenses. These efforts also show that modern-day debtors’ prisons result from state laws allowing or requiring the suspension of driver’s licenses for unpaid court fines or fees without first requiring confirmation that the person could actually pay.

The Obama Justice Department showed leadership by reminding state chief justices and court administrators that the U.S. Constitution’s promises of due process and equal protection apply when courts impose and collect fines and fees. Far from creating new policy, the letter cited caselaw from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts in support of seven constitutional principles. Among the most basic of these principles is the fact that the 14th Amendment prohibits jailing people for non-payment of court fines and fees without safeguards, including a hearing before a neutral judge to determine one’s ability to pay, and meaningful alternatives to jail for people who cannot pay.
 

just-want-peace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jeff Sessions Takes a Stand for Debtors' Prisons

During the holiday season, many of us think about what we can do to help people struggling with poverty. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, on the other hand, decided just before Christmas to rescind a guidance meant to protect low-income Americans.

The 2016 guidance, issued by former President Obama’s Justice Department, urged state and local courts nationwide to abide by constitutional principles prohibiting the jailing of poor people who cannot afford to pay court fines and fees. Jeff Sessions’ action makes clear that he and his Justice Department are unconcerned by courts trampling on the rights of poor people.

These efforts revealed that poor people were being locked up in Georgia, Washington, Mississippi, and elsewhere without court hearings or legal representation when they could not pay fines and fees for traffic tickets or other civil infractions or criminal offenses. These efforts also show that modern-day debtors’ prisons result from state laws allowing or requiring the suspension of driver’s licenses for unpaid court fines or fees without first requiring confirmation that the person could actually pay.

The Obama Justice Department showed leadership by reminding state chief justices and court administrators that the U.S. Constitution’s promises of due process and equal protection apply when courts impose and collect fines and fees. Far from creating new policy, the letter cited caselaw from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts in support of seven constitutional principles. Among the most basic of these principles is the fact that the 14th Amendment prohibits jailing people for non-payment of court fines and fees without safeguards, including a hearing before a neutral judge to determine one’s ability to pay, and meaningful alternatives to jail for people who cannot pay.

This seems to be a wheelbarrow load of #(‘v/*$: thrown against the wall just to see what sticks!
Could this be CTB back under a new moniker??????
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Among the most basic of these principles is the fact that the 14th Amendment prohibits jailing people for non-payment of court fines and fees without safeguards, including a hearing before a neutral judge to determine one’s ability to pay, and meaningful alternatives to jail for people who cannot pay.

Too bad that does not apply to those men who get behind in child support
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So what alternative punishments are you offering?
Something that is constitutional.

"These efforts revealed that poor people were being locked up in Georgia, Washington, Mississippi, and elsewhere without court hearings or legal representation when they could not pay fines and fees for traffic tickets or other civil infractions or criminal offenses."

This kind of treatment is unconstitutional.
 

Rob_BW

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Something that is constitutional.

"These efforts revealed that poor people were being locked up in Georgia, Washington, Mississippi, and elsewhere without court hearings or legal representation when they could not pay fines and fees for traffic tickets or other civil infractions or criminal offenses."

This kind of treatment is unconstitutional.
I don’t see why the article is conflating suspending/revoking drivers licenses with jail time.

Are you against those types of measures, too, or just the jail time?
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Several years ago - Louisiana state troopers would conficiate your vehicle for somthing as simple as speeding - and you would have to put up a bond equal to the value of the vehicle.

That is cruel and unusual punishment
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
I don’t see why the article is conflating suspending/revoking drivers licenses with jail time.

Are you against those types of measures, too, or just the jail time?
I think the problem is not be allowed to have representation, or even seeing a judge first.
 

Rob_BW

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think the problem is not be allowed to have representation, or even seeing a judge first.
I may be mistaken, and I am sure there are many variations in state law, but aren't people able to request either a trial or a waiver hearing for traffic violations? When the article talks about unpaid fines, I reckoned at some point a choice of "accept the charge/fine or go see the judge" was given.

I know North Carolina works that way. Tried researching some of the states on the list, and found this from Texas:

IMG_2647_JPG-402804.jpg
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don’t see why the article is conflating suspending/revoking drivers licenses with jail time.

Are you against those types of measures, too, or just the jail time?
Hernandez v. California DMV (Driver's License Suspension)

ACLU of Northern California, along with a coalition of legal organizations, is suing the California Department of Motor Vehicles for illegally suspending the driver's licenses of low-income Californians.

Many Californians do not have valid driver’s licenses because they cannot afford to pay the exorbitant fines and fees associated with a routine traffic citation. State law allows the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend the licenses of people who have willfully failed to pay these fines and fees, but most California traffic courts do not give drivers a meaningful opportunity to prove that their failure to pay is due to poverty, rather than willfull non-compliance.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hernandez v. California DMV (Driver's License Suspension)

ACLU of Northern California, along with a coalition of legal organizations, is suing the California Department of Motor Vehicles for illegally suspending the driver's licenses of low-income Californians.

Many Californians do not have valid driver’s licenses because they cannot afford to pay the exorbitant fines and fees associated with a routine traffic citation. State law allows the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend the licenses of people who have willfully failed to pay these fines and fees, but most California traffic courts do not give drivers a meaningful opportunity to prove that their failure to pay is due to poverty, rather than willfull non-compliance.

Whether poverty or willful non-compliance the trick is do not break the law and you will not have a fine to pay. These people are not victims except by their own making.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Whether poverty or willful non-compliance the trick is do not break the law and you will not have a fine to pay. These people are not victims except by their own making.
I agree that everyone should obey the law. But their treatment which deprived them of counsel and due process is similar to the way we treated the prisoners in Gitmo. American citizens under the constitution are owed these rights.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree that everyone should obey the law. But their treatment which deprived them of counsel and due process is similar to the way we treated the prisoners in Gitmo. American citizens under the constitution are owed these rights.

What treatment?
 
Top