ACLU advisory is worth a look

Stories that appear in this issue of The Times stemmed from a study of “jail or fine” practices released by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

The study cites cases involving people with little or no money being fined dollar amounts they cannot afford and getting sucked into a downward spiral of debt imposed by the court system.

National studies on similar practices reveal that Louisiana is far from the worst offender in this regard. States that have privatized collections for fines brought about by minor crimes or violations have made for even more nightmares.

The newspaper’s own examination of Terrebonne and Lafourche Parish practices reveals a culture where judges, prosecutors and court administrators take a pragmatic approach, and appear willing to work with people to keep them out of jail.

At the same time, the overall systemic insistence on dollars from the poor – basically blood from turnips – to settle minor infractions that result in long probations and therefore intensified risk of stumbling appears lacking. Based on the study’s findings there are places not far from Lafourche and Terrebonne that appear lacking in controls to keep the poor from being jailed just for being poor, and in some cases perhaps not as responsive as they should to the criminal justice system’s demands.

It would be easy for us to talk about the need for making sure people comply with the law and magically take care of their penalties, no matter if they are rich or poor, and take a hard line. But days spent in courthouses watching misdemeanor proceedings provides strong reason to believe that local judges who appear willing to delay payment requirements are responding to the heartbreak they see before them every day. They know more than anyone perhaps the need for moral responsibility on the part of the people with the power to take away liberty.

When people go to jail for not paying fines everyone loses including the courts, the community at large, children and parents.

This is one reason why problems in the system – like what happens to people who owe fines due to Golden Meadow and are picked up on warrants – need study. In that jurisdiction the stay in some jail somewhere due to a warrant can last a month, because court only meets once a month.

A lot can happen in the life of a person whose only crime is missing a court date for speeding, if they are jailed for weeks without an opportunity to fix their mistake. A lot of people can be hurt.

As Marjorie Esman, director of Louisiana’s ACLU points out, courts indeed have a responsibility and a duty to collect fines that are owed, or make arrangements for community service or a payment plan in lieu of cash.

But there also needs to be uniformity.

While the practices of local judges evince a desire to do what is right and just, there are no guarantees that jurists who succeed them in the future will be as understanding or tolerant.

The federal courts – including the U.S. Supreme Court – have ruled in a string of case law that “pay or stay” fines are unlawful. Hearings must be had to determine if someone can afford to pay a fine in many cases, and if they cannot alternatives must be provided.

An examination of the case law shows that these are not options, or things we wish we had in our court systems. They are required.

Specifically how Louisiana goes about making those things happen in its courts, throughout the state, is a matter best left up the judiciary itself.

Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Bernette Johnson is in a better position than we to make suggestions or recommendations for how courts across the state can function with uniformity and fairness. A ticket in Baton Rouge should be handled the same way as one in New Orleans or Monroe. The Chief Justice has reviewed the ACLU report.

Hopefully she and other jurists will come up with ideas that will make things work better, and to assure that fairness – to defendants as well as the state – prevails.