Speri writes: "In the American justice system, there's often an assumption
that if you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. But
thousands of Americans arriving in court each year over family disputes,
domestic violence, eviction, foreclosure, denied wages, discrimination on
the job, and an array of other civil issues have no right to counsel."
The return of debtors' prison. (photo: Andrey_Popov/nimon/Shutterstock/Zak
Bickel/The Atlantic)
How the High Cost of Justice Pushes the Poor Into Prison
By Alice Speri, The Intercept
15 May 16
In the American justice system, there's often an assumption that if you
can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. But thousands of
Americans arriving in court each year over family disputes, domestic
violence, eviction, foreclosure, denied wages, discrimination on the job,
and an array of other civil issues have no right to counsel. If they can't
afford a lawyer, they're on their own to face a system that is often
confusing and riddled with fees. For poorer citizens, the cost of seeking
justice often becomes so prohibitive they just give up.
Even as criminal justice reform and the reduction of mass incarceration gain
support across party lines, civil rights advocates warn that the
inaccessibility of the civil justice system tends to channel people into the
criminal system. Those with no access to the courts are more likely to take
justice in their own hands, lose homes, or face incarceration over failure
to pay child support or fines they can't afford. For some, denials of
justice in civil cases can lead to crimes of survival.
A national survey published by the National Center for Access to Justice
this week found that people in poverty have virtually no access to civil aid
attorneys - only .64 are available per 10,000, as opposed to an average of
40 lawyers per 10,000 people in the general population. "I don't think most
people appreciate how high the stakes are in our civil justice system," said
David Udell, executive director of the group. "The justice system on the
civil side has to work in order to reduce conflict. If the civil justice
system doesn't work, there is a slope that leads into the criminal justice
system."
Civil legal aid attorneys - only 6,953 out of some 1.3 million lawyers
nationwide - are funded by a combination of federal, local, and private
money, but with some 21 million new civil cases filed every year, a majority
of poor people seeking civil legal aid are turned down.
In its 2011 decision Turner v. Rogers the Supreme Court reiterated the
longstanding principle that government has no obligation to provide free
legal counsel in civil matters and ruled out a publicly appointed defense
for a man facing jail time over his failure to make child support payments.
Yet the court also declared that states must ensure court procedures are
fair to those who can't afford representation.
That shifted the burden to the courts, tasking them with making the legal
system more accessible, for example by incorporating technology to help
those representing themselves and using "plain English" in legal procedures
and documents, and calling on judges to explain expectations to people
without a lawyer.
So far, only a handful of states have moved to eliminate barriers to civil
justice: among them, California and New York have introduced
computer-assisted programs for court papers that help people fill out
documents by asking them questions. But for the most part, major obstacles
remain for the poor. Only 12 states, for instance, require courts to inform
people that they don't have to pay court fees if they can't afford them -
fearing daunting costs, many just give up on their claims.
Unaffordable justice is not only an issue in civil matters, of course. Poor
- and minority -Americans are disproportionately represented across the
entire justice system. In criminal cases, the disproportion grows between
jail and prison populations, as poor people jailed while they await trial
are regularly unable to meet bail.
A report published earlier this week by the Prison Policy Initiative singled
out high bail as the largest factor driving pretrial incarceration, noting
that 37 percent of those held in jail made less, annually, than the median
bail amount of $10,000. For the average jail detainee, that's about eight
months of income.
That means that while in theory justice applies equally to all Americans, in
practice, the cost of liberty is far higher for the poor - leading to
unnecessary detention in often overcrowded jails, causing poor defendants to
miss and lose work, burdening them with "pay to stay" costs as they are
charged for their own incarceration, and ultimately trapping them in a
crippling cycle of debt and detention.
That's not only senseless - it is also illegal. After the United States
banned debtors' prisons at the federal level in 1833, most states also
banned the practice, yet imprisonment for nonpayment of child support,
alimony, fines, traffic tickets, and other state-mandated forms of debt
remains widespread. As the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, dramatically
exposed, local governments across the country have often relied on tickets
and fines to fund their budgets, a practice so common that the DOJ's civil
rights division recently issued a memo reminding courts of the basic
constitutional principles of due process and equal protection. The memo also
reminded "court leaders" that profiting off indigent defendants is illegal,
and that funding government on the backs of poor citizens has a deeply
damaging impact on public trust in its institutions.
Restoring trust in those institutions might start with making sure that they
are truly accessible to all, and that justice, civil or criminal, is equal
in practice as well as in principle.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
The return of debtors' prison. (photo: Andrey_Popov/nimon/Shutterstock/Zak
Bickel/The Atlantic)
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/13/too-poor-for-justice/https://theintercep
t.com/2016/05/13/too-poor-for-justice/
How the High Cost of Justice Pushes the Poor Into Prison
By Alice Speri, The Intercept
15 May 16
n the American justice system, there's often an assumption that if you
can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you. But thousands of
Americans arriving in court each year over family disputes, domestic
violence, eviction, foreclosure, denied wages, discrimination on the job,
and an array of other civil issues have no right to counsel. If they can't
afford a lawyer, they're on their own to face a system that is often
confusing and riddled with fees. For poorer citizens, the cost of seeking
justice often becomes so prohibitive they just give up.
Even as criminal justice reform and the reduction of mass incarceration gain
support across party lines, civil rights advocates warn that the
inaccessibility of the civil justice system tends to channel people into the
criminal system. Those with no access to the courts are more likely to take
justice in their own hands, lose homes, or face incarceration over failure
to pay child support or fines they can't afford. For some, denials of
justice in civil cases can lead to crimes of survival.
A national survey published by the National Center for Access to Justice
this week found that people in poverty have virtually no access to civil aid
attorneys - only .64 are available per 10,000, as opposed to an average of
40 lawyers per 10,000 people in the general population. "I don't think most
people appreciate how high the stakes are in our civil justice system," said
David Udell, executive director of the group. "The justice system on the
civil side has to work in order to reduce conflict. If the civil justice
system doesn't work, there is a slope that leads into the criminal justice
system."
Civil legal aid attorneys - only 6,953 out of some 1.3 million lawyers
nationwide - are funded by a combination of federal, local, and private
money, but with some 21 million new civil cases filed every year, a majority
of poor people seeking civil legal aid are turned down.
In its 2011 decision Turner v. Rogers the Supreme Court reiterated the
longstanding principle that government has no obligation to provide free
legal counsel in civil matters and ruled out a publicly appointed defense
for a man facing jail time over his failure to make child support payments.
Yet the court also declared that states must ensure court procedures are
fair to those who can't afford representation.
That shifted the burden to the courts, tasking them with making the legal
system more accessible, for example by incorporating technology to help
those representing themselves and using "plain English" in legal procedures
and documents, and calling on judges to explain expectations to people
without a lawyer.
So far, only a handful of states have moved to eliminate barriers to civil
justice: among them, California and New York have introduced
computer-assisted programs for court papers that help people fill out
documents by asking them questions. But for the most part, major obstacles
remain for the poor. Only 12 states, for instance, require courts to inform
people that they don't have to pay court fees if they can't afford them -
fearing daunting costs, many just give up on their claims.
Unaffordable justice is not only an issue in civil matters, of course. Poor
- and minority -Americans are disproportionately represented across the
entire justice system. In criminal cases, the disproportion grows between
jail and prison populations, as poor people jailed while they await trial
are regularly unable to meet bail.
A report published earlier this week by the Prison Policy Initiative singled
out high bail as the largest factor driving pretrial incarceration, noting
that 37 percent of those held in jail made less, annually, than the median
bail amount of $10,000. For the average jail detainee, that's about eight
months of income.
That means that while in theory justice applies equally to all Americans, in
practice, the cost of liberty is far higher for the poor - leading to
unnecessary detention in often overcrowded jails, causing poor defendants to
miss and lose work, burdening them with "pay to stay" costs as they are
charged for their own incarceration, and ultimately trapping them in a
crippling cycle of debt and detention.
That's not only senseless - it is also illegal. After the United States
banned debtors' prisons at the federal level in 1833, most states also
banned the practice, yet imprisonment for nonpayment of child support,
alimony, fines, traffic tickets, and other state-mandated forms of debt
remains widespread. As the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, dramatically
exposed, local governments across the country have often relied on tickets
and fines to fund their budgets, a practice so common that the DOJ's civil
rights division recently issued a memo reminding courts of the basic
constitutional principles of due process and equal protection. The memo also
reminded "court leaders" that profiting off indigent defendants is illegal,
and that funding government on the backs of poor citizens has a deeply
damaging impact on public trust in its institutions.
Restoring trust in those institutions might start with making sure that they
are truly accessible to all, and that justice, civil or criminal, is equal
in practice as well as in principle.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
