A court system that bankrupts people for minor infractions

[Rose Karuna]

I saw this article and living in Florida, I know the part about crazy non ending fees to be true.

I had a close friend who had a son who went out partying one night. He started his car and went about a block and realized he was too drunk to drive so he pulled over to the curb and went to sleep. The next morning he wakes up to discover a cop knocking on his window. Now, in Florida, you can be charged with a DUI even if you were sitting a parked car. This is because Florida Statute § 316.003(10) defines a driver as “any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.” It’s the “actual physical control” bit that allows officers to charge you with a DUI even if you are not technically driving.

What really astounded me though was when my friend told me that they'd spent a total of $35,000 in fines, court fees and court mandated classes that their son had to take, and he pleaded guilty. It would have be much more if he'd pleaded not guilty because he would have gone to trial and they would have had to pay all the court costs plus his lawyer, even if he won the case.

The article I ran across describes penalties for something as simple as graffiti:

In Florida, graffiti is a second-degree misdemeanor. By statute, the punishment is up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500 fine. On top of that, a convicted person will face many or all of the following: a special $250 graffiti fine, a $50 application fee to retain a public defender, a $50 fee for using the public defender, a $50 prosecution fee, $60 in court costs, a $50 offender fee, a $20 crime-stopper fee, a $20 crime-prevention fee, a $10 county-court fee, $50 in conviction costs, a $124 community-control fee, and a $40-a-month probation fee. These additional fees can total more than $750. Missing a payment deadline may generate a $30 late fee, a $7 license-suspension fee, a $60 license-reinstatement fee, and a $25 fee to initiate a payment program if the person cannot pay the full amount, bringing the total to more than $850. If that sum remains unpaid after 90 days, the case will be referred to a private collections company, which can impose up to a 40 percent surcharge on the uncollected debt, or an additional $340. Similarly, in Texas, a graffiti misdemeanor automatically triggers the application of at least nine and as many as 23 fees for an immediate surcharge of up to $444 in addition to the criminal fine. In Oklahoma, misdemeanor fees can total as much as $1,000.

Taken from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Punishment-Without-Crime-Misdemeanor-Innocent-ebook/dp/B07BVP51FT/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Why is this allowed? I get the graffiti fine and I even get making the person clean up the graffiti or pay for the graffiti to be cleaned up but this? It's insane and the bigger the crime, the higher the fees go. If tax dollars are going to pay for the legal system, why are people being charged for crap like retaining and using a public defender or a prosecution fee? And WTF are crime-stopper fees, crime-prevention fees, county-court fees, conviction costs, and a seriously, WTF are community-control fees?

Everyone has their hand in the pie. It's like our legal system is nothing but one big scam. Damn America, fund your judiciary, it's the backbone of our democracy. Allowing the judiciary system to legally be "on the take" by parsing out money from fees to everyone involved from the police to the court room does not encourage honesty or fairness.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

All things being equal, fines should be tough. Ideally they should be inconvenient to pay and should disrupt the fined person's life and plans to a certain degree - which is the point; if a fine is too petty or doesn't inconvenience the person paying for it, it becomes less a punishment and more of a surcharge or bill for committing the crime. "Want to tag a building? No problem, that'll be $50 - save your receipt, there's a coupon on the back!"

BUT, the kinds of BS you mention above - all the fees stacked on top of fees, doubling or even tripling the cost to the defendant - that is definitely stupid and outrageous. And it's also highly dishonest - because all of those fees, despite all the different names that imply they all go to different uses and possibly even different people, they all just go to the court itself, just like your fine does. It is a crooked way for the court to pull more money out of a defendant than the law says they should be fined for that crime.

 

[Summer Haas]

If your friend's son was instead someone who was killed by a drunk driver, you might think 35k was them getting off cheap.

Sure your friend's son saw the error of his ways but only after he put everyone else's lives at risk. Maybe he didn't harm anyone this time, but what about next? The fact he had to be so drunk that he passed out after pulling over to realize he was too drunk to drive makes me question how many times he did this before and got away with it. Hopefully this ordeal was enough to teach him a lesson.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Sure your friend's son saw the error of his ways but only after he put everyone else's lives at risk. Maybe he didn't harm anyone this time, but what about next? The fact he had to be so drunk that he passed out after pulling over to realize he was too drunk to drive makes me question how many times he did this before and got away with it. Hopefully this ordeal was enough to teach him a lesson.

I don't think anybody would say he shouldn't have been fined at all.

$35,000 is absolutely bonkers.

 

[Summer Haas]

Money is all relative really. For the affluent, 35k is less than they would spend getting drunk with their friends at the club.

I hear in some parts of Europe traffic fines are based on the value of the car you are in. That always seemed like a good idea to me. As you said earlier Dakota, fines should be inconvenient to pay. So really they shouldn't be a set amount, but based on an amount that makes it inconvenient enough so the offender learns a lesson to not do it again. if you're dirt poor a $100 fine may be enough.

 

[Ashiri]

that he passed out after pulling over

I didn't read it like that.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

I agree with the idea of traffic fines based on income or value of car. To a poor person, a $100 fine may be a show-stopper that they can't pay, resulting in suspension of driving privileges, resulting in loss of income or further fines for violating license suspension, etc. etc. etc. To an affluent person, a $100 fine is pocket change, a slight inconvenience. This is why the majority of drivers who violate traffic laws are wealthy.

 

[Rose Karuna]

Money is all relative really. For the affluent, 35k is less than they would spend getting drunk with their friends at the club.

I hear in some parts of Europe traffic fines are based on the value of the car you are in. That always seemed like a good idea to me. As you said earlier Dakota, fines should be inconvenient to pay. So really they shouldn't be a set amount, but based on an amount that makes it inconvenient enough so the offender learns a lesson to not do it again. if you're dirt poor a $100 fine may be enough.

I see your point but in fact, his parents were not rich and this nearly broke them. It was every bit of savings that both they and he had. My understanding is that he was not so drunk he passed out but when he started driving just did not feel like he should continue, that he was somewhat impaired so he pulled over and decided to sleep. I'm not saying it was right that he got in the car at all.

My point was not even about the fines he got for drunk driving, it was all the other crap they piled on top of that. It was insane. He was lucky he had parents to help him otherwise it would have caught him in a catch 22 financial quagmire that would have taken him years to get out of, if ever. Which is what happens to most people. Or worse yet, they can't pay the fines at all and end up doing time in jail for a misdemeanor.

It just seems to me like our judicial system has become a lot like our financial system, a scam, operated by scam artists. It's not about justice it's about how much money they can wring from you. Which also sets up a system whereby if you do have the money then you can sin with impunity because you can buy these people off instead of spending time in prison. See: The Affluenza Defense: Judge Rules Rich Kid’s Rich Kid-ness Makes Him Not Liable for Deadly Drunk Driving Accident | TIME.com and Hit-and-run driver Carlos Bertonatti isn't the only troublemaker in his family and on and on and on.

There were too many to count. That's not justice.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

In Ferguson, Court Fines And Fees Fuel Anger

To understand some of the distrust of police that has fueled protests in Ferguson, Mo., consider this: In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson — a city of 21,135 people — issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations.

This pattern is typical in many communities. Too many municipalities see residents, especially poor residents and people of color, as revenue, not citizens. Fees on top of fines, unreasonable payment demands, and threats of jail for failure to pay are common practice.

 

[Tranquility]

I see your point but in fact, his parents were not rich and this nearly broke them. It was every bit of savings that both they and he had. My understanding is that he was not so drunk he passed out but when he started driving just did not feel like he should continue, that he was somewhat impaired so he pulled over and decided to sleep. I'm not saying it was right that he got in the car at all.

My point was not even about the fines he got for drunk driving, it was all the other crap they piled on top of that. It was insane. He was lucky he had parents to help him otherwise it would have caught him in a catch 22 financial quagmire that would have taken him years to get out of, if ever. Which is what happens to most people. Or worse yet, they can't pay the fines at all and end up doing time in jail for a misdemeanor.

It just seems to me like our judicial system has become a lot like our financial system, a scam, operated by scam artists. It's not about justice it's about how much money they can wring from you. Which also sets up a system whereby if you do have the money then you can sin with impunity because you can buy these people off instead of spending time in prison. See: The Affluenza Defense: Judge Rules Rich Kid’s Rich Kid-ness Makes Him Not Liable for Deadly Drunk Driving Accident | TIME.com and Hit-and-run driver Carlos Bertonatti isn't the only troublemaker in his family and on and on and on.

There were too many to count. That's not justice.

I don't think you are getting the full story about your friend's kid. A first time DUI will typically cost $10k to $15k, which includes court fees, classes, insurance increase, and lawyer costs. According to this website, Florida first time DUI's cost between $7k to $10k. So it sounds like this isn't the kid's first DUI, they are exaggerating the costs, or something else they won't admit is at play. Like it or not, the kid literally admitted to driving drunk, even if it was supposedly only a block (which sounds like the equivalent of "I only had one beer officer").

The afluenza kid in your linked article was 16 years old. The affluenza defense is probably not what truly got him off with 10 years probation. It was likely due to it being his first run-in with the law and the fact that he was sixteen. It is a valid defense to argue that a 16 year old does not fully grasp the weight of their actions and should not always be treated as an adult, even with manslaughter. I do think he should have spent time in juvenile corrections, though.

Carlos Bernatti is serving 12 years in jail. It should have been so much more, but he is not getting off free and 12 years is not a slap on the wrist.

True, money does buy less jail time and that is bullshit. The system does need a shit ton of change, but it does provide some semblance of justice.

 

[Soen Eber]

I would not be surprised if these states have also had a long history with the death penalty, going hand-in-hand with a prevalent attitude where some citizens are seen as disposable based on race and class.

In states like mine where no one is considered disposable (even the Republicans don't like the death penalty or for-profit prisons - we had one but it was shut down) we also don't have those endless fines. We are still working on racial gaps, particularly educational gaps, but those are consistently top-of-mind among state lawmakers and the public when polled.

It's about civilization vs plutocracy.

 

[Lianne Marten]

The system is designed to punish poor people and minorities while protecting rich people from actual consequence. This is all working as intended.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

For what it's worth, in the UK fines are based on the defendant's weekly income after tax and national insurance, ranging between 50% to 600% of the relevant income, depending on the seriousness of the offence.

On the very basic facts here (he did drive briefly, but no harm was done and he abandoned his attempt to drive as soon as he realised he was unfit) I think (though this isn't my area at all, and I could well be wrong) he'd probably be looking at a fine equivalent to two or three weeks' income, plus various charges amounting to a few hundred pounds.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

A 40% surcharge on the uncollected debt, and that's legal? In most Western countries this would just been viewed as daylight robbery, and illegal.

And that the American legal system is really bad, some just call it "mug justice", is a global known fact. No other country is so keen on putting their citizens into jail like America does. No other country world wide has so many jails, even surpassing China on the quantity. And if you put this in relation to the population, it gets even far worse.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

If your friend's son was instead someone who was killed by a drunk driver, you might think 35k was them getting off cheap.

Sure your friend's son saw the error of his ways but only after he put everyone else's lives at risk. Maybe he didn't harm anyone this time, but what about next? The fact he had to be so drunk that he passed out after pulling over to realize he was too drunk to drive makes me question how many times he did this before and got away with it. Hopefully this ordeal was enough to teach him a lesson.

Yes, but sentencing has to be on the basis of what the defendant is convicted for, and what the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of that particular offence actually were.

It's not a direct comparison, I know, but I looked up the sentencing guidelines for what I think is the equivalent offence in English law, which would probably be Excess Alcohol (in Charge of a Motor Vehicle) or the more serious Unfit through Drink or Drugs (in Charge of a Motor Vehicle). I'm a bit surprised he wasn't charged with the even more serious Excess Alcohol (driving or attempting to drive) since he admits to having driven the car a short distance, but the court has to deal with the case the prosecution brings it.

f you take a look at the guidelines you'll see that the seriousness of the offence is assessed by considering both the degree of culpability of the offending behaviour and by the amount of harm actually caused. The court then considers other aggravating and mitigating factors, but those two are the ones that determine the range of sentences the court should consider.

I'd say high culpability, since he actually did drive a short distance, but low harm (there's no evidence that he was seriously intoxicated, as opposed to feeling tired and realising that his tiredness, in combination with the excess alcohol, meant it would be advisable to pull over).

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I wonder what his blood alcohol level was at the time he drove (which I'm surprised wasn't available to the court, through back-calculation).

Based on what I've heard of local charging practice in some US jurisdictions, I'm wondering if the idea might not have been to charge him with the lesser offence so he and his parents are so relieved he's escaped a charge of DWI, and a likely custodial sentence, they don't complain too much about the apparently oppressive financial penalties.

 

[danielravennest]

No other country is so keen on putting their citizens into jail like America does. No other country world wide has so many jails, even surpassing China on the quantity. And if you put this in relation to the population, it gets even far worse.

I thought the whole point was to lock up minorities so they couldn't reproduce or vote. Being "Tough on Crime" was the political fig leaf to cover up the main purpose.

 

[Sean Gorham]

Everyone has their hand in the pie. It's like our legal system is nothing but one big scam.

That's because it is one big scam. It's not about justice. It's about who can pay more. PROFIT ÜBER ALLES.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I want to point out that much smaller fines of just a few hundred dollars aren't necessarily a great solution. This results in punishments that are basically just the cost of fun for well off people, but cost rent to poor people.

One idea could be to give someone the option of spending 1-2 days in jail for minor offenses that won't go on your background check. You are given a month or so to schedule it, so you don't have to miss work (which could be devastating for some people) but it will ruin a weekend or vacation day for you. My thinking is that this isn't the end of the world for poor people, but is also quite painful for well off people who'd wipe their ass with a 500 dollar fine.

I know it's common to try to scale the fine based on income, but I don't think this is a great solution either since many rich people, and many criminals have complicated finances that make it very hard to right size a fine.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I want to point out that much smaller fines of just a few hundred dollars aren't necessarily a great solution. This results in punishments that are basically just the cost of fun for well off people, but cost rent to poor people.

One idea could be to give someone the option of spending 1-2 days in jail for minor offenses that won't go on your background check. You are given a month or so to schedule it, so you don't have to miss work (which could be devastating for some people) but it will ruin a weekend or vacation day for you. My thinking is that this isn't the end of the world for poor people, but is also quite painful for well off people who'd wipe their ass with a 500 dollar fine.

I know it's common to try to scale the fine based on income, but I don't think this is a great solution either since many rich people, and many criminals have complicated finances that make it very hard to right size a fine.

There are plenty of sentences other than fines and immediate imprisonment available (at least in the UK there are, and I see no reason why the US couldn't adopt them, if it hasn't already). In addition to probation, English courts can pass sentences including curfews enforced by electronic tags and unpaid work requirements, whether on their own or in addition to a suspended prison sentence.

Given the little we know of the case, I think an English prosecutor (dunno about Scotland) would probably, since he admitted driving before falling asleep, have prosecuted for our equivalent of DUI and, depending on the amount of alcohol the young man was proved by back calculation to have had in his bloodstream at the time, in addition to a mandatory disqualification from driving for at least a year, he'd probably have been looking at either a fine equivalent to a couple of weeks' income plus a few hundred pounds in various fees, or maybe an unpaid work requirement. But a lot depends on how drunk he was at the time he drove or attempted to drive.

Over her we try to avoid giving people oppressive and burdensome fines. There's no point, since it's just setting them up to fail, which just wastes the court's time dealing with them when they do. Once we've convicted someone the goal (not always realistic, of course) is that the courts won't see him again.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Once we've convicted someone the goal (not always realistic, of course) is that the courts won't see him again.

How will you ever fill up for profit prisons with that method?