A couple weeks ago, the New York Times reported on a recent phenomenon happening around the United States: Imprisonment for debt. Here's a segment from the story:
The article later concludes:"Here is a tale that sounds like it comes right from the pages of “Little Dorrit,” Charles Dickens’s scathing indictment of VictorianEngland’s debtors’ prisons. Unfortunately, it is happening in 21st-century America.
Edwina Nowlin, a poor Michigan resident, was ordered to reimburse a juvenile detention center $104 a month for holding her 16-year-old son. When she explained to the court that she could not afford to pay, Ms. Nowlin was sent to prison. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which helped get her out last week after she spent 28 days behind bars, says it is seeing more people being sent to jail because they cannot make various court-ordered payments. That is both barbaric and unconstitutional.
In 1970, the Supreme Court ruled that it violates equal protection to keep inmates in prison extra time because they are too poor to pay a fine or court costs. More recently, the court ruled that a state generally cannot revoke a defendant’s probation and imprison him for failing to pay a fine if he is unable to do so."
"Prisoners’ rights advocates worry that in these hard times, when government budgets are under pressure, courts and prisons will get even tougher about forcing indigent defendants to pay costs and fees, and will imprison more of them if they cannot come up with the money. The government should be helping people on society’s margins build productive lives. Throwing them in jail for being poor makes that much more difficult."This is a scary and sobering story, of which its main example inexcusably comes from our state! I always assumed this was one of our most basic rights; I guess some governmental bodies are in disagreement, brought on by very desperate times. I hope we can get past these archaic methods - jailing someone impoverished is a quick way to inflame the problem, not a solution to state budget woes.
It certainly serves as an example, albeit an extreme one, to the complexity of economic struggles in both our state and America as a whole. We need to pull together our resources now and unite, not fight the poorest population for every last dollar.
Posts
2 comments:
Of course Kevin's "humanitarian" argument touches on the basic values on which our country was founded.
However, in today's world of pragmatism and extraordinary economic distress, some may be more moved to do the right thing, even if for less noble reasons.
Does anybody really think that paying $100 a month comes anywhere near covering the direct cost of incarcerating someone in a juvenile or other penal institution? Of course not. And what about the underlying costs, in terms of lost wages, income tax, sales tax and other lost revenue based on removing someone who might otherwise be a productive member of society?
The environmental movement is just now bringing attention to the true cost of industrial and commercial activities based on resource depletion, foreign-produced oil consumption, and global warming effects.
We need to focus more attention on the true cost of high drop-out rates, generational poverty, racial and social injustice, and the growing disparity of the haves vs. the have nots.
Statistics are not enough. People have got to be shown in dramatic terms not only the costs of our current failure, but the possibilities of systemic reform. Humanity is defined by values that teach that every life, each person has the right to dignity, fair treatment, and equal protection under the rule of law.
Gary you are dead on. There is a very logical and pragmatic reason for focusing on having more equitable communities. We need both data and personal experiences to highlight the plight of experiences such as these.
One program that I feel does this very well is our poverty simulations - we put people into the shoes of those less fortunate and do it based with factual and real experiences.
Thanks for your insight.
Post a Comment