Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jeff Sessions Takes a Stand for Debtors’ Prisons
COMMON DREAMS | 29 DECEMBER 2017 | Nusrat Choudhury

Posted on 12/29/2017 3:50:24 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/12/29/jeff-sessions-takes-stand-debtors-prisons


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: progressives
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last
To: FreeReign

OK. You have ONE recusal. Go with it.


81 posted on 12/29/2017 6:51:48 PM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
Post them. I might pee on your carpet.

What?

I posted the transcript.

Quit looking at your pee pee and read the damn transcript.


82 posted on 12/29/2017 6:53:11 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Not on excerpt list and left scroll bar blocks the text - unreadable.

Here it is in full.

************

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.

The Obama Justice Department issued the 2016 letter after reports and lawsuits by the ACLU and other groups revealed how modern-day debtors’ prisons function in more than a dozen states, despite the fact that the U.S. two centuries ago formally outlawed jailing people simply because they have unpaid debts.

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.

Modern-day debtors’ prisons received unprecedented national attention in 2015 when the Justice Department issued a 185-page report in its investigation of the Ferguson Police Department after the shooting of teenager Michael Brown. It documented how Ferguson police sought to advance the “City’s focus on revenue rather than ... public safety needs,” leading to the routine incarceration of poor people to elicit court fine and fee payments, which raised due process concerns and reflected racial bias.

This wave of attention on draconian debtors’ prisons spurred the Justice Department to issue the 2016 letter on fines and fees.

Prior to rescinding the letter and other Obama-era guidances the attorney general claimed that such documents constitute overreach and “impose new obligations” on parties “outside the executive branch.” But that is not what the Justice Department letter on fines and fees did.

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.

Sessions’ withdrawal of the letter on fines and fees cannot rescind these principles or the caselaw on which they are based. Nor can it stop the ongoing momentum behind reform of modern-day debtors’ prisons in places like Biloxi, Mississippi; Missouri; Ohio; Michigan; and New Hampshire.

Several weeks ago, a federal court ruled that New Orleans judges faced a conflict of interest in jailing poor people for unpaid fines because the judges control the money collected and rely on it for court funding. That same week, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction halting Michigan’s system for suspending driver’s licenses upon non-payment of traffic tickets due to constitutional concerns. And days later, the Mississippi Department of Public Safety agreed to reinstate the driver’s licenses of all drivers whose licenses were suspended for non-payment of court fines and fees.

There is no place in this country for a justice system that lets rich people buy their freedom while poor people are locked up or lose their driver’s licenses because they can’t afford to pay money to courts. The momentum for change will continue even as the current Justice Department declines to lead by encouraging fairness and equal treatment of rich and poor.


83 posted on 12/29/2017 6:55:07 PM PST by Larry Lucido (Take Covfefe Ree Zig!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
OK. You have ONE recusal. Go with it.

Sessions has recused himself from the "Clinton e-mail" investigation, the "Clinton Foundation" investigation, and any investigation that might "otherwise be connected to" those investigations. That would include the dossier, the FISA warrant, Uranium One...etc.

Those are multiple recusals.

84 posted on 12/29/2017 6:56:19 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
that could place me objectivity in question.


Well there you go.

85 posted on 12/29/2017 6:59:56 PM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
"that could place me objectivity in question." Well there you go.

That's not my quote. You shouldn't imply that it is by italicizing it as a response to my post.

And it's all that you have.

86 posted on 12/29/2017 7:04:15 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Actually I am fine. Mr. Jeff Sessions is your AG and I wake up with Bacon and Eggs. It is your bitch ass in a sling.


87 posted on 12/29/2017 7:17:53 PM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Trump won. Trump won. Trump won.

Good Luck and Happy New Year............


88 posted on 12/29/2017 7:24:26 PM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

“Right, because taxpayers don’t foot any of the bill for people in jail.”

Good point. That is why prisons should be privatized entirely and run as any business would. The prisoners need to be doing their labor and pay back debt to society and their victims. No more tax payer dollars feeding these criminals while they enjoy their hotel stay.


89 posted on 12/29/2017 10:51:27 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sten
Yeah - because those of us who pay off our debts and credit cards as agreed to really get a kick out of those commercials that blare

WHAT THE CREDIT COMPANIES DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW - YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY OFF ALL YOUR DEBT - LET US HELP YOU PASS IT ON TO THE RESPONSIBLE

In today's society of irresponsibility, I'd love to see punishment for those who spend what they don't have - time after time after time - and keep getting away with stiffing the rest of us.

90 posted on 12/30/2017 4:21:48 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone? I think Trump may give it back...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

While “court fees” rightfully may offset the costs of providing the courts, I believe it wrong, and corruption-inducing, if a court “depends” on those fees for its funding.

We, the taxpayers, need to provide for our courts, but they should not be used as needed “revenue centers” where extracting all they can in fees is a necessity, or a desire, in how they are funded.

When someone does not have the funds for a fee, NOTHING stops the courts or the prosecutors from working out a payment plan, in installments of money or work from the person who cannot pay.

Suspending a driver’s license for failure to pay a court fee only helps insure the person may not keep any work they do have, or may get, that could help pay the fee. It’s stupid.

It seems some modern courts are in fact resurrecting de facto “debtors prisons”, and operating courts as a “revenue stream” inducing the collection of as much in “fees” as they can extract.


91 posted on 12/30/2017 7:11:08 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson