Criminal Customers: The Criminalization of Poverty and the Systemic Exploitation of the Working Class
Michael Simone
10 May 2017
Going to court is a stressful and frequently expensive ordeal. Most court appearances result in a monetary retribution, whether to an adversary or the state, and usually come with fine print. Financial obligation to another always comes with strings attached. For those unable to immediately meet their fiduciary duty, penalties can be severe. Inability to pay a fee often results in the tacking on of another fee, for being unable to pay the initial fine. With all these fines being imposed, one may feel as though being poor is a disadvantage in the justice system. The possibility of going to jail for not having money has many people feeling criminalized, without committing a crime. Detention for nonpayment of court-imposed monetary sanctions is frequent in many states, and individuals who have failed to timely meet payments fill prison cells across the nation. When one considers the barrier of re-entry to the public a prison term and debt has on the neediest Americans, it is clear to see why the practice of municipal financial penalties is a serious problem in our country. The deadly War on Crime has taken many forms, and various methods have been used to “crackdown on crime” such as targeting drugs, jaywalking, and the sale of individual cigarettes as was the case in the death of New Yorker Eric Garner. The latest crime fighting model has been a crackdown on the lowest earning Americans, and where they live. By simply imposing substantial legal debt on the dangerous and unsavory, local governments can tax these individuals into prison, thus creating a safer environment for law- abiding Americans. Right?
The city of Ferguson, Missouri was recently the latest battleground of race and class warfare, as an investigation into the city’s police department detailed several practices by the municipality’s police force and court systems used to punish and imprison black and poor members of the community. The trends in Ferguson’s municipal court are not dissimilar from those in the courthouses of New Jersey. Seventy-two percent of the city’s prison population was detained to await a trial or hearing in state and municipal court. In the state of New Jersey, 73% of the prison population is in state custody awaiting a trial or sentencing (66% for state court, 7% for municipal hearings). Of arrests made by the Ferguson Police Department for outstanding municipal warrants, 96% of those arrested were black. In New Jersey, blacks and Hispanics make up 71% of the of the prison population despite representing less than 35% of the state’s total population. Both feature jurisdictional control to detain or arrest individuals in default of debt to the court. In N.J. alone, almost 90% of prisoners are male, and almost half the prison population is younger than 30. In 2012, there were six million case filings in municipals courts in the state. Of criminal cases filed, 52% were on backlog (cases not resolved within 60 days), compared with 39% of traffic cases that took a similar time to complete. The total percentage of cases not resolved in 60 days was 41%. It is estimated that 80-90% of those charged with criminal offenses qualify for indigent defense, despite poverty only affecting 15.5% of Americans, and 10.8% of New Jerseyans. Across the country, 27% of blacks fall below the poverty threshold, compared to 24.3% of Hispanics, and 12.7 % of whites. In New Jersey, blacks account for 20% of the state’s impoverished people, Hispanics for 20.4%, and whites as 8.2%.
The reality of Ferguson’s discrimination was not fully realized until a thorough investigation conducted by the U.S Dept. of Justice. The findings in the report showed substantial amounts of evidence the city’s law enforcement practices primary focus was on revenue, and not public safety needs. The emphasis placed on revenue led to unconstitutional policing practices and court procedures that may amount to a violation of due process and an obvious infliction of harm on community members. These practices contributed to the perpetuation of racial stereotypes and “racial bias.” Court fees are a form of discrimination against the poor because multiple exorbitant fees create a debtor’s prison for working class individuals who are unable to pay the fees. The fees create pseudo-debtor’s prison that enables courts to become a financial parasite on these individuals.
Continue reading this article in its entirety below: