|
I think there's a craziness inherent in any system that says that the result of non payment of a $170 civil violation could mean you spend a year on probation and paying multiples of that (note that in your quote, the $580 is the court alone - collection fees get added to that, and his fees to the 'probation company' for supervising him, which he is subject to arrest if those aren't paid - huh, you outsource to a private agency probation supervision, but they get the weight of arrest behind their billing powers - nice little gig). And for many of these things, they are civil violations that aren't subject to criminal sanction. In theory. In reality, there's a nice little way around that. You are not allowed to be jailed for the infraction, but if you don't pay the fine, you are able to be arrested, and taken to court, where the judge will order immediate payment of that fine and a further fine, and if you can't pay both, then you'll now be found in contempt of court, and held in jail (or put on probation, where now you owe two fines, court costs, arrest costs, and ongoing probation costs, the missed payment of any one of which can lead to your immediate re-arrest and a compounding, repeating scenario). In multiples of these cases, people were not made aware of how they could pay. In some cases, as part of the probation paperwork they were offered to avoid -immediate jail time-, they had to waive the right to counsel (not sure how, or why that should be considered appropriate or legal - "here's your legal situation, you have options X, Y and Z. But only Z is open to you right now. Unless you decline the right to get advice on what the best option is for you") seems extortionate, especially since it is used as a method to corral and railroad people into what isn't necessarily the best option for the person, but the option that is the highest revenue generation stream for the city / county (and indeed, this is why the ACLU is involved). |