Poverty in the First Degree

Debtors prisons are back in style in Michigan, but the ACLU has decided that it is less than enamored of the latest trend in prison hemlines.


In December 2008, Ms. [Edwina] Nowlin’s 16-year-old son was sentenced to the Bay Pines Center and Ms. Nowlin was ordered to pay $104 per month for his lodging. At the time of this order, Ms. Nowlin was homeless and working part-time with a friend after being laid off from her job. She told the court that she was unable to pay the ordered amount, however the judge found her in contempt for failing to pay. In addition, Ms. Nowlin’s requests for a court appointed attorney were denied.

Since March 3, 2009, Ms. Nowlin has been serving her sentence at the Delta County Jail. On March 6, 2009, she was released for one day to work. Once released she picked up her $178.53 check from work thinking that she now could pay the $104.00 to get out of jail. However, upon her return to jail that evening, the sheriff forced her to sign over her check to the jail to cover $120.00 for “room and board.” She was also charged $22 for a drug test and the booking fee.

It’s almost as if the criminal justice system was run by credit card companies.  But as bizarrely ironic the Catch-22 created by Michigan may seem, it’s merely the off-shoot of measures that many believe are entirely appropriate in the system.  Why should the public pay the cost of warehousing criminals serving their sentences?  If they did the crime, they should pay for it.  Literally.

And so, the Michigan system provides a wonderful circularity, with poverty making it impossible to pay the costs of  incarceration, thus breeding more incarceration for failure to pay, and more and more.

While the Nowlin case provides one of the clearest, and most ridiculous, examples of how the trend toward making the criminal pay bears out, there are more subtle problems, as hinted in the ACLU’s press release.  Edwina was too poor to pay for a lawyer, but denied free counsel.  So there was no one to fight the contempt order.  And she was then incarcerated and compelled to pay for her own, as well as her son’s, cost of jail. 

The availability of a lawyer is but one more subtle problem.  What about the availability of competent investigators for indigent defenders?  What about the cost of audiotapes and copies of discovery documents that the government requires a defendant to purchase if they want to obtain them?  These costs can add up quickly, and in some cases, start out astronomical.    There are a laundry list of costs imposed on the presumptively innocent defendant, and the defendant’s inability to pay the freight along the way to his defense has a huge impact on his ultimately becoming incarcerated, and then having to pay the cost of that.

These problems aren’t some Michigan quirk, but happen in courtrooms across the country daily.  It takes money to defend oneself against the government, whether it’s the defendant’s or the state’s in providing and maintaining a viable indigent defense system for the poor.  Or, on the other hand, we just let the poor dangle in the wind for lack of ability to defend, so they then become criminals and then prisoners, where they can enjoy the circular experience of Edwina Nowlin.  The worst part of this is that I can imagine many not being particularly disturbed by the return of debtors prisons.  Indeed, I can see the truly ignorant applauding, thankful that the burden of “those people” has been shift off the back of “hard-working Americans.”

There is a cost associated with our law and order, jail ’em all, societal view of criminal justice.  Somebody has to pay it.  Tevye said it’s no crime to be poor, but then he was never under indictment.

6 thoughts on “Poverty in the First Degree

  1. Windypundit

    Why should the public pay the cost of warehousing criminals serving their sentences?

    In principle, because they are being warehoused for the good of the public. If the officials of Delta county profess to believe Ms. Nowlin belongs in jail, but they aren’t willing to pay for her incarceration, then I question their sincerity.

    More generally, maybe if government had to pay the full cost of imprisonment, they would be more careful how they use it.

  2. SHG

    Ah, but you can’t deny the surface appeal of making the criminal pay for his incarceration, and must assuredly understand how appealing the notion can be to so many, 110% Americans and politicians alike.

  3. Windypundit

    Yeah, this is a question of values. If criminal punishment has no cost, then it’s economically efficient to use punishment to “solve” every little problem. So, do we want to live in a world where that happens?

    I don’t, but a lot of people seem to want that, although I think many of them just aren’t paying attention to the issue. I’m optimistic about my fellow man that way.

  4. John Neff

    FWIW this appears to be a violation of the 8th amendment but it does not appear that anyone take that amendment seriously.

  5. Rick Horowitz

    I have a hard time believing our Founders would have approved this trend. Even those who didn’t mind debtors’ prisons would no doubt have flinched at the idea of the GOVERNMENT creating a debt, charging someone and throwing them in prison for failure to pay it and then, to add salt to the wound, let them out long enough to earn just enough money to pay for more incarceration.

    What you mention about discovery charges is happening everywhere, as you noted. I recently had a case in Clovis, CA. The prosecution CLAIMED to have evidence against my client in the form of two tape recordings. We were told that if we wanted to see the evidence, we had to go to the police department, pay $40 and then we might get to hear it. (I say “might” because someone told my investigator one of the tapes was inaudible.)

    We refused. I yanked a time waiver and requested it set for trial. Two days before trial, the case was dismissed.

    It seems to me if the government intends to prosecute someone the government should show the evidence, without fee, and, if there’s a conviction and the government (isn’t that “we, the People”?) WANTS to foot the bill, then let’s incarcerate them. If we, the People, don’t want to foot the bill, then we have no RIGHT to incarcerate.

    Maybe then we’ll start to work toward solving societal problems, instead of creating them.

  6. Wendy

    This case just sickens me to death! To begin with, I have known of Edwina since approx. 1998. Over the years I have seen this single mother struggle to make ends meet and has worked at times 2-3 jobs at a time. The last time I saw Edwina was approx. 1999 when we worked construction together. It was a terribly cold, rainy and windy day. She barely had enough clothing on her to protect her from the weather, but she did it.
    Bottom line, this family could have been spared all of this had someone listened to me over a year ago! This judge does not pay attention and I can prove and back it up! This so called judge should have been barred (yes barred a long, long time ago! Don’t make him step down (cause than he can still fill in when ever a judge is needed) Judge Goebel is old, senile, cold, callous, among a few other choice words.
    I hope the ACLU gets this man barred and give him a little taste of being poor! I think he should also lose his retirement! He is no Judge! He is a “Bully” and should be stopped before he ruins more lives!
    I also think Edwina should get a refund and get damages- Out of Goebel’s pocket! And the Sheriff who knew what he was doing!

Comments are closed.