There are a variety of costs associated with the criminal justice system that aren’t discussed in polite company, from the time lost to arrest and incarceration to the hard-earned money paid out to lawyers to defend. One of my favorite questions from potential clients is “why do I have to pay if I’m innocent?”
But Massachusetts has raised cost to a new level, by approving a shift of costs to the defendant even when the he prevails. That’s right: Lose, you pay. Win, you pay. Either way, you pay. Via Turley, from the Newspaper :
Motorists issued a traffic ticket in Massachusetts will have to pay money to the state whether or not they committed the alleged crime. According to a state supreme court ruling handed down yesterday, fees are to be imposed even on those found completely innocent. The high court saw no injustice in collecting $70 from Ralph C. Sullivan after he successfully fought a $100 ticket for failure to stay within a marked lane.
Bay State drivers given speeding tickets and other moving violations have twenty days either to pay up or make a non-refundable $20 payment to appeal to a clerk-magistrate. After that, further challenge to a district court judge can be had for a non-refundable payment of $50. Sullivan argued that motorists were being forced to pay “fees” not assessed on other types of violations, including drug possession. He argued this was a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause, but the high court justices found this to be reasonable.
The court’s rationale, that the state merely needed to meet the rational basis test for its imposition of fees on the innocent, was satisfied by the costs of process.
“We conclude that there is a rational basis for requiring those cited for a noncriminal motor vehicle infraction alone to pay a filing fee and not requiring a filing fee for those contesting other types of civil violations,” Justice Ralph D. Gants wrote for the court. “Where the legislature provides greater process that imposes greater demands on the resources of the District Court, it is rational for the legislature to impose filing fees, waivable where a litigant is indigent, to offset part of the additional cost of these judicial proceedings.”
Implicit in this rationale is that a traffic infraction is non-criminal, a distinction used with convenient frequency to penalize a person without the state being forced to endure all those nasty rights associated with criminal proceedings. From one perspective, it’s better that a person who is convicted of traffic infraction doesn’t have to go on the Heinous Criminals Registry, along with murderers, rapists and jay-walkers.
On the other, you end up with the anomalous situation presented here, where the cost of fighting, and winning, a ticket is higher than just paying it in the first place.
Fines are punitive. They are a punishment for violating a law. But court costs aren’t punitive. They are merely the price of living in a free society that provides a wealth of benefits and services to its citizens for their welfare. To serve you better…
When the financial incentives are crafted in a way that the punishment for losing is less painful than the price of winning, it is irrational. And it violates due process. The recipient of a traffic ticket is being charged with unlawful conduct. That it is nominally an infraction doesn’t make it any the less unlawful. That we don’t call them criminals (at least in court decisions) doesn’t make it light and fluffy. Indeed, see how much fun it is if you don’t bother to respond for your ticket and a warrant is ordered. When they ask you to come to court nicely, they really don’t mean that it’s up to you if you have nothing better to do that day.
So if it’s in the nature of a criminal proceeding, even though conviction isn’t considered criminal (though they still use words like “guilty” and “conviction,” the keystones to a criminal prosecution), the imposition of costs to enjoy the process for the innocent makes no sense at all.
That there are costs to having a legal system isn’t the question. Clearly, there are costs. But crafting a pay to play legal system for matters of a criminal nature, resulting in punishment, is hardly rational. It’s a financial incentive to avoid the exercise of due process and just take the least expensive route by pleading guilty and paying the fine, innocent or not.
Yet again, courts demonstrate that we have the best legal system money can buy. So how much due process can you afford?
T
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I can’t imagine enough people caring to gain traction for something like this, but what would be the ramifications of a (probably state-level) constitutional amendment saying that the government cannot commence civil process for anything that a private citizen cannot? “There’s no jail time, so it’s not a crime” (so the state has lower burden of proof) shouldn’t wash, but it does.
I suspect you’re quite correct, it doesn’t touch many people and in the grand scheme of horribles, it’s not the worst thing that’s ever happened. That’s why I decided to write about, because it’s still wrong.
You might not want to let the criminal court “justice” system off the hook too easily. There is the non-refundable 10% bail bond fee in most states. The acquitted defendant could sue for violation of civil rights to get his or her 10% back, but would likely lose on “qualified immunity” grounds.
The creation of the “civil infraction” to decriminalize traffic and some other offenses is fine. The problem is the apparent conclusion that a citizen daring to dispute some government employee plaintiff’s claim is an inconvenience which justifies charging a fee is another.
I will bet that Massachusetts politicians exclude these “fees” when they brag about keeping taxes down.
I see things haven’t improved in Mass. When my ancestor Katherine Chatham arrived in Boston in 1660 she was thrown in jail for over a year for being a Quaker. They even sent her into the woods in the middle of winter, hoping she would get sick and die. Didn’t die, married John Chamberlin in 1661, he died in 1666, then she married Valentine Huddleston, my ancestors. I think it’s time to Restore Justice in Mass, and the whole nation. Lets reverse course and put some of the Judges and those traitors we’ve elected in Jail. Valentines great grandson Seth Huddleston was born in Dartmouth in 1744, he married a Lydia Gifford of Sandwich, MA and moved to N.C. in 1787, where my other ancestors from Nantucket had arrived there in 1772. Nantucket was settled in 1660 by Mass, citizens who were tired of being persecuted unfairly. That’s been a long time, and it doesn’t look like theres been any improvement. Why?
My two ancestors George Soule and Francis Cooke came on the Mayflower for Freedom, looks like that never happened. Will Mass. every respect our Rights in this nation? Or is that expecting too much. It’s time to ReVote to Restore America
Because I’m weird like this, I went to my precinct caucus (which was combined with a number of precincts from my rural area) last night and proposed something like this as a resolution. As I suspected, I was terrible at explaining it, but my resolution did pass in one precinct (mine, since I was the only resident of my precinct to show up). So, I have another shot at it in March if I choose.
The responses I got were along the lines of:
1. So, if someone runs their car into a government building, the government should have to provide a lawyer for that person? (No, I’m not proposing that, because a private party could be similarly situated and commence a tort liability action under the same circumstances.)
2. But, a private individual *can* charge you with speeding! (Really, what happened?) Well, they called the sheriff, and the sheriff issued me a ticket. (Well, no, the county charged you with speeding, and this resolution would have helped you.)
3. But, you can just go to court to get the judge to dismiss the ticket! (Maybe, but that’s beside the point. I was out of “in support of” responses allowed at this point, so I did not get to respond.)
Do you have any suggestions on a better way to get regular people to understand the problem? I can e-mail you the resolution text (which I cannot change at this point) if you want.
Suggestions? Nope. People “understand” what is in their enlightened self-interest to understand. When it’s their turn, they get it. Until then, they never do, and there’s no way to make “regular people” comprehend it before their ripe.