In Legal Terms - January/February 2002

Legislation Could Help Ease Jail Overcrowding

Currently under Alabama law, a convicted defendant may be held in the county jail for the willful failure to pay court-ordered costs and fines. See, Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-18-62. Under this law, a person may be held in jail for 10 days for costs and fines of $20 or less, and 90 days for fines in excess of $200 but less than $300. The court may add 25 days for each additional $100 or less due.

Let's face it, there are no fines of $20 or less in today's world. The docket fee for a traffic infraction is $92, assuming that there are no local court fees. Therefore, most defendants will fall under the highest bracket for jail time, and a person failing to pay a traffic ticket may end up in the county jail for 90 days or more.

In addition, current law provides that a person unable to pay court costs and fines may be sentenced to hard labor in the county jail to "work off" the debt at $10 a day. See, Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-18-63. The person may be held for up to ten months.

In this instance, the county is spending approximately $30 a day to house a defendant who is "working off" a debt due to the court. Keep in mind that no money is actually paid (and of course, counties do not generally receive any of the proceeds from court costs and fines anyway).

Furthermore, the court system is not providing any reimbursement to the county for persons held under these or any other circumstances.

It is unclear how frequently these laws are used today, but it is clear that they have the potential to add significantly to the overcrowding situation in the county jail. However, they apparently do serve a purpose.

Representatives from the Alabama District Attorneys Association have advised that the threat of jail time is a good incentive for defendants to pay these fines, particularly where the payment of these costs has been a condition of probation or a suspended sentence.

Nonetheless, the cost to the county and the sheriff can be significant - both in money and badly-needed jail bed space.

The Association is supporting legislation sponsored in the 2002 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature by Senator Harri Ann Smith (SB 223) and Representative Marcel Black (HB 95) to make changes in the law as now written.

This legislation (as written at the time of publication) would repeal the section allowing a defendant to be sentenced to hard labor when he or she is unable to pay court-ordered costs and fines, and amend the section dealing with incarceration for willful nonpayment to more properly reflect the costs and fines structure used in Alabama courts today.

The minimum term in jail would remain at 10 days. However, under the proposed bill, this sentence would be in place for costs and fines of $250 or less. The maximum sentence set out in the law would be 30 days for amounts owed between $500 and $1000, with the potential for an additional 4 days for each additional $100 or less.

Passage of this bill would certainly help to alleviate the county jail overcrowding situations to which these laws may contribute. However, while it has been generally well-received in the Legislature, it is too soon to tell whether it will, in fact, become law. In any case, I wanted to make counties aware of these laws, and their potential impact on the pressing and never-ending jail problems counties face each day.

I have suggested in the past that the county commission should work together with other officials in the county to address some of the jail overcrowding issues. This is one such area where cooperation from judges, DAs, and sheriffs could help significantly.

It is my understanding that these laws are used most frequently in misdemeanor cases involving traffic or other minor violations, and certainly there are instances where a willful failure or refusal to comply with a court's order justifies incarceration. However, placing a person in jail for failure to pay a speeding ticket may cause much more of a burden to the county jail system than the benefit it may grant to the court system.

Making the courts and prosecutors aware of these kinds of problems may help to encourage alternative methods of persuading defendants to reimburse assessed court costs and fines, or at least to limit the use of jail time in only the most serious or egregious cases.

It makes no sense to me to put some one in jail for the inability to pay off a debt, and frankly, I question whether this would pass constitutional muster.

In any case, while there may be instances where incarceration for a defiant refusal to pay costs is appropriate, jailing someone who cannot pay seems inappropriate, and the suggestion that through hard labor, the defendant is paying off the debt is somewhat ludicrous. The court is not receiving any financial benefit, and the financial and administrative cost of incarceration places a serious strain on the county and the sheriff charged with housing and supervising that inmate while he or she "works off" the debt.

As we are all too well aware, the problems in the county jail are complex, and the solutions to these problems are difficult to uncover and implement. Clearly, eliminating jail time for court costs would not solve the problem. However, until and unless long-term solutions can be found to address the funding and overcrowding issues counties and sheriffs face when dealing with their jails, it is important to look at areas where little things can be accomplished through cooperation of all interested parties.

The need for adequate jail space should be as important to the court and to the district attorney as it is to the county commission and the sheriff. Therefore, all should work together to find ways to alleviate some of the problems - in big or in little ways.