Rhode Island charges felons absurdly high court costs


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Imagine you are late to work. And in your rush to get to the office on time you run a red light. A cop sees the infraction, and to make matters worse you weren’t wearing your seatbelt and didn’t have your driver’s license or proof of insurance.

Now imagine you have to go to traffic court but your hearing keeps getting postponed. In a year, you may go to court ten times. Finally the judge dismisses two of your tickets, because you have a license and insurance, and fines you $100 each for running the red light and not wearing your seat belt, plus court costs.

You go to the clerk’s window to pay and your bill is over $6,000. You find out you were charged for 40 court dates. You actually only went to court 10 times, but they charged you four times on each date because you had four tickets.

gavel-moneyThis is absurd, right? Well, change traffic violation to felony and it’s not only absurd it is also the reality of being accused of a felony in Rhode Island.

NBC 10 recently reported that felons owe hundreds of thousands in court fines. But what they don’t tell you is how our fines got so high. I say our fines because I am a felon who came out of prison owing more than $6,000 in court fines.

In 2001, I got myself in trouble and was charged with about 15 crimes. I was guilty of most and do not argue that I should not have been charged or sentenced to prison. I should have been. They separated my charges for their reasons and I will not speculate why. They handed down five indictments, each with two or more charges. My case was dragged on for more than a year. I had at least one court date a month. Several times I didn’t even see a judge. My public defender would tell me my case was continued and give me my next court date.

Eventually, I was sentenced and had to go to prison. I was released in 2008 on parole. My charges were first degree robbery and breaking and entering, several of each. Even though I went into prison an eighth grade dropout and came out just shy of an associate’s degree, it was very tough to find construction work. My fault, I did the crime.

But I was also starting over with more than $6,000 in debt. Why? Remember all those court dates, at several of which I didn’t even see the judge? Well, every day I was scheduled for court, I was charged five times. Even when I did see the judge, I only stood in front of her once while she read aloud five case numbers.

When I did find a job, I needed to take time off once a week for a urine test, every two weeks for my parole office appointment and once every 90 days for my payment review. Sometimes it would happen that in one week I would need time for all three if they all landed in that week. How many employers want an employee who has my background and needs to regularly leave early or miss a whole day?

Not many. And that’s my problem, right? Wrong. I lost a couple of jobs but I still had to eat and pay rent. I collected public assistance on taxpayer dollars. I missed court a couple times because if I went and missed work I would lose my job. A warrant was issued, I was picked up, always on a Friday night and spent the weekend in jail – at a cost to Rhode Island of approximately $164 per day, plus the cost for the sheriff and all the taxpayer expenses.

A lot of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars has gone into ensuring I pay fines five times what they should be. And the harder I try to do the right thing, the harder I have been held down.

I do agree that people getting out of prison should be monitored but the fact is the majority of people in prison are getting out and will spread their roots and wings through every community in our state. We need to figure out a way to better monitor felons to make it easier to find and keep a job. We need to develop a way to monitor felons that allows them to find and keep a job. Court fines also need to be reevaluated to make them more fair and affordable for people starting over.

This post is published as part of the Prison Op/Ed Project, an occasional series authored by CCRI sociology students who are incarcerated at the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute. Read more here:

What prosecutors don’t understand about defense counsels


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

unprisonAround the nation there are prosecutors who are tasked with an overwhelming number of cases.  Occasionally they may have a serious felony, such as rape or murder, but what bogs them down is the immense number of simple possession charges and “broken windows” crimes as a result of police focusing on the petty, hoping to clear the streets of anyone who might commit the serious.  Even children who are merely being disruptive in school (without committing a crime) have begun to clog juvenile courts.  Like a waiter slammed with a lunch-hour rush, these prosecutors need to keep the assembly line moving just to keep their heads above water.

Prosecutors live and die by the plea bargain, or “The Deal.”  Nationally, over 95% of all criminal charges are resolved without trial; in some places the number can be even higher.

In courtrooms and holding cells, statements can be heard such as “The judge doesn’t like it when you file motions.”  This comes from marshals, prosecutors, bailiffs, and even defense counsel.  The judge is also trying to keep their head above water and get through their docket.  And this is how evidence is rarely challenged, witnesses are rarely needed, and experts are rarely provided.

Prosecutors can get emotional, like anyone else, and take it personally if defense counsel does something like… defend their client vigorously.

Court employees need to understand the job of the defense counsel is to work for the client.  They are obligated, by law and oath, to provide enough information to the defendants so they can make their own informed choices.  Defense counsel is not allowed to make decisions for the client, nor allowed to manipulate them.  If so, those lawyers could be professionally sanctioned, and even kicked out of the practice.

Do prosecutors not understand the role of defense counsel?  Perhaps because prosecutors have no client, and can act autonomously in the vague name of “the State,” they forget how the adversarial system is designed to work.  Realistically, if the State can’t be bothered to have their evidence scrutinized, or don’t think its worth the time to actually serve as “lawyers” (utilizing the Rules of Evidence and Procedure, along with case precedent), then the logical thing to do is to drop the charges.

Defense counsel does not work for the State, and should not be taking “advice” from the opposition any more than the coach of a team should be taking advice from the coach of their opponent.  And they certainly shouldn’t need to concern themselves with what the referees think about the length of the game, or how opposing players feel about the matchup.   Any opponent who is offended that their advice wasn’t heeded should just look in the mirror and ask how they would receive such advice.  What if it were the defense attorneys who approached the prosecutors, after an arrest, and offered the Plea Bargain?

“Listen, my client would like to get in this treatment facility and attend community college, but you will need to drop these charges.  She will agree to urine tests, however.  That’s the Deal- you should take it.”

Prosecutors should know that they hold the cards as to whether the case goes forward or is dismissed.  Naturally, low line prosecutors have less discretion, and are probably facing a ton of pressure to get convictions for an elected boss.  District Attorneys and Attorneys General are political positions, and few have had the courage or the persuasion to get elected on anything other than “Tougher on Crime” via increased convictions and punishment.

Defense counsels who stand up to the pressures of “The Deal” should be applauded for their courage to withstand what amounts to harassment in the workplace.  If they (or their clients) are given discriminatory treatment for asserting their constitutionally protected rights (including the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial), then perhaps a federal §1983 civil rights lawsuit is in order.

Dear Prosecutors: Don’t hate the players.  Hate the game.

Related articles