MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

EDITED BY TARA HERIVEL AND PAUL WRIGHT

"Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor" offers a compelling examination of the intersecting issues of poverty and incarceration in the United States. Through meticulous research and incisive analysis, this book sheds light on the troubling reality of how the most vulnerable members of society are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. Blending personal narratives with stark statistics, the author navigates the complex web of policies and practices that perpetuate a cycle of poverty and imprisonment. An urgent call to action, "Prison Nation" challenges readers to confront the deep-rooted inequalities that plague the American justice system and to advocate for meaningful change.

Routledge. NEW YORK AND LONDON. 2003. 333p.

By Wren Collective

 As we documented in part 1 of Death by Design, in every case that resulted in a death sentence, trial lawyers failed to uncover compelling evidence that could have convinced a district attorney to drop a death sentence or a jury to give life in prison rather than death. Attorneys failed to investigate and did not present evidence of their client’s mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities. They missed galling examples of physical and sexual abuse of their clients because they did not talk to family or witnesses. They did not prepare important experts to testify until the day that they were supposed to take the stand. The first report largely dealt with the failings of the lawyers in capital cases. This report examines why that poor representation has thrived, and the ways that the judges overseeing those cases have enabled it to continue that way. First, judges seemingly ignore the excessive caseloads that many attorneys have, even though they are in charge of appointing lawyers to cases. Second, there is an inherent conflict of interest when judges are in control of both the appointments and the purse strings of a case because it means the attorney’s livelihood is dependent on pleasing the judge. If judges value quick resolution of cases over dedicated representation, a lawyer may feel, consciously or not, pressure to hurry the case along and ask for too little time and money, at the expense of the client. We have heard numerous examples of this occurring, especially when it comes to hiring experts and mitigation specialists, who are tasked with investigating a client’s life history for the punishment phase of trial. Third, the judges in Harris County have never established meaningful training requirements for lawyers, or any requirements at all for the mitigation specialists. Therefore, many people perform their work without the training they need in mental health, trauma, or even interviewing skills. In the end, we recommend a total overhaul to the system of capital representation for poor defendants, with either the public defender absorbing those cases or the judges establishing a new, freestanding capital public defender that is independent from judicial oversight. Such systems exist across the country and have been enormously effective in providing constitutionally compliant representation to individuals facing the ultimate punishment. Harris County should follow suit.    

Austin, TX?: Wren Collective, 2023. 18p.

By Devah Pager, Rebecca Goldstein, Helen Ho, and Bruce Western 

  Court-related fines and fees are widely levied on criminal defendants who are frequently poor and have little capacity to pay. Such financial obligations may produce a criminalization of poverty, where later court involvement results not from crime but from an inability to meet the financial burdens of the legal process. We test this hypothesis using a randomized controlled trial of court-related fee relief for misdemeanor defendants in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. We find that relief from fees does not affect new criminal charges, convictions, or jail bookings after 12 months. However, control respondents were subject to debt collection efforts at significantly higher rates that involved new warrants, additional court debt, tax refund garnishment, and referral to a private debt collector. Despite significant efforts at debt collection among those in the control group, payments to the court totaled less than 5 percent of outstanding debt. The evidence indicates that court debt charged to indigent defendants neither caused nor deterred new crime, and the government obtained little financial benefit. Yet, fines and fees contributed to a criminalization of low-income defendants, placing them at risk of ongoing court involvement through new warrants and debt collection.

American Sociological Review, Volume 87, Issue 3, 2022.

By Mary Pattillo and Gabriela Kirk

Monetary sanctions include fines, fees, restitution, surcharges, interest, and other costs imposed on people who are convicted of crimes ranging from traffic violations to violent felonies.  We analyze how people in the court system theorize about monetary sanctions with regards to four kinds of justice: constitutional, retributive, procedural, and distributive justice.  Drawing on qualitative interviews with sixty-eight people sentenced to pay monetary sanctions in Illinois, we identify five themes that illuminate how respondents think about these forms of justice: monetary sanctions are: (1) justifiable punishment, (2) impossible to pay due to poverty, (3) double punishment, (4) extortion, and (5) collected by an opaque and greedy state.  We find that for defendants in the criminal justice system, monetary sanctions serve some retributive aims, but do not align with the other three domains of justice.  We discuss the policy implications of these findings.

UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review  Volume 4, Issue 1, 2020.