Bearden v. Georgia

Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case holding that a local government can only imprison or jail someone for not paying a fine if it can be shown, by means of a hearing, that the person in question could have paid it but "willfully" chose not to do so.[1][2][3]:232

Bearden v. Georgia
Argued January 11, 1983
Decided May 24, 1983
Full case nameBearden v. Georgia
Citations461 U.S. 660 (more)
103 S. Ct. 2064; 76 L. Ed. 2d 221; 1983 U.S. LEXIS 39
Case history
PriorBearden v. State, 161 Ga. App. 640, 288 S.E.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1982); cert. granted, 458 U.S. 1105 (1982).
Holding
A sentencing court cannot properly revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine and make restitution, absent evidence and findings that he was somehow responsible for the failure or that alternative forms of punishment were inadequate to meet the State's interest in punishment and deterrence, and hence the trial court erred in automatically revoking petitioner's probation and turning the fine into a prison sentence without making such a determination.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
ConcurrenceWhite, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Background

Tunnel Hill, Georgia resident, Danny Bearden was convicted of robbery for breaking into a trailer as a young man. As a result, he was ordered to pay a $500 fine and $250 in restitution, which he was initially paying off until he lost his job and couldn't find another one.[4][5] This left him unable to pay the rest of his fines and fees, for which Georgia sent him to prison.[6] Bearden's case was handled by Jim Lohr, a court-appointed attorney who had graduated from law school only a few years earlier. Lohr spent hours researching in the library before the case.[5]

Ruling

On May 24, 1983, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that imprisoning Bearden violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to "fundamental rights".[6][7][1] In the Court's opinion, Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court's most junior Associate Justice at the time, wrote that it was "fundamentally unfair" for Georgia to have imprisoned Bearden.[7] The ruling held that local governments "must inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay" when dealing with revocation cases for people who failed to pay a fine, and that only if the probationer "willfully refused to pay or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay" can they be imprisoned or jailed.[8] The ruling also held that courts must consider alternatives to imprisonment and determine that they are insufficient to "meet the state's interest in punishment and deterrence" before sending someone to prison for nonpayment of a fine.[7]

Impact

Although the Bearden ruling required that the defendant in a case regarding not paying court fines can only be imprisoned if they "willfully" chose not to pay them, the Court did not define what "willfully" meant in this context. This has frequently led to judges having to determine whether someone who did not pay a fine was too poor to do so or not.[9] Some attorneys with many poor clients have argued that the requirement in Bearden that judges consider a defendant's ability to pay is almost never enforced.[5] In 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Kevin Thompson, who had spent five days in a Georgia jail for not paying a traffic ticket, arguing that Bearden was intended to prevent just such situations from happening. Thompson's lawyer also claimed that the court did not consider alternatives to imprisonment, like community service, as required by Bearden.[10]

See also

References
  1. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983).  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. Balko, Radley (21 October 2015). "A debtors' prison in Mississippi". Washington Post. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
  3. Bellacicco, Sarah (2013). "Safe Haven No Longer: The Role of Georgia Courts and Private Probation Companies in Sustaining a De Facto Debtors' Prison System" (PDF). Georgia Law Review. 48 (1): 227–267. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-02-08. Retrieved 2017-04-03.
  4. "Profiles Of Those Forced To 'Pay Or Stay'". NPR. 2014-05-19.
  5. Shapiro, Joseph (21 May 2014). "Supreme Court Ruling Not Enough To Prevent Debtors Prisons". NPR. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
  6. Pishko, Jessica (25 February 2015). "Locked Up for Being Poor". The Atlantic. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
  7. "Justices overturn jailing of man who was too poor to pay a fine". New York Times. 25 May 1983. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
  8. Wagner, Ann. "The Conflict over Bearden v Georgia in State Courts: Plea-Bargaining Probation Terms and the Specter of Debtors' Prison". University of Chicago Legal Forum. 2010 (1): 382–406.
  9. Shapiro, Joseph (19 May 2014). "As Court Fees Rise, The Poor Are Paying The Price". NPR. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
  10. Sneed, Tierney (6 February 2015). "Private Misdemeanor Probation Industry Faces New Scrutiny". US News & World Report. Retrieved 23 March 2016.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.