Tuesday, June 26, 2007
JAIL FEES FACE CHALLENGE IN GREENVILLE COUNTY SC
On June 26, 2007, The Greenville News reported that the propriety of imposing jail fees on inmates will be debated before Greenville County Council tonight.
On June 26, 2007, The Greenville News reported that the propriety of imposing jail fees on inmates will be debated before Greenville County Council tonight.
According to the article. "An aspirin or a request to see a doctor costs $5 each in the Greenville County Detention Center. Inmates also pay fees for a bag of chips or local phone calls -- unless it's a public defender, a judge or County Councilwoman Lottie Gibson on the line." Also, according to the article, "Telephone, canteen and medical fees generated more than $400,000 last year." More specifically, the telephone fees charged to the prisoners, at a rate of $1.20 for a one-minute call and $1.45 for a five-minute call" have generated about "$783,000 in telephone fees..in the past six years."
On June 27, 2007, Greenville Online reported "The debate over the fees [Greenville] county inmates pay for services like phone calls and medical attention got testier Tuesday, as a vote to study the issue eroded into a heated exchange between Councilman Tony Trout and county officials."
The article goes on to say "Trout again blasted jail administrators for what he called 'money-gouging' the families of inmates by charging for necessities like shampoo, socks and Bibles." Conversely, the comments posted by readers about Councilmen Trout are particularly nasty and personal.
Whatever one can say about the practice of accessing fees against prisoners who are often neither convicts nor criminals, at least the fees were authorized by Greenville County Council. That is not the case in Dorchester County
We have long argued that it is immoral to make a profit on the families of inmates by charging them for telephone calls at a rate that would be illegal in the "outside world." But, our position aside, we note that the telephone fees went back into the general fund. We wonder how the telephone fees were spent in Dorchester County. But, the audit should soon reveal the answer to this question.
The article goes on to say "Trout again blasted jail administrators for what he called 'money-gouging' the families of inmates by charging for necessities like shampoo, socks and Bibles." Conversely, the comments posted by readers about Councilmen Trout are particularly nasty and personal.
Whatever one can say about the practice of accessing fees against prisoners who are often neither convicts nor criminals, at least the fees were authorized by Greenville County Council. That is not the case in Dorchester County
We have long argued that it is immoral to make a profit on the families of inmates by charging them for telephone calls at a rate that would be illegal in the "outside world." But, our position aside, we note that the telephone fees went back into the general fund. We wonder how the telephone fees were spent in Dorchester County. But, the audit should soon reveal the answer to this question.
Monday, June 25, 2007
JUDGE WHO IS "SUING PANTS OFF OF CLEANERS" LOOSES CASE
We previously blogged on the case of JUDGE SUES CLEANERS FOR $65 MILLION OVER LOST PANTS.
We then provided an update from the New York Times on the case that "has spurred complaints to the District of Columbia Bar and city officials from national tort reform and trial lawyer groups worried about its effect on public trust in the legal system."
This case was so outrageous that we could not joke about it. But, others have. For example, The News Vault states "In another hilarious twist to this story, during his hearing today, the [plaintiff] ran out the courtroom with tears running down his face after recalling the lost pair of trousers that led to his lawsuit."
Today, however, http://www.washingtontimes.com/ reported Dry cleaners wins $54 million pants suit. The Defendants were awarded court costs, but the issue of whether they will be awarded attorney's fees is yet to be decided.
Judge Pearson’s two-year term expired on May 2, and a judicial panel has yet to decide on his reappointment; in the interim, he remains on the city payroll as an attorney adviser to the Office of Administrative Hearings, at a yearly salary of $100,512.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
DORCHESTER COUNTY TO AUDIT SHERIFF'S OFFICE
According to the Post and Courier, "Dorchester County will hire an auditor to find out why the sheriff's office spends so much money."
We are not surprised at this development and have seen it coming for years.
For related posts, log on to FREE INMATE LABOR, COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF TO BE INVESTIGATED, ANOTHER UNACCOUNTABLE SLUSH FUND PROGRAM?, PROFITING FROM INMATE LABOR, and INMATE LABOR.
We are not surprised at this development and have seen it coming for years.
For related posts, log on to FREE INMATE LABOR, COLLETON COUNTY SHERIFF TO BE INVESTIGATED, ANOTHER UNACCOUNTABLE SLUSH FUND PROGRAM?, PROFITING FROM INMATE LABOR, and INMATE LABOR.
Monday, June 18, 2007
FATHER'S DAY PRESS RELEASE FROM U. S. CENSUS BUREAU
According to a June 17, 2007 Press Release from the U. S. Census Bureau:
- Fathers make up 10% of the custodial parents who are owed child support.
- 740,000 fathers are owed child support.
- Custodial fathers received $2.1 billion in child support in 2003; they were due $3.3 billion.
- Custodial mothers received $23.3 billion of the $33.7 billion in support that was due in 2003.
- 46% of custodial fathers who received all child support that was due, not significantly different than the corresponding percentage for custodial mothers.
- Fathers received an average of $2,797 in child support in 2003, compared with $3,579 for mothers.
From our perspective, the government could do a much better job of collecting child support for both fathers and mothers.
Friday, June 15, 2007
APPOINTING CONSERVATIVE IMMIGRATION JUDGES
A few days ago, Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post confirmed what others have been saying for weeks. "If you are well connected within the Republican party, have a law license, and are a loyal "Bushie," you can be an immigration judge." According to the Post's detailed examination of the backgrounds of the 37 immigration judges approved by either Alberto Gonzales or John Ashcroft:
A few days ago, Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post confirmed what others have been saying for weeks. "If you are well connected within the Republican party, have a law license, and are a loyal "Bushie," you can be an immigration judge." According to the Post's detailed examination of the backgrounds of the 37 immigration judges approved by either Alberto Gonzales or John Ashcroft:
- At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.
- Two newly appointed immigration judges were failed candidates for the U.S. Tax Court nominated by President Bush; one fudged his taxes and the other was deemed unqualified to be a tax judge by the nation's largest association of lawyers. Both were Republican loyalists.
- Justice officials also gave immigration judgeships to a New Jersey election law specialist who represented GOP candidates, a former treasurer of the Louisiana Republican Party, a White House domestic policy adviser and a conservative crusader against pornography.
At the center of the controversial appointments are D. Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling. Both claim they did not know they could not consider politics when selecting immigration judges; yet according to the Post article, the Justice Department has confirmed that immigration judges are civil service employees who may not be chosen on the basis of politics.
We will not make cracks about Senior Department of Justice lawyers who did not know the basic law directly related to their jobs. But, we reiterate that we think this is the kind of thing that happens when judges are selected based on something other than merit. And in this case, appointing unqualified immigration judges only compounds the current impasse on immigration reform.
We will not make cracks about Senior Department of Justice lawyers who did not know the basic law directly related to their jobs. But, we reiterate that we think this is the kind of thing that happens when judges are selected based on something other than merit. And in this case, appointing unqualified immigration judges only compounds the current impasse on immigration reform.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
CHARLESTON COUNTY JAIL PROJECT FUNDING UNCERTAIN
The Post and Courier reports County jail project funding uncertain. "Rising construction costs have changed the project's price tag from an estimated $76 million in 2004 to at least $106 million now, which includes about $99.2 million for the actual facility and roughly $7.5 million to relocate some occupants on the site and to temporarily house some inmates."
We cannot help, but help but wonder why so little thought has been given to funding programs that may either help people avoid jail or help get them out of jail earlier. At the rate we are headed, more people will be in jail than out of jail.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
PARIS HILTON BECOMES A METAPHOR FOR COURT REFORM
"Did fame spring Hilton from jail early?" asked AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch.
This is known as a rhetorical question.
And its answer disturbs the Rev. Al Sharpton who said the release had "all of the appearances of economic and racial favoritism."
We are not much concerned about Paris being released early. Rather, we are concerned that:
"Did fame spring Hilton from jail early?" asked AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch.
This is known as a rhetorical question.
And its answer disturbs the Rev. Al Sharpton who said the release had "all of the appearances of economic and racial favoritism."
We are not much concerned about Paris being released early. Rather, we are concerned that:
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
S.C. FINE: $55 MILLION AND COUNTING
The Post and Courier reported that "Since 2001, the state [of South Carolina] has been fined more than $55 million for not complying with a federal law by setting up a computer system to track parents who don't make their child support payments."
Except for the amount of the fines--previously reported at $58 Million--this is primarily old news. However, the Post and Courier also reported, "thanks to ongoing legal problems with a company that wants to build the system, things may not change before more fines come due."
We note that there is no shortage of apologists stepping forward on behalf of DSS to proclaim what a great job is being done in the area of child support collection. But, this is utter nonsense. Heads should roll at DSS--there is simply no excuse for South Carolina being the only State to fail to comply with federal law, to have been fined more than the system costs, or to have an arrearage equal to four times what is collected on an annual basis.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS
Sunday, June 03, 2007
REDUCING INMATE POPULATION V. EXPANDING JAIL CAPACITY
According to the Post and Courier, Charleston County has a jail inmate population of 1,710 in a jail with a capacity of 661, Berkeley County has a jail inmate population of 340 in a jail with a capacity of 154, and Dorchester County has a jail inmate population of 250 in a jail with a capacity of 156.
According to the Post and Courier, Charleston County has a jail inmate population of 1,710 in a jail with a capacity of 661, Berkeley County has a jail inmate population of 340 in a jail with a capacity of 154, and Dorchester County has a jail inmate population of 250 in a jail with a capacity of 156.
While Charleston County is proceeding with its $110 Million plans to expand its jail, the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments is conducting a feasibility study into a regional jail. Once again, we question why there is no effort to create or fund programs to lessen the need for jail expansion. We note, "Society has to respond to lawbreakers, but it doesn't always have to lock them up."
Friday, June 01, 2007
UNIFORM PROCEDURE FOR EXPUNGING CRIMINAL RECORDS
The State reports, "The Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill [earlier this week] that sets a uniform procedure for expunging criminal records."
Under the proposed legislation, when cases are either dropped, not adjudicated, or result in an acquittal, the solicitors would be required to take the steps necessary to remove those charges from the defendant's record.
Under current law, it is the defendants' responsibility to initiate the expungement process themselves and they are responsible for fulfilling the requirements, including gathering signatures and contacting necessary state agencies. However, under proposed S.110 the county solicitors would be responsible for completing the expungement process.
State Senator Jake Knotts is quoted as saying "If a person is found not guilty or if it's thrown out, it should be taken off their record....It ought to be that agency's responsibility."
The State reports, "The Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill [earlier this week] that sets a uniform procedure for expunging criminal records."
Under the proposed legislation, when cases are either dropped, not adjudicated, or result in an acquittal, the solicitors would be required to take the steps necessary to remove those charges from the defendant's record.
Under current law, it is the defendants' responsibility to initiate the expungement process themselves and they are responsible for fulfilling the requirements, including gathering signatures and contacting necessary state agencies. However, under proposed S.110 the county solicitors would be responsible for completing the expungement process.
State Senator Jake Knotts is quoted as saying "If a person is found not guilty or if it's thrown out, it should be taken off their record....It ought to be that agency's responsibility."
We not only agree with Senator Knotts, but believe that there should be a uniform method for expunging Civil Contempt Arrest Records as well. Moreover, we think the South Carolina Legislature should at least consider some other suggested reforms.
Labels: Family Court Reform
