From the Editor - Prison Legal News

Michigan Counties Unsuccessful at Collecting Costs of Jail Imprisonment
On September 12, 2007, the
Lenawee County Commission
became embroiled in a debate over how to
collect $6.3 million in outstanding “room
and board” fees from former jail prisoners
that had accrued over the past two fiscal
years. The county charges $43.28 per jail
day, but cuts that fee in half if the debt is
paid within 30 days of release.
What’s the problem? Start with the fact
that it is generally poor people who spend
time in jail rather than being released on
bond or paying fines. Mix in the fact that
jailing people is the perfect way for them
to lose their jobs, and a criminal record is
a great method to keep them from finding
employment after their release. Factor in
substantial court costs, fines and attorney
fees, and it is evident to anyone who is not a
Lenawee County Commissioner that most
released prisoners are in no position to pay
$43.28 per diem for back rent for time spent
in the local lock-up.
What’s the county’s solution to this
pressing problem? Jail accounts clerk
Sabrina Martinez has asked former prisoners
to collect cans and bottles for the
10-cent deposit and use that money toward
their jail bills. After all, we wouldn’t
want ex-prisoners using such nickel-anddime
income toward anything unessential
– like food, clothing, housing, child care
or medical treatment.
Another approach has been to turn
the bills over to the Ann Arbor Credit
Bureau (AACB), a collection agency that,
with a five to seven percent collection rate,
has double the success of the previous collection
firm. Of course that is a very small
rate of success, but who cares so long as
some of the deadbeat former prisoners are
made to pay. AACB also handles jail fee
collections for Washtenaw County. From
1999 to 2003, approximately $23,600,000
was billed to 13,800 former Washtenaw
County prisoners. The amount collected
during that time period was $231,437, or
less than one percent.
Lenawee County Commissioner
Karol “K.Z.” Bolton suggested a work
program for jail releasees to work off their
debts through “volunteer” labor. Who
would house and feed the “volunteer”
work crew, what kind of work they would
do and potential liability issues were not
addressed.
Martinez suggested that allowing
April 2008
by Matt Clarke
probation officers to accept minimal payments
over a long period of time might
work. “One guy took seven years to pay
his bill, but he paid it,” she said. That’s
a great way to save money. Keep former
prisoners on probation – everyone knows
that such supervision doesn’t cost the taxpayers
anything – until the jail bill is paid
at the rate of a few dollars a month.
Commissioner Dick Bailey suggested
in an angry tone that courts and police
should be more selective – only jailing people
with good credit ratings and incomes.
Perhaps he was being sarcastic, or perhaps
he just didn’t know what to do with poor
people who are arrested and convicted.
County Commissioner Jim VanDoren
said the jail worked hard to collect on
the bills and other counties were in much
32
worse shape. He suggested that state law
be changed to allow court-ordered reimbursement
of jail costs as a condition of
probation. The state legislature has shown
little interest in the suggestion. Maybe
they realize that, if faced with a non-paying
probationer whose term of supervision
was about to expire, they would have to
either continue the probation until the bill
was paid, costing the taxpayers additional
money, or jail the person again, which
would add to the bill.
It’s a lose-lose situation that will
probably never be resolved so long as
government officials insist on extorting
rent from their impoverished citizens for
imprisoning them.
Source: Daily Telegram
California’s Compassionate Release
Law Expanded to Include the
Medically Incapacitated
California’s compassionate release
law, which already provided that
prisoners who were physician-certified to
have less than six months to live may apply
for recall of sentence and release, was
expanded to include those who are totally
medically incapacitated. In addition, the
procedures to gain compassionate release
were streamlined to speed up approvals.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1539 was signed
into law in October 2007, amending Penal
Code § 1170(e) relating to the discretion
vested in the secretary of corrections and
the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) to
recommend a recall of sentence to the
sentencing court. § 1170(e)(2), which
previously provided such discretion if
(A) the prisoner is incurably terminally ill
with less than six months to live and (B)
the prisoner’s release conditions would
not pose a threat to public safety, now
offers, in lieu of (A), (C) the prisoner is
so medically incapacitated that he/she is
permanently unable to perform activities
of daily living and requires 24-hour total
care, such as being in a coma or vegetative
state, brain-dead, or on a ventilator (and
that these conditions did not exist at the
time of sentencing). These provisions do
not apply to prisoners sentenced to death
or life without parole.
Other provisions of amended § 1170
provide for procedures to gain such
consideration. The court must give the
required hearing within ten days after a
positive recommendation by prison or
BPH authorities. Another provision offers
the prisoner’s family the chance to request
such release directly of the prison’s Chief
Medical Officer, who may then recommend
court proceedings. Also provided is
that once approved by the court, the prisoner
must be released within 48 hours, and
shall have in their possession a discharge
medical summary, full medical records,
state identification, parole medications
and all personal property.
In other words, if you want to relieve
the state of your medical costs and can
afford private medical care, you may apply
to stay in a coma someplace other
than the prison hospital. It would seem
the rare instance wherein a prisoner or
his family could afford such 24-hour care,
only to sustain such a dismal quality of
life. And predictably, the “threat to public
safety”provision will probably be used
to engender denials based upon public
outcry by victims’ rights groups and politicians.
See: Assembly Pill 1539, Chapter
740, California Legislative Counsel’s
Digest, October 14, 2007.
Prison Legal News