Missouri proving yet again it cares more about its citizens than most other states (lately)

Missouri supreme court has ruled that courts are not allowed to jail people for court cost incurred that result from civil judgments.


ww.stltoday.com/news/local

For Leann Banderman, “case closed” might be the two most beautiful words in the English language.

That is the ending that Dent County Circuit Judge Kelly Parker wrote last week to Banderman’s three-year battle with the law.

It started at a Walmart in Salem in early 2016. Banderman stole some nail polish. Former Associate Circuit Judge Brandi Baird sentenced her to 30 days in jail. Then she got the jail board bill for $1,400, and Baird required her to show up monthly to make payments or face the threat of more jail. A year later, she spent nearly two more months in jail because she missed one of those hearings and couldn’t afford to make her payments. She got a new bill for $2,100.

This is the cycle of debtors prison that the Missouri Supreme Court sought to end with its unanimous decision last month in two cases that mirror Banderman’s. In the cases of George Richey and John Wright, the court said that judges cannot threaten defendants with more jail time over an inability to pay jail board bills. Those bills, if unpaid, must be sent to the Office of State Courts Administrator, the court said, where they could be collected civilly through income tax intercepts.

I pray that many other states start getting packed with common sense court justices. Instead of justices that seek to profit or make the system profit off the poverty and misery of its most vunerable citizens.

Bravo again Missouri!

a reply to: Fools

Great news

We eliminated the travesty of debtors prisons long ago. Now if we could only eliminate jailing those who can't pay other court ordered fees it would be golden. The only possible exception, IMO, is when fines are levied in place of jail time. If you can't pay the fine in that instance, then sure incarceration could be considered. But realistically, if the person could be "let off" with a fine to begin with is can anyone factually claim an overriding public safety concern that requires depriving him/her of their liberties? I would have to say no on that too

I personally take the position that more liberty is always better, and we have *far* too many laws on the books criminalizing every sort of conduct imaginable. Our law books should resemble the 10 commandments, not require 6-8 years of education and a gift at understanding the art of BS'ing to truly understand the law

a reply to: Fools

That is good news, and long overdue.

Should be a federal law.2nd line.