Photo credit: New York Times
In early September, cellphone video of a municipal courtroom judge threatening traffic offenders went viral. The municipal judge, Richard A. Diment told the traffic one offender “Until you get $300 here tonight, you won’t be able to leave.” While the offender did not receive jail time, the judge thought the threat was necessary in order to ensure that the payment was not being evaded. This raises the question, is the threat of imprisonment just a protocol? I think not. I see this use of power as a form of judicial coercion that can be seen as infringement of someone’s’ civil liberties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has established that people cannot be jailed for failure to pay, but the average citizen in court would not know this. Usually when one has a lawyer present, or some knowledge of the law, they are better prepared to react to such a threat. But then again, usually it is those who can afford legal aid. In this case in Bowdon, Georgia the individuals highlighted were minority males and stated they did not have the income to pay the fine. The judge took advantage of his authoritative position here, and issued a threat of imprisonment. His decision could be seen as deceptive and aggressive in the face of poor offenders.
In the Youtube video [composed of a compilation of cases]
, Judge Richard A. Diment tells another unemployed man, “You’re going to have to figure out a way to get his paid, do you understand me? Or you’re going to jail. One or the other, you understand?” As far as I know, this court is not a recognized “problem-solving court”, it is a small town Georgia court; and it does not have the power to suggest life-changing ultimatums. A judge’s responsibility is to lawfully interpret the law and this method seems slightly unlawful.
In response to the complaint, the city issued changes signed by Judge Diment in order to ensure fair justice. According to a New York Times report, some of the changes include: advising the defendants of their right to an attorney before entering a plea, stop requiring defendants to ask family/friends to pay their fines, and stop requiring immediate payment under the threat of jail time. A lawyer for the city wrote a letter stating, “The changes were in response to a new law [effective July 1st] designed to encourage better assessment of people’s ability to pay and curb fees…”
After considering resignation, Judge Diment decided instead to respond. In an interview with The New York Times, he claims he never jailed anyone for failure to pay. He claims, “I am not the ogre that the video makes me out to be. If they don’t come up with the money they are released. It’s my way of determining if they can pay or not.” Although this method is not unheard of, that does not make it just to force poor individuals to pay what they do not have. Judge Diment even briefly acknowledges the idea of community service. He states, “Ordering community service is another option, but it can be a heavy burden for people who work, or have family duties.” I don’t see the logic in acknowledging the burden for one option but not recognizing the burden the option of coercion takes on. It is rare and almost pointless that the judge responded publicly. The implementation of a new law admittance of a problem with this behavior, and his signing the city’s issued changes, is with intention to act in ordinance in future cases.
In the end, the inquiry for me shifts to considering how the video footage was captured. Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom and neither is cell phone usage. So does this show an undermining of the court system? Does this video provide evidence that implementing cameras in the courtroom is an idea we need to explore? Judges like in Judge Diment’s case must be made more aware of their effects and limitations as a judge. The threat of imprisonment is a threat that can have a negative impact of the defendant’s court experience, and therefore should not be used without thorough analysis of the defendant’s situation.