Chicago DUI lawyer comments on DUI convicts paying for jail

This Chicago DUI lawyer already posted here about debtor prisons. I've also posted here about the costs of a DUI arrest and conviction. Now comes word of charging people for their "stay" in jail.

September 6, Tucson, AZ

If Pima County officials have their way, more convicted drunken drivers will soon have to pay for the privilege of eating and sleeping at the county's Adult Detention Center.

Jail officials recently met with judges and top prosecutors to remind them that they have the authority to make convicted drunken drivers reimburse counties for the cost of locking them up — which the jail officials want them to do.

Although the law has been on the books since 1997, and prosecutors include it in plea agreements, judges have not been consistently imposing the fee, said Jan Kearney, presiding Pima County Superior Court judge.

Pima County statistics show 876 people were convicted of drunken driving between January and June of 2008. They spent a combined 16,595 days at the jail, costing the county about $1.24 million.

Still, Kearney and Superior Court Judge Richard Fields said the chances of judges imposing the fees remains unlikely, for the same reason they haven't been regularly imposed in the first place.

Drunken driving is one of the most expensive crimes to commit in terms of the fines and fees required by state lawmakers and fighting at trial, Fields said.

For example, felony drunken drivers are required to pay $1,500 to the state general fund and another $1,500 to the prison construction operating fund. In addition, they more than likely have to pay restitution, lawyers, monthly probation fees and other fines.

"I don't fault the sheriff at all for asking, but the reality is we have to make an assessment of what defendants can afford to pay," Fields said. "In the end, you can only get so much from folks."

Kearney agreed, noting that there is no point assessing reimbursement fees knowing they won't get paid and knowing the defendant would end up in jail again for not paying them.

I suspect this ought to qualify under the 8th Amendment of the Constitution's notions of cruel and unusual punishment. Then again, there is also the peculiar idea that the DUI defendants have to pay for their stay in jail, but not the robbers, rapers, and drug dealers. What on earth is the sheriff thinking?