Piling fines on the homeless makes no sense
TheStar.com – Opinion/Editorials – Two recent court cases show the law is out of step with how a caring society should behave towards the poor and homeless.
Oct. 11, 2016. Editorial
The laws of the land should not inspire disrespect for the judicial system. But what else can one make of legislation that involves piling fines and penalties on homeless people with no ability to pay them?
Two recent cases before the courts have made it clear that judges, too, are increasingly coming to the conclusion that such laws are out of step with how a caring society should behave. Homelessness is not a crime. Governments should listen to these judges and change the laws accordingly.
The first case involved Gerry Williams, a Toronto man who was homeless and alcoholic for about nine years but has been sober and living in a home for the last year. During his years on the street he amassed an astonishing $65,000 in fines for non-criminal offences such as getting drunk in a subway station, jaywalking, carrying open bottles of liquor, loitering and littering. Like many homeless people, he was handed five to 10 tickets a day. It all added up.
But after getting off the streets, Williams found he couldn’t move on with his life because of the fines he owed.
Happily for Williams, the Fair Change legal clinic took on his case and last week Justice Katrina Mulligan agreed to wipe out the fines. Instead, Williams will serve two years’ probation and complete 156 hours of community service for a single crime of “soliciting in an aggressive manner.”
The second case involves a homeless, mentally ill woman in Ottawa, Sunshine Madeley, who was facing $200 in victim surcharges after pleading guilty to threatening a store clerk who caught her stealing. Under a Criminal Code provision a judge was required to fine her to raise funds for victim services, without any consideration of her ability to pay.
The law was changed three years ago by the former Conservative government so that fines would be mandatory, rather than at the judge’s discretion. But in this case, Ontario Court Justice David Paciocco refused to play along.
As Paciocco sensibly said, “The marginalization and pointless harassment of the impoverished disabled with mandatory surcharge levies is a cost that is too heavy to bear in order to remedy distrust of judicial discretion.”
Paciocco’s decision is not binding for future cases, though it could help set a precedent. Fortunately, though, the federal government is taking steps to amend the law to give judges discretion in when to levy the victim surcharge.
Still, we should not have to depend on judges to change bad laws. Homelessness is a social issue, not a legal one. No fine or ticket can end crimes resulting from homelessness, addictions and mental illness. Piling on financial penalties makes no sense.
< https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2016/10/11/piling-fines-on-the-homeless-makes-no-sense-editorial.html >
Tags: disabilities, Health, homelessness, ideology, jurisdiction, mental Health, poverty
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 12th, 2016 at 10:00 am and is filed under Inclusion Delivery System. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
One Response to “Piling fines on the homeless makes no sense”
|
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Although I agree that continually ticketing homeless individuals with no ability to pay seems like a harsh and outdated practice, I do however believe some type of deterrent is needed. In the first example, this man was able to constantly break laws that most individuals within society have to abide by. There was absolutely no hinderance for him, as he knew his consequence would be a monetary fine he would simply dismiss once again. My suggestion would be to instead implement mandatory alcohol education classes, or community service hours opposed to a monetary fine. In the second scenario you speak about a woman’s inability to pay a vicim surcharge for the crime she committed. In situations such as this, perhaps the judicial system should look to various Scandinavian countries who prescribe to the ideology that fines should be dependent on individuals earnings, rather than a generalized set rate (Pinsker, 2015). In cases where an individual is not able to contribute any monetary value to a victims surcharge, perhaps some form of restorative justice would be more appropriate for both the victim and accused.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/