Washington and Lee University Library
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   Digital Archive Home
    • W&L University Student Scholarship
    • W&L Shepherd Program for the Interdisciplinary Study of Poverty and Human Capability
    • POV Papers
    • View Item
    •   Digital Archive Home
    • W&L University Student Scholarship
    • W&L Shepherd Program for the Interdisciplinary Study of Poverty and Human Capability
    • POV Papers
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Debtors' Prison: Virginia's Poor Source for Funding Appointed Counsel

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Capstone paper (547.0Kb)
    Date
    2008
    Author
    McKay, Melanie
    Subject
    Washington and Lee University -- Capstone in Shepherd Poverty Program
    Legal assistance to the poor
    Public defenders -- Costs
    Poverty
    Due process of law -- U.S. states
    Lawyers -- Fees -- U.S. states
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Description
    Melanie McKay is a member of the Class of 2008 of Washington and Lee University School of Law.
     
    Capstone; [FULL-TEXT FREELY AVAILABLE ONLINE]
     
    Virginia statute provides for “repayment of representation costs by convicted persons” as part of the cost of prosecution, which is typically assessed by the court as part of sentencing. Payment of these costs is one of the conditions of probation that make up nearly every sentence issued by state courts. This means that defendants who do not pay their court costs will go back to jail. Because the court has already determined that the defendant is poor enough to qualify for an appointed attorney in the first place, it is seldom the case that a few days or months in jail will change the defendant’s financial situation in any way that facilitates paying such costs. Thus, court mandated reimbursement begets probation violation, which leads to increased jail time, lost wages or lost employment, and further delinquency in payment. Virginia’s practice of jailing criminal defendants because of their poverty is ripe for reevaluation and revision or elimination. It should be unconstitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and forces appointed attorneys onto ethically questionable ground. Further, it increases court expenses without increasing the likelihood of recovering those costs. It also leads to an unnecessarily increased probability of probation violation. Finally, the policy places undue hardship on impoverished convicted criminals, decreasing the likelihood of rehabilitation. [From No "Free Lunches" in Virginia]
     
    Melanie McKay
     
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11021/24213
    Collections
    • POV Papers
    • W&L Shepherd Program for the Interdisciplinary Study of Poverty and Human Capability

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of the Digital ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV