The Era of Debtors’ Prisons

Red and blue lights flash in the rearview mirror as you’re driving in St. Louis. Annoying, but not the end of the world, you think as you pull the car to the curb. Maybe you’re over the speed limit, or your expiration sticker expired, or you have an outstanding arrest warrant from a failure to appear in court over a debt you were never informed about. That last option may sound absurd, but it was the reality for thousands of people in St. Louis county throughout the 2010s. Those arrested for unpaid debt, usually under the pretext of failure to appear in court, are held for weeks or longer in overcrowded, unsanitary jails through the criminalization of poverty. While serving time, people often lose jobs, face evictions, or encounter subsequent legal issues from childcare obligations. These ‘debtors’ prisons’ that prey on the poor remain in 15 American states and recently became the target of several lawsuits in St. Louis.

The term “debtors’ prison” brings to mind an antiquated justice system, a Dickens-era practice belonging to Victorian England and not modern America. Indeed, de jure debtors’ prisons have been illegal since the mid-19th century. While common practice in Colonial America, imprisoning debtors was federally outlawed in the 1830s. Most states followed suit in the next decade, and the practice seemed to be obsolete. This was further affirmed in the 1983 Supreme Court case Bearden v. Georgia, which ruled against the practice of automatically revoking probation due to a petitioner’s inability to pay a fine. How, then, do debtors’ prisons still exist? 

The incentive is financial: by threatening debtors with jail time, even for small debts, courts can compensate for increased incarceration rates by fining offenders rather than taxpayers.

This practice’s growth coincided with the larger trend of incarceration in the second half of the 20th century. As explained by Professor Karin Martin of John Jay College, the number of statutes punishing failure to pay criminal-justice debt with serving time increased in the 1980s, in conjunction with other rises in imprisonment in an era of mass-incarceration. The incentive is financial: by threatening debtors with jail time, even for small debts, courts can compensate for increased incarceration rates by fining offenders rather than taxpayers. Both public and private debts can lead to jail time. Independent collection agencies exploit this system by asking courts to sue people for failing to appear over unpaid civil debt judgments. One such example is an old medical bill, even if the offender never received notice about it. Considering the complexity of the American medical system, it is easy to see how people can fall victim to this scenario. There are also profits to be made in the private sector. A 2014 Human Rights Watch Report explains the role probation companies play, as municipal courts delegate collection to companies who profit off the poor without burdening taxpayers. Punishing people for poverty became a lucrative business, appealing to public officials who can exploit a disadvantaged group without pushback from voters who want to avoid increased taxes. 

Jail time is more than a punishment, it is also an enormous additional cost.

This method of criminalizing debt created a cycle where one forgotten traffic violation or missed bill leads to compounding debts, as offenders are jailed and made responsible for costs incurred by the court. Jail time is more than a punishment, it is an enormous additional cost. As a consequence of poverty, people who cannot afford to pay a debt, or have other legal issues, are already more prone to unstable housing or job insecurity. Time served in jail is time not spent earning income or taking care of family, and it lessens the likelihood of future employment. The confusion of navigating debt enforces this cycle: when private debt has criminal consequences, it is hard to know how to whom to pay. Additionally, an indigent person does not have a right to counsel in civil cases, causing further confusion. Thus, entering this debt cycle is easy while escaping can feel impossible.

The confusion of navigating debt enforces this cycle: when private debt has criminal consequences, it is hard to know how to whom to pay.

There have been recent successes in the fight against debtors’ prisons in Missouri. St. Louis county debtors’ prisons gained attention in the aftermath of the Ferguson protests of 2014, part of a wider effort to push back against predatory practices like over-policing and arbitrary fines. Arch City Defenders, a legal advocacy organization, filed seven class-action lawsuits against municipalities that engaged in these practices. Most recently, the case against the city of St. Ann, MO, for “unconstitutionally [jailing] people with the goal of extracting fines and fees” was settled last October for $3.125 million, money that will not go far enough to support the thousands who faced this experience. It can be difficult to track the overall impact of debtors’ prisons, as the ACLU explains that the total number of warrants for debt is unknown because local courts do not typically track these orders as a distinct category. Nevertheless, cases like that against St. Ann do important work in checking the abuses of the courts, and the settlements provide some justice for the victims who will never get back their time spent in jail.

Irene Herrmann ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at herrmann@wustl.edu