Our View

Our View

‘Debtors’ Prison’ judge in the hot seat

The social media is abuzz over a lawsuit accusing a district court judge using his court as a modern-day debtor’s prison, which if determined true, is absolutely disgraceful.

What is as deplorable, if true, are accusations that this judge meets in secrecy, with the public and press not allowed to be present and the defendants not allowed to have representation.

We can’t even imagine our own and highly respected Circuit Judge Fred Thorne taking advantage of anyone even though we know he constantly deals with individuals who appear before him on numerous occasions, and for the same reasons.

Nevertheless, Judge Thorne most always gives the benefit of the doubt and gives people every opportunity to get back on the right track regardless of whether they are before him for bad checks or just about any other situation.

From what we’re told the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Little Rock against the city of Sherwood, Pulaski County and Sherwood District Court Judge Milas Hale.

According to the suit, under an agreement entered into in the mid-1970s, the Sherwood District Court has “a virtual monopoly” on the prosecution of misdemeanor hot-check violations in Pulaski County.

The court, working with city and county law enforcement agencies, uses real or threatened arrests and incarceration to coerce payments from people who cannot afford to pay, the plaintiffs claim.

The suit alleges that the city, the county and hale have built up over the years a “debt enforcement and collection scheme” that results in widespread arrests and jail of citizens and multiple new fines, fees and court costs.

The suit also alleges people who are prosecuted in Sherwood’s hot-check court are not asked about their ability to pay, are not asked about their ability to afford an attorney, are coerced into waiving their right to an attorney and are subjected to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment compared to people who owe money to private creditors.

The argument has been made that a single bounced check written 10 years ago for $15 can be leveraged into a debt of thousands and thousands of dollars in fines and fees for inability to pay the original check and then inability to pay the payments that were set up, that the person was coerced into agreeing to.

Now, if true, the court meets in secrecy, with the public and press not allowed to be present and the defendants not allowed to have representation. If a person denies having written a bounced check, Hale pulls out the person’s waiver-of-counsel form and compares the signature on it to the signatures on the canceled check, the suit claims.

The mere fact that these accusations are even being made regarding a facet of our judicial system makes one wonder if there is anyone we can trust anymore, particularly when it comes to those individuals with such power and responsibility.

We are so thankful there are still people in these positions, such as Judge Thorne, who totally respects the position he was given and demonstrates a high level of integrity that being an officer of the court demands.