>> washington journal continues. host: our first guest is tony messenger, a columnist for the st. louis post dispatch. the author of the book "profit and punishment." how america criminalizes the poor in the name of justice. thank you for joining us.

guest: thank you for having me. host: as far as the topic, we will go deeper as far as the contents of the book how did you first get interested in this topic? guest: one of the things that sparked my interest was ferguson . after august 9, 2014, when michael brown was shot and killed. one of the underlying themes in the protest, in and around st. louis, were young black people in north st. louis county, who were arrested a variety of times by multiple municipalities that were using their police department traffic enforcement as a fund-raising tool. that was the first time i kind of became aware of this problem in our criminal justice system. in 2017 and 2018, i started writing about people from rural missouri, primarily poor white people -- poor, white people who ended up in jail, because they could not afford to pay their bills for jail and their fines

and fees that were heaped upon him in the criminal justice system, primarily for misdemeanors. this became something that i decided to start pursuing regularly. it was just a tremendous injustice in a country that banned -- we put a lot of people in municipal and county jails, primarily because they cannot afford fines and fees that a legislature or some other body decided they wanted to use the courts to collect. host: you write in part saying this, the story of how court that becomes a crushing burden for people living in poverty starts with a small mistake. the sort of thing many of us do when we are young. if we have parents who can afford an attorney or can afford to bail, it becomes a blip on our lives. we write a check or strike -- swipe a credit card and move on.

little mistakes can transform themselves into what seem like a life sentence. give us an example of someone who has lived that. guest: one of the main characters is a woman named brooke, who lived in a small rural county in the central part of the state. brooke stole an eight dollar tube of mascara from walmart. she ended up involved in the criminal justice system and over a period of time, she ended up serving a year in the county jail for that shoplifting and then got out of jail and owed 15,000 dollars in a bill for her time in jail. one of the things a lot of people don't understand is that a lot of jails charge you for your time in jail, just like a hotel bill. anywhere between five dollars or $10 or $50 or more per day. here is this poor woman who stole an eight dollar tube of mascara, which is not good.

you should not shoplift. stealing is bad and there are laws against that. she served a harsh punishment, a year in jail. but that was not the end. she did her time for her crimes and then got a $15,000 bill. what the judge did was the judge required her to come back to court every month and either say hey, here is the money that i have this month from my minimum-wage job to pay down that $15,000 debt that i'm never going to be able to pay off. and if she missed a court date or was not able to make a payment, the judge threatened her with more jail time. and that sort of thing happens all over the country. it is astounding to me. as i started writing about some of these cases, even veteran lawyers came to me and said i had no idea this was going on. host: if you want to ask him questions about his book, you are invited to call (202)

748-8000. maybe you have had experiences in the criminal justice system and want to give your perspective, (202) 748-8002. in the mountain time zone, (202) 748-8001. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. what circumstances lead to the ackles -- application of fees for jail time? guest: there have been fees in most states since the 1800s. one of the things i find fascinating is i go through the history of that statute in the state of missouri. not every county charges it. plenty don't. some counties actually have a rule for they say look, i want the judge to have an ability to pay hearing. if the person before the judge, the defendant is somebody who qualifies for a public defender and lives in poverty, the judge might say you know what?

this person does not have to pay. one of the things i found researching the history of the law in missouri is that in the early 1800s -- late 1800s and early 1900s, the law had a different feel to it. i compare it to mayberry. we remember otis, the town drunk. he would come and put himself into jail. he would be brought a nice, home-cooked meal, while he sobered up. the law in missouri and some other states used to address that. it said people could bring their own food. families can bring their own linens and pillows. it had a humanitarian element to it in which the folks who wrote that law in the late 18 hundreds and early 1900s recognized that the folks who come to local jails are members of our community and are expected to come back into our community at some point. this is the part that i think

some people don't think about in the criminal justice system. most of the people in our jails are not murderers or rapists or people who are charged with very violent crimes. they are folks charged with misdemeanors who we expect to come back into our community and we should be doing something as taxpayers to make sure that we make it easier for them to come back into our communities and get jobs and be reunited with their family and all of those things. but, over time, that statute has lost that humanitarian vent to it. now, there is nothing in the missouri statute that says by the way, if somebody is poor, they don't have to pay. there is nothing that charges money for jail time that says oh, by the way, aunt b can bring a home-cooked meal and a pillow for you so your time in jail is more comfortable. and i don't know why we got away from that. but really, that is just one piece of the puzzle.

the other part of that is most folks that come into the criminal justice system now are charged for traffic offenses or minor misdemeanors, they end up with other fines and fees on top of the jail bill that are a massive burden for a poor person to deal with. it means that they are going to be tethered to the criminal justice system long after they have pleaded guilty or have been found guilty and served their time. host: all of those fees adding up to a can amount, what is done with those dollars? guest: it depends on the state. in most states, the legislature, particularly since 2008, the last recession, many of your viewers may remember that during that, a lot of state revenue dried up and state lawmakers had to look for other sources. in many states, particularly states where you had republicans who had signed on to grover nork

's no new taxes pledge, they turned to the courts. they said you know what? if you are coming to us as a state legislature and you need money for something, maybe it is retirement for judges, maybe it is money for a demented violence shelter, some of the money goes -- domestic violence shelter, some of the money goes to good causes. all of those fines and fees get added onto every ticket that you get or every charge that you get where you go before a court. for instance, one of the women in my book is from oklahoma. she pleaded guilty to a minor misdemeanor and ended up with a bill for about $1000. that money went to -- some of it went to general revenue and some of it went to the prosecutor's office. some of the went to private

for-profit probation companies. sasha darby in south carolina, another character in my book, similar situation. she ended up spending 21 days in jail because she could not afford to pay her bill. in some states, that's what they do. you stand before the judge and the judge says can you write me a check today? if you can't write a check for the judge, the judge sends you to the jail and charges you a certain amount of money per day off of what you owe in debt. it creates this incredibly divided system for people who have money and can write a check and buy their freedom and people who do not have money and they end up in jail, not because they have committed another crime, but because they are poor. host: tony messenger is the author of profit and punishment. -- alexandria ocasio-cortez -- "profit and punishment." he won a pulitzer in 2019.

your first collar is patrick. thanks for calling. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is america. we try to get a profit, no matter what the situation is. you might want to consider your next book the conditions of american jail. i saw a program on you were -- european jails. in american jails, they can get no name werner cell phones and run extortion rings out of them -- burner cell and run extortion rings out of them. we are the last nation in the world where you can get those phones that criminals run their organizations from. i was impressed, considering you had stop the steal on january 6. host: mr. messenger, anything

from that? guest: patrick, one of the things you mentioned is the recidivism rate. the u.s. has a high recidivism rate. one of the reasons is the element of terminal is asian and poverty, and how we use cash mail. we use it in most places unconstitutionally. we use it to hold poor people in jail because they can't afford to get out. so, what happens is there was a study done in 2013 done by the arnold foundation out of texas. they looked at low risk defendants in jails in kentucky. what they found is that those who were stuck in jail because they could not afford their bail over a short period of time, even 24 hours to 48 hours, were more likely to commit further crimes than similarly situated defendants who were actually -- who actually did not spend any time in jail because they either did not get a bail charge or

because they could afford to write a check for their bill. the study looked at folks who were in jail up to 30 days because they could not afford their bail and again compared them to similarly situated defendants, all low risk defendants, meaning misdemeanors and low-level felonies. it found that the people who were stuck in jail because they could not afford their bail were 70% more likely to commit further crimes than those who were home with their families and able to continue with their jobs. think about it, it makes sense. we disrupt people's lives and we take away their cars, their apartments and their children, all of these things can happen in 24 hours when you are stuck in jail and you can't afford your bail, even though you are not a threat to overall public safety because you are charged with shoplifting or whatever the case might be. and we make it difficult for them to go back into the community. this study is the most

comprehensive study that i have found in this country that looks at this and says our cash mail practices in the united states make us less safe. keeping people in jail pretrial when they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty makes our communities less safe. that is why there is such a movement throughout this country to reform cash bail and use it only for its constitutionally required purposes, which is to make sure somebody gets to their next trial date or, in rare circumstances, the most violent people who are charged with crimes, that we protect society from them. so, that is what they'll supposed to be used for. it is not what it is used for. patrick is from florida. one of the people i quote in the book is a prosecutor from florida named andrew warren. and he talks about bail being misused in jurisdictions all over the country because we

treat the court system like a fast food joint where we are running people in and out and too many of those people are poor and if you can't afford to pay, you are going to jail and you're stuck there until you can meet your public defender, until you can have an opportunity to have your family raise the money. and those of us who have a different lived experience, who have money on a debit card, we don't have the same circumstances. that is one of the major problems with the criminal justice system in the united states. host: let's hear from jeff. caller: merry christmas. i want to ask you how it feels to be used by the communist spreading propaganda ad nausea network, c-span, to give cover to what just occurred in waukesha. you want to talk to me about the bail reform and how you feel

that would have helped the citizens of waukesha? this is a diversionary tactic, putting you on the air to give cover to what is happening in every metropolitan area in america. and god bless america. host: thank you, caller. just a note that we invited the guest on. go ahead. guest: sometimes when people get out on bail, they commit further crimes. one of the things i argue in the book is look at the data. the study out of kentucky is legitimate data. it is the most comprehensive look at what happens when you put people in, low risk defendants who, in most cases, do not come out and repeat crimes. but further, one of the things that is important about my book,

there is a chapter called -- criminal justice reform is a bipartisan affair. it is very much endorsed by a lot of folks on the right of the political spectrum. i write in the book about donald trump signing the first setback. that was very much a conservatively moved bill that was supported by a lot of folks on the right. the reason i think that criminal justice reform, and that includes bail and that includes getting rid of charges for jail and getting rid of fines and fees or at least reducing them in a serious capacity, i think one of the reasons the folks on the right and left agree is both a violation of civil rights of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, and they care about civil rights in

certain circumstances. i think folks on the right understand that this system is not sustainable. they live in states that have budgets that have lots of money being spent on corrections. lots of people being put in jail, mass incarceration is worse in the united states than any other free country. and, we find out that it is not really working. so, it is time to do something different. that is why criminal justice reform is so bipartisan. jeff, i would hope you pick up the book and take a look at that. there are a lot of conservative votes that are on the side of bail reform, because they want to see everybody's civil rights protected. host: in new jersey, mr. messenger, we will show viewers the website. chris christie enacted it. -- guest: it happens everywhere.

i write about new jersey and new york and california, all places where there has been a certain amount of bail reform. in new jersey, the year after citizens there voted to implement bail reforms, crime went down the next year. and jail populations were reduced. so, one of the things that i would encourage lawmakers to do and folks who were paying attention to this issue or are being introduced it -- to it for the first time, is look at the data and do some research and find out that yes, the coke brothers, the conservative libertarian group, very much in favor of bail reform. very much in favor of decriminalizing the criminal justice system. in part, because of the arnold foundation study and the other data that exists out there that basically says look, putting people in jail for a long period

of time, particularly poor people who are being charged with misdemeanors and traffic offenses and other things does not make us safer. in fact, it makes us unsafe. think about all of the money that we spend collecting these fines and fees and it happens in jurisdictions all over the place. somebody can't afford to pay for their jail bills. a warrant is issued for their arrest. local law enforcement, rather than working on violent crimes and solving murders and doing all of the things we want our local law enforcement to do in order to keep our community safe, they are tracking down these poor folks you can't afford to pay their bills, that the legislature decided that they wanted the police department to work on. these police departments become tax collectors. and then they stand before the judge. the judge becomes part of the collection system. all of that costs money. and it takes away from the primary purpose of those parts

of the criminal justice system. and that is public safety. host: kenosha, wisconsin, this is calvin. caller: hello, how are you? i am wondering, the judges, lawyers, the prosecutors, do they all get paid from that money that people put into the bills and probation fees? guest: in some cases, yes. that is part of the book. in some cases, that system in which those folks get their salaries and their retirements or other things paid out of fines and fees, it is unconstitutional. you are not supposed to use the criminal justice system to raise money for things that aren't related to the -- of justice. prosecutors and judges are involved in the system. there is a chapter in my book in which i talk about a particular

fee in missouri, a three dollar fee. it does not sound like much until you have a three dollar fee on top of a five dollar fee and another $10 fee and five years later, the legislature adds another one and they keep raising that. that is how you get a traffic ticket and you have a $1000 bill for that. the three dollar fee was supposed to pay for rural retirement. somebody in st. louis was supposed to put this money in to play -- pay for rural sheriff's retirement. the reason it ended up in a court fee was because the rural sheriff's came to the legislature and said we are not paying our sheriffs enough and we want you to come up with money to pay them the more for retirement. the legislature said no, we will not raise taxes. we won't say no to chefs because politically, they are a powerful force in our local communities. so we will add this three dollar fee to poor people's tickets that they get when they go to court. and it became this backdoor poor

person attack in order to help sheriff's retire better. this last year, the missouri supreme court ruled that fee was unconstitutional. now, there will have to be a fight in the legislature, again. that is where a lot of the hope is. a lot of legislatures, including conservative legislatures, are starting to recognize we are not going to use the courts as a backdoor tax collection system anymore. it is taxation without representation and it is bad public policy. so, that is the good news. a lot of legislatures are understanding this and going about trying to fix the problem. getting to the bottom of it will be difficult. there is a state senator in new york who has a bill called the end predatory fees act in which she is trying to get rid of all of those fees. i hope that bill passes the new york legislature. but then, the next up is where

things become difficult. ultimately, all of those government services that are funded by the backdoor tax for poor people, they will be back before the legislature and say hey, where is our money? we want what you took away from us. that is where the fight will have to continue for years in legislature, state by state. host: we have a viewer off of twitter who says my shot came as a new lawyer defending a dui defendant. she got appointed counsel. when she was found guilty, she was required to pay for the council. she was no more able to pay then what she was at the start. response to that and what is the role of public defender as far as making clients aware of these fees? guest: lots of states raise money to charge for public offenders from fines and fees. it is a counterintuitive situation because poor people can't afford to pay for their

fines and fees. that is why they need a public defender in the first place. what a lot of people don't understand in their interactions with the municipal and county courts, i write this in the book. sasha darby experienced this problem. they get handed this sheet of paper that says by the way, do you need a public defender? yes, i'm poor, i don't have money. that public defender will cost you $40. most jurisdictions, the public defender system will waive that fee or the judge has the ability to waive that fee. when you are a poor person and you walk into court for the first time and you are in this courtroom full of early or 40 or 50 other people, all there on similar sorts of situations. they got a ticket and it is a minor offense. you show up to stand before the judge and figure out what is going on, a lot of people check that box. i don't have $40 for an attorney. so, i will waive my rights to an

attorney and it is the worst decision you can make. you immediately give away some of your civil rights so that you have somebody standing next to you before you say something to the judge, before you say something elicited by the prosecutor that might end up making -- having worse circumstances for you. so many of these charges can be plea-bargain down to something less. they don't end up that way because the public defender systems in many states is underfunded. it takes a long time to get a public defender. or, you have people who walk into the system that have to pay for the public defender and they don't have any money. so, they can't even afford a public defender. what most people need to realize and don't always know their first time in court, there is a way to get the public defender fee waived. don't go into court without your public defender, because you

need somebody to protect your rights. host: i will read a portion of this, saying more often than not , the lawyers don't mean anything during these proceedings. if the attorneys don't represent a particular client, they can't step up and argue on their behalf that various rights are being violated. some of it is related to the parochialism of the court system -- system. no attorney who represents clients regularly before a particular judge wants to end up on their bad side. guest: i experienced this situation again. you had a young client, who had a -- who was a pregnant woman who was facing going back to prison because she violated probation. she smoked a joint because she is pregnant and has morning sickness. in many states in the united states right now, that is not illegal. in her case, it was a violation

of her probation. you have a defender going before the judge, trying to protect her rights. eventually ended up filing a rift with the supreme court, asking the judge to overturn his ruling that sent the woman back to prison, where she will have a baby in prison because of this. in small counties, you have a public defender who is out of school for the most part. and, you have a prosecutor and a judge and a sheriff who all have significantly more power within that system and tend to be aligned. it is difficult for a young public defender who has to go for that judge every single day or once a week or whatever it is to challenge that judge on a particular case, knowing that he has 10, 20, 30 other cases before that judge. and if the judge gets mad at the public defender, that public defender has now possibly put in

jeopardy some of his other clients. it shouldn't be that way. but, that is the reality of how this system works in a lot of rural jurisdictions. not as much in urban areas because there are so many more judges and more cases and attorneys and that sort of thing. but, in rural america, it is tough for a public defender to stand up there and defend all of the civil rights of their clients the way you might expect somebody who has money and has an attorney that has a little more heft than a public defender right out of college, to file motion after motion to make sure that there defendant, their clients rights are defended. host: tourney messenger is the author of "profit and punishment." let's hear from gary in atlanta, georgia. go ahead. caller: good morning to both of you and god bless you.

i had a similar experience in georgia, where the falcons practice. i ran through a yellow light and the cop stopped me. the police officer stopped me and i had to go to court. i walked in and it was standing room only in this little courtroom. it was mostly poor lack people and poor white people. luckily, i had enough money on me and i paid the fine with $75. the judge said if you don't have the money, i will put you on probation. you have to pay the probation fee plus the fine. i was like what is this? i sat there afterward for maybe a couple of hours and people were all put on probation. and i couldn't believe it. no duis, nothing like that. it was like the headlights are

out, this is out and the cops are making money off of poor white and poor black people in georgia. i know another city in georgia, the judge got over $200,000 on fines. i want to say thank you for writing this book. host: that is gary from atlanta, georgia. guest: one of the reason folks get put on probation is because in many jurisdictions, i don't know specifically about the municipality you are talking about. but in many jurisdictions, the probation company is a private, for-profit, company. their motive is to have repeat customers. we you have repeat customers is you put people on minor offenses on probation for a year or two and they have to pay the probation company money. some of those probation companies, and i write about this in my book, will drug test

people. even if your offense was not anything related to drugs. so, if you happen to be somebody who battles drug addiction and you fail a drug test on a private probation company, that probation company tells the judge by the way, this person failed a drug test, that is what happened to brooke, one of my main characters. and boom, you are back in jail. you did not commit an offense that requires you to do jail time. but because you could not pay some money or failed a drug test, now you end up in jail because of a probation violation. another interesting thing, i appreciate you calling from georgia. there is a town in georgia called lagrange, outside of atlanta, that you are probably familiar with. that town used to suspend payment, water and sewer bills or service if you fell behind on

your quartet. in that town, if you happen to be pulled over for something like what gary was pulled over for and you end up before the court and you end up on probation and you have all of these fines and fees and you can't afford to pay them, they used to cut off your water and electricity. almost all of the victims of the scheme were people of color. luckily, a federal lawsuit was filed and they eventually won and lagrange changed those policies. thing about that mentality, we will cut off your power and electricity because you can't afford to pay debt on a traffic ticket. it doesn't make any sense. it is related to an element of the criminalization of poverty that i write about in my book. one of the places where there is some hope is lots of states are starting to repeal their laws that allow them to take away your drivers license if you fall behind on debt. think about how backward that philosophy is, the way a lot of

states have laws in which you can take away a drivers license for somebody who owes debt. you are a poor person. you can't afford to pay all of the fines and fees that they have heaped upon you. and they take away your drivers license, generally without a hearing, by the way. now, you can drive to the job that you had in order to pay those fines and fees. they suspend your drivers license and make it harder for you to get to your job. i've been in that situation. i know a lot of poor people who have been in that situation. yes what? you will still drive to get to your job. now, if you get pulled over, you have committed a criminal offense. boom, the system really has you. and you will end up owing more and more and more money. the good news is there is a nationwide movement called free to drive, that are getting states all over the country, nevada was one of the most recent ones. illinois recently repealed their

law. i write in the book about the number. i don't remember what the number is right now. i think we are getting close to the point where about half the states have repealed these laws. in those states, if you can't afford the fines and fees, you still have your drivers license and you can still go to your job and take care of your family and hopefully get that money so that you can eventually pay down that debt. which, friendly, you should not have had to begin with. host: there is jim from bakersfield, asking the question should bail be illuminated for nonviolent crime, and released based on the threat level and past criminal record? guest: that is part of the bail reform movement. there is a debate on how we determine who is a danger to society and all of that. the reality is for almost all nonviolent crimes, there should not be bail. the primary purpose of bail is

to make sure you show up at your next court date. when you are already keeping financial burdens on people by requiring them to pay bail the moment they are arrested for something, you make it less likely that they can be successful while they are fighting this charge. keep in mind, they have yet to be convicted. i argue for in the book and would like to see there be nationwide bail reform, similar to what new jersey enacted. similar to what california and new york have been trying to enact. again, as you mentioned earlier, there is pushback. the missouri supreme court enacted some bail rules in this day a couple of years ago in which they are trying to get prosecutors and police to focus a little more, and judges, on the constitutional requirements of bail. i would like to see them get rid of nail for almost all nonviolent minor offenses,

because it does not improve justice. all it does is feel -- fill up jails and cost taxpayers a lot of money. host: let's hear from fred in michigan. hello? caller: hello. i agree with you about all of the really minor stuff, traffic tickets and stuff like that. but, part of the problem they are having with different places is the guy who ran through the parade who was out on bail. there were -- there was a guy who was let out two or three times in new york who robbed a bank. he did it again and again. there was a guy who was exposing himself to kids and he did it five or six times. these people going into these stores and out of these stores and stealing and people let them go and all that stuff. so, that's why -- the murder rates are all up, what do you

think people will say? i have had plenty of dealings with the court. i understand about the courts and small stuff. they take it way too far. these prosecutors who are paid for by george soros and company. host: fred, we will leave it there. guest: fred has lots of different things in that one statement. here is the thing. as we talked about earlier, absolutely, there are anecdotal cases of individual people who sometimes get arrested, get out on bail, and commit crimes. it happens. but again, we make decisions in this country, public policy decisions. we should make public policy decisions on the overall data. not just on anecdotally, oh my gosh, this happened yesterday. let's pass a new law. for instance, yes, across many cities in this country,

conservative cities with tough on crime prosecutors and liberal cities with progressive prosecutors, crime -- not crime, homicides went up during covid. some of them have already started to go down over the past year. in st. louis, where i live, where we have a progressive prosecutor, homicides are actually significantly down this particular year. so again, do we make public policy decisions based on the spike during covid last year or do we make them based on the fact that homicides are way down this year? the smart thing for legislatures to do is to take a long look, ask the criminologist to look at the history of the data, what does the data say about why we are up this year or down that year? and not make knee-jerk reactions, based on one particular year of data or one

particular crime and apply that to every town across the country. that is why the data is so important. that is why the long-term data about what happened in new jersey after they actually passed a bail reform is so important. that is why looking at the data of who is actually in most small jails in america on pretrial detention is so important. if you look at the big picture and get beyond the big 72 point headline where one bad thing happens, we realize we should not be making laws based on the one bad thing that happened, we should be making laws based on what we can do as a society, looking at the long-term data, in order to make it safer over a longer period of time. host: let's hear from one more viewer, ziggy in birmingham, alabama. caller: i'm a person who lives

in the ghetto. what i see is people get incarcerated and they come out and come back to the same thing, the same support group. so, it is more low-level crime. you have a downspout. i have had people go into a house and take the copper pipes out and stuff like that. a lot of times, when they are caught, they are caught for that. not for everything they have already done before serious crimes. if you want to keep the community down, it is economic opportunity that is the answer. host: that is ziggy in birmingham, alabama. i know you brought up supreme court cases dealing with this issue. our people making changes with

concerns about due process? guest: that is one of the big arguments. in all of the element of the criminalization of poverty, one of the biggest problems is that people are ending up incarcerated and then owing this massive debt, without going through the proper due process. the good news is that there have been unanimous court decisions, the u.s. supreme court, the idaho supreme court recently, the missouri supreme court in 2019. idaho and missouri, both conservative states. they unanimously ruled that you should not be putting people back in jail because they are poor and can't afford to pay their fines and fees. we start to fix that problem. we saw a lot of the criminal justice problems. we saved taxpayers money all

over the country. we give an opportunity to address the underlying economic problems, talked about by the caller from alabama. is that we don't immediately let people out of jail, having destroyed their ability to possibly climb out of poverty, because the moment they get out of jail, we give them some debt that will be impossible for them to pay off. we have to break the cycle where four people are tethered to the court system for years, for decades, simply because they can't afford to buy their freedom. host: our guest, tony messenger, his book is "profit and punishment" how