LDF Asks Supreme Court to Ban Imprisonment in Lieu of Fine - Charges Illinois Practice Results in Unequal Punishment of Rich and Poor
Press Release
April 25, 1970

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 6. LDF Asks Supreme Court to Ban Imprisonment in Lieu of Fine - Charges Illinois Practice Results in Unequal Punishment of Rich and Poor, 1970. 69e08b16-ba92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/4108a053-6431-4cec-9a51-f04e404deff5/ldf-asks-supreme-court-to-ban-imprisonment-in-lieu-of-fine-charges-illinois-practice-results-in-unequal-punishment-of-rich-and-poor. Accessed June 13, 2025.
Copied!
\\o lind 1f0 President 8 Hon. Francis E. PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel egal efense un Jack Greenberg NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. basco cary 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 FOR RELEASE SATURDAY, April 25, 1970 LDF ASKS SUPREME COURT TO BAN IMPRISONMENT IN LIEU OF FINE Charges Illinois Practice Results In Unequal Punishment of Rich and Poor WASHINGTON, D.C.---The constitutionality of imprisoning a pauper beyond the maximum time set for his offense in order to pay off a fine was challenged this week in the U.S. Supreme Court by attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) and the Commmity Legal Counsel of Chicago. Arguing in behalf of Willie E. Williams, an indigent who was tried and convicted without legal counsel on charges of petty theft (less than $150 in value), the attorneys contended that the Illinois law authorizing an additional sentence for nonpayment of the fine-- despite his willingness to pay it if given the opportunity--violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in placing “a far heavier burden on the poor" than on the wealthy. Mr. Williams was sentenced to the maximum term of one year in jail and a fine of $505 which, in default of payment, was to be "worked off" in prison at the rate of $5.00 per day. For the same offense, the LDF argued, a poor man is "deprived of the things that make life worth living" while the man with means is only inconvenienced. The attorneys maintained that such inequity is compounded by the fact that imposition of a fine indicates jail is not necessary for the gravity of the offense or for the safety of the community or the offender. This is one of several LDF cases challenging discriminatory treatment of the poor in the criminal law process. HEHE