Background Re: Williams v. Illinois
Press Release
June 4, 1970

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 6. Background Re: Williams v. Illinois, 1970. caad9b22-ba92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/97f452ec-04db-4436-a3c8-b1a994916c88/background-re-williams-v-illinois. Accessed October 09, 2025.
Copied!
\\4 14 egal ‘efense PRESS RELEASE fund President Hon. Francis E. Rivers Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg Director, Public Relations NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC Jesse DeVore, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 seeiclae Ss NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 June 4, 1970 BACKGROUND Re: Williams v. Illinois The case of Williams v. Illinois raises basic the right of indigents before the courts. questions conceming Willie E. Williams was arrested in June, 1967 for stealing credit cards and checks worthnot more than $150.00. In September of 1967 Williams was found guilty by the Circuit Court of Cook County and sentenced to pay a fine of $500.00, court costs of five dollars, and spend ",.After committed one year in the Cook County Jail, with the added proviso the expiration of said term of imprisonment, stand in said County Jail until said fine and costs shall have been paid according or until said defendant shall have been discharged to law." Attorneys for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), maintain that the "Illinois statutes which authorize a pauper's imprisonment in excess of the maximum period otherwise set by law, at the rate of five dollars per day for payment of fine and costs, despite the fact that he is willing and able to pay them if given the opportunity, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment." LDF attorneys maintain further that it is plain from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in appellant's case, and prior Illinois decisions, that the Supreme Court of Illinois regards the incarce- ration of a defendant who cannot pay a fine or costs as a punitive exaction by the state which is considered the equivalent of the fine or costs and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause. The whole idea of serving time to pay a fine, when defendant is willing to pay if not imprisoned, is repugnant to our society. Imprisonment deprives one of family and friends and creates additional hardships since most penal institutions are overcrowded, understaffed and provide little if any recreational or rehabilitative outlets for inmates. =30= 25