Who Serves the Time When the State Violates a Law?

 In much of the last sixteen years I've spent in prison so far, I've spent time in the law library nearly every week. I've worked on researching issues related to my own case, learned how to write briefs and motions (filing many of both in my own case), researched issues for other prisoners, and stayed abreast of issues relevant to me. I even recently wrote a motion and amicus curiae brief to the Michigan Supreme Court (which they accepted) for an issue important to me. 

Incidentally, regardless of what happens with that issue, I was thrilled to have the Michigan Supreme Court accept my brief. I've never heard of another prisoner successfully writing an amicus curiae brief, though I'm quite sure it's been done before. The Court will hear this issue next month, and I'm anxious to hear of the outcome, and especially how my arguments prevailed or persuaded the Court (if at all). 

As I continue to research important issues, including state legislation, I sometimes run across interesting legal facts. Such was the case with a recent trip to the law library. 

I was intrigued to note that Michigan has a law punishing people for "holding an individual in debt bondage" (MCL 750.462c). Violations of this prohibition are subject to up to ten years in prison. At first, this statute didn't strike me as odd in any way. It was part of a broader set of statutes prohibiting things like involuntary servitude, forced prostitution, and the like. But then something struck me. 

Michigan imprisons people for failing to pay child support. That's debt bondage, by definition. Michigan also violates probationers and parolees for failing to pay court costs and fines, often returning them to jail or prison. That's debt bondage. 

I'm not suggesting that Michigan should do away with punishing debt bondage. We need a law like this to protect the vulnerable, especially immigrants who are often forced into slavery to pay for their trip to America. What I am suggesting is that Michigan ought to consider the duplicity of this law. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Debt bondage has been vilified since Charles Dickens wrote some of his famous novels on the subject. It ought to be illegal, but Dicken's novels were critical of the State's involvement in debt bondage -- something still happening more than 150 years later. The irony is that debts can't be paid off when someone is in prison making an average of less than $20 per month. 

I wonder why nobody (that I know of) has ever challenged incarceration for unpaid debt, like child support or court fees, using this statute? Surely the courts would see the duplicity in the State punishing citizens for the very thing they do. Just something interesting to think about.