Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:49 am
Time: 2:49 am
Results for court costs
4 results foundAuthor: Fredericksen, Allyson Title: Debtors' Prisons Redux: How Legal Loopholes Let Courts Across the Country Criminalize Poverty Summary: Across the country, poverty itself has become a crime. A $150 traffic ticket can result in thousands of dollars in court-related debt, years in the criminal justice system, and even incarceration for those unable to pay. In the wake of the Great Recession, many state and local courts throughout the country have created debtors' prisons by using excessive fines and fees, private collection companies, and the threat of jail to collect from defendants. Many defendants are low-income and have committed offenses as minor as unpaid parking tickets. This resurgence of debtors' prisons is prohibited by the 14th amendment; it's unconstitutional to imprison individuals for debts they cannot pay. However, court systems across the country have found legal loopholes to effectively jail people for inability to pay and in some states, even restrict the voting rights of individuals too poor to pay off their criminal debt. This policy brief examines the increasingly common practice of county and municipal courts charging exorbitant fees and financial penalties against those who receive traffic citations and other low-level criminal infractions and the devastating effects this practice has on low-income racial and ethnic minorities, their families and their communities. Poor people face serious legal and financial consequences solely due to inability to pay, resulting in a two-tiered justice system. This report refers to the myriad of court-imposed costs, monetary sanctions and resulting debt as legal financial obligations, or LFOs. Many communities and organizations are working to fight back against this criminalization of poverty, and others are in a strong position to join the fight. Additionally, though, policy tools like limiting the amount of fees that can be added to citations, regulating debt collection companies, and preventing local governments from relying on revenue from fines and fees. Details: Seattle, WA: Alliance for a Justice Society, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 13, 2017 at: http://allianceforajustsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Debtors-Prisons-Redux-FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://allianceforajustsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Debtors-Prisons-Redux-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 145771 Keywords: Court CostsCourt-Related DebtCriminal FeesCriminal Justice DebtPoverty |
Author: Beckett, Katherine Title: The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State: Research Report Summary: This study explores the assessment and consequences of Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs) in Washington State. For the purposes of this study, LFOs include the fees, fines and restitution orders assessed by judges at the time of criminal conviction. Persons assessed LFOs for offenses committed after July 1, 2000 may remain under the court's jurisdiction "until the [financial] obligation is completely satisfied, regardless of the statutory maximum for the crime." It is important to note that other financial obligations may result from an arrest and/or criminal conviction, including jail booking and operations fees, Department of Corrections fees, and collection fees. This report focuses solely on the LFOs assessed by Washington State Superior Courts, and addresses three main research topics. Part I describes the nature of the fees and fines typically assessed, and identifies the case, defendant, and county-level factors that predict variation in the assessment of LFOs. Part II assesses how LFOs affect the lives of those who possess them, and, in particular, how legal debt affects the re-entry process. The concluding section considers whether the assessment of LFOs is consistent with legislative intent and other important policy goals, including the promotion of reintegration and the reduction of recidivism. The study draws primarily on two main data sources to address these topics. First, data pertaining to 3,366 Washington State Superior Court cases sentenced in the first two months of 2004 were analyzed to quantitatively assess the nature of the LFOs imposed by the courts. Insofar as these records include all Washington State Superior Court cases sentenced in this time period, the results of the quantitative analysis pertain to the state as a whole. The study also draws upon interviews with fifty Washington State residents who were assessed LFOs in at least one of four selected Washington State counties, as well as interviews with Department of Corrections (DOC) personnel, county clerks, defense attorneys, and others with particular expertise regarding LFOs. These interviews provide important information about collection processes and the consequences of LFOs for the reintegration process. However, because these interviews were conducted in four counties, the results may not capture dynamics across the state as a whole. The results of the study indicate that the assessment of LFOs is characterized by a high degree of variability that cannot be attributed solely to the seriousness of the offense or the offender. The dollar value of assessed fees and fines varies a great deal, from a low of $500 to a high of $21,110 per felony conviction. If restitution is included, the maximum LFO assessed for a single felony conviction was $256,257. A very small percentage of these debts had been collected three years post-sentencing. As a result of high rates of non-payment and the accrual of interest, the legal debt of most of those sentenced in 2004 had grown rather than shrunk by 2007. The analysis of court records also indicates that defendant, case and county characteristics significantly influence LFO assessment even after the seriousness of the offense and offender are taken into account. Specifically, convictions involving Hispanic defendants are associated with significantly higher fees and fines than those involving white defendants, even after controlling for relevant legal factors. Drug convictions are associated with significantly higher fees and fines than convictions involving violent offense charges. Convictions that result from a trial rather than a guilty plea are also associated with significantly higher fees and fines. Finally, cases involving male defendants are assessed higher fees and fines than cases involving female defendants. The assessment of LFOs also varies by jurisdiction. That is, even among cases involving identical charges and defendants with similar offense histories, there is significant county-level variation in the assessment of fees and fines. Counties characterized by smaller populations, higher drug arrest and violent crime rates, and/or comparatively small proportions of their budgets devoted to law and justice assess significantly higher fees and fines. The evidence thus indicates that defendants with similar criminal histories and charges may accrue very different amounts of legal debt depending upon where they are convicted. In addition, the interview and survey data indicate that LFOs are an important barrier to the reintegration process. Like people living with a criminal conviction across the United States, many of those interviewed for this study reported living on quite limited incomes; over half of those interviewed have incomes that fall under federal poverty guidelines. Most of those interviewed were also parents and were financially supporting minor children at the time of the interview. As a result, many fell behind on their LFOs, which continued to grow as the result of the accrual of interest. Their legal debt not only potentially limits their income, but their credit ratings as well, which in turn limits their ability to secure stable housing. Some respondents also reported that the threat of lost wages and garnishment created an incentive for them to avoid work. Given evidence that employment, adequate income and stable housing reduce recidivism among persons with criminal histories, it is quite possible that by reducing income and employment, and rendering the search for stable housing more difficult, LFOs encourage repeat offending. The long term nature of the legal debt also prevents many with LFOs from applying to have their criminal record sealed, which in turn perpetuates their economic disadvantage. Some respondents were so overwhelmed by their legal debt that they ceased making payments altogether. In some of these cases, warrants were issued for failure to pay. The issuance of an arrest warrant has many adverse consequences. Persons with warrants stemming from violation of a felony sentence are considered "fleeing felons", and thus are ineligible for federal benefits including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Social Security Insurance (SSI), public or federally assisted housing, and food stamps. In addition, respondents in two of the four counties in which interviews were conducted reported being arrested and re-incarcerated as a result of their failure to make regular LFO payments. The threat of criminal justice intervention created an incentive for those who had not made regular LFO payments to hide from the authorities, but nonetheless made it difficult for those same persons to disentangle themselves from the criminal justice system. In short, the interview findings suggest that LFOs exacerbate the many difficulties associated with the re-entry process. Even without legal debt, research indicates that people living with a criminal conviction have a difficult time securing stable housing and employment as a result of their criminal record. Our interview data indicate that LFOs added to these difficulties by: reducing income and worsening credit ratings, both of which make it more difficult to secure stable housing; hindering efforts to obtain employment, education and occupational training; reducing eligibility for federal benefits; creating incentives to avoid work and/or hide from the authorities; ensnaring some in the criminal justice system; and making it more difficult to secure a certificate of discharge, which in turn prevents people from restoring their civil rights and applying to seal one's criminal record. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Minority and Justice Commission, 2008. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2018 at: http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2009/05/study_LFOimpact.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2009/05/study_LFOimpact.pdf Shelf Number: 149656 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCourt CostsCriminal DebtFees and FinesRestitution |
Author: Braden, Myesha Title: Too Poor To Pay: How Arkansas's Offender-Funded Justice System Drives Poverty and Mass Incarceration Summary: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has observed that people of color, the poor, and people with disabilities - who suffer poverty at twice the rate of persons without disabilities - are disproportionately impacted by inability to pay court-imposed costs, fines and fees associated with misdemeanors and low-level offenses. In Arkansas, thousands have been jailed, often repeatedly, for weeks or even months at a time, simply because they are poor and cannot afford to pay court costs, fines and fees. They face numerous collateral consequences in addition to loss of freedom, including loss of employment, homelessness, and some have lost custody of their children when they were unable to pay fines and fees established by the state legislature to offset the growing costs of maintaining Arkansas' massive criminal justice system. Details: Washington, DC: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 2019. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2019 at: https://indd.adobe.com/view/f3b39ab5-1da5-409e-97a6-a0b060d2f578 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://indd.adobe.com/view/f3b39ab5-1da5-409e-97a6-a0b060d2f578 Shelf Number: 155217 Keywords: Court CostsDebtors PrisonFines and FeesPoverty |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Title: At All Costs: The Consequences of Rising Court Fines and Fees in North Carolina Summary: The United States formally abolished "'debtors' prisons" - the incarceration of people who fail to pay off debts - nearly two centuries ago. But today in North Carolina, thousands of low-income people are in jail, trapped in a cycle of debt, or both, because they cannot afford the unconstitutional fines and fees that courts order them to pay when convicted of any crime, even as minor as a speeding ticket. The cost and number of fines and fees have skyrocketed across North Carolina in recent years, thanks to a series of legislative changes enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly and the day-to-day decisions of judges who have too often bent to the legislative desire to turn the judiciary to debt collection. In courtrooms across the state, there is no consistent standard for when and how fines and fees are imposed, and too many judges do not fulfill their constitutional obligation to inquire about an individual's financial status before ordering them to pay fines and fees, as required by law. As a result, judges routinely order low-income North Carolinians - a disproportionate number of them people of color - to pay fines and fees that they cannot afford. Failure to pay will result in more fines, fueling a cycle of debt that forces people to forgo the basic necessities of life in order to avoid jail and collateral consequences. In this racially-skewed, two-tiered system, the rich and the poor can commit the exact same offense, but the poor will receive harsher and longer punishments simply because they are poor. While some actors, from public defenders to state legislators to reform-minded judges, have fought for fairer processes and outcomes, too many North Carolina judges nevertheless routinely violate the rights of low-income people who appear in their courtrooms. This report examines the history of those court costs, how North Carolina has sought to turn the judiciary from its role as a neutral arbiter of justice toward service as a state debt collector, and how the resulting unjust system criminalizes poverty, violates people's rights, and preys on many of our state's most vulnerable residents. Details: Raleigh: Author, 2019. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 18, 2019 at: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_nc_2019_fines_and_fees_report_17_singles_final.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_nc_2019_fines_and_fees_report_17_singles_final.pdf Shelf Number: 155456 Keywords: Court CostsDebtors PrisonFines and FeesPovertyRacial Disparities |