Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:02 am
Time: 3:02 am
Results for court fees
4 results foundAuthor: Council of Economic Advisors Title: Fines, Fees, and Bail: Payments in the Criminal Justice System That Disproportionately Impact the Poor Summary: Much of public discussion about the need for criminal justice system reform has focused on the dramatic growth in the size of the incarcerated population, as the number of Americans behind bars is now approximately 2.2 million. At the same time, concerns are growing about the expanding use of monetary penalties, which disproportionately impact poor defendants and offenders. Crime imposes real costs on society in terms of both the harm done to victims and in resources that must be allocated to policing, prosecution and incarceration. Increases in criminal justice spending have put a strain on local criminal justice budgets and led to the broader use of fine penalties and itemized criminal justice fees in an effort to support budgets. However, this practice places large burdens on poor offenders who are unable to pay criminal justice debts and, because many offenders assigned monetary penalties fall into this category, has largely been ineffective in raising revenues. Similarly, the growing use of fixed bail bonds as a condition for pretrial release has contributed to growth in jail populations, and often results in localities detaining the poorest rather than the most dangerous defendants. In this brief, we examine three common types of monetary payments in the criminal justice system: - Fines are monetary punishments for infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Fines are intended to deter crime, punish offenders, and compensate victims for losses. - Fees are itemized payments for court activities, supervision, or incarceration charged to defendants determined guilty of infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Fee collections are intended to support operational costs in the criminal justice system and may also be used to compensate victims for losses. Fees may also have a punitive and deterrent purpose, but are not designed to cater to specific offense categories. - Bail is a bond payment for a defendant's release from jail prior to court proceedings, and the majority of a bail payment is returned to a defendant after case disposition. Bail payments are intended to incentivize defendants to appear at court and, in some cases, to reduce the criminal risk of returning a defendant to the community. Details: Washington, DC: Council of Economic Advisors, 2015. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed April 5, 2016 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf Shelf Number: 138562 Keywords: BailBail BondCourt FeesFinesPretrial Detention |
Author: Martin, Karin D. Title: Shackled to Debt: Criminal Justice Financial Obligations and the Barriers to Re-entry They Create Summary: The authors discuss the long-term and unintended consequences of criminal justice financial obligations (CJFOs): fines, forfeiture of property, court fees, supervision fees, and restitution. The authors find that CJFOs are imposed at multiple stages of justice involvement, generating complexities that are difficult to navigate for both individuals and system actors alike. Additionally, financial sanctions are usually imposed without regard for individuals' ability to pay, and yet failure to pay can trigger additional monetary and criminal sanctions. This means that relatively minor initial infractions can result in large debt accrual and escalating involvement in criminal justice systems. Current systems of criminal justice financial obligations can also generate perverse incentives for justice-involved individuals - who may forego pursuing long-term sustainability in favor of being able to pay off their criminal justice debt quickly – and for system actors. Probation and parole officers, for example, may find that their ability to foster trust and positive behavior change in the lives of those they supervise is compromised by the role of debt collector. Consequences of criminal justice debt can undermine post-incarceration re-entry goals such as finding stable housing, transportation and employment. Failure to achieve these goals is costly not only for justice-involved individuals, but also in terms of public safety outcomes. To address the complexity, perverse incentives, and individual and social costs of CJFOs, the report presents recommendations in seven areas: (1) Factor in ability to pay when assessing CJFOs; (2) Eliminate “poverty penalties” (e.g. interest, application fees for payment plans, late fees, incarceration for failure to meet payments); (3) Implement alternatives to monetary sanctions where appropriate (i.e. community service); (4) Provide amnesty for people currently in debt due to CJFOs; (5) Deposit any CJFOs that are collected into a trust fund for the express purpose of rehabilitation for people under supervision; (6) Establish an independent commission in each jurisdiction to evaluate the consequences of CJFOs; and (7) Relieve probation, parole, and police officers of the responsibility of collecting debt. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections, no. 4: Accessed February 15, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249976.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249976.pdf Shelf Number: 140932 Keywords: Asset ForfeitureCourt FeesCriminal DebtCriminal Justice FinesFinancial SanctionsMonetary SanctionsPovertyPrisoner ReentryRestitution |
Author: United States Commission on Civil Rights Title: Targeted Fines and Fees against Low-Income People of Color: Civil Rights and Constitutional Implications Summary: The report examines (1) the reality - and real harm - of cities imposing fines and fees on residents to raise city funds rather than to secure legal compliance and increase public safety and (2) the U.S. Department of Justice's enforcement efforts to encourage constitutional practices and hold jurisdictions accountable for constitutional violations stemming from the way these jurisdictions impose fines and fees. The Commission's findings are drawn from diverse perspectives across the political spectrum, shared at two public briefings with policy experts, federal officials, state judges and court administrators, and advocacy groups. To prepare the report, the Commission also received information from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and reviewed relevant literature and data. By majority vote, the Commission finds: Many jurisdictions now require courts to collect fees for civil and criminal activities - such as traffic violations - in addition to government programs unrelated to courts. In almost every state, juvenile courts impose court costs, fines, and fees on youth, their families, or both - even though research shows that imposing such fees is ineffective to actually generate revenue. Some cities target poor citizens and communities of color for fines and fees, using law enforcement as ticketing and collections agencies to increase municipal revenues, rather than to improve public safety and civil compliance. Targeting the poor and communities of color for fines and fees undermines public confidence in the judicial system. Best practices should break the connection between revenue from fines and fees and the budget needs of cities and courts. U.S. Department of Justice efforts begun in the Obama Administration to discourage these practices have increased access to justice and should continue in the Trump Administration. These conclusions draw on bipartisan consensus, reflected in public testimony to the Commission, as well as in research and data the Commission reviewed, that cities' practices of preying financially on their own residents and targeting low income persons and persons of color are at best unwise and all too often unlawful. Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist crystalized the concerns of criminalizing poverty: "No one should have to fear being jailed for light speeding, having a tail light out, or not wearing a seatbelt. Not only is it wrong to potentially ruin someone's life over small infractions, but incarcerating an individual can often times cost the government more money as they waste resources on people who pose no threat to the community. The DOJ and the United States Commission on Civil Rights has a duty to encourage better practices in municipal courts to avoid abuse." Former Obama Justice Department official Chiraag Bains noted the agreement on this issue across the political spectrum, pointing out the common threads in advocating for court reform: "Unlawful and unfair practices involving excessive fines, the incarceration of the poor because of their inability to pay, and racially disparate enforcement violate core American values: liberty, fairness, equality." By majority vote, the Commission recommends: Courts and cities should use a common standard to evaluate an individual's ability to pay, presuming inability to pay for individuals who are homeless, incarcerated, confined to a mental health facilities, juveniles, or whose income is below the poverty level. DOJ should coordinate data collection and publicly share data and analysis of court fines and fees across the country. Such data collection should include the race, gender, and ability status of persons against whom fines and fees are assessed, to determine whether the assessment practices have a disparate impact on the basis of a protected status. States and cities should remove the potential for or existence of conflict of interest incentives to assess fines and fees by, for example, returning revenue from fines and fees to a general budget fund and discontinuing the use of for-profit collections agencies. DOJ should investigate additional jurisdictions related to this topic, and, where appropriate, issue reports to incentivize further, national, reform. Congress should enact legislation to give DOJ authority to investigate courts that impose fines and fees in an unconstitutional manner. Courts and cities should provide counsel to contest the imposition of a fine or fee and to determine indigency, as appropriate. Details: Washington, DC: USCCR, 2017. 238p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2017 at: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2017.pdf Shelf Number: 148017 Keywords: Civil RightsCourt FeesCriminal FeesCriminal FinesRacial Disparities |
Author: Resnik, Judith Title: Who Pays? Fines, Fees, Bail, and the Cost of Courts Summary: In the last decades, growing numbers of people have sought to use courts, government budgets have declined, new technologies have emerged, arrest and detention rates have risen, and arguments have been leveled that private resolutions are preferable to public adjudication. Lawsuits challenge the legality of fee structures, money bail, and the imposition of fines. States have chartered task forces to propose changes, and new research has identified the effects of the current system on low-income communities and on people of color. The costs imposed through fees, surcharges, fines, and bail affect the ability of plaintiffs and defendants to seek justice and to be treated justly. This volume, prepared for the 21st Annual Arthur Liman Center Colloquium, explores the mechanisms for financing court systems and the economic challenges faced by judiciaries and by litigants. We address how constitutional democracies can meet their obligations to make justice accessible to disputants and to make fair treatment visible to the public. Our goals are to understand the dimensions of the problems, the inter-relationships among civil, criminal, and administrative processes, and the opportunities for generating the political will to bring about reform. Details: New Haven, CT: Yale University, Law School, 2018. 222p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165674 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165674 Shelf Number: 150105 Keywords: BailCourt FeesCriminal Justice DebtDue ProcessFeesFinancial SanctionsFines |