Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:45 am
Time: 3:45 am
Results for criminal debt
5 results foundAuthor: 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: Papalia, Paul Title: Locking in Poverty How Western Australia drives the poor, women and Aboriginal people to prison Summary: The current policy for managing Western Australians who cannot pay fines has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, strained the prison system and has disproportionately affected the poor, especially women and Aboriginal people. In Western Australia, fine defaulters may enter prison to clear a fine, if they have been unsuccessful in paying off the fine via a payment plan or completing a Community Service Order. The management of Community Service Orders was changed in early 2009, resulting in high rates of imprisonment of fine defaulters. The State Government assumes that the prospect of going to prison will deter people from breaking the law and incurring fines in the first place. If so, the number of fine defaulters entering the prison system should have diminished. Instead, this policy is driving an extra 1100 people to prison a year, with significant economic and social costs. This policy is not working. It is economically unsound, ineffective in enforcing fines payments and profoundly unfair. - Every year since 2010, more than 1,100 fine defaulters have entered prison in Western Australia solely for the purpose of clearing fines. - Fine defaulters in prison 'cut out' $250 of fines a day, yet it costs $345 per day to keep them in prison. - The costs of imprisoning fine defaulters have blown out by 220 per cent since 2008. - Last year, one in every three women who entered the prison system did so solely for the purposes of clearing fines. - The number of Aboriginal women jailed for fine default has soared by 576 per cent since 2008. - Between 2008 and 2013, the number of Aboriginal people incarcerated solely for fine default has increased from 101 to 590, a growth of more than 480 per cent. - Between 2008-9 and 2012-13, the Department of Corrective Services budget has blown out by an average of 8.6 per cent a year. If this trend continues, this year's budget of $870.25 million could blow out to $945.1 million. Details: Secret Harbor, WA: WA Labor, 2014. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: WA Labor Discussion Paper: Accessed November 14, 2017 at: https://www.markmcgowan.com.au/files/Locking_in_Poverty.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.markmcgowan.com.au/files/Locking_in_Poverty.pdf Shelf Number: 148163 Keywords: Aboriginal PersonsCriminal DebtCriminal FinesFine DefaultersFinesIndigenous PeoplesPoverty |
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: Alabama Appleseed Title: Under Pressure: How fines and fees hurt people, undermine public safety, and drive Alabama's racial wealth divide Summary: We surveyed 980 Alabamians from 41 counties about their experience with court debt, including 879 people who owed money themselves and 101 people who were paying debt for others. Of the people who owed money themselves, we found: More than eight in ten gave up necessities like rent, food, medical bills, car payments, and child support, in order to pay down their court debt. Almost four in ten admitted to having committed at least one crime to pay of their court debt. One in five people whose only previous offenses were traffic violations admitted to committing more serious offenses, including felonies, to pay off their traffic tickets. The most common offense committed to pay off court debt was selling drugs, followed by stealing and sex work. Survey respondents also admitted to passing bad checks, gambling, robbery, selling food stamps, and selling stolen items. 44% used payday or title loans to cover court debt. Almost two-thirds received money or food assistance from a faith-based charity or church that they would not have had to request if they weren't paying court debt. Almost seven in ten were at some point declared indigent by a court, and by almost every measure, indigent survey-takers were treated more harshly than their non-indigent peers. They were more likely to have been turned down for or kicked out of diversion programs for financial reasons, more likely to have their debt increased, be threatened with jail, or actually be jailed for non-payment of court debt. Almost half of the people who took our survey did not think they would ever be able to pay what they owe. The 101 people who took our survey who were paying debt for other people (usually family members) were more likely to be middle-aged African-American women than to belong to any other demographic group. While others their age were saving money for retirement, helping their children with college or other expenses, paying down mortgages, or taking vacations, these African-American women were disproportionately burdened with paying court debt for their families. Details: Birmingham: Alabama Appleseed, 2018. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2018 at: http://www.alabamaappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AA1240-FinesandFees-10-10-FINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.alabamaappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AA1240-FinesandFees-10-10-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 152919 Keywords: Court DebtCriminal DebtCriminal Fines and FeesPovertyRacial Disparities |
Author: Colgan, Beth Title: Addressing Modern Debtor's Prisons with Graduated Economic Sanctions that Depend on Ability to Pay Summary: The use of monetary sanctions to punish crimes ranging from minor traffic or public order offenses to the most serious felonies is ubiquitous in the United States. Nationally, millions of people hold billions of dollars of criminal debt from past monetary sanctions, much of which is regarded as uncollectible because of the limited financial resources of the debtors. In addition to the costs these unmanageable economic sanctions place on the debtors, their families and communities also suffer significant negative consequences as a result of this regressive system. THE PROPOSAL Drawing on evidence from day-fines pilot projects, this paper offers proposals for taking more account of a person's ability to pay when determining sanctions. Colgan recommends the implementation of one of the following three mechanisms: (1) a flat reduction in penalties, (2) a sliding scale approach, or (3) a day-fines model. In support of the core proposals, the author also describes related best practices that would maximize the proposals' potential benefits. Details: Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project, 2019. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: POLICY PROPOSAL 2019-04: Accessed march 20, 2019 at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Colgan_PP_201903014.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Colgan_PP_201903014.pdf Shelf Number: 155066 Keywords: Criminal DebtFines and FeesMonetary Sanctions |