Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:11 pm
Time: 12:11 pm
Results for criminal fees
14 results foundAuthor: Evans, Douglas N. Title: The Debt Penalty: Exposing the Financial Barriers to Offender Reintegration Summary: Financial debt associated with legal system involvement is a pressing issue that affects the criminal justice system, offenders, and taxpayers. Mere contact with the criminal justice system often results in fees and fines that increase with progression through the system. Criminal justice fines and fees punish offenders and are designed to generate revenue for legal systems that are operating on limited budgets. However, fines and fees often fail to accomplish this second goal because many offenders are too poor to pay them. To compound their financial struggles, offenders may be subject to other financial obligations, such as child support payments and restitution requirements. If they do not pay their financial obligations, they may be subject to late fees and interest requirements, all of which accumulate into massive debt over time. Even if they want to pay, offenders have limited prospects for meaningful employment and face wage disparities resulting from their criminal history, which makes it even more difficult to pay off their debt. An inability to pay off financial debt increases the possibility that offenders will commit new offenses and return to the criminal justice system. Some courts re-incarcerate offenders simply because they are unable to settle their financial obligations. Imposing financial obligations and monetary penalties on offenders - a group that is overwhelmingly indigent - is not tenable. States often expend more resources attempting to recoup outstanding debt from offenders than they are able to collect from those who pay. This report explores the causes and effects of perpetual criminal debt and offers solutions for encouraging ex-offender payment. Details: New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://jjrec.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/debtpenalty.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://jjrec.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/debtpenalty.pdf Shelf Number: 133631 Keywords: Criminal FeesCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsOffender FinancesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Nagrecha, Mitali Title: When All Else Fails, Fining the Family. First Person Accounts of Criminal Justice Debt Summary: The types of financial obligations owed to the state have proliferated, and the penalties for debt have been increasingly criminalized with harsh sanctions. In that sense, our interviews confirmed what other advocacy groups and individual scholars have recently found: There has been a surge in criminal justice debt and increasing state punitiveness meted out to those who fail to pay. Many incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals have been swept into what we have come to call a debt-enforcement regime. Punishment is everywhere and criminal justice debt can confine individuals to a liminal space where prison is never a thing of the past. Debt is paid not only by those convicted of crimes, but also by their families (or friends) who are the last stop before re-incarceration. Families and friends provide important assistance in staunching the debt that relatives or friends face when returning from prison, knowing that such debt can trigger punitive consequences, including reincarceration. Our interviews demonstrate that post-prison debt fulfillment is often family subsidized, as returning individuals struggle with criminal justice debt and other challenges of reentry. Even assuming that it is the returning prisoner who has "done the crime," it is often up to his or her friends and family members to help pay the time. This is the main finding of this study. Public policy aimed at collecting debt must ultimately be more closely tailored to the ability of an individual - not that of his or her family or network of friends - to pay what may be due. While families have an important role to play in the successful reintegration of their family member, they should not have to bear the burden of debt repayment as a means to avert the re-incarceration of their loved one. This is particularly important as the financial condition of families of formerly incarcerated people is often precarious even without their shouldering financial penalties. Details: Syracuse, NY: Center for Community Alternatives, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 7, 2015 at: http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/Criminal-Justice-Debt.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.communityalternatives.org/pdf/Criminal-Justice-Debt.pdf Shelf Number: 134561 Keywords: Criminal Fees Criminal Fines Criminal Justice Debt (U.S.)Financial SanctionsOffender FinancesPrisoner Reentry |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana Title: Louisiana's Debtors Prisons: An Appeal to Justice Summary: We tend to think of "debtors prisons" as a Dickensian practice, one that may have thrived in less civilized centuries but has long been consigned to the dustbin of history. We are comfortable believing that locking people up because they can't pay their debts doesn't happen in the modern world, and certainly not in America. The truth is the opposite: debtors prison practices are very real and present, both across the country, and here in Louisiana. In January 2014, Orleans Parish grandmother Dianne Jones was sentenced to time served (ten days), an almost $800 fine, and six months probation for first-time possession of marijuana. Although unemployed and the primary caregiver for her three young grandchildren, Jones paid monthly installments of more than $100 over several months, until she was unexpectedly forced to move. The expenses associated with the unplanned move caused her to fall behind in her court payments, leaving her owing a balance of $148. Because she did not complete her installment payments in the six months allotted by the court, her probation period was extended and a warrant with a $20,000 bond was issued for her arrest. At risk of being jailed, and leaving her grandchildren without care, Jones only found relief when a community group rallied to take up a collection on her behalf. With the money raised, Jones was able to pay her remaining fines and court costs, and the warrant was lifted. Jones' case is not unlike one from 1983, involving a man named Danny Bearden. It began when Bearden was sentenced to three years probation and ordered to pay $750 in fines and restitution for burglary and receiving stolen property. Bearden's family initially paid part of his fine, but illiterate and unemployed, he was unable to keep up his payments. In June 1981, he was sentenced to serve the remainder of his probation term in prison because he hadn't paid the $550 he still owed. He languished in prison for two years, and appealed his sentence all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983. The Supreme Court held that, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, an individual may face incarceration for failure to pay fines only if that failure was willful or the individual failed to make bona fide efforts to pay. Sentencing courts must inquire into the reasons that a defendant fails to pay a fine or restitution before imposing a prison sentence; to imprison someone merely because of their poverty would be fundamentally unfair. In short, Bearden v. Georgia established that it is illegal to imprison someone who cannot pay a fine simply because the person is poor. More than a decade before the Bearden case, in 1972, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Louisiana, ruled in Frazier v. Jordan that courts may not impose "pay or stay" sentences-sentences which require a defendant to pay a fine at the time of sentencing or serve a jail term. Between Bearden and Frazier, the illegality of both these practices-imposing a jail sentence for failing to pay a court-ordered fine, and imposing sentences that present a choice between a fine and jail time-is long established. Yet despite clear and longstanding law, courts across Louisiana continue to disregard the protections and principles established by the Supreme Court and by the 5th Circuit in Bearden and Frazier. Louisiana courts routinely incarcerate people simply because they are too poor to pay fines and fees-costs often stemming from very minor, nonviolent offenses. Others are given the impossible choice between a fine they can't afford and a stay in jail. In this report, the ACLU of Louisiana details the experiences of people who were incarcerated because they were unable to pay relatively small fines. That these practices have continued to flourish for decades after being outlawed demonstrates not only a disregard for the law, but also for the people of Louisiana. Debtors prisons are supposed to be a thing of the past. It's time to make that true. KEY FINDINGS The ACLU of Louisiana ("ACLU") investigated the imposition and collection of fines, fees and court costs or other legal financial obligations (LFOs) in twelve parishes and two cities from across Louisiana. We also examined instances of "pay or stay" sentences. These practices are examined together because their impact on individuals is the same. We sought records of jail bookings during the 45-day period from January 1-February 15, 2014, as well as specific bookings for contempt or failure to pay fines, fees, or costs. In some cases, we also requested city court records when necessary to clarify parish jail booking records. We screened records for individuals booked on contempt or other charges for failure to pay fines and fees, as well as for individuals sentenced to "pay or stay sentences." ACLU staff visited courtrooms to observe the practice of jailing people for inability to pay in parishes across Louisiana. The ACLU interviewed court officials and advocates as well as people who were subject to debtors prison practices in Bossier, Orleans, Caddo, St. Martin, and Evangeline parishes. Several themes emerged in our analysis: Details: New Orleans, LA: American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: https://www.laaclu.org/resources/LADebtorsPrisons_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.laaclu.org/resources/LADebtorsPrisons_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136824 Keywords: Criminal FeesCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial Sanctions |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire Title: Debtors' Prisons in New Hampshire Summary: In a practice startlingly akin to the debtors' prisons of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Circuit Court judges in New Hampshire commonly jail those who have no ability to pay fines without a meaningful hearing and without providing access to counsel. This practice imposed on our most vulnerable citizens is unconstitutional, financially unsound, and cruel. In an alarming number of cases where indigent defendants appear in court to address an unpaid fine, judges do not inform these defendants of their rights. Judges do not afford them a lawyer. Judges do not even determine whether they can pay the fine. Judges simply put them in jail. This practice is systemic. A year-long investigation conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire ("ACLU-NH"), in conjunction with University of New Hampshire School of Law Professor and ACLU-NH Board Chair Albert E. Scherr, has revealed that the problem is not limited to a rogue judge or court, but is occurring throughout the state. This practice is also illegal. The United States Constitution, New Hampshire Constitution, New Hampshire law, and New Hampshire's own Circuit Court rules all prohibit this modern-day version of a debtors' prison. The law clearly states that, before an individual can be incarcerated for failure to pay a fine or fee, the court must (i) meaningfully inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay and (ii) determine that the individual is willfully refusing to pay despite having sufficient resources. The law prohibits courts from jailing individuals who simply cannot afford to pay. The Federal and State Constitutions further require representation by counsel if the judge is considering incarceration for failing to pay a fine or fee in a criminal case. In criminal cases, the State already has representation in the form of a prosecutor. Yet, according to our data, in 2013 New Hampshire judges jailed people who were unable to pay fines and without conducting a meaningful ability-to-pay hearing in an estimated 148 cases. In all of these cases, defendants were sent to jail without representation by counsel. And in three cases handled by the ACLU-NH in 2014, two Superior Court Judges and the New Hampshire Supreme Court granted relief to three individuals - Alejandra Corro, Richard Vaughan, and Dennis Suprenant - who were (or were going to be) jailed by Circuit Courts in violation of these constitutional principles. These cases, which are described in the "Personal Stories" section below, show that debtors' prison practices can counter-productively lead to termination of an individual's new employment, impede ongoing efforts of that individual to gain employment, and prevent struggling parents from caring for their infant children. Details: Concord, NH: ACLU of New Hampshire, 2015. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2015 at: http://aclu-nh.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Final-ACLU-Debtors-Prisons-Report-9.23.15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://aclu-nh.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Final-ACLU-Debtors-Prisons-Report-9.23.15.pdf Shelf Number: 136975 Keywords: Criminal FeesCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsIndigent Defendants |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Title: In Jail & In Debt: Ohio's Pay-to-Stay Fees Summary: The ACLU of Ohio is the first to collect and analyze pay-to-stay policies statewide with the report In Jail & In Debt: Ohio's Pay-to-Stay Fees. Pay-to-stay jail fees are the fees charged by local jails to people while they are incarcerated. This report takes a comprehensive look at jails across the state, compares policies, documents impact, and proposes new recommendations to stop locking people in cycles of incarceration and debt. Our statewide investigation analyzes policies at 75 facilities representing 74 counties across Ohio. More than half of jails, 40 of the 75, charge people for their incarceration through a booking fee, a daily fee, or both. Ohioans are getting billed up to $66.09 a day to be in jail. It is a follow up to the 2013 report Adding It Up: The Financial Realities of Ohio's Pay-To-Stay Policies, which explored the financial impacts of pay-to-stay policies in Ohio. This report analyzed how local governments were trying to generate revenue from people in jail, but pay-to-stay fees created more problems than they solved. We suggested counties follow the law and assess for indigence, eliminate costly collections agency contracts, and consider the impact on families. Details: Cleveland, OH: ACLU of Ohio, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/InJailInDebt.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/InJailInDebt.pdf Shelf Number: 137326 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Fees Criminal FinesCriminal Justice Debt Financial SanctionsJail FeesJail Inmates |
Author: Cook, Foster Title: The Burden of Criminal Justice Debt in Alabama: 2014 Participant Self-Report Survey Summary: Across the country the criminal justice system has increasingly looked to defendants to finance the courts and court related programs. In Alabama, the legislature has reduced funding for courts and court related services. To offset this loss, court costs and associated fees have risen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of this approach and the impact of these policies in Alabama. With the general knowledge that increased court costs have not produced projected revenue, we sought to understand why by surveying defendants across the state. We thank the Community Corrections Directors in the counties represented, the staff that administered the surveys and the Alabama Department of Probation and Parole. Three goals of this study: 1. Explore the "ability to pay" question 2. Understand the dynamics of the collection process 3. Understand the consequences criminal justice debt has to: - Defendants under court supervision - The purposes of the justice system - The public - Recidivism - Persons in the criminal justice system living in poverty Methods of this study: 1. This study was initially designed as an anonymous survey for Jefferson County/TASC, and Probation and Parole 2. Other Alabama counties expressed interest and participated in the study 3. Those populations have been combined in the following outcomes: a. 13 counties b. 943 participants under supervision for a felony were surveyed 4. Primarily Quantitative: descriptive statistics 5. Secondarily Qualitative: comments recorded from the participants Details: Birmingham, Alabama: TASC Jefferson County's Community Corrections Program, University of Alabama, 2015. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.uab.edu/medicine/substanceabuse/images/The_Burden_of_Criminal_Justice_Debt_in_Alabama-_Part_1_Main_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.uab.edu/medicine/substanceabuse/images/The_Burden_of_Criminal_Justice_Debt_in_Alabama-_Part_1_Main_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137794 Keywords: Criminal Debt (U.S.) Criminal Fees Criminal Fines Criminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsOffender Finances Prisoner Reentry |
Author: Harvard Law School. Criminal Justice Policy Program Title: Confronting Criminal Justice Debt: A Guide for Policy Reform Summary: This report is part of Confronting Criminal Justice Debt: A Comprehensive Project for Reform, a collaborative project by Criminal Justice Policy Program (CJPP) at Harvard Law School and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). This project includes three parts designed to assist attorneys and advocates working on reform of criminal justice debt: Confronting Criminal Justice Debt: The Urgent Need for Comprehensive Reform (CJPP and NCLC), Confronting Criminal Justice Debt: A Guide for Litigation (NCLC), and Confronting Criminal Justice Debt: A Guide for Policy Reform (CJPP). Details: Cambridge, MA: Criminal Justice Policy program, 2016. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2016 at: http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/Confronting-Crim-Justice-Debt-Guide-to-Policy-Reform-FINAL.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/Confronting-Crim-Justice-Debt-Guide-to-Policy-Reform-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 140454 Keywords: Criminal Fees Criminal Fines Criminal Justice Debt (U.S.) Financial SanctionsOffender Finances |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Texas Title: No Exit, Texas: Modern-Day Debtors' Prisons and the Poverty Trap Summary: A traffic ticket should sting. The fine should be enough to make you think twice before doing something like speeding again. But a traffic ticket shouldn’t derail your life—cost your job, make it impossible to pay your bills and feed your family, or deprive you of your freedom. Yet in Texas, for people too poor to write a check and move on with their lives, a simple traffic ticket leads to a cascade of unconstitutional and devastating consequences. For people who can’t afford their traffic tickets, Texas’s criminal justice system is like a maze with dead ends at every turn. Unreasonable fees pile up and stop people from paying off their debt. Judges require payment for a hearing about inability to pay. Courts are incentivized to issue warrants for failure to pay. And many people who can’t afford their fines are unconstitutionally jailed for what are legally defined as “non-jailable” offenses. The result is a two-tiered system of justice, in which the well-off get what amounts to a slap on the wrist, and the impoverished are stuck in a system where the only exit is debtors’ prison. This report discusses enforcement of Class C Misdemeanor fines and fees in Texas’s hundreds of Municipal and Justice of the Peace Courts. Practices vary, but our study of these local courts has uncovered a pattern of local courts criminalizing poverty, and perpetuating racial injustice, through unconstitutional enforcement of low-level offenses. It’s time for policymakers at every level of government to improve the fairness of sentencing for all Texans and put an end to these debtors’ prisons. Details: Houston: ACLU of Texas, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 21, 2016 at: https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/debtorsprisonfinal_0.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/debtorsprisonfinal_0.pdf Shelf Number: 140219 Keywords: Criminal FeesCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsIndigent DefendantsPoverty |
Author: 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: Fredericksen, Allyson Title: Disenfranchised by Debt: Millions Impoverished By Prison, Blocked From Voting Summary: While most people over the age of 18 in the United States are guaranteed the right to vote, those with felony convictions who have served their sentence face a variety of barriers to voting, including, in many states, the requirement that they pay any outstanding fines and fees owed to the courts. This practice amounts to limiting the right to vote based on ability to pay - in essence, a poll tax. These fines and fees, called legal financial obligations (LFOs) can include those attached to a conviction or citation, or they can be from expenses accrued during incarceration - like the cost of laundry service. LFOs can also include interest accrued from the original fines and fees during incarceration or during repayment. There are 30 states that require all LFOs be paid in order for people with conviction records to regain the right to vote. While some of these states, like Connecticut, explicitly state that payment of LFOs is required to regain the right to vote, other states, like Kansas, require that probation be completed - which is contingent upon payment of all legal financial obligations. Additionally, some states include explicit language on LFOs in disenfranchisement laws and also have mechanisms that extend probation and/or parole if such fines and fees are left unpaid. Such a system not only allows those with means to pay off their debts to regain the right to vote earlier than those who cannot afford such payment, but it also perpetuates income and race-based inequality. People of color are more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted, receive harsher sentences, and are more likely to be low-income than are their white counterparts, so are disproportionately impacted by a system that requires payment of LFOs to regain the right to vote after incarceration. Ending criminal disenfranchisement would be the best way to avoid the abuses and bureaucracies that limit voting rights for those with court debt. Short of that, there are a number of reforms that states could immediately implement to remove ability to pay as a barrier to voting. These reforms include eliminating both explicit and de facto LFO disenfranchisement for those who would otherwise be eligible to regain the right to vote; establishing clear criteria for determining ability to pay and adjusting total legal financial obligations or removing LFO repayment as a requirement for voting for those found unable to pay; and automatically registering anyone with a conviction record who becomes eligible to vote. Details: Seattle, WA: Alliance For A Just Society, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 15, 2017 at: http://allianceforajustsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Disenfranchised-by-Debt-FINAL-3.8.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://allianceforajustsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Disenfranchised-by-Debt-FINAL-3.8.pdf Shelf Number: 150547 Keywords: Court-Related Debt Criminal DisenfranchisementCriminal FeesCriminal Justice Debt DisenfranchisementFinancial SanctionsVoting Rights |
Author: Texas Appleseed Title: Pay or Stay: The High Cost of Jailing Texans for Fines and Fees Summary: For low-income Texans, a ticket for a minor offense like speeding, jaywalking, or having a broken headlight can lead to devastating consequences for the individual, as well as that person's family and community. If someone is unable to pay a ticket right away, the cost compounds over time, often resulting in more tickets, fines and fees. Failing to pay or to appear in court can lead to an arrest warrant and jail time. Current practices often result in the suspension of, and inability to renew, driver's licenses, as well as the inability to register vehicles. They also result in millions of arrest warrants being issued annually. When people are picked up on a warrant for failure to pay tickets, fines and fees, they are often booked into jail and made to pay off their debt with jail credit, usually at a rate of $50 to $100 a day. These practices are widespread - over 230,000 Texans are unable to renew expired licenses until their fines and fees are paid off, and about 1 in 8 fine-only misdemeanor cases are paid off in whole or in part with jail credit. Low-income Texans are being set up to fail by the way fines and fees are handled, and they are often driven deeper into poverty. Suspending a person's driver's license makes it illegal to drive to work; issuing an arrest warrant can make it nearly impossible for to find employment; and sending that person to jail can lead to the loss of a job and housing. The public's safety is harmed when low-risk people languish in jail. This system hurts Texas families and drains our public resources at great expense to taxpayers. In many cases, the current system also violates state and federal law. The United States Supreme Court has held that incarcerating somebody because of unpaid fines or fees without a hearing to determine if they are actually able to pay the fines and fees violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment. Texas state statute also makes clear that a person cannot be jailed for unpaid fines when the nonpayment was due to indigence. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Appleseed, 2017. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2017 at: https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/PayorStay_Report_final_Feb2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/PayorStay_Report_final_Feb2017.pdf Shelf Number: 145165 Keywords: Criminal FeesCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsPoverty |
Author: Western Australia, Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services Title: Fine defaulters in the Western Australian prison system Summary: The imprisonment of fine defaulters in Western Australian prisons has been a contentious issue for some time. Debates have centred around the number of defaulters in prison, their impact on an already-crowded prison system, the cost of short terms of imprisonment for fine default, and whether the state is too quick to imprison fine defaulters rather than using alternatives. Very different views have been put as to the extent of the problem and the potential solutions, and the matter has generated political division. Some of the issues involved in fine default are beyond our jurisdiction as they involve the powers and practices of the courts, the police, and the fine enforcement sections of the Department of the Attorney General. At times during this review, some people in some government departments complained that we were going beyond our jurisdiction in undertaking this work. That is clearly not so: I am legislatively mandated to provide independent oversight of matters that impact on prisons. These necessarily extend to matters such as the number of fine defaulters; their profile (including their offending, and demographics); their impact on the prison population and the operation of prisons; the costs of their incarceration; and their welfare and treatment in prison. I have a legislative responsibility to report independently to Parliament on such issues if I believe this to be necessary or appropriate. The report focuses primarily on the period from July 2006 to June 2015. The most important single finding is that while the number of people received into prison each year for fine default has increased markedly, there are few people in prison for fine default at any given time. This is because fine defaulters tend to serve very short periods in custody: their 'turnover' is high but their stay is short. The policy implications of this are clear. First, reducing the number of fine defaulters in prison will not lead to a significant reduction in either total prisoner numbers or the extent of overcrowding in the prisons. As we and the Auditor General reported in 2015, the main 'target' for anyone seeking to reduce the prison population should be the alarming rise in the number of people held on pre-trial remand (Office of the Auditor General [OAG] 2015; Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services [OICS] 2015a). At the time of writing, the remand population comprises over 29 per cent of the total prison population, up from 16 per cent a decade ago On the other hand, however, having people 'churning' in and out of custody for short periods for fine default is financially costly (several million dollars each year), socially undesirable, and risky and disruptive for prisons. It is therefore incumbent on all agencies to ensure that everything possible is done to reduce this churn. Significantly, this report has also revealed demographic differences, with Aboriginal women being by far the most likely cohort to be in prison for fine default. The death of Ms Dhu in police custody lies outside our jurisdiction. However, the current coronial inquest into her death has added poignancy and urgency to our findings. Details: Perth: Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services, 2016. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2017 at: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3914182a267c7268541194a448257fd20032c2e4/$file/4182.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3914182a267c7268541194a448257fd20032c2e4/$file/4182.pdf Shelf Number: 147159 Keywords: Criminal Fees Criminal FinesCriminal Justice Debt Financial SanctionsFine Defaulters |
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: Eisen, Lauren-Brooke Title: Charging Inmates Perpetuates Mass Incarceration Summary: The American criminal justice system is replete with fees that attempt to shift costs from the government to those accused and convicted of breaking the law. Courts impose monetary sanctions on a "substantial majority of the millions of U.S. residents convicted of felony and misdemeanor crimes each year." Every aspect of the criminal justice process has become ripe for charging a fee. In fact, an estimated 10 million people owe more than $50 billion in debt resulting from their involvement in the criminal justice system. In the last few decades, additional fees have proliferated, such as charges for police transport, case filing, felony surcharges, electronic monitoring, drug testing, and sex offender registration. Unlike fines, whose purpose is to punish, and restitution, which is intended to compensate victims of crimes for their loss, user fees are intended to raise revenue. The Justice Department's March 2015 report on practices in Ferguson, Mo. highlights the over-reliance on court fines as a primary source of revenue for the jurisdiction. The New York Times noted that the report found that "internal emails show city officials pushing for more tickets and fines." Fees and debts are increasing partially because the criminal justice system has grown bigger. With 2.2 million people behind bars, courts - and all the relevant agencies - have expanded as well. Since the 1970s, incarceration in the U.S. has risen steeply, dwarfing the incarceration rate of any other nation on Earth. The U.S. added about 1.1 million incarcerated people, almost doubling the nation's incarcerated population, in the past 20 years. The fiscal costs of corrections are high - more than $80 billion annually - about equivalent to the budget of the federal Department of Education.6 A recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that corrections is currently the third-largest category of spending in most states, behind education and health care. In fact, somewhat disconcertingly, 11 states spent more of their general funds on corrections than on higher education in 2013. Fees already on the books have increased. And, these fees are extending into state and local corrections. As a result of these runaway costs, counties and states continue to struggle with ways to increase revenue to pay for exorbitant incarceration bills. In 2010, the mean annual state corrections expenditure per inmate was $28,323, although a quarter of states spent $40,175 or more. Not surprisingly, departments of corrections and jails are increasingly authorized to charge inmates for the cost of their imprisonment. Although this policy is alarming, less widely understood but equally troubling is the reality that these incarceration fees perpetuate our nation's addiction to incarceration. This policy brief exposes how the widespread nature of charging fees to those who are incarcerated connects to the larger problem of mass incarceration in this country. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2015. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/blog/Charging_Inmates_Mass_Incarceration.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/blog/Charging_Inmates_Mass_Incarceration.pdf Shelf Number: 150496 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCourt Fines and FeesCriminal FeesCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtMass Incarceration |