Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:16 pm
Time: 12:16 pm
Results for criminal justice debt
23 results foundAuthor: Patel, Roopal Title: Criminal Justice Debt: A Toolkit for Action Summary: Criminal justice debt is a huge problem for the overwhelmingly indigent population of the United States criminal justice system. States charge a number of fees at every stage of criminal processing: fees for public defenders, jail fees, prison fees, court administrative fees, prosecution fees, probation fees, parole fees, etc. When these fees are applied without considering if a person can actually pay them or not, it can create enormous costs for the individuals ensnared in the criminal justice system. Many offenders now serve multiple sentences because they cannot afford to pay. They often face another physical sentence, or as they struggle to make payments, they may suffer a host of collateral consequences that create barriers to re-entering society and raise the specter of re-imprisonment. Criminal Justice Debt: A Toolkit for Action examines the myriad problems that criminal justice debt collection policies create for the individuals in the criminal justice system, the communities they reside in, and the states who attempt to make money off of them. The report also analyzes the impact these charges have had on the states that attempt to collect fees from people who cannot pay them. The authors propose areas that advocates can target for reform, and present action materials that advocates can use to build a successful campaign to fight for more just policies. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2012. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2012 at: http://brennan.3cdn.net/4c14b93f5afee89bd5_zfsm6v848.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://brennan.3cdn.net/4c14b93f5afee89bd5_zfsm6v848.pdf Shelf Number: 125612 Keywords: Criminal Justice DebtFeesIndigents (U.S.)PovertyPrisoner Reentry |
Author: 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: Roman, Caterina G. Title: Child Support, Debt, and Prisoner Reentry: Examining the Influences of Prisoners' Legal and Financial Obligations on Reentry Summary: Former prisoners are increasingly facing the burden of financial debt associated with legal and criminal justice obligations in the U.S., yet little research has pursued how - theoretically or empirically - the burden of debt might affect key outcomes in prisoner reentry. To address the limited research, we examine the impact that having legal child support (CS) obligations has on employment and recidivism using data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). In this report we describe the characteristics of adult male returning prisoners with child support orders and debt, and examine whether participation in SVORI was associated with greater services receipt than those in the comparison groups (for relevant services such as child-support services, employment preparation, and financial and legal assistance). We also examine the lagged impacts that child support obligations, legal employment and rearrest have on each other. Results from the crossed lagged panel model using GSEM in STATA indicate that while having child support debt does not appear to influence employment significantly, it does show a marginally significant protective effect - former prisoners who have child support obligations are less likely to be arrested after release from prison than those who do not have obligations. We discuss the findings within the framework of past and emerging theoretical work on desistance from crime. We also discuss the implications for prisoner reentry policy and practice. Details: Philadelphia: Temple University, Department of Criminal Justice, 2015. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248906.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248906.pdf Shelf Number: 136134 Keywords: Child Support Children of Prisoners (U.S.) Criminal Justice DebtDesistanceEx-Offender EmploymentInmates Families Prisoner ReentryRecidivism |
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: Feierman, Jessica Title: Debtors' Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: Juvenile Law Center analyzed state laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that provide for the imposition of juvenile court costs, fines, fees, or restitution on youth or their families. Juvenile Law Center also surveyed professionals in each state familiar with how those fees were being imposed. A concurrent research study was also conducted to measure the connection between costs, recidivism and racial disparities in the juvenile justice system. "Every day, we hear elected officials talking about racial injustice, mass incarceration, and the need for criminal justice reform. This report identifies one key strategy to address those problems: eliminating or reducing the financial costs of juvenile court involvement on youth and their families," said Jessica Feierman, Associate Director at Juvenile Law Center and report author. "Racial disparities pervade our juvenile justice system. Our research suggests that we can reduce those disparities through legislative action aimed at costs, fines, fees, and restitution." Approximately one million youth appear in juvenile courts each year. In every state, youth and families can be required to pay juvenile court costs, fees, fines, or restitution. The costs for court related services, including probation, a "free appointed attorney," mental health evaluations, the costs of incarceration, treatment, or restitution payments, can push poor children deeper into the system and families deeper into debt. Youth who can't afford to pay for their freedom often face serious consequences, including incarceration, extended probation, or denial of treatment - they are unfairly penalized for being poor. Many families either go into debt trying to pay these costs or forego basic necessities like groceries to keep up with payments. Research by criminologists Alex Piquero and Wesley Jennings examined the connection between court-ordered financial obligations and recidivism. "Two key findings emerged from our study," said Alex R. Piquero, Ashbel Smith Professor of Criminology at The University of Texas at Dallas. "First, imposing financial penalties on juvenile offenders has the opposite of its intended effect, increasing recidivism instead of deterring it. Second, we found a direct link between court-ordered financial obligations and increased racial disparity, since minority youth were more likely to still owe costs and restitution after their cases were closed. Their inability to pay often leads to additional charges, extended probation, or additional punishments, taking them deeper into the justice system." Through the generous support of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Debtors' Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System, and the associated study investigating the impact of costs on recidivism, provide a much-needed roadmap for policymakers nationwide who care about fairness in our justice system. Details: Philadelphia: Juvenile Law Center, 2016. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2016 at: http://debtorsprison.jlc.org/documents/JLC-Debtors-Prison.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://debtorsprison.jlc.org/documents/JLC-Debtors-Prison.pdf Shelf Number: 140114 Keywords: Criminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsJuvenile Offenders |
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: American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska Title: Unequal Justice: Bail and modern day debtors' prisons in Nebraska Summary: Over 30 years ago in Bearden v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court issued a seminal ruling that to imprison someone because of their poverty and inability to pay a fine or restitution would be fundamentally unfair and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet today, courts across the United States and Nebraska routinely imprison people because of their inability to pay. This practice has been termed a "modern-day debtors' prison." This practice happens at various points in the criminal justice system. First, it can happen to people who are awaiting trial. Individuals are forced to sit in jail while their case proceeds because a bail amount has been set beyond their ability to pay while those with financial resources regain their freedom to go to work, school and be with their families while awaiting trial. Second, some people who have been adjudicated and found guilty end up in jail even though they were not sentenced to jail time because they are unable to pay a fine and are imprisoned instead to “"it it out." The end result of these systems: a maze with dead-ends at every turn for low-income people. In this report, the ACLU of Nebraska presents the results of its investigation into Nebraska's modern-day "debtors' prisons" and bail practices. The report shows how, day after day, low-income Nebraskans are imprisoned because they lack the ability to pay bail or pay fines and fees. These practices are illegal, create hardships for those who already struggle, and are not a wise use of public resources. Debtors' prisons result in an often fruitless effort to extract payments from people who may be experiencing homelessness, are unemployed, or lack the ability to pay. The ACLU of Nebraska investigated the imposition of bail as well as the imposition of court fees and fines. Our survey focused on the four largest counties (Douglas, Lancaster, Sarpy and Hall), using open records requests, court record review, and interviews with people involved in the system with additional in-court observations in Douglas, Lancaster and Sarpy Counties. Details: Lincoln, NE: ACLU of Nebraska, 2016. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2016 at: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/unequal_justice_2016_12_13.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/unequal_justice_2016_12_13.pdf Shelf Number: 147324 Keywords: BailCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsPoverty |
Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: The Costs and Consequences of Bail, Fines and Fees in New Orleans Summary: The justice system in New Orleans, like most others, is partly supported by "user-funded revenue," meaning the money it collects from individuals charged with a crime. This practice has long been common in the United States, but an emerging body of research has begun to uncover the perverse incentives it creates for justice agencies and the depth of its impact on individuals. This report is an in-depth study of the costs and consequences of user-funded revenues in New Orleans, a city where the effects of this practice are likely to be particularly acute because of a poverty rate that is nearly twice the national average and a jail incarceration rate that is among the highest in the nation. Although there are steep challenges in New Orleans, there are also factors that bode well for reform. The jail population, while still nearly twice the national average, has been declining and is now the lowest it's been in decades. Furthermore, there are a number of new jail population reduction efforts— under the leadership of the mayor and city council—and a federal consent decree has led to an increased focus on improving conditions inside the jail. Data is often a prerequisite for reform. So to uncover the costs and consequences of the user-funded justice system in New Orleans, Vera researchers examined agency financial reports and justice-agency administrative records to measure (1) annual justice system expenses and user-pay revenue (namely financial bail and conviction fines and fees), (2) how much justice agencies and bond agents benefit from these revenues, (3) the financial impact of bail for defendants, (4) the financial impact of conviction fines and fees for defendants, and (5) the consequences of a user-funded system, including the human cost of jail and the disparate impact on black communities. Through analysis of 2015 financial reports and administrative court records, Vera found that: • Law enforcement, judicial, and corrections agency expenses totaled $265 million. • User-funded revenues totaled $11.5 million and comprised bond fees ($1.7 million), conviction fines and fees ($2.8 million), traffic court fines and fees ($5 million), and “other” sources that include asset seizures and drug testing fees ($1.9 million). • User-funded costs paid to commercial bond agents totaled $4.7 million for non-refundable bond premiums. • User-funded revenues comprise a sizable share of the budget for four agencies: traffic court (99 percent), municipal court (18 percent), criminal district court (32 percent), and Orleans Public Defenders (41 percent). • The cost of posting a surety bond averaged—inclusive of bond fees—$2,408 in criminal district court and $451 in municipal court. • 1,275 individuals, in criminal district court, spent an average of 114 pretrial days in jail because they could not pay their bail; 1,153 individuals, in municipal court, spent an average of 29 pretrial days in jail because they could not pay their bail. • More than 8,000 people were assessed conviction fines and fees totaling $3.8 million. o In criminal district court, 2,156 individuals were assessed a total of $2.4 million in fines and fees; o In municipal court, 6,175 individuals were assessed a total of $1.4 million. • Conviction fines and fees per individual averaged $1,125 in criminal district court and $228 in municipal court. • In 2015, municipal court issued 3,014 warrants for failing to pay (or failing to appear for payment) and criminal district court issued 990 warrants. Over those 12 months, 536 people were arrested on such warrants, all but 88 of them stemming from municipal court cases. (This includes people who were sentenced well before 2015 but were arrested in that year.) • The transfer of wealth that results from bail, fines and fees falls disproportionately on black communities: $5.4 million of the $6.4 million (84 percent) for bail premiums and fees and $2.7 million of the $3.8 million (69 percent) for conviction fines and fees were assessed to black defendants. • Once assessed fines and fees, black defendants were issued an arrest warrant in relation to unpaid fines and fees at higher rates than white defendants for both misdemeanor cases (43 percent versus 29 percent) and felony cases (18 percent versus 14 percent). Vera’s surveys and interviews with individuals previously involved in the New Orleans criminal justice system reveal that many relied on a number of people—including partners, parents, and children— to raise the money to pay the costs associated with justice system contact. And many still have trouble paying all their costs. This suggests that, for most respondents, raising the money for bail, fines and fees was a hardship that they either could not overcome, or one for which they had to rely on the resources of their community to meet. The total range of potential criminal justice costs goes far beyond those Vera analyzed through administrative records. So it is little surprise that more than half of survey respondents reported they and their family spent over $4,500 on costs associated with their most recent court case – including bail, fines, fees, transportation to court, attorney fees, and money put into their jail commissary account, among other expenses. The majority of people we surveyed reported that these costs had a major or moderate negative impact on their family's financial stability. Interviews with court-involved individuals and justice system stakeholders underscored the financially detrimental impact of user-funded costs on families, the stress of ongoing financial obligations to the justice system, the role of these criminal justice costs in exacerbating justice involvement, and the ways in which these costs damage perceptions of fairness and trust. The greatest cost, however, may be the human cost of jail (such as the risk of harm in jail and the deprivation of liberty) for those unable to bail, fines and fees, which Vera estimates to be substantially greater than the cost of jail to taxpayers. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans-technical-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans-technical-report Shelf Number: 140663 Keywords: BailCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtCriminal Justice SystemsFinancial SanctionsJails |
Author: Laisne, Mathilde Title: Past Due: Examining the Costs and Consequences of Charging for Justice in New Orleans Summary: Every year, government agencies in New Orleans collect millions of dollars in the form of bail, fines and fees from people involved in the criminal justice system and, by extension, from their families. Millions more are transferred from the pockets and bank accounts of residents to for-profit bail bond agents. These costs have become the subject of considerable public attention. Some view them as a necessary way to offset the expense of operating the criminal justice system. But because many "users" of the system have very low incomes or none at all, there is growing concern that charging for justice amounts to a criminalization of poverty, especially when people who can't pay become further entangled in the justice system. Take bail, for example: In theory, bail aims to ensure that people charged with crimes actually face justice in court, and high bail is intended to keep potentially dangerous defendants behind bars while their cases are pending. But here in New Orleans, as in many systems across the country, bail amounts are not calibrated to reflect a person’s ability to pay. As a result, poor families scrape together bail from money that they need to live on. And those who can't raise the money sit in jail not because they’re a risk of flight or a danger to the public, but simply because they can’t pay. Similarly, a host of fees for the use of the courts and other justice system resources, along with fines imposed as part of a person’s sentence if convicted, are levied in amounts that many poor and low-income people can't easily afford or afford at all. As part of a study to better understand the cost and consequences of bail, fines and fees for individuals in New Orleans, researchers at Vera interviewed people who have faced these costs. Two of their stories are illustrative. When Veronica was arrested and detained, her mother risked losing her house to raise the $2,500 to purchase a bail bond and pay associated government fees. It’s money she’ll never get back, but it was the only way to get her daughter out of jail after she had already spent 10 days behind bars. Keith, who is 61, still struggles to pay off thousands of dollars in court costs and restitution as a result of writing a bad check in 2014. He is making monthly payments that at times have deprived his family of basic necessities, including running water, and have strained his marriage almost to the breaking point. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans.pdf Shelf Number: 145425 Keywords: Bail Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Fines Criminal Justice Debt Criminal Justice SystemsFinancial Sanctions |
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: University of California School of Law - Berkeley. Policy Advocacy Clinic Title: Making Families Pay: The Harmful, Unlawful, and Costly Practice of Charging Juvenile Administration Fees in California Summary: n the wake of tragedies in cities like Ferguson, Missouri, national attention is focused on the regressive and racially discriminatory practice of charging fines and fees to people in the criminal justice system.People of color are overrepresented at every stage in the criminal justice system, even when controlling for alleged criminal behavior. Racially disproportionate treatment in the system leaves people of color with significantly more criminal justice debt, including burdensome administrative fees. While regressive and discriminatory criminal justice fees have been described and critiqued in the adult system, the issue has received very little attention in the juvenile system. Nevertheless, families with youth in the juvenile system are charged similar fees, which significantly undermine the system's rehabilitative goals. The harmful practice of charging poor people for their interaction with the criminal justice system is not limited to places like Ferguson, Missouri. California, too, makes families pay for their children's involvement in the juvenile system. This report presents findings about the practice of assessing and collecting administrative fees from families with youth in the California juvenile system. We use the term "administrative fees" to describe the charges imposed by local jurisdictions on families for their child's involvement in the juvenile system. State law permits counties to charge administrative fees for legal representation, detention, and probation, but only to families with the ability to pay. Most counties in California charge these administrative fees, imposing millions of dollars of debt on families with youth in the juvenile system. Our research over the last three years reveals that juvenile administrative fees undermine the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile system. Counties charge these fees to families already struggling to maintain economic and social stability. Fee debt becomes a civil judgment upon assessment. If families do not pay the fees, counties refer the debt to the state Franchise Tax Board, which garnishes parents' wages and intercepts their tax refunds. Under state law, these fees are meant to help protect the fiscal integrity of counties. They are not supposed to be retributive (to punish the family), rehabilitative (to help the youth) or restorative (to repay victims). This report details our findings on juvenile fees in California, but we summarize them here: HARMFUL: Juvenile administrative fees cause financial hardship to families, weaken family ties, and undermine family reunification. Because Black and Latino youth are overrepresented and overpunished relative to White youth in the juvenile system, families of color bear a disproportionate burden of the fees. Criminologists recently found that juvenile debt correlates with a greater likelihood of recidivism, even after controlling for case characteristics and youth demographics. These negative outcomes from fees undermine the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile system. UNLAWFUL: Some counties charge juvenile administrative fees to families in violation of state law, including fees that are not authorized in the juvenile setting, fees that exceed statutory maximums, and fees for youth who are found not guilty. Some counties violate federal law by charging families to feed their children while seeking reimbursement for the same meals from national breakfast and lunch programs. Further, counties engage in fee practices that may violate the state Constitution by depriving families of due process of law through inadequate ability to pay determinations and by denying families equal protection of the law in charging certain fees. COSTLY: Counties are authorized to charge families for juvenile administrative fees to pay for the care and supervision of their children. Yet counties net little revenue from the fees. Because of the high costs and low returns associated with trying to collect fees from low-income families, most of the fee revenue pays for collection activities, not for the care and supervision of youth. Further, the fee debt can cause families to spend less on positive social goods, such as education and preventative healthcare, which imposes long term costs on families, communities, and society by prolonging and exacerbating poverty. Based on our findings, fixing the system is not an option. Charging administrative fees to families with youth in the juvenile system does not serve rehabilitative purposes. Other mechanisms in the system punish youth for their mistakes and address the needs of victims. Further, we did not find a single county in which fee practices were both fair and cost-effective. Counties either improperly charge low-income families and net little revenue, or they fairly assess families' inability to pay and net even less. Counties that have recently considered the overall harm, lawfulness, and costs of juvenile administrative fees have all ended the practice. Details: Berkeley: The Clinic, 2017. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: http://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/State-Juvenile-Fees-Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/State-Juvenile-Fees-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 147032 Keywords: Administrative FeesCriminal Justice DebtFines and FeesJuvenile Offenders |
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: American Bar Association Title: Criminalizing Poverty: Debtor's Prison in the 21st Century Summary: On June 20, 2016, a distinguished panel of experts discussed how fines, fees, and costs in our justice system are criminalizing poverty by burying people unable to pay under ever-growing mountains of debt and imposing on the poor more severe punishments for failure to pay. This free CLE webinar, Criminalizing Poverty: Debtor's Prison in the 21st Century, was presented by the American Bar Association Commission on Homelessness & Poverty, Section of State and Local Government Law, Criminal Justice Section, Section of Litigation Children's Rights Litigation Committee, and the Center for Professional Development. There are many different terms used interchangeably across the country - such as monetary sanctions, legal financial obligations (LFOs), and assessments (e.g., in Illinois) - to describe the different fines, fees, and costs associated with offenses and the courts. For the sake of simplicity, in this article, we will use the term "LFO" whenever possible to refer to such fines, fees, and costs. In the program on criminalizing poverty, Dr. Harris identified four systems of justice or "layers of legal debt" in which LFOs are imposed on people: traffic and misdemeanor, juvenile, felony, and federal. Then, within each of these layers of legal debt, there are types or "buckets" of LFOs. Dr. Harris has identified through her research the following buckets of LFOs: - Fines related to the offense. These fines range from an undefined amount (Delaware) to $500,000 (Kansas). Examples are a discretionary $1,000 drug conviction LFO for a first conviction and $2,000 for a second conviction (Washington). - Court-imposed user fees for processing. Examples are a mandatory $500 victim penalty assessment per felony (Washington), a $100 fee per felony (Washington), a $100 criminal cost fee (Indiana), a $193 felony docket fee (Kansas), and a $300 jury trial fee (Maine). - Surcharges for court and non-court-related costs. These are fees on top of the base charges, and they range from 0 to 83 percent. In Arizona, 10 percent of an 83 percent surcharge goes to a clean elections fund even though people with felony convictions paying this surcharge cannot vote; in Delaware, a 50 percent surcharge on fines goes to a transportation fund. - Collection costs and interest on unpaid balances. These directly create a two-tier system of justice by punishing those who are unable to pay with additional costs such as interest and penalties. Examples are 4.75 percent interest (Florida), 7 percent interest (Georgia), 12 percent interest (Washington), a 15 percent penalty on unpaid balances and a 30 percent collection fee (Illinois), and a 19 percent collection fee for delinquent payments and a $35 fee (Arizona). - Restitution for victim compensation. Restitution is the money owed to victims by offenders to compensate for the offender's actions. Details: Chicago: ABA, 2016. 180p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 20, 2018 at: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/litigation_committees/childrights/16-06-20-CE1606FSS-course-materials.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/litigation_committees/childrights/16-06-20-CE1606FSS-course-materials.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 149179 Keywords: Court Fees and FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsMonetary Sanctions |
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 |
Author: Meredith, Marc Title: Discretionary Disenfranchisement: The Case of Legal Financial Obligations Summary: Appellate courts generally dismiss objections about tying legal financial obligations (LFOs) to the right to vote, at least in part because of the limited, anecdotal evidence available about the nature of LFO assessment and payback. We undertake a massive data collection effort to detail the type, burden, and disparate impact of criminal debt for a representative, statewide samples in Alabama. The median amount of LFOs assessed to discharged felons in Alabama across all of their criminal convictions is $3,956, more than half of which stems from court fees. People utilizing a public defender and blacks are about 15 and 9 percentage points (p.p) more likely to have an outstanding LFO balance, respectively, than people utilizing a private attorney and non-blacks. Consequentially, blacks are about 26 p.p. more likely than non-blacks to have their voting rights restoration applications denied because of outstanding LFOs. Details: Unpublished paper, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2018 at: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~marcmere/workingpapers/DiscretionaryLFOs.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~marcmere/workingpapers/DiscretionaryLFOs.pdf Shelf Number: 150188 Keywords: Criminal Justice Debt Ex-Offenders Felon Disenfranchisement Felony OffendersVoting Rights |
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 |
Author: Link, Nathan Wong Title: Paid Your Debt to Society? Legal Financial Obligations and their Effects on Former Prisoners Summary: Within the last decade, scholars and practitioners alike have noted a surge in the use of legal financial obligations (LFOs) in criminal justice processing. These include fines, fees, and costs that are applied to defendants' cases from "upstream" agencies such as police departments to "downstream" agencies including jails, prisons, probation and parole agencies, and treatment centers. Legal financial obligations can be large, and the result is that outstanding balances often accumulate into unwieldy amounts of criminal justice debt. Recently, a small handful of qualitative studies have shown that these LFOs and debts can have adverse impacts on returning prisoners and their families, including increased stress, strained family relationships, worsened depression, and longer periods spent under criminal justice surveillance for those too poor to pay off outstanding balances. In addition, some of this work suggests that these financial obligations can increase the likelihood of returning to crime. This dissertation expands on the major contributions of these recent qualitative works by addressing the lack of quantitative research in this area. Toward this end, longitudinal data from the Returning Home Study (n = 740) and structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques are used to test whether LFOs and debt indeed have adverse impacts on key outcomes of interest in reentry research, including family relationships, depression, justice involvement/entanglement, and recidivism. Findings reveal partial support for past research and theory. Legal financial obligations do not appear to have impacts on depression, family conflict, and several measures of recidivism on average. However, outstanding debt owed to community supervision agencies (i.e., probation/parole/mandatory community supervision) significantly increases the likelihood of remaining under supervision, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of returning to prison. Implications for decision-making bodies from state legislatures to corrections agencies are discussed. Details: Philadelphia: Temple University, 2017. 192p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: accessed June 6, 2018 at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1952046335?pq-origsite=gscholar Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1952046335?pq-origsite=gscholar Shelf Number: 150499 Keywords: Court Fines and FeesCriminal Justice DebtFeesFinancial SanctionsFinesPrisoner Reentry |
Author: Sobol, Neil L. Title: Charging the Poor: Criminal Justice Debt and Modern-Day Debtors' Prisons Summary: Debtors' prisons should no longer exist. While imprisonment for debt was common in colonial times in the United States, subsequent constitutional provisions, legislation, and court rulings all called for the abolition of incarcerating individuals to collect debt. Despite these prohibitions, individuals who are unable to pay debts are now regularly incarcerated, and the vast majority of them are indigent. In 2015, at least ten lawsuits were filed against municipalities for incarcerating individuals in modern-day debtors' prisons. Criminal justice debt is the primary source for this imprisonment. Criminal justice debt includes fines, restitution charges, court costs, and fees. Monetary charges exist at all stages of the criminal justice system from pre-conviction to parole. They include a wide variety of items, such as fees for electronic monitoring, probation, and room and board. Forty-three states even charge fees for an indigent's "free" public defender. With expanding incarceration rates and contracting state budgets, monetary sanctions have continued to escalate. Additionally, many states and localities are now outsourcing prison, probation, monitoring, and collection services to private companies, who add additional fees and charges to the criminal justice debt burden of defendants. The impact of criminal justice debt is especially severe on the poor and minorities as they are frequently assessed "poverty penalties" for interest, late fees, installment plans, and collection. Often they have to decide between paying criminal justice debt and buying family necessities. The deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York, and Freddie Gray in Baltimore have prompted renewed calls for investigation of the adverse treatment of the poor and minorities in the criminal justice system. The fear of arrest, incarceration, and unfair treatment for those owing criminal justice debt creates distrust in the system. In February 2015, a class action complaint was filed against the City of Ferguson asserting that the city's jails had become a "modern debtors' prison scheme" that had "devastated the City's poor, trapping them for years in a cycle of increased fees, debts, extortion, and cruel jailings." Moreover, the Department of Justice's report on the Ferguson Police Department presents a scathing indictment of a system apparently more concerned with revenue collection than justice. Unfortunately, as illustrated by recent lawsuits and investigations alleging debtors' prisons in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington, the abuses are not limited to Ferguson, Missouri. The same concerns that led to the historical restrictions on debtors' prisons have risen again with the growth of modern-day debtors' prisons. Similar to the prisons in London during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that were criticized for using a privatized system that charged inmates for all services, including room and board, the current justice system improperly charges the poor. It is now time to revisit these concerns and implement effective restrictions to reduce the incidence of debtors' prisons. To remedy these concerns, my Article proposes eliminating egregious sanctions, providing courts flexibility to base fines on earning levels, and establishing procedures to enforce restrictions against incarcerating those who are truly unable to pay their criminal justice debt. Details: College Station, TX: Texas A&M University School of Law, 2016. 56p. Source: Texas A&M University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 16-09: Accessed June 18, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2704029 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2704029 Shelf Number: 150574 Keywords: Criminal Justice Debt |