Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:24 pm
Time: 8:24 pm
Results for financial sanctions
20 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: 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: 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: 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: Martin, Karin D. Title: Shackled to Debt: Criminal Justice Financial Obligations and the Barriers to Re-entry They Create Summary: The authors discuss the long-term and unintended consequences of criminal justice financial obligations (CJFOs): fines, forfeiture of property, court fees, supervision fees, and restitution. The authors find that CJFOs are imposed at multiple stages of justice involvement, generating complexities that are difficult to navigate for both individuals and system actors alike. Additionally, financial sanctions are usually imposed without regard for individuals' ability to pay, and yet failure to pay can trigger additional monetary and criminal sanctions. This means that relatively minor initial infractions can result in large debt accrual and escalating involvement in criminal justice systems. Current systems of criminal justice financial obligations can also generate perverse incentives for justice-involved individuals - who may forego pursuing long-term sustainability in favor of being able to pay off their criminal justice debt quickly – and for system actors. Probation and parole officers, for example, may find that their ability to foster trust and positive behavior change in the lives of those they supervise is compromised by the role of debt collector. Consequences of criminal justice debt can undermine post-incarceration re-entry goals such as finding stable housing, transportation and employment. Failure to achieve these goals is costly not only for justice-involved individuals, but also in terms of public safety outcomes. To address the complexity, perverse incentives, and individual and social costs of CJFOs, the report presents recommendations in seven areas: (1) Factor in ability to pay when assessing CJFOs; (2) Eliminate “poverty penalties” (e.g. interest, application fees for payment plans, late fees, incarceration for failure to meet payments); (3) Implement alternatives to monetary sanctions where appropriate (i.e. community service); (4) Provide amnesty for people currently in debt due to CJFOs; (5) Deposit any CJFOs that are collected into a trust fund for the express purpose of rehabilitation for people under supervision; (6) Establish an independent commission in each jurisdiction to evaluate the consequences of CJFOs; and (7) Relieve probation, parole, and police officers of the responsibility of collecting debt. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections, no. 4: Accessed February 15, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249976.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249976.pdf Shelf Number: 140932 Keywords: Asset ForfeitureCourt FeesCriminal DebtCriminal Justice FinesFinancial SanctionsMonetary SanctionsPovertyPrisoner ReentryRestitution |
Author: 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: 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: 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: Levy-Lavelle, Pat Title: Driving on Empty: Payment Plan Reforms Don't Fix Virginia's Court Debt Crisis Summary: In February 2017, the Supreme Court of Virginia implemented significant changes to rules governing payment plans for court debt motivated, in part, by helping people restore their driver's licenses. These changes were later enacted by the Virginia General Assembly. Nearly a year later, one shocking statistic remains essentially unchanged: roughly one in six licensed drivers in Virginia still has their drivers license suspended at least in part due to unpaid court debt. "As of December 2017, nearly one million Virginians had driver's licenses suspended at least in part due to court debt (974,349), and nearly two-thirds of those (638,003) were suspended solely for that reason." To see why, we reviewed payment plan policies used by 116 general district courts (GDCs) across Virginia. Our review indicates that, even following significant reforms, payment plan policies in place across Virginia are not designed to take into account people's individual financial circumstances, resulting in unrealistic and unaffordable payment plans that often lead to default. Many GDC policies do not mention ability to pay, and many others look at ability to pay only as an exception. Of the 116 policies we examined, not one gives any indication of how it evaluates ability to pay, and correspondingly, the inability to pay. In addition, many courts have no community service provisions (or very restrictive community service provisions), charge arbitrarily high down payments to enter plans, fail to mention the statutory right to seek modification of plans, or restrict access to subsequent payment plans for indebted Virginians who default. The reality is that many court debtors are indigent or otherwise lack the ability to pay. For them, policies that assume they can pay are effectively useless because they provide no escape from the crushing penalties that defaulting debtors face. These penalties can include revocation of probation or re-imposition of a suspended sentence; intercept of tax refunds; civil collections (with a 17% surcharge); accrued interest; and driver's license suspension, among others. License suspension can, and often does, lead to incarceration for driving on a suspended license. In fact, from 2011- 2015, driving-while-license-suspended charges, based on failure to pay alone, led to the sentencing of approximately 1.74 million jail days-which is an average of more than 348,000 jail days each year. It appears that these reforms have done little, if anything, to stem the breathtaking current of Virginians losing their licenses. As of December 2017, nearly one million Virginians had driver's licenses suspended at least in part due to court debt (974,349), and nearly two-thirds of those (638,003) were suspended solely for that reason. In a recent one-year period (November 2016- October 2017), an average of 835 new court debt suspensions surged each and every day into the system. Indeed, focusing on the first four months of data (July 2017-October 2017) since the implementation of Va. Code 19.2-354.1, the figure was an average of 954 suspensions per day. That pace, when annualized, represents over 348,000 suspensions for default on court debt per year. Driver's license suspension for unpaid court debt is a blunt instrument. Under Virginia law, the hammer descends automatically whenever a person defaults on court debt, regardless of the reason for such default. Courts effectively assume-without any process or inquiry whatsoever- that individuals are in contempt for failing to pay money that, in reality, they don't have. Indeed, anyone a few days late or a few dollars short is pushed into suspension. A September 2017 report by the Supreme Court of Virginia acknowledges that "[d]efendants unable to make substantial or meaningful payments constitute the population most likely to undergo license suspension for the failure to pay fines and costs." Additionally, and ultimately, driver's license suspension for unpaid court debt is counterproductive and debilitating. It makes it even less likely that courts will ever be able to collect unpaid court debt by impairing the employment and earnings prospects of suspended drivers. For the same reason, it hurts Virginia families struggling to make ends meet. It also distracts Virginia from a larger (and badly needed) discussion about how to sustainably fund our court systems. Thus, even as further changes can be made to payment plan policies across the state, Virginia's law stripping driver's licenses of people who default on court debt needs to be repealed. Details: Charlottesville, VA: Legal Aid Justice Center, 2018. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2018 at: https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Driving-on-Empty-Payment-Plan-Analysis-FINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.justice4all.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Driving-on-Empty-Payment-Plan-Analysis-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 150502 Keywords: Court Costs Court-Related Debt Criminal Justice Debt Financial Sanctions |