Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:29 pm
Time: 10:29 pm
Results for monetary sanctions
4 results foundAuthor: Martin, Karin D. Title: Shackled to Debt: Criminal Justice Financial Obligations and the Barriers to Re-entry They Create Summary: The authors discuss the long-term and unintended consequences of criminal justice financial obligations (CJFOs): fines, forfeiture of property, court fees, supervision fees, and restitution. The authors find that CJFOs are imposed at multiple stages of justice involvement, generating complexities that are difficult to navigate for both individuals and system actors alike. Additionally, financial sanctions are usually imposed without regard for individuals' ability to pay, and yet failure to pay can trigger additional monetary and criminal sanctions. This means that relatively minor initial infractions can result in large debt accrual and escalating involvement in criminal justice systems. Current systems of criminal justice financial obligations can also generate perverse incentives for justice-involved individuals - who may forego pursuing long-term sustainability in favor of being able to pay off their criminal justice debt quickly – and for system actors. Probation and parole officers, for example, may find that their ability to foster trust and positive behavior change in the lives of those they supervise is compromised by the role of debt collector. Consequences of criminal justice debt can undermine post-incarceration re-entry goals such as finding stable housing, transportation and employment. Failure to achieve these goals is costly not only for justice-involved individuals, but also in terms of public safety outcomes. To address the complexity, perverse incentives, and individual and social costs of CJFOs, the report presents recommendations in seven areas: (1) Factor in ability to pay when assessing CJFOs; (2) Eliminate “poverty penalties” (e.g. interest, application fees for payment plans, late fees, incarceration for failure to meet payments); (3) Implement alternatives to monetary sanctions where appropriate (i.e. community service); (4) Provide amnesty for people currently in debt due to CJFOs; (5) Deposit any CJFOs that are collected into a trust fund for the express purpose of rehabilitation for people under supervision; (6) Establish an independent commission in each jurisdiction to evaluate the consequences of CJFOs; and (7) Relieve probation, parole, and police officers of the responsibility of collecting debt. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, 2017. Source: Internet Resource: New Thinking in Community Corrections, no. 4: Accessed February 15, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249976.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249976.pdf Shelf Number: 140932 Keywords: Asset ForfeitureCourt FeesCriminal DebtCriminal Justice FinesFinancial SanctionsMonetary SanctionsPovertyPrisoner ReentryRestitution |
Author: 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: Colgan, Beth Title: Addressing Modern Debtor's Prisons with Graduated Economic Sanctions that Depend on Ability to Pay Summary: The use of monetary sanctions to punish crimes ranging from minor traffic or public order offenses to the most serious felonies is ubiquitous in the United States. Nationally, millions of people hold billions of dollars of criminal debt from past monetary sanctions, much of which is regarded as uncollectible because of the limited financial resources of the debtors. In addition to the costs these unmanageable economic sanctions place on the debtors, their families and communities also suffer significant negative consequences as a result of this regressive system. THE PROPOSAL Drawing on evidence from day-fines pilot projects, this paper offers proposals for taking more account of a person's ability to pay when determining sanctions. Colgan recommends the implementation of one of the following three mechanisms: (1) a flat reduction in penalties, (2) a sliding scale approach, or (3) a day-fines model. In support of the core proposals, the author also describes related best practices that would maximize the proposals' potential benefits. Details: Washington, DC: The Hamilton Project, 2019. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: POLICY PROPOSAL 2019-04: Accessed march 20, 2019 at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Colgan_PP_201903014.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Colgan_PP_201903014.pdf Shelf Number: 155066 Keywords: Criminal DebtFines and FeesMonetary Sanctions |
Author: Shafroth, Abby Title: Criminal Justice Debt in the South: A Primer for the Southern Partnership to Reduce Debt Summary: In recent years, major civil-rights investigations and lawsuits in southern states have brought national attention to the problems associated with burdening people who run afoul of the law with unaffordable fines and fees and then, when they cannot pay, charging them more or imprisoning them. These problems were not news to the low-income communities of color who bore the highest costs of this system of "criminal justice debt," but the broader attention to the problem has brought an opportunity for reform. This primer is intended to support advocates seeking to identify policy reforms to address the problems with current criminal justice debt practices and restore integrity to our justice system. It begins with a brief overview of some of the most harmful consequences of current criminal justice debt practices, then provides recommended reforms, and ends with a list of additional national and state resources. The primer highlights examples of current law and research in the seven states in the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Southern Partnership to Reduce Debt (SPRD) in 2018: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Throughout this primer, information about these specific SPRD states is highlighted in blue. However, the problems identified and policy reforms recommended are broadly applicable across the United States. Criminal justice debt is debt resulting from fines, fees, and other costs imposed on people who are accused of an infraction, misdemeanor, or felony. It may also be referred to as "court debt," "legal financial obligations," "monetary sanctions," or just "fines and fees." Criminal justice debt includes: - fines imposed as punishment for an infraction or criminal conviction; - fees or costs imposed on defendants as a way for the government or third parties (such as private probation companies) to recover costs associated with prosecuting or punishing defendants or to otherwise fund operational costs of the criminal justice system; - surcharges that are added to fines to fund a particular government function or a general fund; - restitution that is generally intended to compensate victims for losses suffered as a result of the crime, and - interest, collection costs, payment plan costs, and penalties that commonly accrue when people are unable to afford to pay off criminal justice debt immediately Details: Boston: National Consumer Law Center, 2018. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2019 at: https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminal-justice/white-paper-criminal-justice-debt-in-the-south-dec2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminal-justice/white-paper-criminal-justice-debt-in-the-south-dec2018.pdf Shelf Number: 155518 Keywords: Court Fines Criminal Justice Debt Debtors Prison Fines and Fees Monetary Sanctions |