By Keith Finlay, Matthew Gross, Carl Lieberman, Elizabeth Luh and Michael Mueller-Smith

We estimate the impact of financial sanctions in the U.S. criminal justice system using nine distinct natural experiments across five states. These regression discontinuities capture a range of enforcement levels ($17–$6,000) and institutional environments, providing robust causal evidence and external validity. We leverage survey and administrative data to consider a variety of short and long-term outcomes including employment, recidivism, household expenditures, spousal spillovers, and other self-reported measures of well-being. We find consistent, robust evidence of precise null effects on the population, including ruling out long-run impacts larger than -$347–$168 in annual earnings and -0.002–0.01 in annual convictions. 

Unpublished paper, 2023. 60p.

By Samuel Norris and Evan K. Rose

Many jurisdictions levy sizable fines and fees (legal financial obligations, or LFOs) on criminal defendants. Proponents argue LFOs are a “tax on crime” that funds courts and provides deterrence; opponents argue they do neither. We examine the fiscal implications of lowering LFOs. Incentives to default generate a “Laffer” curve with revenue eventually decreasing in LFOs. Using detailed administrative data, however, we find few defendants demonstrably on the right-hand side of the curve. Those who are tend to be poor, Black, and charged with felonies. As a result, decreasing LFOs for the average defendant would come at substantial cost to governments.

NBER Working Papers 31806, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 2023. 39p.

By Ebony L. Ruhland, Amber A. Petkus, Nathan W. Link, Jordan M. Hyatt, Bryan Holmes, and Symone Pate

Abstract:

The assessment and collection of monetary sanctions (fines, fees, and restitution) have become a common element of the U.S. criminal justice system, especially in community corrections. Although the application of monetary sanctions is often dictated by state-level legislation, court rules, and agency policy, little research has sought to organize and systematically examine a set of these policies to compare them across several community corrections contexts more broadly. As such, this study fills a gap in the literature by using thematic content analysis to examine legislative policies governing the use of monetary sanctions in six states from across the United States. Laws and policies regarding the assessment, waiver, and collection of monetary sanctions utilized by agencies of varying size and jurisdictional scope were considered to identify common themes. We conclude with a discussion of whether the policies and laws examined align with rehabilitative and punitive goals of community supervision and highlight emerging opportunities for research and policy reform.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(1), 108-127.

By Breanne Pleggenkuhle bpleggenkuhle@siu.edu, Kimberly R. Kras, and Beth M. Huebner

Legal financial obligations (LFOs) are routinely assessed by the courts and corrections agencies. Yet, little is known about how individuals under correctional supervision experience and perceive legal debt. Understanding perceptions of LFOs is critical as research suggests that individuals who believe that criminal justice sanctions are fair and just are more likely to perceive the system as legitimate and comply. The current study examines in-depth interview data with individuals on probation or parole to understand perspectives of LFOs and what factors may condition these views. The results suggest that participants’ views are quite varied—expressing that they deserve some level of financial punishment, particularly in restitution cases, but they question additional costs that are not directly linked to the circumstances of the case, such as supervision fees, that exacerbate a perceived experience of double jeopardy or contradict the perceived purpose of the monetary assessment. Subgroup analyses suggest that individuals with a conviction for a sexual offense have secondary financial sanctions that deepen perceptions of inequities in the system.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeVolume 37, Issue 1, February 2021, Pages 88-107

By lya Slavinski and Kimberly Spencer-Suarez

Over the last several decades, with the rise of mass incarceration in the United States and its steep costs, governments at the federal, state, and local levels have dramatically ramped up monetary punishment. Monetary sanctions are now the most common type of criminal penalty in the United States. The growth of fines, fees, and other legal financial obligations (LFOs), and the ensuing legal debt, reflect a shifting of the system’s costs onto its primarily low-income and indigent subjects. This study provides an exploration of previously underexamined ways in which monetary sanctions impose distinct burdens on the poor. Interviews with 121 defendants in Texas and New York, along with courtroom observations, demonstrate that criminal legal debt is particularly challenging for people with low incomes in three meaningful ways. First, systems set up to handle indigency claims do not adequately address the needs or complex individual circumstances of those who simply do not have the ability to pay. Oftentimes, alternatives are unavailable or statutorily prohibited. Second, the lack of alternatives to payment lead to compromising situations, which then compel indigent defendants to make difficult choices about how to allocate scant resources. Finally, being encumbered with fines and fees and participating in alternatives like community service comes with taxing time requirements that can prove uniquely challenging for those who are poor. These three findings lead us to propose a series of policy recommendations revolving around three key themes: (a) enhancement of indigency procedures, (b) equity in monetary sanctions, and (c) alleviating burdens by improving accessibility.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(1), 45-65. 2021.

By Michele Cadigan and Tyler Smith

Monetary sanctions are a common tool for enforcing accountability within the criminal justice system. However, it is unclear how individuals with disabilities who have a limited capacity to work interact with the system of monetary sanctions. Drawing on courtroom observations and interviews in Washington State, we find that although the court does take disability into account when imposing economic sanctions and monitoring payment compliance, individuals with disabilities end up in a perpetual cycle of administrative hearings that can result in serious financial and health consequences for those involved. Implications for findings are discussed.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeVolume 37, Issue 1, February 2021, Pages 25-44

By Rochelle Sparko, Peter Smith, Whitley Carpenter, Laura Webb and Heather Hunt

North Carolina law allows judges to order the conversion of financial obligations to civil judgments. Although doing this may protect justice-involved people from driver’s license suspensions, an extension of probation, and additional jail time, they often unknowingly open themselves to the seizure of their state tax refunds, loss of real estate or their equity in it, barriers to expunging their criminal record, and difficulty finding housing and employment. This report expounds on the relationship between using the civil legal system to enforce payment of criminal financial obligations. Researchers reviewed files from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) from January 2017 through December 2021 to determine the number of cases converted from criminal to civil judgments, their collection rates, and the impact of collecting criminal monetary obligations civilly. The report later provides recommendations for the AOC and practitioners to reduce harm to justice-involved people from court debt.

Durham, NC: The Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), Forward Justice, and The North Carolina Justice Center, 2023. 63p.

By U.S. Department of Justice

  States, localities, courts, and prosecutor offices are among the entities that levy legal system fines and fees. The categories of fines and fees, affiliated costs, and discretion to impose or waive them, can vary greatly between, and even within, jurisdictions. However, there are certain common features. “Fines,” as utilized in this report, refers to financial penalties that are imposed upon criminal conviction, including misdemeanor and felony convictions, or upon juvenile delinquency adjudication, or when a judgment is entered for a civil infraction. A civil infraction includes citations that often can be paid in lieu of going to court, such as some quality-of-life offenses, traffic tickets, and municipal property code violations, among others. Fines are often imposed as a form of punishment or deterrence.3F 4 “Fees,” as utilized in this report, refers to itemized, financial assessments that are imposed on litigants to fund court or other government functions. They can arise at any stage of legal system involvement. For example, pre-trial litigants may face clerk fees, fees for requesting a public defender, filing fees, fees for using a public defender, or fees for entering a diversion program. Litigants who exercise their right to a trial may be assessed jury fees or fees for using an expert witness. In addition, individuals who are incarcerated may face in-custody fees for room and board, phone and email services, medical co-payments, library access, and basic hygiene necessities. Upon release, or as a condition of pre-trial release or diversion, individuals may face fees for probation supervision, drug testing, entrance into a DNA database, electronic monitoring, or drug and alcohol classes. Further, if a defendant is a minor, many jurisdictions will impose these fees on the child’s parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Unlike fines, fees are often imposed as mechanisms for funding criminal justice systems and other government functions.4F 5 Additional financial obligations may result from the assessment and enforcement of fines and fees themselves: processing fees; penalties for late payments; interest; fees for paying through a payment plan; fees for paying online; driver’s license reinstatement fees; and third-party debt collection fees, among others. Some courts also impose fees to fund specific programs, like facilities upkeep. This report treats these additional charges as “fees,” although they are often referred to as “surcharges.”

In this report, “assessment” refers to the amount of the fines or fees levied against an individual litigant, or the process to make such determination. “Enforcement” refers to the processes that jurisdictions use to compel litigants to pay fines and fees that have been assessed against them. Enforcement mechanisms may range from written warnings to financial penalties, wage garnishment, license and permit suspensions, and even arrest and incarceration.5F 6 Notably, this report focuses on fines and fees assessed against litigants accused by a government entity of criminal offenses, delinquent acts, or civil infractions. There are several categories of legal financial obligations (“LFOs”) that are outside the scope of this report, including restitution, bail bonds, and fees in civil cases that are not initiated by a government entity. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,  2023. 73p.

By Carly A. Gartenberg

Imagine being arrested and jailed for rolling through a stop sign. In fourteen states,1 that is a real possibility. In these states, minor traffic offenses are criminalized, meaning that they are arrestable offenses that come with a criminal record. Although what constitutes a minor traffic offense varies from state to state, generally they are moving violations (such as speeding, failing to stop, or failing to signal); equipment offenses (such as broken lights or a cracked windshield); or administrative regulations (such as driving without proof of insurance or with an expired registration). 

In 14 states, traffic offenses as minor as a cracked taillight can lead to arrest and jail. Traffic offenses are the most common way people interact with the justice system and even in the states that have decriminalized minor traffic offenses, many jurisdictions allow the use of bench warrants when a person can’t pay a fine or fee, or if they do not appear for a court hearing – which can also land them in jail. As a result of these backwards policies, millions of people are being dragged into the justice system, saddled with fine and fee debt, and having their jobs and futures jeopardized by lasting criminal records. 

Our latest report, The Drive to Jail calls out the dangers of continuing to criminalize minor traffic and offenses and outlines what states and local jurisdictions can do to ensure true traffic decriminalization is realized   
New York: Fines and Fees Justice Center, 2023. 15p.

By Rafael A. Mangual 

After enacting a sweeping bail reform, New York lawmakers have drawn the ire of constituents who are troubled by the many stories of repeat and serious offenders—some with violent criminal histories—being returned to the street following their arrests. In the state’s biggest city, the public’s growing concerns are buttressed by brow-raising, if preliminary, crime data, amplifying calls for amending or repealing the bail reform. The operative provisions of New York’s bail reform severely limit judicial discretion in pretrial release decisions, increasing the number of pretrial defendants who are being released, often without conditions and without allowing judges to consider the risk that a defendant poses to the public. New York is now the only state that does not allow judges to consider public safety in any pretrial release decisions. This brief begins with an overview of New York’s pre-2020 bail law and the reforms that took effect on January 1. It then highlights the reform’s shortfalls and ends by proposing three changes intended to address the public’s legitimate safety concerns while preserving the spirit of the reform effort and addressing some of the inequities and inefficiencies inherent in a system that is heavily reliant on the use of monetary pretrial release conditions. The proposed changes include: • Empowering judges to assess the public safety risk posed by pretrial defendants, and setting out a process that allows them to detain dangerous or chronic offenders; • Allowing judges to revoke or amend release decisions in response to a pretrial defendant’s rearrest; and • In the intermediate term, setting aside additional funds or diverting existing funds to reduce the time a defendant stands to spend in jail if remanded to pretrial detention.  

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2020. 14p.

By Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates: UK

In this report, the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates focus on recruitment and retention in the agencies that they inspect. The report draws on evidence from inspections conducted by each of the individual inspectorates, both jointly and singly, of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Probation and Youth Offending Services and the Prison Service. It sets out the findings from this work, as well as cross-cutting themes. It concludes by highlighting signs of progress as well as ongoing risks to the criminal justice system.

United Kingdom, CJJI. 2024, 19pg

By Vera M. Kachnowski and Amanda Russell

 In 2016, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated an amendment that comprehensively revised the guideline covering illegal reentry offenses—§2L1.2 (Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States). The amendment, Amendment 802, became effective November 1, 2016, and represented the most comprehensive revision of a major guideline in the last two decades. This report examines the impact of Amendment 802 by looking back at sentencings under §2L1.2 over the last ten fiscal years. The report first describes the concerns leading to the amendment, including that §2L1.2’s 12- and 16-level increases were overly severe and led to variances, and that using the “categorical approach” to apply enhancements was overly complex, resource intensive, and increased litigation and uncertainty. After outlining the changes made by Amendment 802, the report assesses its impact on guideline application for §2L1.2 offenders and on appeals involving §2L1.2.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 38p.

By Sarah W. Craun and Alyssa Purdy

There are numerous federal criminal statutes authorizing a sentence of life as the maximum sentence allowed, such as for offenses involving drug trafficking, racketeering, and firearms crimes. While convictions under these statutes are common, sentences of life imprisonment are rare, accounting for only a small proportion of all federal offenders sentenced.  In February 2015, the Commission released Life Sentences in the Federal Criminal Justice System, examining the application of life sentences by federal courts during fiscal year 2013. Using data from fiscal years 2016 through 2021, this report updates and augments the Commission’s previous findings by examining the offenses that led to the life sentences imprisonment imposed, along with offender demographics, criminal histories, and victim-related adjustments.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission,  2022. 40p.

By Kathleen C. Grilli, Kevin T. Maass and Charles S. Ray,

This publication summarizes the history of Chapter Eight’s development and discusses the two substantive changes made to the elements of an effective compliance and ethics program. It then provides policymakers and researchers a snapshot of corporate sentencing over the last 30 years. Finally, the publication describes Chapter Eight’s impact beyond federal sentencing.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 94p.

By April A. Christine,  Courtney R. Semisch,  Charles S. Ray, and Amanda Russell,

This comprehensive study of robbery offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2021 provides an analysis of the characteristics of robbery offenders, their criminal history, and their sentences imposed. The report also provides analyses on the prevalence of robbery offenses and how they were committed, including who was robbed, what was taken, the use or threatened use of physical force, the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, and whether any victim was injured or killed during a robbery. This report builds upon the Commission’s recent observations regarding the high recidivism rates among federal robbery offenders

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2022. 60p.

By Vera M. Kachnowski, Christine Kitchens, and Data Cassandra Syckes,

The report entitled Weighing the Impact of Simple Possession of Marijuana: Trends and Sentencing in the Federal System updates a 2016 Commission study and examines sentences for simple possession of marijuana offenses in two respects. Part One of the report assesses trends in federal sentencings for simple possession of marijuana since fiscal year 2014. The report then describes the demographic characteristics, criminal history, and sentencing outcomes of federal offenders sentenced for marijuana possession in the last five fiscal years and compares them to federal offenders sentenced for possession of other drug types. Part Two of the report examines how prior sentences for simple possession of marijuana (under both federal and state law) affect criminal history calculations under the federal sentencing guidelines for new federal offenses. The report identifies how many federal offenders sentenced in fiscal year 2021—for any crime type—received criminal history points under Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual for prior marijuana possession sentences. The report then assesses the impact of such points on those offenders’ criminal history category, one of the two components used to establish the sentencing guideline range.

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2023. 46p

 By Tracey Kyckelhahn and Amanda Kerbel,

The United States Sentencing Commission (“the Commission”) has previously published reports on the relationship between demographic factors and sentencing,1 but none have focused specifically on the educational attainment of federally sentenced individuals. The United States Census Bureau estimates that 12.8 percent of the U.S. population have acquired a graduate degree (i.e., master’s degree, professional degree, or doctoral degree).2 However, less than two percent (1.8%) of federally sentenced individuals in fiscal year 2021 were in this educational attainment group. Congress requires courts to consider several factors when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in federal cases, including the “history and characteristics of the defendant.”3 The federal sentencing guidelines provide that specific characteristics of sentenced individuals such as education may be considered at sentencing, yet there is little information published that examines differences across education levels.4 Accordingly, this report provides an analysis of the federally sentenced individuals in fiscal year 2021 by educational attainment. 

Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission 2023. 36p.

By The New York State Bar Association

The Task Force analyzed the newly-enacted New York State Josef Neumann Hate Crimes Domestic Terrorism Act (the “Neumann Act”), New York Penal Law § 485, which recognizes mass killings motivated by hate as acts of terrorism by creating two terrorism offenses: domestic acts of terrorism motivated by hate in the first and second degrees. The Neumann Act also amends the definition of “specified offense” in the hate crimes statute to include terrorism crimes and establishes a Domestic Terrorism Task Force comprised of members of New York government and law enforcement.

The Task Force also considered possible additional legislation to address hate crimes. First, the Task Force recommends further study of two possible changes to criminal statutes—it considered but ultimately rejected an amendment to the definition of “civilian population” in current terrorism statutes, and recommends consideration of a proposal to align New York’s definition of “material support or resources” with the federal definition. Second, the Task Force considered possible methods of addressing a rise in low-level hate-motivated offenses—it recommends further study of the proposal to attend mandatory counselling or training, and rejects the possibility of adding a rebuttable presumption of intent to § 485. Third, the Task Force recommends further study of possible civil causes of action for hate crimes and domestic terrorism, including expanded causes of action under New York State civil rights law, and amendments to New York Not-for-Profit Law, Business Corporation Law, and Limited Liability Law to prevent recovery of property from entities that provide support to terrorist causes. Fourth, the Task Force recommends an increase in law enforcement resources to prosecute hate crimes, including making hate crimes a designated offense to facilitate wiretaps and additional training of law enforcement on hate crime issues. Finally, the Task Force notes a surge in anti-Asian and anti-Semitic hate crimes amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a rise in hate-motivated attacks associated with COVID-19 via online platforms. These attacks and incidents highlight the urgent need for law enforcement and lawmakers to take action to curb hate crimes.

Albany: The Bar Association, 2020/ 41p.

By The New York State Bar Association

"Hate crimes . . . leave deep scars not only on the victims, but on our larger community. They weaken the sense that we are one people with common values and a common future. They tear us apart when we should be moving closer together. They are acts of violence against America itself. . . ." President Clinton made the foregoing speech 16 years ago. Today, the situation has only worsened with antisemitic hate crimes spiking on the heels of years of increased anti-Asian hate crimes. In October 2023, the FBI released data that shows hate crimes in the U.S. at their highest since data collection began in 1991. The Anti-Defamation League reported 2,000 antisemitic incidents in the U.S. through July 2023 and a 337% uptick in incidents after Hamas' October 7th attack on Israel. Similarly, from 2020–21, anti-Asian hate crimes spiked 339%. Almost daily, the headlines are filled with stories like the gunfire in front of an Albany synagogue in December 2023. Despite these dire statistics and reports, bar associations have not systematically studied this problem, a void which led NYSBA President Richard Lewis to convene this task force to examine the problem of hate crimes with a focus on those directed at the Asian American and Jewish communities. As President Lewis stated: “Antisemitic and anti-Asian bias in America is overt and disturbing, and it is increasing exponentially…We have launched this task force because we are at a crossroads, and left unchecked, we can only expect that crimes against these two vulnerable groups will continue to spiral out of control.” The task force has been grappling with the scourge of hate crimes, which present a clear and present danger to many, but most strikingly to New Yorkers. The members of our task force worked hard to put these recommendations together in the last several months. We held dozens of meetings, scoured the available literature, and met with prominent officials in the law enforcement and educational sectors. The dedication and talent of the task force has enabled us to put together the concrete recommendations contained in this report. Like bar associations, society as a whole has devoted insufficient attention to hate crimes despite the gravity of the problem. As a result, the statutory framework governing hate crimes contains gaps in the definition of hate crimes and in the coverage of the hate crime statute – deficiencies that are addressed in our report. Equally problematic are the mechanisms for reporting hate crimes, including the lack of a requirement that law enforcement in New York report hate crimes to a central state authority.

Our report follows the commendable work of the 2020 NYSBA task force on Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes. This groundbreaking report was focused on federal laws addressing acts of domestic terrorism.3 Not long after its publication, the wave of hate crimes against Asian Americans and the spike in antisemitic hate crimes ensued, necessitating our task force and this report. This report begins with analyses of antisemitic and anti-Asian hate crimes, including the history of antisemitism and anti-Asian hate – two forms of bias that have deep and disturbing roots. Far from a new phenomenon, antisemitism is as old as civilization itself. And anti-Asian hate crimes in the U.S. span the history of our country. See pages 9-10 below. Our report focuses on the recent waves of hate crimes ignited by exogenous catalysts: the COVID-19 pandemic in the case of anti-Asian hate crimes and the Hamas attacks of October 2023 in the case of antisemitic hate crimes. Our report addresses the disturbing increases in the rates of hate crimes during these recent troubled times.

Albany: The Bar Association 2024. 47p.

By Maine Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The Maine Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submits this report regarding indigent legal services in Maine. The Committee submits this report as part of its responsibility to study and report on civil rights issues in the state. The contents of this report are primarily based on testimony the Committee heard during public meetings held via video-conference on October 20, 2022; November 15, 2022; and December 15, 2022. The Committee also includes related testimony submitted in writing during the relevant period of public comment.

This report begins with a brief background of the issues to be considered by the Committee. It then presents primary findings as they emerged from this testimony, as well as recommendations for addressing areas of civil rights concerns. This report is intended to focus on civil rights concerns regarding the right to legal defense for indigent persons. While additional important topics may have surfaced throughout the Committee’s inquiry, those matters that are outside the scope of this specific civil rights mandate are left for another discussion.

Washington, DC: USCCR, 2023. 32p.