By Michele Cadigan and Gabriela Kirk

Research on court-imposed monetary sanctions has not yet fully examined the impact that processes used to manage court debt have on individuals’ lives. Drawing from both interviews and ethnographic data in Illinois and Washington State, we examine how the court’s management of justice-related debt affect labor market experiences. We conceptualize these managerial practices as procedural pressure points or mechanisms embedded within these processes that strain individuals’ ability to access and maintain stable employment. We find that, as a result, courts undermine their own goal of recouping costs and trap individuals in a cycle of court surveillance.

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences March 2020, 6 (1) 113-131; DOI: https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.202

Karin D. Martin, Kimberly Spencer-Suarez, Gabriela Kirk

This article proposes the centrality of procedural integrity—or fidelity to local norms of case processing—to the post-sentencing adjudication of monetary sanctions. We draw on insights gained from observations of more than 4,200 criminal cases in sixteen courts in New York and Illinois and find that procedural integrity becomes a focal point in the absence of monetary sanctions paid in full and on time. This examination of the interplay between the sociolegal context and workgroups within courtrooms brings to light how case processing pressure, mandatory monetary sanctions, defendants with pronounced financial insecurity, and judicial discretion inform the role monetary sanctions play in court operations.

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences January 2022, 8 (1) 128-147; DOI: https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2022.8.1.06

By The American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defense and Arnold Ventures

For some people in New Mexico, a $100 fee could be paid the same day with little thought. For most New Mexicans, however, $100 is a significant percentage of monthly income, and payment might require the person to forego groceries or diapers or miss a car or rent payment.1 Despite these differences, in administering court fines and fees, New Mexico courts fail to adequately distinguish between those with the ability to pay and those for whom payment causes grave hardship. Far too often the result is the incarceration of those unable to pay in violation of Bearden v. Georgia. 2 The American Bar Association (ABA) has developed extensive policies to provide guidance to jurisdictions on how to fairly administer court fines and fees to ensure that individuals are not punished simply for being poor. In 2018, the ABA adopted the Ten Guidelines on Court Fines and Fees, which urge jurisdictions to eliminate or strictly limit user fees (Guideline 1), ensure timely and fair assessment of ability to pay (Guideline 4 & 7), waive or reduce fines and fees based on ability to pay (Guidelines 1 & 2), refrain from using driver’s license suspensions or other disproportionate punishments for nonpayment (Guideline 3), allow individualized alternatives to monetary penalties (Guideline 6), and provide counsel for individuals facing incarceration as a consequence of failure to pay (Guideline 8). To understand the administration of fines and fees in New Mexico’s misdemeanor courts, a team from the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defense (ABA SCLAID) conducted court observation of the state’s Metropolitan, Magistrate, and Municipal Courts over a four-year period from 2018 to 2022. These observations revealed that New Mexico courts routinely fall short of ABA standards. Some of the study’s key observations include: • New Mexico courts assess a wide variety of fees, not just upon conviction, but also pretrial, for supervision, and in connection with bench warrants. Many of these are user fees. • New Mexico rules do not provide for timely assessment of ability to pay, nor do they provide adequate opportunities for reductions or waivers based on substantial hardship. • Current “ability to pay” assessments only allow an individual to adjust payment plans usually to make smaller monthly payments for longer periods, which increases opportunities for failure to pay and extends the individual’s involvement with the criminal justice system. • Bench warrants are routinely issued for failure to appear and, in addition to being subject to arrest, the individual is charged a $100 fee, and his/her driver’s license is suspended. • Unpaid fees often result in further bench warrants, with accompanying fees, exacerbating the cycle of bench warrants, arrests, and debt. • When arrested on a bench warrant for failure to pay, individuals are jailed without a finding that the failure to pay was willful.

• Judges rarely reduce or waive fines or fees unless the individual first serves time in jail. • The “payment” of fines and fees through credit for jail time is common. These fines and fees result in little, if any, financial benefit to New Mexico. A case study of individuals who were arraigned in Bernalillo County (Albuquerque) Metropolitan Court (incustody) during a one-week period in 2017 showed that 93% “paid” their fines and fees exclusively through incarceration, while only 3% actually paid their fines and fees in full. A similar one-week study of 2021 cases showed that incarceration remains the dominant form of “payment” (73% of individuals satisfied at least a portion of their fines and fees with jail time), while a similarly small percentage of individuals (4%) paid their fines and fees in full.3 To comply with ABA policies, New Mexico should consider: • Eliminating or reducing court fees, particularly user fees; • Revising procedures to ensure prompt consideration of ability to pay at the time fees or fines are imposed; • Ensuring that those for whom payment would cause substantial hardship have access to waiver or reduction of fees; • Improving the hearing notice process and increasing second-chance opportunities before bench warrants issue for failure to appear; • Discontinuing driver’s license suspension as a consequence of nonpayment; • Ensuring that individuals cannot be jailed for nonpayment until after an ability to pay hearing and a finding that the failure to pay was willful; • Guaranteeing counsel for any indigent individual facing incarceration for failure to pay; and • Improving alternative payment options and ensuring that those options are personalized and account for each individual’s circumstances. By adopting the recommendations of this report, New Mexico courts can bring their practices into compliance with not only with ABA policy, but also with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. For this reason, New Mexico should consider reforms to improve its fine and fees procedures and ensure that its criminal justice system does not punish individuals simply for being poor.4

Chicago: ABA, 2023. 67p.

By Judith Resnick, et al.

n 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.

Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 644. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School, 2020. 223p

Wilson Center for Science and Justice and the Fines and Fees Justice Center

Ability to Pay, Collateral Consequences, Courts as Revenue Centers, Racial Disparities, Traffic Fines and Fees . Court-imposed debt impacts working families across all racial groups, political affiliations, and income levels. In the past ten years, a third of Americans have been directly affected by fines or fees related to traffic, criminal, juvenile, or municipal court. This report is the first national survey to examine how court-imposed fines and fees affect individuals and families. Researchers found that fines and fees debt creates hardships in people’s daily lives. Many respondents reported experiencing serious hardship, being impacted in three or more aspects of daily life.

Wilson Center for Science and Justice and the Fines and Fees Justice Center . 2023. 40p.

By Cristina Mendez, Jeffrey Selbin and Gus Tupper

In 2019, the Idaho Legislature’s Office of Performance Evaluations (OPE) published a report acknowledging Idaho’s reliance on fines and fees as a source of court funding. According to the report Idaho residents owed a total of more than $268 million in delinquent court debt. In this article, the authors further examine the state’s reliance on monetary sanctions, focusing on fees in the juvenile delinquency system, and recommending a pathway to ending the harmful impact of monetary sanctions.

57 Idaho L. Rev. (2021).

By Anna VanCleave, Brian Highsmith, Judith Resnik, Jeff Selbin, Lisa Foster

Money has a long history of being used as punishment, and punishment has a long history of being used discriminatorily and violently against communities of color. This volume surveys the many misuses of money as punishment and the range of efforts underway to undo the webs of fines, fees, assessments, charges, and surcharges that undergird so much of state and local funding. Whether in domains that are denominated “civil,” “criminal,” or “administrative,” and whether the needs are about law, health care, employment, housing, education, or safety services, racism intersects with the criminalization of poverty in all of life’s sectors to impose harms felt disproportionately by people of color. In the spring of 2020, the stark inequalities of the pandemic’s impact and of police killings sparked uprisings against the prevalence of state-based violence and of government failures. Those protests have underscored the urgent need for profound, sustainable transformations in government systems that have become all too familiar. This volume maps the structures that generate oppressive practices, the work underway to challenge the inequalities, and the range of proposals to seek lasting alterations of expectations and practices so as to shape a social and political order that is respectful of all individuals’ dignity, generative for communities, and provides a range of services to protect safety and well-being.

The Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law at Yale Law School Fines & Fees Justice Center Policy Advocacy Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law, 2020. 337p.

By Jay Gormley

• Criminal fines are the most common criminal sanction and account for about 75% of principal sanctions issued by courts. As a principal sanction, fines are most commonly used for relatively less serious offences where an out of court disposal (OOCD) or discharge is not appropriate or possible. However, fines can also be used as a complementary sanction to another disposal - such as a community order for more serious offences.

• There is a need for the law to provide better clarity concerning the most appropriate role for criminalisation. Most notably, there could be better clarity about the relationship between criminal fines issued by courts and non-criminal fines issued by criminal justice personnel (e.g. police officers and prosecutors) by way of an OOCD.

• In the past, defaulting on a fine frequently resulted in the next step being a custodial sentence. Today, other sentencing disposals have to be considered first, ameliorating this issue. However, currently, there is no available data on how many people default on a fine, are given another order (e.g. a community order) which they also fail to comply with, and are ultimately given a custodial sentence for what was initially a finable offence. This matter requires urgent clarification and it should also be investigated whether it contributes to the high number of short custodial sentences.

• Fines, more than any other disposal, raise questions of fairness given the socio-economic inequality in society. Without care, fines risk disproportionately punishing the poor who may suffer more from a fine of a given amount. The Sentencing Council provides crucial guidance in this respect, but it could be taken further.
London: Sentencing Academy, 2022. 20p.

By Alexes Harris, Mary Pattillo, Bryan L. Sykes

Monetary sanctions, also known as legal financial obligations (LFOs), are a highly consequential yet underexplored element of the criminal legal system. LFOs consist of fines, fees, costs, restitution, surcharges, and other financial penalties that are imposed on individuals when they encounter the criminal legal system. This contact can occur via traffic citation, or misdemeanor, juvenile, and felony conviction. Although indistinguishable for the people who are required to pay them, monetary sanctions are variably understood as punishments prescribed by state statutes and local codes, restitution for victims of crime, user fees to recoup system expenses or pay for services rendered, and additional charges for failure to pay. Most monetary sanctions are sentenced on conviction or citation, but some pretrial costs—such as jail booking fees, electronic monitoring, or public defender services in the absence of a conviction—can be passed on to defendants as well.1 These fines and fees are experienced as bills and debts for those on whom they are imposed and as revenue sources for the courts, agencies, jurisdictions, and states that collect them. Although the practice of imposing fines and fees on convicted persons has existed in law since the Magna Carta in 1215, research shows that the prevalence and amounts of monetary sanctions have grown over the last five decades across federal, state, and local governments.

The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences January 2022, 8 (1) 1-33