By UK Parliament, House of Commons, Justice Committee

This report examines public opinion and understanding of sentencing in England and Wales. We launched our inquiry to explore what the public know about sentencing, how information is accessed and how understanding of sentencing might be improved. As well as examining what the public know about the current approach to sentencing, we also wanted to consider public opinion on sentencing and the extent to which it should inform sentencing policy and practice. As part of this inquiry, we commissioned a public polling exercise. 2,057 adults in England and Wales were asked about their knowledge and views on sentencing. The Committee also worked with Involve, a leading public participation charity, to facilitate a deliberative engagement exercise. 25 adults from England and Wales met over three half-day sessions to discuss the aims of sentencing. The combination of these exercises has provided an invaluable insight into public opinion and understanding of sentencing. In terms of public understanding, both the polling and the public dialogue indicated that a significant portion of the public do not know which bodies are responsible for deciding sentencing policy. Only 22% of respondents to our poll identified that Parliament was responsible for setting the maximum sentence in law for a criminal offence. The participants in the public dialogue indicated that they were unsure which institutions had responsibility for deciding the framework that sentencers apply in individual cases. We are concerned that this can give rise to an accountability gap, whereby the public is unclear as to the Government’s responsibility in relation to sentencing. It is widely recognised that there has been a perceptible hardening of public opinion towards serious crime since the 1990s. Successive governments have increased the maximum sentences for a number of serious offences, often in response to public campaigns arising from individual cases. The polling we commissioned indicated that there is significant public support for increasing the custodial sentences for murder, rape and domestic burglary. For example, 18% of respondents said that the starting point for the most serious rape cases should be a whole life order (the current starting point is 15 years), and 33% said the starting point for the most serious cases of domestic burglary should be a 10-year custodial sentence (the current starting point is three years custody). One of the most striking findings from both the polling and the public dialogue was that one of the most important purposes of sentencing should be to provide justice for the victim. 56% of respondents to our poll ranked “ensuring the victim had secured justice” as one of their top three factors that should influence a sentence. In the public dialogue, there was a consensus that “providing justice for victims” should be a purpose of sentencing, and almost half placed it second in order of priority behind protecting the public. Accordingly, we recommend that the Government should review the statutory purposes of sentencing to consider whether greater emphasis should be placed on achieving justice for the victims of crime and their families. Our overall conclusion is that there is a need for national debate on sentencing. Our inquiry has highlighted that the public debate on sentencing is stuck in a dysfunctional and reactive cycle. There needs to be greater public knowledge and understanding of current sentencing practice, of evidence on the effectiveness of different sentencing options, and the resource implications of sentences in order to improve the quality of public discourse on sentencing. It is incumbent on all policymakers and opinion-shapers to play a role in shaping a more constructive debate and to seek greater consensus on the issues. This Government, and its successors, need to think carefully about how to engage with public opinion on sentencing. There are important choices to be made about how to ascertain public opinion and the extent to which policy should be responsive to public pressure. In our view, the Government should seek to actively engage the public on sentencing policy but should do so in a structured and methodologically rigorous fashion. It should ensure that both traditional polling and deliberative methods are used, and that such exercises occur at regular intervals. Finally, policy proposals on sentencing should be subject to independent evaluation, so that the resourcing implications are evaluated before they are enacted. We recommend that the Government establish an independent advisory panel on sentencing to consider proposed changes to sentencing policy and to provide advice to ministers.

Tenth Report of Session 2022–23 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report . London: House of Commons, 2023. 71p.

By Hayli Millar, Yvon Dandurand, Vivienne Chin, Shawn Bayes, Megan Capp, Richard Fowler, Jessica Jahn, Barbara Pickering, and Allan Castle

This Overview forms part of a broader project on the Best Interests of the Child in Sentencing and Other Decisions Concerning Parents Facing Criminal Sanctions, made possible through the support of a generous project grant from the Vancouver Foundation. The broader project’s objective is to instigate and support a systemic and cultural change in the way that the best interests of the child are considered by defence counsel, the prosecution and the courts. The ultimate intention is to mitigate the negative impact on the child of a parent facing criminal sanctions, especially when the parent/legal guardian is a primary or sole caregiver. The motivation for this work is the general lack of attention directed towards the best interests of dependent children whose parents are before the criminal courts, despite a wide range of international and regional norms and standards which suggest that domestic criminal courts are obliged to take the rights and best interests of dependent children into account as a primary consideration when making bail and sentencing decisions. This lack of attention persists despite all that is known about the negative influence of parental criminal sentences, and in particular incarceration, on children. This Overview is intended specifically to encourage active consideration of child impact and family impact at time of sentencing and other court decisions, principally by prosecutors and judges but also all those with influence in criminal proceedings, to avoid the potentially negative impacts of those decisions. A broader purpose is to raise awareness about these issues more generally, and to assist the reader in identifying practices which serve to diminish consideration of the best interests of the child, where these exist. More generally, the Overview is intended to influence policy change, to encourage greater availability of non-carceral or community-based alternatives to incarceration for people with parental responsibilities, and to support parents in mitigating the impact of their own sentencing and court order compliance on their children. The recommendations in this Overview are intended to stir productive discussion. Our efforts will have been successful if this document encourages subject matter experts and decision makers holding positions of responsibility in the criminal process to consider how the best interests of the child may most suitably and effectively be incorporated into decisions and orders of the criminal courts.

Vancouver: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, 2023. 56p.

By Sarah Waite

This article examines women's experiences of moving from a closed to an open prison in England. Transition to an open prison is often viewed in a positive, reformist light and although androcentric auto-ethnographical work has demonstrated challenges associated with this pivot when serving a long-term sentence, much less is known about the experiences of women. Using interview discussions, this article draws upon the concept of transcarceral habitus to examine experiences of transfer and adaptation to the open prison within the broader context of the lives of criminalised women. By extending our understanding of the women's open prison as a site of punishment and recognising the connections and pluralities of women's carceral experiences, this article seeks to disrupt unhelpful binaries that legitimise the incarceration of women and the open prison estate.

The Howard Journal of Crime and JusticeEarly View, Oct. 2023.

By Penal Reform International

In January 2019, the Central African Republic (CAR) approved a “National Strategy for the Demilitarisation of Prison Establishments“, developed in partnership with the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) and Penal Reform International (PRI). Following its adoption, the National Demilitarisation Strategy was incorporated into the Justice Sector Policy 2020-2024.

This report presents the results of a study documenting the level of implementation of the National Strategy for the demilitarisation of prisons in all its components, carried out a few months before the end of the implementation cycle. Data collection took place between April and May 2023 to analyse the relevance of the strategy, its degree of implementation, the impact of progress, and any barriers to its implementation.

London: PRI, 2023. 50p.

By Bergman, Marcelo; Seepersad, Randy; Safranoff, Ana; Cafferata, Fernando G.

This report presents new systematic data on the characteristics of inmates in prisons in six Caribbean countries, the factors which may have led to their incarceration, the conditions within the prisons facilities, the judicial processes that led to their convictions, and their perspectives of re-entry. The data were collected through the Survey of Individuals Deprived of Liberty in The Bahamas (2016), Barbados (2018), Guyana (2017), Jamaica (2018), Suriname (2018), and Trinidad and Tobago (2018). Special emphasis is placed on gender, age, and legal status as well as on the problem of recidivism by seeking to identify the conditions that led prisoners to become repeat offenders. There were several important findings that highlight strengths and weaknesses within the correctional systems of the Carib-bean. This study provides relevant insights to improving the general situation of prisons in the Caribbean region. Overall, the results suggest that more effort needs to be placed on programs and policies that improve inmates conditions within the prisons (more educational programs and paid employment opportunities; adequate legal defense and stream-lined court processes; reduced overcrowding and victimization, among other things). Finally, the report highlights that comprehensive re-entry strategies should be developed for all Caribbean countries.

Center for Latin American Studies on Insecurity and Violence; 2020.

By Polly Wright (P. Wright Consultancy).

For the purposes of this report we refer to the individual in custody as the ‘patient’, as their experiences are considered in terms of their health and wellbeing needs. Families’ experience of the impact of the criminal justice system on the health and wellbeing of patients.

Messages from families Where patients present complex and/or significant mental health needs, alternative diversionary treatment should be more readily considered (in line with Public Protection requirements). This should be informed by all agencies currently working with the patient, as well as their family/ significant others (where appropriate). Care not custody required Many of the families consulted felt that their loved ones’ involvement in the criminal justice system was as a result of persistent, systemic failure of services (education, social care, health and/or criminal justice) to meet their needs. Almost a third of families described their loved one as having an acute mental health crisis immediately prior to their contact with the criminal justice system. While families acknowledged patients had committed a criminal offence, many felt that the criminal justice system had failed to effectively consider alternative diversionary treatment appropriate to the patients’ needs. Potential for positive health outcomes Families acknowledged that when the criminal justice system works well, positive health outcomes can be achieved and for some patients, contact with the criminal justice system had had a positive impact as it had provided: consistent access to ongoing support the opportunity to receive mental health diagnosis and treatment that had not been forthcoming in the community removal of risks associated with previous lifestyle quicker access to healthcare access to peer support. Custody as a barrier to positive health outcomes The majority of families witnessed a significant decline in their loved ones’ mental and physical health during their custodial sentence. They attributed this to numerous and inter-related systemic factors including: the pr

London: PACT (Prison Advice and Care Trust) 2023. 80p.

By Prison Advice and Care Trust

The financial impact of imprisonment Family members are often affected by the loss of a partner’s income, coupled with the extra costs associated with staying in touch with and supporting their loved-one. 38% said that they spent a quarter or more of their monthly income supporting a loved-one in prison. 71% said that they spent two days a week or more supporting their loved-one. More than half said that they are finding it difficult or very difficult to pay for some of the basics, including being able to afford food (49%), heating (50%) and clothes / shoes (68%). Many said that it was difficult or very difficult to do a range of other things that other families would do, including social activites, such as going out (72%) and being able to afford transport (61%). 34% were unaware of the Help with Prison Visits scheme set up to support people on low incomes with prison visits and 36% had heard of it but hadn’t applied. 56% said that money had affected their ability to stay in touch with their loved-one.

The emotional impact and social stigma Family members’ health suffers as they struggle to come to terms with the new reality. The stigma associated with imprisonment can often result in them leading a ‘double life’ as they seek to hide or avoid talking about what has happened to their loved-one. 83% said that their mental health was a lot worse or a little worse. 71% said that their physical health was a lot worse or a little worse. 70% said that they had lost relationships with friends and family members because of imprisonment. Only 29% say that they are always open about their loved-one’s time in prison and 46% say that they always or often avoid mentioning where their loved-ones are.

London: Pact (Prison Advice and Care Trust) 2023. 22p.

By Madeline Bailey and Jennifer Peirce

In many places in the United States, perspectives on the necessity of jail incarceration are changing. There is now significant public discussion on the failures of traditional policing, the importance of bail reform, and the urgency of shifting investments out of jails and law enforcement and towards mental health, drug treatment programs, and other community services. These discussions have been centered in large, urban areas such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, where high-profile criminal justice reformers have developed themselves as champions for doing things differently. Indeed, their pushes for policy change, and the work of community advocacy groups that have held them accountable, have made an impact on the number of people in jail in cities: From 2013 through 2019, urban areas saw an 18 percent overall decrease in their jail populations and a 22 percent decrease in the rate of jail incarceration. Overall, U.S. jail populations have dropped from a high of 785,533 in 2008 to 758,420 in 2019. Even still, the scale of jail incarceration is enormous: 10.7 million people were booked into a jail during 2018. In the wake of reactions to the COVID19 pandemic, jail populations reached a low of 575,500 in mid-2020, which has since crept back to 633,200 in late 2020. But this national trend contains two diverging tendencies: As urban jail populations declined, many rural localities have instead expanded their carceral footprint. This means that jail incarceration in the U.S. is now increasingly a rural phenomenon. Rural places comprise approximately two-thirds of all U.S. counties and about 14% of the national population, while people in jail in rural counties represent 21% of people in jail across the country. In contrast to national trends, jail populations in rural counties increased by 27% from 2013 to 2019, reaching per capita incarceration rates at nearly double those in urban areas. Quietly, between 1970 and 2013, rates of pretrial detention in these rural areas grew by 436%. Measured in rates per 100,000 residents, the incarceration rate in rural counties was 398, 2.4 times higher than the incarceration rate of 165 in urban counties. Despite playing an increasingly prominent role in national trends, rural places have been less prominent in the national criminal justice reform narrative. Rather, there are several common assumptions that circulate as to why people go to jail in rural areas: that the opioid crisis hit rural communities hardest and this inevitably led to more arrests and jail time, that rural areas do not have the resources to offer robust diversion programs or treatment services, and that rural law enforcement and political leaders are ideologically committed to tougher “law and order” tactics. While these narratives contain significant elements of truth for many rural counties and do play a role in shaping crime and justice dynamics more broadly, they do not explain the enormous scale of rural jail growth specifically. This article argues that, instead, the principal drivers of rural jail incarceration are policy choices and discretionary practices that are largely within the purview of local and state justice system leaders. Data on jail population trends are now comprehensive and detailed enough to illustrate some diverging trends between rural counties and smaller cities versus major metropolitan areas. Research has started to identify some of the principal drivers of rural jail populations, such as pretrial detention and economic incentives for holding people in jail. But a principal insight from existing research in rural systems is that any analysis of the formal mechanisms of the justice system must be embedded in the local context. Individual criminal justice actors in rural areas have even more influence on reforms than they typically do in larger systems. Local views and attitudes about the causes of crime and the merits of potential reforms can vary greatly even among rural communities in a given region. The rural versus urban divide is not just “tough on crime” versus treatment and prevention. Community advocacy and pressure on jails in rural communities is often driven by organizations whose focus is not usually criminal justice (such as churches or civic organizations); their strategies and messages thus require more contextualization. As demographics and immigration patterns shift, new coalitions are also emerging that may be involved in debates about how counties use detention centers. Further, in places with less data management capacity, understanding the process for generating administrative data is more important. In other words, the common analysis methods for unpacking jail trends in big cities miss meaningful parts of the picture in rural areas. This article sets out to frame the state of knowledge on drivers of rural jail incarceration and identifies where more research is needed to build pathways toward reversing rural jail growth trends. The goal is not to illustrate or test any given explanation empirically. Rather, this article draws on national data and examples from specific rural areas16 to consider several contributing factors to rural jail growth: money bail and pretrial detention, financial incentives to holding people in jail, probation enforcement, and unintended consequences of state-level reforms. It will then discuss how common issues facing many rural places, such as scarcity of social service organizations and challenges in accessing lawyers and resources in the criminal legal system affect rural jail population reduction efforts. Finally, it will point to opportunities for policy and practice change that are tailored to rural places. This is a call for further research and policy development on reducing local jail incarceration in rural areas, in ways that are attuned to the variation and complexities of rural communities.

Idaho Law Review Volume 57 Number 3 Article 5 November 2022

By Cara L. C. Hunter, Fergus McNeill, Milena Tripkovic

This article explores both the reasons for, and the potential impact of, the current level of disenfranchisement in Scotland. First, we scrutinise Scottish legal provisions for their compatibility with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)’s jurisprudence, which require disenfranchisement's aims to be clarified and delimited. Second, we examine where disenfranchisement sits within the wider context of Scottish penal values, and what principles underlie its imposition. Finally, we turn to a discussion of whether and how dis/enfranchisement aligns with the Scottish Government's commitments to the rehabilitation and reintegration of people who have been in prison, and to related empirical evidence about desistance from crime. The limited enfranchisement of prisoners established by the Scottish Government in 2020 avoided these core questions and this article aims to help address this neglect and to open up dialogue on these issues.

The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 2023.\

By UK Ministry of Justice

A summary of what happened to the prison population between 1993 and 2020 and the major factors contributing to the changes.

London: Ministry of Justice, 2020. 18p.

By Jason S. Sexton

n the aftermath of World War II, eugenics and the pseudoscientific base used to justify its practices are generally understood to have phased off the scene. If, however, eugenics never actually disappeared but has been persistent, and in turn becomes one of the best explanations for mass incarceration today, what role did Christianity—especially Evangelicalism—play in this unprecedented moment of imprisonment? Building on legal scholarship identifying the significant role of eugenic philosophy that manifests in penal policy and an ongoing into the early twenty-first century, this article examines key figures in the backdrop of eugenics’ particular early developments, as well as leading figures—namely, Billy Graham and Prison Fellowship’s Chuck Colson—whose ministries operated in close proximity to the prison during the latter twentieth century and especially over the past fifty years as incarceration rates skyrocketed. After examining several important theological tenets reflected within Evangelicalism that are compatible with eugenic logic, a critical approach is developed drawing from more robust theological considerations that if appropriated earlier might have found evangelicals resisting the mass incarceration building efforts rather than supporting them.

Journal of Law & Religion 39/1 (2024), Forthcoming, 71p.

By Hernandez D. Stroud, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Ram Subramanian

Few issues have received more sustained attention from U.S. policymakers over the last decade than the country’s unique overuse of incarceration. After decades of growth in imprisonment rates, states have attempted to reduce the number of people behind bars. Their reforms have been driven by a recognition that incarceration is expensive and often counterproductive and by research demonstrating that many people can be safely supervised in the community

New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law , 2023. 24p.

By The American Bar Association, Working Group on Building Public Trust in the American Justice System

Adopted at the 2022 ABA Annual Meeting, the Ten Principles on Reducing Mass Incarceration articulate the critical steps necessary to help to combat the drivers of mass incarceration and ultimately reduce the number of people in jails and prisons nationwide.

Chicago: ABA, 2022. 61p.

By Nicole D. Porter and Morgan McLeod

Voting eligibility and a person’s involvement in the criminal legal system have a historical but unnatural association in the United States. Some state laws dating back over 100 years, and motivated by racist ideology, permanently ban people convicted of a felony from voting, and almost all states have long prevented voting by people in prison. Over the last 50 years the country’s investment in mass incarceration not only staggeringly increased the prison population and the community of people with a criminal record but increased the number of people banned from voting due to a felony conviction. As a result, over 4.6 million Americans with a felony conviction were disenfranchised as of 2022, disproportionately impacting Black and Latinx residents. Despite the stark consequences of mass incarceration and voter disenfranchisement, the advocacy of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated activists, organizers, legislative champions, and others have successfully fought to pass reforms to expand voting rights to justice-impacted individuals. These changes, both administrative and statutory in recent decades, coupled by recent modest declines in the population of incarcerated people and those under community supervision reduced the total number of people disenfranchised by 24% since reaching its peak in 2016. OVERVIEW Understanding the origins of this progress to restore voting rights is beneficial for democracy and justice. This report provides a state-by-state accounting of the changes to voting rights for people with felony convictions and measures its impact.5 Since 1997, 26 states and the District of Columbia have expanded voting rights to people living with felony convictions or amended policies to guarantee ballot access. These reforms were achieved through various mechanisms, including legislative reform, executive action, and ballot measures. The reforms include: • restoration of voting rights to persons in prison in Washington, DC; • expansion of voting rights to some or all persons on felony probation or parole in 12 states; and • increased accessibility for persons seeking rights restoration in 14 states. Over 2 million Americans have regained the right to vote since 1997. These changes to expand and guarantee voting rights demonstrate national momentum to reform the nation’s restrictive and racially discriminatory voting laws.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2023. 28p.

By Anita Knudsen, Lenny Roth

Key points • Overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the NSW criminal justice system continues to worsen. Almost one third of people in prison in NSW are Aboriginal. The increase in imprisonment has been most acute in remand, with almost 40% of Aboriginal people in prison on remand. • Record high numbers of people in prison, and growing awareness of the social and economic costs of prison, have intensified public discussions about alternatives to prison. • The main framework for reducing Aboriginal incarceration nationally and in NSW is the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which includes a target to reduce the incarceration rate of Aboriginal people by at least 15% by 2031. • The NSW Closing the Gap Implementation Plan 2022–2024 emphasises the need for Aboriginal leadership, expertise and participation in strategies to reduce incarceration. These measures will take different times to mature and scale. • An important consideration identified by stakeholders is the need to consider how criminal justice legislation and policy contributes to increased numbers of Aboriginal people in prison and overrepresentation at every stage of the criminal justice process. • Inquiries and research have proposed a range of actions across prevention, early intervention, diversion from the criminal justice system, non-custodial sentencing options and post-release support specific to Aboriginal people.

Sydney: State of New South Wales through the Parliament of New South Wales, 2023. 44p,

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 Christian Traxler and Libor Dusek

We estimate the effect of the level of fines on payment compliance and revenues collected from speeding tickets. Exploiting discontinuous increases in fines at speed cutoffs and reform induced variation in these discontinuities, we implement two complementary regression discontinuity designs. The results consistently document small payment responses: a 10 percent increase in the fine (i.e. the payment obligation) induces a 1.2 percentage point decline in timely payments. The implied revenue elasticity is about 0.9. Expressed in absolute terms, a one dollar increase in the fine translates into a roughly 60 cent increase in payments

Unpublished Paper: (November 19, 2022).