We have spent a lot of time on these pages looking at issues like burden of proof and burden shifting, the overcharging by prosecutors, the overly-stringent and harsh mandatory sentencing laws, but for the average person who ends up in the system, the most likely outcome is some sort probation and a fine.
I do not think we talk nearly enough about the system of fines that have been imposed. This week already, I have noted just in sitting through regular calendar hearings that one individual received a $550 fine for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. Another individual had his fine reduced down to a little more than $100 by Judge Rosenberg. But for the most part we see the regular assessment of fines in minor crimes, mostly drug possession cases where the individual is put into some mandatory treatment program (which has additional costs to the individual) and then they have to pay a fine.
In fact, a public defender noted to me back in July that increasingly, clients are requesting jail time in lieu of receiving a violation of probation for the failure to pay fines. That means that, in effect, the fines are self-defeating to the effort of truly receiving revenue. I have not yet been able to quantify how many that have done this, but that is a problem.
For felony convicts, the problem is doubly-harsh. First, they have difficulty obtaining work because they have to check the felon box. And second, what money they have goes to the court as part of a payment plan they have set up.
In researching this phenomena, it appears to be a relatively new trend, perhaps introduced in the last twenty years.
In October 2007, the New York Times had an editorial, “Out of Prison and Deep in Debt.”
In it they wrote, “With the nation’s incarcerated population at 2.1 million and growing — and corrections costs topping $60 billion a year — states are rightly looking for ways to keep people from coming back to prison once they get out. Programs that help ex-offenders find jobs, housing, mental health care and drug treatment are part of the solution. States must also end the Dickensian practice of saddling ex-offenders with crushing debt that they can never hope to pay off and that drives many of them right back to prison.”
People may be tempted to say that they brought this on themselves. And there is no doubt that in some, if not most situations, that is true. But that does not stop the problem.
As the editorial points out, “A former inmate living at or even below the poverty level can be dunned by four or five departments at once — and can be required to surrender 100 percent of his or her earnings. People caught in this impossible predicament are less likely to seek regular employment, making them even more susceptible to criminal relapse.”
In fact, one study found that 12 percent of probation revocations were due not to the individual going back to a life of crime, but simply the failure to pay their debts. And many are thrown back into prison, which makes the system virtually self-defeating as a means to secure revenue.
Even “small” fines of $1000, with a payment plan, put a huge burden on an individual likely to make minimum wage, likely to have treatment obligations that preclude them from working fulltime, and needing to pay for rent and other living amenities.
I note an article I saw in the Daily Democrat yesterday, where a hiring day at McDonald’s brought in 50 to 60 applicants for about 10 to 15 positions. This is a McDonald’s job. That is how competitive the local job market is and that is the market that these individuals are being thrust into.
The economy is bad, job opportunities, even at unskilled and low-paying positions are few and far between, and people are being thrust into the system where they have the added burden of being convicted felons and asked to work or face more jail time.
Their fault? Perhaps, but when such opportunities become scarce, is it not more likely that they will return to a life of crime and is that not what we wish to avoid? Don’t we want these individuals to have a chance to have productive and law-abiding lives?
They continue, “The states should also develop incentives, including certificates of good conduct and waivers of fines, for ex-offenders who make good-faith efforts to make their payments. Where appropriate, they should be permitted to work off some of the debt through community service. Beyond that, elected officials who worry about recidivism need to understand that bleeding ex-offenders financially is a sure recipe for landing them back in jail.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “Beyond that, elected officials who worry about recidivism need to understand that bleeding ex-offenders financially is a sure recipe for landing them back in jail.”
Makes sense to me. Why in heaven’s name would the state want to fine someone just getting out of jail, who will have trouble finding a job, who if they land one it is likely to be a minimum wage job – which will surely drive the person right back to jail bc s/he cannot possibly pay. I see this as politicians’ wrongheaded way of trying to generate revenue for the too costly court and prison system…
I agree to some extent. Find these companies that are willing to hire cons. The could make minimum wage while learning a trade, the employer gets cheap labor, and when they have earned to total fines due that part of the sentence is completed. Teaching these people to work as something other than committing crime could be very beneficial to business, the community, and the individual.
If businesses wont do it have them work the debt off by working off the debt on the Sheriffs work detail.