This brief provides background information on criminal justice system fines, fees, and bail and argues that these costs disproportionately impact poor people.
Over the course of 2 months and 39 interviews, the authors of this report aimed to better understand how the punishment of prison and its collateral consequences (and fines and fees in particular) affect individuals’ financial situations and stability.
To finance its carceral system, the United States government levies taxes on the country’s most impoverished strata. Although those involved in the justice system are typically low-income individuals, they are …
In this policy brief, L.B. Eisen explains how imposing fees upon incarcerated people perpetuates mass incarceration. The brief outlines describes contemporary fee practices, explores the history of those fees, analyzes their constitutionality, and makes several policy recommendations to mitigate collateral consequences.
In this video, John Oliver details the devastating impacts that low-income Americans suffer due to fines and fees and the involvement of private probation companies.
This report discusses the disadvantages of the video visitation technology provided in jails and prisons, including the costs to families and how video visits are not an adequate substitute for in-person visits.
Contact with the criminal legal system often results in the assessment of fines and fees. For people who are indigent or subject to other financial obligations such as child support …
Many government services in the criminal justice system, which were once free, are now charged to defendants, many of which are low-income individuals who cannot afford them. By the 1980s, …
This national survey identified the states that charge people fees for electronic monitoring, probation or supervision, public defender and legal costs, and other criminal justice system services.
This guide by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators discusses how suspending driver’s licenses for non-safety related reasons is ineffective and counter-productive: it diminishes the deterrent effect and perceived legitimacy of license suspension, as well as the efficacy of law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and motor vehicle agencies.