Ability to Pay Archives - Page 18 of 40 - Fines and Fees Justice Center

Edwards v. Leaders in Community Alternatives

Alameda County contracts with Leaders in Community Alternatives (LCA) to provide court-ordered GPS tracking and alcohol monitoring devices for people on pre-trial or home detention. Although LCA is supposed to charge fees on a sliding scale based on a person’s ability to pay, LCA does not adjust its fees based on a person’s actual financial circumstances and never informs people that reduced fees are available.

Can’t Win For Losing – How Institutions and Policies Keep Arkansans in Debt

This report presents the findings from an Arkansas Community Institute survey concerning the household debt of Pulaski and Jefferson county residents.

The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines, A Fiscal Analysis of Three States and Ten Counties

This Brennan Center research report analyzes the numerous disadvantages of the current criminal justice fine and fee systems of ten counties in Texas, Florida, and New Mexico.

Costs of Injustice: How Criminal System Fees Are Hurting Los Angeles County Families

This report shares the life experiences of Los Angeles County residents to illustrate how criminal justice fines and fees assessed by the County can be overly burdensome and punitive.

What Do We Know About Community Service?

Host Matt Watkins of New Thinking interviewed Harry Glenn and James Brodick from the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) and Joanna Weiss from the Fines and Fees Justice Center about …

White et al. v. Shwedo et al.

Plaintiffs allege that South Carolina’s policy and practice of suspending the driver’s licenses of individuals who cannot afford to pay traffic fines and fees without first holding hearings to determine an individual’s ability to pay and the willfulness of their nonpayment(s) punishes individuals for their poverty.

Hiskett v. Lambert

The Superior Court lacked the statutory authority to order that Hiskett bear the cost of electronic monitoring during his pretrial release.

State v. Lipski

Mark Lipski was charged with operating a vehicle with suspended registration. He requested appointed counsel, but the court advised him that he was not entitled to the assistance of appointed counsel because if convicted, he would be sentenced to pay a fine and not to serve a term of incarceration.

Fees, Fines and Fairness: How Monetary Charges Drive Inequity in New York City’s Criminal Justice System

The State of New York and its localities impose financial obligations at each stage of involvement with the justice system, from pre-trial to post-incarceration. Failure to pay can lead to …

People v. Evans

Given the significant differences in purpose and effect between victim restitution and the fines and fees at issue in Dueñas, the rule of Dueñas does not extend to victim restitution and a defendant’s ability to pay is not a proper factor to consider in setting a victim restitution award.