Ability to Pay Archives - Page 23 of 38 - Fines and Fees Justice Center

[Bench Card] Monetary Obligations in North Carolina Criminal Cases

This bench card provides guidance to North Carolina judges regarding the imposition and collection of fines and fees in criminal cases. In particular, the bench card outlines the law as applicable to court costs, attorney fees, other fees, fines, and restitution, and highlights when each obligation applies as well as when and how courts can provide relief.

Massachusetts Senate Bill 2371: Relative to Criminal Justice Reform

Massachusetts Senate Bill 2371, which passed in 2018, protects people from being incarcerated for their inability to pay or for nonpayment of fines and fees, prohibits indigent defendants from being charged for counsel, and allows for court-ordered monetary sanctions to be adjusted or waived.

Penalty Assessment Funds – California’s Penalties and Fees Provide Inconsistent Funding for State and County Programs and Have a Significant Financial Impact on Drivers

This report reveals that California programs and services supported by revenue from fines and fees have been compromised by low-income motorists’ inability to pay those fines and fees.

Resolution Addressing Fines, Fees, and Costs in Juvenile Courts [Resolution and Bench Card]

The National Council of Juvenile Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) passed a resolution advocating for the reduction or elimination of fines and fees in juvenile courts. The resolution was published alongside a judicial bench card that outlines types of financial obligations that youth and families may encounter in juvenile and family court, details the impacts of those obligations, and explains how judges can address fines and fees in their own courtrooms. The bench card includes several practice recommendations for juvenile and family court judges.

Minnesota HF 3357: Reduction or waiver of the criminal and traffic surcharge authorized; courts required to consider indigency or hardship before imposing fines, fees, or surcharges; and notice required.

This bill would allow courts to reduce or waive fines and fees imposed on defendants in criminal and traffic court, require courts to consider ability to pay before sentencing a defendant to pay a fine or fee, and require that traffic tickets inform recipients of the court’s ability to waive or reduce fines and fees.

The Excessive Fines Clause: Challenging the Modern Debtor’s Prison

This law review article makes the case that the Eight Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause may be a better, albeit underdeveloped, provision to address the epidemic of debtor’s prisons.

Morales v. The City of Indio

This complaint alleges that the cities of Indio and Coachella outsourced the prosecution of some municipal code violations to a private law firm, Silver and Wright LLP.

Illinois HB 4594: The Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act

Broadly speaking, the Act streamlines, standardizes, and reduces court fees in order to facilitate a sliding scale fee waiver for defendants who cannot afford to pay. (Without these changes, the sliding scale would have been severely limited.)

“Set up to Fail”: The Impact of Offender-Funded Private Probation on the Poor

The author conducted qualitative research to assess the effect of private probation on people under parole supervision for misdemeanor offenses in Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. In some of these states, private parole officers have the authority to control critical aspects of a person’s parole terms.

Arizona House Bill 2169: Driving violations; restricted licenses; penalties.

This bill amends an Arizona statute which required judges to suspend a defendant’s driver’s license for nonpayment of fines and fees. The bill allows courts, at their discretion, to adjust fines and fees that result in license suspension based on an individual’s ability to pay.