Restitution Archives - Page 3 of 5 - Fines and Fees Justice Center

Payment Plans As A Compliance Tool: Best Practices For Florida Courts

his brief describes the various ways in which payment plans are administered inconsistently across Florida’s counties. The author argues that these conflicting procedures breed confusion among people who have court debt, especially those who owe money to courts in different jurisdictions.

Can’t Pay, Can’t Vote: A National Survey On The Modern Poll Tax

Felony convictions and court debt have become barriers to restoring voting rights for millions of people living in the U.S. This report provides a history of poll taxes and explains how felony disenfranchisement serves as a barrier perpetuating the same inequality-producing results: African-Americans and poor people lose the right to vote and struggle to regain voting rights at disproportionate rates.

Inherently Unstable: The History and Future of Reliance on Court-Imposed Fees in the State of Texas

In this article, Todd Jermstad argues that relying on court-imposed fines, fees, and costs to fund the court system in Texas is not financially feasible.

Ten Guidelines on Court Fines and Fees

The American Bar Association developed ten guidelines to ensure that fines and fees do not punish people disproportionately for their poverty.

[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.

San Francisco County Ordinance No. 131-18: Administrative Code – Criminal Justice System Fees and Penalties

This ordinance abolishes all discretionary fees imposed by San Francisco County.

Mississippi HB 387: An Act to Provide that Incarceration Shall Not Automatically Follow the Nonpayment of a Fine, Restitution, or Court Costs […]

This bill was proposed to enshrine Rule 26.6(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure in state law. Its provisions are nearly identical: it mandates a determination of willfulness before a court may sanction a defendant for nonpayment of fines and fees, and provides alternatives for courts when failure to pay was not willful.

United States Systems of Justice, Poverty and the Consequences of Non-Payment of Monetary Sanctions: Interviews from California, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, New York, and Washington

This report is a culmination of a year of research that involved interviews conducted with 380 people who made contact with systems of justice in eight states and were assessed fines and fees.

Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 26.6 and 27.3: Fine, Restitution, and/or Court Costs following Adjudication of Guilt.

Following litigation by the ACLU, the MacArthur Justice Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center challenging debtor’s prisons in Biloxi, Jackson, and Corinth, the Mississippi Supreme Court made two changes related to fines and fees in its Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Louisiana House Bill 249: Payment of fines, fees, costs, restitution, and other monetary obligations related to an offender’s conviction

Louisiana House Bill 249 protects people convicted of a felony and their dependents from facing undue hardship because of fines and fees.