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.
This study explores how local and state governments allow corporations to generate profits from public criminal justice institutions and examines how that structure harms people forced to pay for private services.
The imposition of unaffordable probation fees punishes poverty and places them at risk of being jailed when they cannot pay. Most states charge monthly probation fees, while others use “reasonableness” …
This report examines two concerning trends: the increasing use of fines and fees to fund the criminal legal system, and functions of that system being outsourced to private companies who profit from the criminal legal system.
This report identifies several promising issue areas for fines and fees reform in Arkansas, including nonpayment incarceration, driver’s license suspension for unpaid fines and fees, and probation fees. The authors interviewed 205 people who were charged and/or incarcerated over inability to pay fines and fees; performed court-watching in 8 counties; sent almost 300 records requests; and interviewed Arkansas criminal justice and social service stakeholders.
This article analyzes Illinois laws to investigate the fines and fees people are expected to pay and what happens when they cannot afford to pay these costs.
Texas relies on supervision fees from probationers to recuperate operating costs for their probation program; failure to pay can result in additional sanctions and ultimately, revocations. This study used focus …
This ordinance eliminates criminal justice administrative fees charged by Alameda County, California. In particular, it eliminates county-imposed probation fees, public defender fees, and fees associated with the Sheriff’s Office Work Alternative Program.