Sec. 2. Findings; purpose

975 words·~4 min read·/bill/116/s/3375/is/section-2

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress finds the following: The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held that the government may not incarcerate an individual solely because of the inability of the individual to pay a fine or fee. In 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that it is unconstitutional to imprison people for failing to pay fines and fees without inquiring into their ability to pay. The Fifth Circuit also ruled that it is unconstitutional for judges to determine ability to pay when court debts help pay court budgets.

Under section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, Federal judicial officers may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of an individual. In 2017, a report by United States Commission on Civil Rights evaluated evidence that— 47 states increased their fines and fees in recent years, including fines and fees imposed on juveniles; in Virginia, 1 in 6 drivers had license revoked as a result of an inability to pay court fines and fees; in New Jersey, 42 percent of suspended drivers lost their jobs as a result of the suspension; in the 50 cities with the highest proportion of revenues from fines, the median size of the African-American population in each city was greater than 5 times the median in the United States; in Washington, Latinos received higher fine assessments than non-Latino Whites for similar offenses; 10 counties in California detained approximately 700 people per month for an average of 3 days as a result of a failure to pay and driving with a suspended license; and according to the Department of Justice on the investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, revenue collection, not public safety, was the primary impetus behind the collection of fines and fees.

There is no clear evidence that fines and fees are an effective crime deterrent. Defendants released from custody with no financial penalty return to court at the same rate as defendants released on financial bond. The burden of fines and fees is disproportionately shouldered by low-income communities and communities of color, which in turn aggravates and perpetuates poverty and racial inequalities. Cities with larger Black populations fine residents more on a per capita basis and are more reliant on fines.

A 1 percent increase in a Black population is associated with a 5 percent increase in per capita revenue from fines and a 1 percent increase in share of total revenue from fines. In addition, data on the extent to which individuals are jailed or otherwise penalized because of their inability to pay fee-only offenses are insufficiently developed, preventing a full picture of the pervasiveness of targeted fees, as well as the repetitive impact on individuals from both low-income communities and communities of color.

Decisions regarding pretrial release or detention adds financial stress to individuals unable to pay monetary bail and the jails holding those unable to pay. Individuals gave up necessities like rent, food, medical bills, car payments, and child support, in order to pay down their court debt. Thirty-eight percent of people surveyed committed a crime to pay off their court debt. Driver’s licenses are often suspended automatically when cases are transferred to private collectors and are not restored until debts are paid in full.

Thirty States continue to require payment of all legal financial obligations before voting rights are restored, effectively disenfranchising individuals because of an inability to pay. Many jurisdictions across the country rely on fines and fees as a primary revenue source. A 2019 analysis of fine revenues found that— fines are a critical source of funding, at times accounting for more than half of all general revenues; fines and fees account for more than 10 percent of general fund revenues for nearly 600 jurisdictions, and in at least 284 of those, the share exceeded 20 percent, while another 80 governments reported even higher fines accounting for more than half of general revenues; annual revenues exceeding $100 for every adult resident, while 363 exceeded $200 per adult in all the governments analyzed; the States with the highest fines and fees revenue are Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas; and jurisdictions where fines and forfeitures accounted for more than 20 percent of general fund revenues recorded a median household income of only $39,594.

The dependency on fines and fees creates a harmful incentive for courts to levy fines and fees on indigent individuals regardless of the severity of the crime. However, some jurisdictions spent more than the revenue they raised collecting fees, therefore losing money through this system. In some jurisdictions like New Orleans the cost of incarcerating individuals unable to pay fines, fees, and monetary bail exceeded the revenue generated from those practices. Some jurisdictions in Texas and New Mexico spent 41 cents of every dollar of revenue they raise from fees and fines on in-court hearings and jail costs alone.

In almost every State and the District of Columbia, juvenile courts impose court costs, fines, and fees on youth, their families, or both. These costs may increase recidivism, increase the potential of future jail or prison time, exacerbate racial inequality, and increase the economic and emotional distress of low-income families. Imposing fines and fees on minors and their families is ineffective as a revenue-generating measure, often because minors in the criminal justice system come from indigent families.

Imposing these fines and fees increases recidivism and economic and emotional hardship on families. The purpose of this Act is to create a grant program to provide technical assistance and training to State and local courts to— improve the constitutional and equitable enforcement of fines, fees, and monetary bail; improve practices regarding the use of fines and fees and their equitable enforcement when used; and collect data to better understand the research and best practices of State and local courts on a Federal level.