Economic Sanctions in Criminal Justice

Abstract

In this article, the authors present a framework for considering five different economic sanctions: restitution, costs, fees, fines, and forfeiture. The intended purposes of these sanctions are described, and the research on the imposition of these sanctions is reviewed, particularly the extent to which offenders are likely to pay these court-ordered amounts and the effect of economic sanctions on recidivism. Four specific problems with economic sanctions are presented: setting the amounts of the sanctions, ensuring payment, setting priorities among different sanctions, and defining the roles of probation officers in the monitoring of payment.

Criminal Justice Debt During the Prisoner Reintegration Process: Who Has It and How Much?

“…These sanctions are seen as supplements, not replacements, to other forms of sanctioning, and, therefore, are applied to serious and minor offenses alike (Beckett & Harris, 2011; Harris et al, 2010). As part of this “offender-funded” justice model, these financial obligations include, but are not limited to, fines, court fees, costs, surcharges, restitution, jail and prison fees, and community supervision fees (Ruback & Bergstrom, 2006; Ruback, Shaffer, & Logue, 2004), and it has been argued that they might produce large amounts of financial debt for people processed by the justice system. As a broad illustration, 44 U.S. states now charge fees for probation, 43 charge public defender fees, and 41 charge fees for room and board for jail and prison stays (Beckett & Harris, 2011; Shapiro, 2014).…”

Legal financial obligations in the United States: A review of recent research

“…When it comes to the growth of LFOs in the 20th century, early research often considered LFOs as intermediary or alternative forms of punishment that were administered to “low‐risk” people and should be reformed for efficacy, fairness, and proportionality (Gordon & Glaser, 1991; Hayes et al., 2014; Hillsman, 1990; Ruback, 2011; Ruback & Bergstrom, 2006; Ruback & Clark, 2011). More recently, however, studies have begun to examine LFOs' continued racial and political roots.…”

“…Studies also show that a person's charge may influence the types and amounts of LFOs they must pay. To name a few examples, additional sex offender or drug testing fees often accrue for those accused or convicted of specific charges, leading to additional debt and related consequences (Bannon et al, 2010;Makin et al, 2018;O'Neil & Strellman, 2020;Pleggenkuhle, 2018;Ruback & Bergstrom, 2006). Race increases the consequences for people of color charged with these types of offenses; as show, Black people charged with sex offenses may face more severe consequences related to LFOs due to stigma and existing financial instability.…”

“…Legal financial obligations (LFOs), also known as monetary sanctions or informally as “fines and fees,” are intertwined throughout United States law. Often used as punishment or a way to recuperate government costs (Harris, 2016; Martin et al., 2018; Ruback & Bergstrom, 2006), LFOs take several forms: fines are punitive sanctions ranging from a hundred‐dollar traffic ticket to thousands of dollars for a criminal or civil conviction; fees charge people for the “use” of police, courts, or prisons, and fund government services and specialty programs; 1 surcharges and additional costs are added to other sanctions as a percent or standard amount, including interest and penalties charged to people with unpaid debt; and restitution or victim compensation covers losses faced by a victim of a crime or a government entity 2 . Moreover, LFOs can cross jurisdictional boundaries; they are governed by a complex web of federal, state, county, and municipal statutes and entrenched throughout the criminal, civil, administrative, and juvenile legal systems.…”

The institutionalization of the fight against white-collar crime in Switzerland, 1970-1990

“…Archival evidence shows that the justice system had to cope with limited funds, and have every new position approved by the cantonal parliament. As a result, taxpayer's money was the main source of funding for the justice system, while economic sanctions imposed on offenders were not significant as a means to increase the capacities of the judiciary 43 (Ruback & Bergstrom, 2006).…”