Nordic Design

Abstract

Legal financial obligations serve a range of practical and ideological functions within the modern American criminal justice system. Criminal fines are punitive in nature and intended to reflect the severity of the offense as well as having a deterrent component. When assessed in conjunction with other financial penalties, including fees and restitution, the collective economic burden of these sanctions can be significant. An increasingly robust body of literature highlights the unequal impact and collateral harms of these punishments, especially those for people who fall into different socioeconomic groupings. There is a danger that the well-deserved opprobrium directed at fees and the cumulative effect of legal financial obligations will mask some benefits of properly targeted and calibrated fines. Here, we explore an opportunity for reform in the United States inspired by two Nordic sentencing policy models for fines. First, we look to Norwegian penal policy to consider expanding the use of fines as the primary sanction for a wider range of criminal offenses, especially in lieu of short terms of incarceration. We temper the impact of this change, especially for indigent defendants, by considering the implementation of a means-adjusted “day fine” system which are prevalent in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, and other individualized adjustments as in Norway. Taken together, these policies could reduce the American over-reliance on incarceration while modifying punitive fiscal sanctions in a manner that meets the purposes of punishment and seeks to minimize the unintended harms of financial punishment.

Reframing the debate on legal financial obligations and crime: How accruing monetary sanctions impacts recidivism

“…The results of the current inquiry suggest that these assessments should not only take into account the instant or active case but also consider an individual's financial situation in light of all of the criminal justice debts that they must satisfy. Similarly, U.S. jurisdictions might consider the benefits of the European day fine model in which financial punishments are based on both the seriousness of the offense and the defendant's income at his or her “day job” (Colgan, 2017; Hillsman, 1990; Hyatt et al., 2022). Although very few American courts have implemented this model, existing evaluations show promising results, including increased perceptions that fines are applied fairly, in addition to an increase in court revenue (Turner & Petersilia, 1996).…”

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

“…5 5 For examples of research on LFOs outside of the United States, please see Hyatt et al. (2022), Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko and Faure (2021), Miethe and Lu (2005), Nagrecha (2020), and O’Malley (2009). …”

“…In the latest fiscal cycle of the time period investigated, the city projected 23 percent of its funds to come from fines (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015, p. 10).5 For examples of research on LFOs outside of the United States, please seeHyatt et al (2022),Kantorowicz-Reznichenko and Faure (2021),Miethe and Lu (2005),Nagrecha (2020), andO'Malley (2009).6 Municipal courts typically handle low-level misdemeanor or traffic offenses versus superior courts whose jurisdiction covers felony offenses.7 See alsoRios (2019) for more on the "racial states of municipal governance. "8 In many states, offenders pay both restitution and compensation, the latter of which is assessed to all offenders, regardless of if there was a direct victim in that situation; see also,Katzenstein and Waller (2015) andMartin and Fowle (2020).9 Two recent works discuss this in greater depth:Harris et al (2019) provide two case studies that demonstrate how private entities, which run court-ordered programs and prison services, profit from LFOs;Katzenstein et al (2020) discuss "commissions/kickbacks" which funnel fees to private entities when incarcerated people, their families, or their friends pay for the use of a prison phone, commissary, or other services.10 SeeNeedham et al (2020) for an ethnographic account of the confusion faced by those assessed legal debt in fine-only misdemeanor cases.11 See alsoLink's review (2022) which presents some conflicting evidence on the relationship between LFO debt and increased recidivism rates, including a list of studies that found null effects or inverse relationships.…”