Harris leads a team of researchers at nine universities who are exploring the role of monetary sanctions in the criminal justice system. They recently completed a review of financial punishments in the laws of each of their home states. Based on their preliminary findings, the impact to a person’s pocketbook depends largely on his or her location on a map.

“There is an extreme amount of variation 鈥� both between states and within states 鈥� on how, when and where monetary sanctions are imposed by court officials,” said Harris. “It’s a mess, and there are few guidelines and no national framework governing the use of monetary sanctions.”

Monetary sanctions include fines, court fees, restitution, surcharges and even interest on unpaid sanctions. They are imposed for offenses ranging from traffic violations and misdemeanors to felony convictions. Though these types of financial punishments have a long history in the United States, state and local governments have been imposing monetary sanctions with increasing frequency over the past 30 years. The result is a national patchwork of financial punishments, which Harris and her team are working to map as part of a five-year grant from the .

On April 20, 2017, released a of their first year’s work, a comprehensive review of financial punishments, law and policy across nine states: California (), Georgia (), Illinois (), Minnesota (), Missouri (), New York (), North Carolina (), Texas () and Washington. These states account for more than one-third of the nation’s 2.2 million incarcerated people. These nine states also are home to more than 40 percent of people in the U.S. who are under community-based supervision.

In general, the researchers found wide variation on the fine and fee amounts sentenced to rule breakers, the circumstances in which they’re imposed and even when courts allow people to pay their financial obligations. But all nine states impose monetary sanctions on a routine basis. In some states, the fines are specific: 聽Washington, North Carolina and Georgia have detailed lists of mandatory fees for each offense.

Usually, the offense, rather than the person’s ability to pay, determines the amount of the monetary sanction. Harris and her colleagues found that judges and other officers of the court often have little leeway in imposing monetary sanctions. In Washington, judges can waive interest payments on certain fines once the principal has been paid. Missouri courts are advised to consider a person’s ability to pay when imposing certain fines. But these are exceptions. In general, these sanctions cannot be revoked 鈥� only paid.

“There are few ways to find relief from a sanction once it has been imposed,” said Harris.

The researchers also found variation among states and municipalities not just in the size of the monetary fines and the crimes for which they are imposed, but also the consequences for failure to pay. Though debtors’ prisons have long been abolished, courts can still issue warrants for persistent non-payment or impose other penalties. Since people in the criminal justice system are more likely to be poor, the consequences for falling behind in payments can be far-reaching.

“In many states or jurisdictions, non-payment of any legal fine can lead to suspension of a driver’s license, which can affect a person’s ability to get to a job,” said Harris. “In other states, persistent non-payment leads to a suspension of voting rights.”

That variation stems from the absence of a national framework governing monetary sanctions, Harris said. But in 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice went so far as to on fines and fees. In 2015, Missouri’s Ferguson Commission how monetary sanctions can contribute to inequality in the justice system. As these and other efforts draw attention to the disparate monetary sanction policies across states, they may prompt states to revisit those policies.

“On paper, monetary sanctions make sense. If you commit a crime 鈥� and are duly convicted 鈥� then you pay,” said Harris. “But is it fair to set up a sanction that a person has no ability to pay? What is the true purpose of this punishment? These are the underlying issues states must ultimately confront as they consider reforms to monetary sanction laws and statutes.”

Harris and her colleagues are building on this initial review by conducting analyses in nine states of fines and fees from state court data, observing court proceedings and interviewing court officers and debtors. Harris’ previous work in “” suggests that these sanctions have expanded as a result of another modern trend in the criminal justice system.

“Since the 1970s, there has been a massive, 500 percent increase in incarceration rates, and states have had to look for ways to fund that,” said Harris. “And starting in the 1990s, states have created statutes to increase fines and fees or create new ones.”

The national research team’s endeavors will help resolve the details of monetary sanctions and how they differ among states. They will also examine, among other questions, the underlying question of why monetary sanctions have become such a prominent part of the modern criminal justice system nationally.

###

For more information, contact Harris at yharris@uw.edu.

The event is titled 鈥淧erpetual Displacement and Bondage: Understanding Historical and Contemporary Intersections of Mass Incarceration, Racism, and Health.鈥�

It鈥檚 free and open to the public, and will include four sessions on various aspects of mass incarceration featuring UW faculty members and community speakers.

, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Campaign for Smart Justice, and , policy director of Right on Crime, will be the keynote speakers at an evening discussion moderated by , managing editor of the Northwest News Network.

The event is part of UW Health Sciences鈥� , an annual program that aims to engage UW students across the health sciences in workshops, lectures and other events organized around a chosen book. 鈥淭he New Jim Crow,鈥� the book for the program鈥檚 2015/2016 year, argues that the U.S.鈥檚 system of mass incarceration is a form of social control that oppresses millions of black people and consigns them to permanent second-class status.

The day鈥檚 sessions will be held in the 鈥檚 Unity Room and include:

• How Did We End Up Here? 鈥� panel and discussion with and , UW associate professors of sociology. 10:30 a.m. to noon
• Providing Humane Care in Inhumane Circumstances 鈥� with , associate professor of nursing at UW Bothell; Joisky Caudill of Red Will, a group for incarcerated Native women; Marc Stern, a correctional health care consultant and physician; Kate Stanley, a family nurse practitioner and former jail worker; and Richard Murphy, chief of dentistry for the Washington Department of Corrections. 12:30 to 2 p.m.
• For Health Equity, We Need Liberation 鈥� with , an artist, educator, activist and attorney; Ardell Shaw, community organizer with the Black Prisoners Caucus; and Lillian Hewko, community organizer with the Incarcerated Parents Project. 2 to 3:30 p.m.
• So What鈥檚 Next? 鈥� workshop facilitated by Students for an Anti-Racist 天美影视传媒. 3:30 to 4:30 p.m.

David Fernando, a staff assistant in the UW School of Medicine鈥檚 Service Learning Office, said the program is popular with UW students.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of participation,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he students love it.鈥�

Participants can attend one, several or all sessions. Registration is available . For more information, email somserve@uw.edu.

Though debtors鈥� prisons were eliminated in the United States almost two centuries ago, a modern-day version exists in the dizzyingly complex system of fines and fees levied against people as they move through the court system.

Offenders are charged for everything from DNA samples to electronic monitoring devices, jury trials and even room and board while imprisoned. The fees can add up to thousands of dollars, and those who fail to pay are routinely jailed.

Little is known about how such fines and fees differ among or even within states, but a new 天美影视传媒-based initiative will provide new insight on the issue. , an associate professor of sociology, is the principal investigator of a five-year research project on monetary sanctions in eight states. The $3.9 million project, funded by the , will be the first systematic study of how multiple states implement court-imposed fees.

The initiative will focus on Washington, California, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, Illinois, Georgia and New York. Harris and her collaborators at partner universities will research how legal fees and fines are applied at state and local levels, interview defendants and court officials and compile a data set that Harris hopes will foster a broader national conversation.

鈥淭his data doesn鈥檛 exist on a national level,鈥� Harris said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 an interesting puzzle to try to figure out.鈥�

Harris is among stakeholders White House and Department of Justice events this week focused on court-imposed fees and criminal justice system reform. Her new project furthers research Harris conducted in Washington state, and her findings will be detailed in her forthcoming book 鈥淎 Pound of Flesh: Monetary Sanctions as a Permanent Punishment for the Poor,鈥� slated for publication next summer.

Harris found that criminal offenders in Washington are charged a minimum of $600 in court fines and fees, and 12 percent interest starts accruing the day of sentencing and continues through the prison term. Fees and charges levied by other states may vary widely 鈥� in Arizona, for example, courts can impose a surcharge of 83 percent on any fines levied against prisoners, while in Louisiana, indigent defendants are charged a $40 public defender fee.

The average amount of fines imposed in a felony case in Washington is $2,540, according to a report last year by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and Columbia Legal Services. And though the report found that up to 90 percent of people charged with felonies in Washington are indigent, the fees are charged regardless of ability to pay. 鈥淲illful nonpayment鈥� of fees, when someone is able to pay but does not, is a jailable offense under state law.

The practice 鈥減unishes people simply for being poor and brings little to no benefit to the government or the general public,鈥� the report notes. 鈥淭his system places severe, long-lasting burdens on persons living in poverty.鈥�

For many people, Harris said, legal debt is a permanent burden that prevents them from rebuilding their lives after incarceration. One woman Harris met, disabled and partly deaf, was living with her ex-husband, three kids and her former father-in-law in a three-bedroom apartment in Kitsap County while working to pay off what she owed.

Her sentencing for 11 charges ranging from forgeries to possession of stolen properties carried court fines of $13,000. With interest and collection surcharges, her debt had grown to just under $20,000 when it was transferred to a private collection agency. Her consequent poor credit was making it difficult for her to secure a lease on her own apartment.

鈥淭his is going to follow her forever,鈥� said Harris. 鈥淲e have this idea that you do the crime, you do the time and you can move forward. But the system marks poor individuals for life. They become prisoners of debt.鈥�

Legal fines and fees disproportionately impact poor people, who are more likely to be arrested and charged, said Harris.

鈥淭hese are often people living in poverty, people of color, people with disabilities, with mental health and substance abuse issues,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hese are people who are already marginalized, and they just can鈥檛 pay the fees.鈥�

An arbitrary system of enforcement and collection adds to the disparity. Harris researched court fees and fines in five Washington counties and discovered that the amounts charged, repayment requirements and enforcement varied widely. In one county, payments must be paid monthly each Thursday at noon or debtors are required to appear in court that afternoon. Spokane County previously required debtors who hadn鈥檛 kept up on payments to report to jail without a hearing, but in 2010 the state Supreme Court the practice unconstitutional.

鈥淭here are these very, very different processes across the state,鈥� Harris said. 鈥淭hey were completely different in every county I鈥檝e looked at.鈥�

Superior courts in Washington can impose more than 20 different fees at a judge鈥檚 discretion. Court clerks determine the minimum monthly payments, which start at $20 per charge but can be up to $50. In some jurisdictions, Harris said, sheriffs knock on doors to arrest debtors for nonpayment or round up those who are homeless, sleeping in parks or on streets. Debtors can be asked to use public assistance payments 鈥� or more questionable tactics 鈥� to pay their fees.

鈥淥ne prosecutor told me, 鈥業 regularly ask them to hold a cardboard sign by the side of the road,鈥欌�� Harris said. 鈥淗e said, 鈥楧o you know how much money they can make?鈥欌��

In March, the Washington State Supreme Court that judges must assess defendants鈥� ability to pay legal financial obligations and not impose them if they can鈥檛 be paid. But whether judges will still impose the mandatory $600 in fees is unclear, said Harris, whose research was cited in the .

In October, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Benton County over its court-imposed fees, alleging the county wrongfully punishes people for being poor. About 20 percent of inmates in the county鈥檚 jails are serving time for nonpayment of fees, and those who can鈥檛 pay are sent back to jail or can work on a county work crew to pay off their fines 鈥� but must pay a $5-a-day-fee to do so.

Fines have always been imposed in the U.S. criminal justice system, but states began ratcheting up fines and fees in the 1990s and 2000s to help pay the costs of a swelling incarceration system. All states now charge defendants and offenders fees of some type, and all but two have increased court fees and fines since 2010, an NPR survey . The practice raises questions about the fundamental purpose of punishment, Harris said.

鈥淭here are these two aims, and they鈥檙e competing aims,鈥� she said. 鈥淥ne is to punish people and the other is to do cost recoupment. We need to have a broader conversation about what the point of punishment is.

鈥淪hould a punishment be set that all people can eventually achieve? If so, monetary sanctions are an unsurmountable sentence that many will never be able to fulfill. Does that mean they can never have a second chance and serve their debt to society?鈥�

Collaborators on the project are at the University of Missouri, St. Louis; at John Jay College of Criminal Justice; at Northwestern University; at the University of Texas, Austin; at the University of Georgia; at the University of California, Irvine; and at the University of Minnesota.