FINES, FEES, AND BAIL - Whitehouse.gov
C O U N C IL O F E C O N O M I C A D V I S E R S I S S U E B R IE FD E C E M B E R 2015PAYMENTSIN THEIntroductionFINES, FEES, AND BAILCRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMTHATMuch of public discussion about the need for criminaljustice system reform has focused on the dramaticgrowth in the size of the incarcerated population, as thenumber of Americans behind bars is now approximately2.2 million. 1 At the same time, concerns are growingabout the expanding use of monetary penalties, whichdisproportionately impact poor defendants andoffenders. Crime imposes real costs on society in termsof both the harm done to victims and in resources thatmust be allocated to policing, prosecution andincarceration. Increases in criminal justice spending haveput a strain on local criminal justice budgets and led tothe broader use of fine penalties and itemized criminaljustice fees in an effort to support budgets. However, thispractice places large burdens on poor offenders who areunable to pay criminal justice debts and, because manyoffenders assigned monetary penalties fall into thiscategory, has largely been ineffective in raising revenues.Similarly, the growing use of fixed bail bonds as acondition for pretrial release has contributed to growthin jail populations, and often results in localitiesdetaining the poorest rather than the most dangerousdefendants.1Fines are monetary punishments for infractions,misdemeanors or felonies. Fines are intended todeter crime, punish offenders, and compensatevictims for losses. Fees are itemized payments for court activities,supervision, or incarceration charged todefendants determined guilty of infractions,Carson, Ann. 2015. “Prisoners in 2014.” Bureau of JusticeStatistics, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;Minton, Todd and Zhen Zeng. 2015. “Jail Inmates atMidyear 2014.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department ofJustice, Washington, D.C.THEPOORmisdemeanors or felonies. Fee collections areintended to support operational costs in thecriminal justice system and may also be used tocompensate victims for losses. 2 Fees may alsohave a punitive and deterrent purpose, but arenot designed to cater to specific offensecategories. Bail is a bond payment for a defendant’s releasefrom jail prior to court proceedings, and themajority of a bail payment is returned to adefendant after case disposition. Bail paymentsare intended to incentivize defendants to appearat court and, in some cases, to reduce thecriminal risk of returning a defendant to thecommunity.In jurisdictions throughout the United States, monetarypayments for infractions, misdemeanors or feloniestypically do not consider a defendant’s ability to pay, andinstead are determined based on offense type, eitherstatutorily or through judicial discretion. Fixed paymentsfor a given offense create regressive penalties, orpenalties more punitive for poorer individuals than forwealthier individuals. The disproportionate impact ofthese fixed payments on the poor raises concerns notonly about fairness, but also because high monetarysanctions can lead to high levels of debt and evenincarceration for failure to fulfil a payment. In somejurisdictions, approximately 20 percent of all jail inmateswere incarcerated for failure to pay criminal justicedebts. Estimates indicate that a third of felonydefendants are detained before trial for failure to makebail; and in one city, approximately 20 percent ofdefendants made bail at amounts less than 500. Highdebt burdens for poor offenders in turn increase barriersto successful re-entry after an offense.In this brief, we examine three common types ofmonetary payments in the criminal justice system: DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT2In the Federal system, fees are also called “specialassessments” and contribute to compensation for victims.Office for Victims of Crime. “About OVC: Crime VictimsFund.” Office of Justice Programs, Department of ctimsfund.html.
Real Criminal Justice Expenditures, 1993-2012As the use of fixed monetary penalties has increased,many observers have raised concerns about the equity,legality and efficiency of these regressive payments. Atthe same time, meaningful reforms could increase equitywithout sacrificing deterrent impacts of these paymentsor the goal of supporting criminal justice operations.Below, we discuss the use and impact of fines, fees andbail, and highlight potential options for reform. 2014 (Billions)1602012140Local12010080State6040Fines and FeesRising Criminal Justice Budgets have Motivated Growthin Fines and FeesIn the past two and a half decades, the U.S. criminaljustice system has expanded dramatically. Between 1990and 2014, incarceration rates increased by 61 percent, 3and in 2014, over 2.2 million people were incarcerated inlocal jails or in State and Federal prisons.As part of the growth in the criminal justice systemexpenditures have risen substantially. Between 1993 and2012, total real annual criminal justice expendituresgrew by 74 percent from 157 to 273 billion, and localspending comprised approximately half of totalexpenditures. 4 State corrections expenditures represent7 percent of the total State general funds on average,and 11 States spent more on corrections than highereducation in 2013.3Incarceration growth includes prisoners only. Bureau ofJustice Statistics (BJS). 1990-2014. “Prisoners” Series.Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.4Total spending refers to combined Federal, State andlocal spending. Between 1993 and 2012, total nominalspending on the criminal justice system grew from 97billion to 265 billion, a growth rate of over 170 percent.20Federal01993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011Note: Direct expenditures in 2014 dollars included, intergovernmetnal transfers excluded.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Expenditure and Employment Extract" series.As enforcement has increased, budget pressure hasmounted. State and local court systems, which processthe majority of low-level offenses, have also facedincreasing budget pressure, reflected in criminal justiceexpenditure growth of 69 percent at the State level and61 percent at the local level over the same period.In the 1990s, policy makers began arguing that taxpayersshould not bear responsibility for these increasing costs,but rather the individuals convicted of crimes. State andlocal governments, who pay many of the operationalcosts of the criminal justice system, have increasinglyturned to monetary sanctions as a source of additionalrevenue. One study using data from North Carolinafound that counties use traffic tickets and fines not onlyto ensure safety but also as a tool to raise revenue,responding to a 10 percent budget shortfall by issuing 6percent more tickets. In a high-profile example of thispractice, a Department of Justice investigation of theFerguson Police Department in Missouri showed that thetown of Ferguson set revenue targets for criminal justicefines and fees of over 3 million in 2015, covering over20 percent of the town’s operating budget.Real per-capita spending on the criminal justice systemgrew by 40 percent, a slower growth rate than real totalspending, which grew by over 70 percent. Expenditurestabulated are direct spending, indirect transfers areexcluded. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). 1990-2014.“Expenditure and Employment Extract” Series.Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.2
The Use and Size of Fines and Fees have Increased overTimeA recent study estimates that tens of millions ofindividuals in the United States have been assessed finesor fees as part of the punishment for a criminal offense.The use of these practices has increased substantiallyover time; in 1986, 12 percent of those incarceratedwere also fined, while in 2004 this number had increasedto 37 percent. 5 When including fees as well, the totalrises to 66 percent of all prison inmates. In 2014, 44States charged offenders for probation and parolesupervision, up from 26 in 1990.While the use of fines and fees has grown for allsentencing groups, they remain more common in casesof misdemeanors, infractions, and other relatively lessserious crimes than in cases of felonies. Even amongfelony defendants, fines and fees are more common forindividuals convicted to probation or jail than prison,because fines may be used as an alternative toincarceration. At all levels, fines and fees are moreassociated with less serious crimes.Within particular States, the number and type of fees hasalso risen substantially; for example, Florida has added20 new categories of financial obligations since 1996.Examples of financial obligations include charges forrepresentation by a public defender, court appearances,room and board for jail or prison stays, parole orprobation services, court-required drug testing,counseling or community service, and electronicmonitoring. Fees can also be directly linked to fines whenadditional fees are triggered by failure to pay a fine forthe original offense. In many States, the range of fees canimpact and burden poor defendants at each step of thejustice process.In addition to monetary penalties for specific offenses orcriminal justice operations, surcharges for collectingcriminal justice debt have an extra impact on offendersunable to pay their initial charges, a group that likely5These percentages exclude fines specifically forrestitution. About a quarter of felony defendants wereordered to pay restitution in 2004. Harris, Alexes, HeatherEvans and Katherine Beckett. 2010. “Drawing Blood fromStones: Legal Debt and Social Inequality in theContemporary United States.” American Journal ofSociology 115(6): 1753-1799.includes a large proportion of poor defendants. Forexample, in the State of Washington, individuals withcriminal justice debt are subject to an initial flat chargeof 500 and an interest rate of 12 percent. Other Statesassess fees ranging from 25 to 300 for late payments,failure to pay fines, or to set up a debt payment plan. InFlorida, private collection agencies may add processingfees of up to a 40 percent.Though each individual fee may appear a manageablesum, a charge of several hundred dollars can present asignificant obstacle to poor offenders and the number ofcharges, processing fees, and high rates of interest canquickly compound debt into much larger sums. In 2011,the city of Philadelphia sent bills on unpaid criminaljustice debts to more than 20 percent of residents, witha median debt of 4,500. A 2008 study in the State ofWashington found an average of 1,406 in fines and feesowed. The same study found that non-violent drugoffenders owed debts over 1.5 times greater than otheroffender groups, in part because drug offenders may bemore likely to receive fines instead of incarcerationsentences. Given an interest rate of 12 percent inWashington, an offender paying 10 a month on theaverage debt would owe more than 15,000 in 30 years. 6Fines and Fees are RegressiveDisproportionately Impact the PoorPaymentsthatWhile fines and fees serve different purposes in thecriminal justice system, with the former intended as adirect form of punishment and the latter intended as aform of cost-sharing for operation of the system, theyhave a key similarity in the fact that both are typicallyassessed without consideration of the offender’s abilityto pay. These monetary penalties often place adisproportionate burden on poor individuals who havefewer resources available to manage debt. They alsoserve as a regressive form of punishment as the samelevel of debt presents an increasingly larger burden asone moves lower on the income scale.6Beckett, Katherine A., Alexes M. Harris, and HeatherEvans. 2008. “The Assessment and Consequences of LegalFinancial Obligations in Washington State.” WashingtonState Minority and Justice Commission, Olympia, WA; CEAcalculations.3
Statutory caps on fines and fees may attempt to ensurethat payments are affordable for all, but paymentceilings often remain too high for impoverishedoffenders to afford. Caps on fines and fees can alsoperpetuate the regressive nature of the fine and feesystem by reducing the relative punishment for wealthydefendants. For example, experiments varying the size offines for running a red light find that larger fines reducetraffic violations, but that wealthier individuals are lessresponsive to changes in fine levels because fines arerelatively less costly as income increases.body of research shows that there is a substantial labormarket penalty for having a criminal record or history ofarrests or incarceration, in terms of both decreasedemployment and wage loss. Individuals unable to paycriminal justice debt may be further punished by havingtheir drivers’ licenses suspended, even for offensesunrelated to driving. In a recent study, eight of 15 Statessurveyed suspend licenses for nonpayment of criminaljustice debt. Loss of a driver’s license can make it difficultto maintain employment, increasing the obstacles topaying off debt.Though fines and fees represent fixed payments withrespect to an individual’s ability to pay, these paymentsshow large variance across local jurisdictions, offensecategories and offender characteristics due to judicialdiscretion. Regression analysis of criminal justice debt inthe State of Washington found higher fines and fees fordrug offenses, cases that went to trial, and for Hispanicand male offenders. Differences in criminal justice debtaccording to characteristics of the case maydisproportionately impact certain groups or change theincentives that defendants face when choosing how toproceed with a case. Criminal justice debt also variedaccording to county characteristics; with higher fines andfees charged in counties with lower populations,counties with higher arrest rates for violent and drugoffenses, and counties that spent a lower percentage oftheir budgets on criminal justice.In some cases, judges issue warrants to arrest and jailindigent individuals for failure to pay debts, a practicethat may violate constitutional rights. In many States,payment of fines and fees is a condition of parole orprobation, and failure to pay criminal justice debt canresult in a violation of parole or probation that can leadto additional incarceration. In Pennsylvania, individualsunable to pay a 60 fee for parole supervision areineligible for parole release, leading to longer sentencesfor the poorest offenders. Because many States providecredits toward debt for time spent in jail, convictedpersons in some States may “choose” to serve time in jailto reduce their debts.Fines and Fees Impose Large Financial and Human Costson Poor OffendersFines and fees create large financial and human costs, allof which are disproportionately borne by the poor. Highfines and fee payments may force the indigent formerlyincarcerated to make difficult trade-offs between payingcourt debt and other necessary purchases.Unsustainable debt coupled with the threat ofincarceration may even encourage some formerlyincarcerated individuals to return to criminal activity topay off their debts, perversely increasing recidivism.Time spent in pre-trial detention as a punishment forfailure to pay debts entails large costs in the form ofpersonal freedom and sacrificed income, as well asincreasing the likelihood of job loss.Further, an arrest for inability to pay a fine is itself acriminal record offense and can exacerbate theconsequences of the original criminal charge. A largeThough national data on incarceration for failure to paycriminal justice debt is not available; investigations ofsmaller jurisdictions are illustrative. In Rhode Island in2008, 18 percent of all incarceration commitments werefor criminal justice debt and over 2/3 of individuals jailedfor debt were first time offenders. In Huron County, Ohioin 2012, failure to pay fines and fees accounted for 20percent of all jail bookings.Collection of Fines and Fees is Often InefficientThough some jurisdictions may be successful in raisingrevenue through fines and fees, growing evaluationevidence suggests that a policy that funds governmentthrough criminal justice fees and fines is oftenineffective. State and local governments are likely tocollect fines and fees at low rates, in large part becauseof low incomes among many offenders, making themunable to pay court debts assigned withoutconsideration for ability to pay. Available data shows thatapproximately 65 percent of prisoners did not completehigh school and 14 percent have less than an 8th gradeeducation, indicating that they may have limited labormarket prospects or incomes. Similarly, evidence4
suggests that approximately 80 percent of felonydefendants are designated as indigent and rely on courtappointed counsel.As States have increasingly relied on fees and fines thatdo not take into account ability to pay, they have facedvery low rates of collection on debt. For example, Floridaand Maryland collected 14 percent and 17 percent ofcertain types of fees assessed, respectively. Additionally,the collection rate was zero in half of sentenced feloniesin Washington over three years, and a large majority ofsentenced cases had only collected 20 percent of fundscharged. State and local governments appear to beresponding to low collection rates by contracting withprivate collection agencies and increasing the fines andfees charged, a response that often exacerbates existingchallenges with the system and raises serious dueprocess concerns.Despite their goal of increasing revenue to fund localcriminal justice expenditures, in many cases, the costs ofcollection may exceed revenues from fines and fees dueto the high direct costs of collecting debt and the low rateof collection. Direct costs of administering the programcan be substantial, including staffing collectors, locatingoffenders, and administrating collections. For example,the State of Washington collected over 21 million in feerevenue in in 2006, but saw a net gain of less than 6million.The inefficiency of court debt collection is exacerbatedby the high cost of imprisoning people who cannot paythese debts. When jurisdictions jail offenders for failureto pay, the cost of fee collection increases more; inRhode Island in 2008, 2,446 individuals wereincarcerated for unpaid debts at an average cost of 505per commitment, and in 13 percent of cases the cost ofincarceration alone exceeded the debt assessed. Thesedirect incarceration costs do not include other directcosts of collecting fees or the humanitarian and equityconcerns of imprisoning those unable to pay criminaljustice debts.7This count is compiled from several sources. Zedlewski,Edwin W. 2010. “Alternatives to Custodial Supervision:The Day Fine.” National Institute of Justice, Washington,D.C.; Jordans, Frank. 2010. “Speeding Fines Being Linkedto Income in Europe.” SFGate, San Francisco, esbeing-linked-to-income-in-Europe-3275939.php; Tonry,Inefficient debt collection practices persist becausemany States do not appropriately track the costs or netgains from collection of criminal justice debt. In a studyof debt collection practices, none of the 15 Statessurveyed had any formal processes of tracking the costsassociated with fee collection. When Massachusettsconducted an impact analysis of introducing a fee forroom and board in prisons and jails in 2010, the Statefound that the proposed fee would not feasibly increaserevenue and would create additional obstacles tosuccessful reentry.Reforming Fines and Fees Could Potentially Increase bothEquity and EfficiencyThough State and local governments face importantbudgetary challenges, equitable and commonsensereforms to monetary criminal justice punishments havethe potential to improve fairness and efficiency withoutcompromising public safety.Over 25 countries in Europe and Latin America utilizeprogressive “day” fines instead of fixed fines of a certaindollar amount for a given offense. 7 In a “day” finesystem, judg
fines and fees of over 3 million in 2015, covering over 20 percent of the town’s operating budget. Real per-capita spending on the criminal justice system grew by 40 percent, a slower growth rate than real total spending, which grew by over 70 percent. Expenditures tabulated are direct spending, indirect transfers are excluded.
305130 BELL, BRECHANNA CHRISTINE Bail Bond Agent Active 8304023 BELL, NICOLE JUDITH Bail Bond Agent Active 8070932 BELL, TIMOTHY LYNN Bail Bond Agent Active 407161 BELCHER, NAKIA LYNN Bail Bond Agent Active 305422 BEAZLEY, HERBERT HENRY Bail Bond Agent Active 8290470
violates a condition of their bail, the court can declare the bail bond forfeited."7 Commercial surety bail: A system in which defendants have the option to contract with a bail bonds agency, paying a percentage (eight to ten percent in California) of their bail amount to a bail bonds agency to secure their pretrial release from jail.8
Revised 3/22 Bail Bonds and Cash Bails 2 . Reference: Detention Policies and Procedures Manual, Section Q.41, Processing Bail Bonds; Related Sections, Q.47, Negotiable Paper in Lieu of Cash for Payment of Bail/Fines. The Who's in Jail? website is the primary source of custody information utilized by all bail agencies and their representatives.
If bail is set, a defendant typically has the following options: 1. Cash bond: the defendant posts the full bail amount. 2. Commercial bond: a defendant can pay a nonrefundable fee (typically 10 percent of the bail amount or collateral) to a private bail bond agent, who will post bail and assume liability if the defendant fails to appear. 3.
16-84-108 Bonds not void for want of form 8 16-84-109 Irregularity of bail bond or recognizance 9 16-84-110 Bail before conviction 9 . 16-84-207 Action on bail bonds in circuit courts 14 16-85-101 Right to Attorney, physician, and phone calls 15 16-90-105 Verdict of guilty 16 16-94-216 Bail 16 .
which have Bail Acts still expressly mention the right in the Act. Thus, the Barbados Bail Act provides at section 4(1) 4(1) Subject to this Act, a defendant shall be entitled to bail. (2) Where bail is granted, the conditions of bail shall be reasonable.
344185 COMPTON, RORY EUGENE Bail Bond Agent 303316 CONKLIN, TYRONE LEE General Bail Bond Agent 8043913 CONLEY, TODD MICHAEL Bail Bond Agent 8067833 CONWAY, KENNY WAYNE Bail Bond Agent 8043027 COOK, RICHARD EDWARD Bail Bond Agent 8046957 COOK, BRANDON LI Surety Recovery 303940 COOMBS, MATTHEW GRANT Bail Bond Agent .
North County Division Bail Bond Ledger POSTED CASE # BOND # BOND COMPANY AMOUNT EXONERATED FORFEITED 07/01/21 CN426791-2 527400901-7 All-Pro Bail Bonds P.O. Box 1792 Gilroy, CA 95021 . 07/05/21 2021-BB-000864 King Stahlman Bail Bonds Inc. Vista Bail Bonds/A&A Bail Bonds 3959 30th St. Ste.102 01/13/2210,000.00
