Statutory Inequality: The Logics of Monetary Sanctions in State Law

On Thin Ice: Bureaucratic Processes of Monetary Sanctions and Job Insecurity

“…Monetary sanctions encompass a range of financial penalties the court system imposes. Fines serve as economic sanctions tied directly to particular ofenses; restitution is a calculated debt owed to victims for damage or harm inflicted; and fees, assessments, and surcharges are imposed to compensate the state for a defendant's "use" of the court system (Friedman and Pattillo 2019). Initially, LFOs were seen as an alternative and less punitive sanction to incarceration and probation for lower-level offenses (Gordon and Glaser 1991;Hillsman 1990; Ruback and Bergstrom 2006).…”

“…Today, they are frequently imposed in addition to other sanctions, such as incarceration, community supervision, or mandated treatment (Bannon, Diller, and Nagrecha 2010). This change is in part a result of the rapidly increasing expense of an expanding criminal justice system that has led courts to shift costs onto those arrested and convicted in the form of fees and surcharges (Friedman and Pattillo 2019;Appleman 2016). Although court actors conceptualize discretionary fines and restitution as part of the formal punishment, the various fees, assessments, and surcharges operate often as "hidden sentences" in that court actors view them as falling outside judge-imposed punishment (Kaiser 2016;Martin 2018).…”

“…Those who fail to comply are at risk of violation and additional punishment, including incarceration (Petersilia 2003). Similarly, failing to pay monetary sanctions can trigger an escalation of consequences, including repeated court hearings, sanctions such as jail time, and fines, fees, and interest in addition to the original sentence (Harris 2016;Martin et al 2018;Friedman and Pattillo 2019).…”

“Are You Able-Bodied?” Embodying Accountability in the Modern Criminal Justice System

“…Accountability is demonstrated by requiring individuals to pay for the "services" provided by the court. As such, monetary sanctions are framed as a tool to promote work as a pathway to behavioral change among the mostly indigent defendants, and conversations justifying the imposition of monetary sanctions are often couched in the language of personal responsibility, societal obligation, and the rehabilitative function of work (Friedman & Pattillo, 2019). In the imposition of LFOs, a great deal of effort is put not only into determining a defendant's ability to pay but also in emphasizing that they need to gain the ability to pay to exit the court's system of surveillance and control.…”

“…Penal practices that directly or indirectly prioritize labor or workforce participation as a form of rehabilitation and accountability are an integral part of the modern criminal justice system (Gurusami 2017;Wacquant, 2009). Monetary sanctions, also known as legal financial obligations (LFOs), are an example of this practice as courts attempt to make individuals responsible for "using" court resources by financially compensating the state and punishing them when they cannot pay (Friedman & Pattillo, 2019;Harris, 2016). For those who cannot immediately pay in full, this practice requires them to seek employment to fulfill these court-ordered obligations and exit the system-a difficult task for many indigent defendants.…”