Abstract
The criminal justice system routinely imposes financial sanctions on probation clients. These fines, fees, and restitution debts often amount to more than what many clients can reasonably afford to pay. Until recently, Massachusetts courts have incarcerated clients solely for their inability to pay these debts in a practice known as “fine time”. In 2018, the state passed a landmark criminal justice reform bill that restricted the types of cases in which fine time can be ordered. Clients that can establish that payment would lead to financial hardship can now petition the court for a financial waiver accompanied by community service. The current study seeks to explore the implications of the recent reform efforts on probation services by analyzing surveys gathered from a sample of 121 Massachusetts probation officers in 2020. Descriptive findings of officers’ attitudes toward fines and fees, responses to nonpayment by clients, and the use of financial waivers are presented. Officers’ perceptions and practices align with the recent reform efforts, suggesting support among probation personnel for policies that limit punitive responses to nonpayment of legal debts by their supervisees. Possible directions for future research and policy development are discussed.
Highlights
Drawing on survey data collected from a sample of Massachusetts probation officers in 2020 when the reform bill was in effect, we describe their reported attitudes and behaviors pertaining to fines and fees collection practices
The current study aims to assess the attitudes and perceptions of probation officers in Massachusetts pertaining to fines and fees
Officer attitudes toward fines and fees goals and objectives placed on supervisees are presented first
Summary
Amounts can be charged for services such as using a public defender in 43 states, for room and board for jail and prison inmates in 41 states, and for electronic monitoring services in 49 states (Shapiro 2014) These practices are expanding nationwide as well, both in the number of services that trigger fines and fees and, in the amounts associated with each type (Menendez et al 2019). Fines are often levied on supervisees as part of their original sentencing but sometimes for infractions such as failed drug screens or an inability to meet other court-ordered requirements of supervision These may be a one-time payment or recurring, but they differ from fees in that they are finite in nature. From personnel salaries to building maintenance costs to services offered to clients, the courts and community corrections agencies benefit greatly from the collection of fines and fees from supervisees
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
