'they Want Their Pound of Flesh': Experiences and Perceptions of Criminal Justice Financial Obligations

Background and Purpose:

Criminal Justice Financial Obligations (CJFOs) have become an ubiquitous feature of sanctions and sentencing in American corrections. They include fees, fines, restitution, and any other form of monetary liability resulting from a conviction. CJFOs are justified as both a form of punishment and a source of revenue. Public opinion has tended to favor monetary sanctions based on the notion that those individuals who generate costs to the justice system should help recoup them. Yet CJFOs—often levied on people with extremely limited resources—can have grievous social consequences.

Researchers have empirically demonstrated the increasing use of monetary sanctions and debtors’ difficulty paying them. However, they have yet to explore the perspectives of individuals facing CJFOs. This paper helps to fill that gap by examining debtors’ experiences of monetary sanctions and perceptions of fairness; further, we consider the relationship between debtors’ views of CJFOs, specifically, and their views of the criminal justice system, broadly.  

Methods:

Participant recruitment took place at a non-profit organization that provides services for formerly incarcerated and justice system-involved individuals in a large, northeastern city. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-one adults (ages 20 to 62) who had each previously received monetary sanction(s) as a result of a criminal conviction. Extensive process memos were written during data collection. Thematic analysis of transcript data was guided by Charmaz’ grounded theory conventions. Line-by-line coding was used to identify and develop themes.

Findings:

Inductive analysis of interview data revealed four emergent dimensions, each of which bears connections to procedural justice.  Personal resources include all the material and social capital from which debtors can draw to meet their legal obligations. Those with jobs, savings, or families viewed CJFOs as far less onerous than those without such resources. Whether the individual viewed the process of debt assessment as fair depended heavily on whether justice system actors took their personal resources (i.e. ability to pay) into account. Proportionality refers to the debtor’s perception of the severity of penalty matching that of the offense. The justification is the reported purpose for the sanction. Individuals expressed greater acceptance and, generally, more motivation to pay CJFOs if they felt they were proportional to and justified by the offense. Lastly, context refers to the time and setting of CJFO imposition. Perceptions differed substantially based on whether debtors faced monetary obligations in or outside of prison.

Conclusions and Implications:

Given the pervasiveness of CJFOs and their potential to erect major obstacles for justice-involved people, it is essential that the social work profession critically examine the experiences of individuals saddled with legal debt. These findings highlight the centrality of perceptions of fairness, including its implications for compliance with legal obligations. Practitioners working with this population are well situated to advocate for debtors and to facilitate system interactions that reflect the principles of procedural justice.