The Price of Poverty: Policy Implications of the Unequal Effects of Monetary Sanctions on the Poor

• Date: 01 February 2021
• Published date: 01 February 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986220971395
• Author: Kimberly Spencer-Suarez,Ilya Slavinski
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986220971395

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2021, Vol. 37(1) 45 –65

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986220971395

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

The Price of Poverty: Policy

Implications of the Unequal

Effects of Monetary

Sanctions on the Poor

Ilya Slavinski1 and Kimberly Spencer-Suarez2

Abstract

Over the last several decades, with the rise of mass incarceration in the United

States and its steep costs, governments at the federal, state, and local levels have

dramatically ramped up monetary punishment. Monetary sanctions are now the most

common type of criminal penalty in the United States. The growth of fines, fees, and

other legal financial obligations (LFOs), and the ensuing legal debt, reflect a shifting

of the system’s costs onto its primarily low-income and indigent subjects. This study

provides an exploration of previously underexamined ways in which monetary

sanctions impose distinct burdens on the poor. Interviews with 121 defendants in

Texas and New York, along with courtroom observations, demonstrate that criminal

legal debt is particularly challenging for people with low incomes in three meaningful

ways. First, systems set up to handle indigency claims do not adequately address

the needs or complex individual circumstances of those who simply do not have

the ability to pay. Oftentimes, alternatives are unavailable or statutorily prohibited.

Second, the lack of alternatives to payment lead to compromising situations, which

then compel indigent defendants to make difficult choices about how to allocate

scant resources. Finally, being encumbered with fines and fees and participating in

alternatives like community service comes with taxing time requirements that can

prove uniquely challenging for those who are poor. These three findings lead us to

propose a series of policy recommendations revolving around three key themes:

(a) enhancement of indigency procedures, (b) equity in monetary sanctions, and (c)

alleviating burdens by improving accessibility.

Keywords

monetary sanctions, poverty, indigency, punishment

1The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, TX, USA

2Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ilya Slavinski, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at Austin, 305 E 23rd St, A170 RLP

3.306, Austin, TX 78712-1086, USA.

Email: ilya.slavinski@utexas.edu

971395CCJXXX10.1177/1043986220971395Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeSlavinski and Spencer-Suarez

research-article2020

46 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 37(1)

Introduction

Monetary sanctions are not a modern invention. For centuries, judicial systems the

world over have meted out punishment through the levying of fines (Faraldo Cabana,

2015; Sutherland & Cressey, 1934). Yet, over the last several decades, with the ascent

of mass incarceration in the United States and its steep costs, governments at the fed-

eral, state, and local levels dramatically ramped up monetary punishment. The growth

of fines, fees, and other legal financial obligations (LFOs), and the resultant debt,

reflects a shifting of the system’s costs onto its primarily low-income subjects. The

poor and people of color are overrepresented on court dockets and in jails, prisons, and

community supervision. Through LFOs, they also fund the expansion of a dispropor-

tionate share of the criminal legal system (Appleman, 2016).

Despite their ubiquity, LFOs did not attract a great deal of scrutiny until fairly

recently. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation of the Ferguson Police

Department marked a watershed moment for public recognition of the monetary sanc-

tions issue. The “Ferguson Report” (2015) investigative commission found local

police and courts to be collaborating in the systematic extraction of revenue from the

city’s Black residents to fund their own operations. Policing, adjudication, and jailing

had become increasingly organized around generating funds. The DOJ’s widely pub-

licized findings sparked interest and concern about monetary punishment among

scholars, policymakers, advocates, the media, and the public (Harris, 2016; Harris

et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2018; Taggart & Campbell, 2015). Recent scholarship has

demonstrated that LFOs have unequal and disproportionate effects on the lives of the

poor (Harris, 2016; Katzenstein & Waller, 2015). Particularly, financial penalties

reduce income and increase further run-ins with the criminal legal system (Harris

et al., 2010). This study extends that previous work through an in-depth examination

of the inadequacies of current systems that are set up to address inability to pay, a

further examination of the ways in which being poor exacerbates the challenges asso-

ciated with LFOs, and finally, by reviewing policy considerations based on the results

of our analysis.

We interviewed 121 defendants responsible for paying LFOs in Texas and New

York, the vast majority of whom were coping with serious economic hardships.

Through our exploration of debtors’ narratives about their experiences dealing with

criminal legal debt, which were supplemented by insights gleaned from 490 hours of

ethnographic observations in criminal courts, we developed two comprehensive the-

matic findings. First, existing mechanisms surrounding indigency are systematically

inadequate. By and large, poor defendants lack the means to resolve their criminal

legal debts, and oftentimes, alternatives are unavailable or statutorily prohibited (e.g.,

mandatory surcharges in New York). Being unable to pay creates a unique set of

obstacles, consequences, and stressors, and tends to prolong one’s criminal case and

overall system involvement. The insufficient procedures for handling indigence and

lack of legally or practically viable alternatives means that monetary sanctions can

create compromising situations in which poor defendants must make difficult choices

amid conflicting obligations. Second, legal debt leads to burdensome, sometimes