Last year, on November 4th, a McLean County judge handed down a sentence for drug possession. Two days in jail. Twenty-four months of probation. Thirty hours of community service. All typical for that kind of crime. The $500 base fine was also standard. Ultimately, however, the first-time offender will walk away paying — or owing — $3,165.50. That’s typical, too.
Like many other states, Illinois has tried to fund its criminal justice system through a series of fees and fines on the men and women who are caught up in it. Backers of this approach say it makes sense that criminals should defray the costs they impose on society. There are, however, a number of problems with the practice.
From a practical standpoint, the majority of people who encounter the criminal justice system are among the least affluent in American society. That makes collection a challenge. It can also lead to debt that makes the already difficult job of re-integrating offenders into society that much harder. For the McLean County individual, the $3,165.50 would take nearly 384 hours of work to pay off at Illinois’ minimum wage — nearly 10 weeks — and that’s not accounting for taxes, food, shelter, clothing and bus fare.
In addition to the practical considerations, the concept of fee-based criminal justice raises philosophical questions. If the plethora of costs are styled as “user fees,” who are the primary users of the criminal justice system? Who are its primary beneficiaries? The people being arrested, tried and convicted? Or the rest of us, who enjoy the protection the law provides? […]
For the McLean County offender, the aggregate comprises 33 separate line items. It includes the base felony fine of $500, $100 for the street value of the drugs, $350 for the traffic and criminal conviction surcharge, $250 for DNA analysis, $100 for the Illinois State Police crime lab, $172 for the violent crime victim assistance fund, $30 for the juvenile records expungement fine, $10 for the medical costs fund, $10 for drug court fees, $15 for the child advocacy center fee, $500 for the drug treatment assessment fund, $100 for the drug trauma fund, $5 for the drug spinal cord injury fee, $25 for police drug task forces, $20 for the prescription drug disposal fund, $30 for the state’s attorney, $22 for the sheriff, $15 for document storage, $9.50 for the copy or motion fee, $10 for probation operations and $600 for probation services — 24 months at $25 per month.
And new fees keep coming. This year, in the wake of outrage over police killings of unarmed black men in New York, South Carolina and Missouri, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation to equip officers with body cameras. It would be funded by a 50 percent hike in the Traffic and Criminal Conviction Surcharge, a fee that, as its name implies, is imposed on everyone convicted of criminal and traffic offenses. Currently it’s a $10 upcharge on every $40 in fines, but that would increase to $15 under the body cam legislation. It would have been an addition $175 for the McLean County offender.
- GA - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:04 am:
When local govt depends on crime to fund it, that creates some seriously bad incentives.
- Allen D - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:09 am:
At some point with this type of society we will begin to feast on ourselves.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:09 am:
read…”The New Jim Crowe” by Dr. Michelle Alexander. It describes, in part, this sort of practice across America.
- Joe Biden Was Here - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:13 am:
This is just a half step away from debtor’s prison making a comeback
- Federalist - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:13 am:
This is part of a general trend to raise taxes without raising taxes.
Minor traffic tickets, fees on your utility bills for low income energy assistance, free cell phones, increased costs to parks and list goes on and on.
Being done by airlines and hotels and other businesses in a different manner perhaps but it still is the ‘business’ of raising more revenue while trying to fool the public.
Do I see anend to this? No! Only an escalation.
- Lobo Y Olla - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:18 am:
Restitution is far more than “a little different” from fines and fees, Dr. Olsen.
- Allen D - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:18 am:
gives more credit to those who choose to move off the grid, or as far as electric and water are concerned at least.
- AC - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:19 am:
Far too many people believe “they should’ve thought about the consequences before they committed the crime” and that makes me fearful for our future. Let’s hope articles like this start to change our culture, and ideally start charging fees based on income.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:20 am:
It’s a nightmare, like debtor’s prison.
And it’s oppression of tne poor, government abuse of the poor.
This kind of thing doesn’t happen to people who can afford to lawyer up for a couple of hours.
- Old and In the Way - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:22 am:
A colleague of mine perhaps said it best when I commented on the inherently biased criminal justice system some years ago. He said, “You don’t understand that we have a capital punishment system in America. Those without the capital get the punishment.” So true in so many ways.
- Out Here In The Middle - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:23 am:
We’re running criminal justice like an airline!
- Old Shepherd - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:28 am:
Just wait until property taxes are frozen. This method of funding local government will only become more prevalent.
- How Ironic - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:30 am:
Many of these fees if not paid, result in the person going to collections. When they go to collections, the agency requests the person be detained. When they are detained, they can’t pay the debt. Because they can’t pay the debt, they remain incarcerated.
Debtor prisons have returned. It is sickening.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-rise-of-americas-debtor-prisons/
“Since 2009, we have been hearing increasing reports that people are being jailed for a failure to pay fines and fees,” Nusrat Choudhury, staff attorney in the ACLU Racial Justice Program, told CBS MoneyWatch. “We’ve observed that for-profit corrections companies are proliferating. They offer what appears to be a win-win to local governments because they offer to generate revenue from people who are too poor to pay on probation day.”
- John A Logan - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:30 am:
I disagree. If you commit a crime, then expect that if you are caught there will be a price to pay. With ever increasing budgetary pressure why shouldn’t the offender pay the cost of running the departments? Those departments are only in place because of those people who are committing the crimes.
- Tweed - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:31 am:
Very good read. Some systems have gotten way out of whack.
John Oliver had a good take on this recently too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
- Federalist - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:31 am:
- AC - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:19 am:
Far too many people believe “they should’ve thought about the consequences before they committed the crime” and that makes me fearful for our future. Let’s hope articles like this start to change our culture, and ideally start charging fees based on income.
So if you get a seat belt violation and make $500K a year you would pay 20x as much as someone who makes $25K a year or 50x as much as someone who makes $10k Is this what you mean?
Sorry, fees should be based upon the offense and
not be made another angle of the redistributionist state.
The larger issue is whether the offenses for these fees are appropriate in the first place. That is what needs tobe debated.
- How Ironic - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:36 am:
@Federalist,
I agree that fees shouldn’t be based on income. HOWEVER, regardless of income, one should not have to spend time in prison, lose their job and freedom because they are unable to pay some arbitrary ‘fee’ drawn up to extract ‘revenue’ from them.
When the fine is $500, that’s great. It shouldn’t be $500, plus late fees, plus jail time (endless jailtime) until it’s paid.
That’s not justice, that’s a debtors prison, which are illegal and immoral.
- CEA - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:42 am:
The cost of operating county justice systems increases annually at a rate higher than the CPI. In PTELL counties, this means that annual costs increase faster than the CPI-limited property tax levy. Labor costs increase 2 to 3 times CPI due to state-mandated binding labor arbitration for correctional and law enforcement officers. Health insurance costs increase 5 to 10 times CPI. The cost of workers’ compensation and liability insurance increases in excess of CPI. The CPI doesn’t account for unfunded mandates like the recent 2.5x increase in juror pay. The CPI doesn’t account for the increasing volume of county jail inmates with mental health issues and serious medical conditions, or the increasing costs of providing that care. And the list goes on.
The bottom line is that fee increases are inequitable for all the reasons ably detailed in this article. They are also virtually the only option PTELL counties have to keep their justice systems operating–an inevitable consequence of the interaction of tax caps and unfunded mandates.
I’m sure our esteemed representatives in Springfield are working diligently to address this situation through forward-thinking, intelligently crafted legislation.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:43 am:
The criminal justice system is badly broken in the U.S. but nobody has the will to fix it. If the revelations in this article seem out of whack, consider that the Innocence Project has exonerated over 300 wrongly convicted people since its inception. That’s just the tip of the iceberg of innocent men and women serving time for crimes they did not commit..
If the welfare system is sophisticated bribery, the criminal justice system perpetuates and exploits poverty.
- AC - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:51 am:
@Federalist
That’s exactly what I mean, for an example of how this would work search for five and six figure fines assigned to executives for speeding in northern Europe. I think the costs should be painful for everyone regardless of income. I realize this is a step further than merely removing the “debtors prisons” we have now, but it’d also would change how we view crime and punishment.
- Stones - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:53 am:
There are a number of reasons for this. The State passes laws and regulations that may be well intentioned but amount to unfunded mandates on the counties. Most counties are stretched financially as bad as the States are and there are few options for funding other than additional court fees.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:54 am:
– Those departments are only in place because of those people who are committing tne crimes.–
I can’t begin to understand what that is supposed to mean, in the context of this story.
I’m pretty sure there will always be some “crime” and the need for law enforcement, unless the Kingdom of Heaven is upon us.
The question is do you bleed the poor dry, like juice loan collectors, not for law enforcement purposes but as a revenue stream because they can’t afford to lawyer up for minor offenses at the beginning of the process.
- Harry - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:55 am:
I agree with the article– and something has to be done about civil asset forfeiture, where the police can seize your assets even if you are never charged, let alone convicted.
And back to the point–punishment should fit the crime, not the costs of the CJ system. The first comment, from GA, is exactly correct.
The whole system has become an insult to what used to be a free people.
- Anonymous Redux - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:04 pm:
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires” - H.L. Mencken
Keep plugging away…and it won’t be long before you are received with open arms at The Wine Tasting Table….but…until that fine day…keep plugging away…Away from the Wine Table…unless you are a Server?
- gg - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:06 pm:
My “guess” is at least 30% convicted are completely innocent because they cannot defend themselves. No dough … plead and pay. The system is tilted to the prosecution even if you have money.
This has turned the poor areas unsafe.
The poor(all races) do not like or trust the police. There is no money and no upside for a Judge to believe an accused over a policeman.
The police want convictions period(promotions).
- Huh? - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:10 pm:
I heard this story on NPR this morning on the way to work. Now that I have had a chance to read the story, I have 3 questions:
1. Many of the fees are the cost of prosecution or doing business for what ever agency is involved, so why aren’t the local property taxes paying for the services.
2. It appears that many of the fees being billed have nothing to do with the crime. Why are they billed to the offender?
3. Are these added fees court ordered?
I don’t have a problem with court ordered fines and restitution, but the tacked on fees are overboard.
- Educated in the Suburbs - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:13 pm:
“When local govt depends on crime to fund it, that creates some seriously bad incentives.”
Quoted for truth.
- Federalist - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:17 pm:
@ How Ironic - Thursday
AGREED!
- Federalist - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:19 pm:
@ AC - Thursday,
I assumed you use the Euro style redistributionist argument. Glad I don’t live there.
But in any case we will have to agree to disagree.
- Huh? - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:30 pm:
There is a Supreme Court case from 1983, Bearden v Georgia that says imprisonment due to poverty is unfair.
However, the problem of being put in jail due to onerous fines and fees is a problem around the Country.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:41 pm:
Apparently crime does pay, just not the way we thought. Bad all around.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:59 pm:
==why shouldn’t the offender pay the cost of running the departments? ==
The point is that they can’t and, thus, end up back in jail for not paying which costs more money to operate said jail which the fees are supposed to pay for, which are not being paid. See the circle there?
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 1:22 pm:
The same principle is at work with War on Drug asset seizures.
Ostensibly designed to go after drug kingpins, there are localities around the country that abuse the law to tune up anyone with a bag of weed as a revenue source.
Both are profoundly un-American.
- crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 1:33 pm:
==why shouldn’t the offender pay the cost of running the departments? ==
Because it’s the public justice system, not an Ayn Rand fantasy? Because the amount of service and enforcement is a collective, not individual, choice and a statement of the priorities of our society?
Because not every road is a tollway? Because people without children pay for schools? Because people with faulty wiring in their houses don’t pay the fire department on a per-use basis?
- vinron - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 1:47 pm:
John A Logan said: With ever increasing budgetary pressure why shouldn’t the offender pay the cost of running the departments? Those departments are only in place because of those people who are committing the crimes.
I can agree but many of the fines and fees tacked on do not involve running the departments in question. What does a drug offense have to do with the spinal cord injury paralysis research fund? Why should a drug offender pay $5 toward this research?
- crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 2:21 pm:
Why would you agree, vinron?
Even the most rabid government minimalist should be able to understand that the ability to enforce its own laws is THE most basic function of government…and that when the cost of law enforcement is unevenly distributed, so too will be the benefits and burdens and boundaries of the laws themselves.
Maybe every CapFax commenter, taxpayer, voter, legislator, lobbyist, and/or everyone with a kid in the state of Illinois needs to start forking over for the Civics 101 Special Use Fund.
- Freeze up - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 2:37 pm:
Best article I have read on criminal justice reform. I wish I knew the solution, I cannot suggest that I know what it is but this article begins to identify the problem. Putting people in a financial hole so deep they can’t face beginning to dig themselves out does not make us safer or our society better. It probably makes it much much worse.
I do not equate this with civil forfeiture however. When I think of civil forfeiture I think of the suitcases of money accumulated by street gangs in Chicago being shipped to a safe house in Houston to be placed in a vehicle with more duffle bags of money to be shipped across the border to the cartels. Nothing about seizing the ill gotton gains feels un-American in the least.
- How Ironic - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 2:51 pm:
@ Freeze Up:
” When I think of civil forfeiture I think of the suitcases of money accumulated by street gangs in Chicago being shipped to a safe house in Houston to be placed in a vehicle with more duffle bags of money to be shipped across the border to the cartels. Nothing about seizing the ill gotton gains feels un-American in the least.”
You need to educate yourself my friend. Your example is fading fast, as city, county and state (and the IRS) have increasingly used civil forfeiture to take honest, working Americans cash with little or no recourse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tim-walberg-an-end-to-the-abuse-of-civil-forfeiture/2014/09/04/e7b9d07a-3395-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html
“Imagine you are driving down the highway on your way to buy a car. You spent months researching years, makes and models, and you finally found somebody who was selling the exact ride you were looking for at a reasonable price. Suddenly, police pull you over for allegedly going 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. Upon discovering the $8,500 in cash you have on hand, the officers take you to jail and threaten to charge you with money laundering unless you turn over the money. Frightened, you give it to them.
This may sound like something out of a Hollywood movie, but it’s a true story, and incidents like it happen all too often across the country because of our civil forfeiture laws.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/30/the-7-most-egregious-examples-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/
” A New Jersey man’s stash of cash was taken by an officer when he traveled through Monterey, Tenn. George Reby had $22,000 cash in his car when he was stopped by a police officer, News Channel 5 reports. The officer took the money because he suspected it was drug money. However, the man said he was going to use the money to buy a car, for which he had active bids on Ebay, something he was able to prove on his computer. When the officer wrote up the report, he failed to mention Reby’s claim that he was going to buy a car.
“If somebody told me this happened to them, I absolutely would not believe this could happen in America,” Reby told News Channel 5.”
I have all day if you want more examples of honest Americans having their personal property/cash taken from them.
That’s pretty un-American as far as I can tell.
- DuPage Grandma - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 4:29 pm:
Recently due to a dui stop, a vehicle was seized through civil forfeiture although it belonged to the wife of the driver. This was in the suburbs of Chicago.
I don’t believe that property should be seized unless it has been obtained through illegal means. When property is seized that does not belong to the law breaker, an innocent person is punished.
- Freezeup - Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:42 pm:
@HowIronic-
I have been the officer in that situation. One example was $36,000 cash to purchase a motor home. Driver had printed out the eBay listing and the money had all the hallmarks of being withdrawn from a bank such as a bank receipt and bank bands. It was obviously legitimate. Not seized.
Another case was an art dealer traveling to Northern California to buy artwork. He had what he stated was $27,000. It showed no indication of ever being in a bank. He told me most artwork is a cash transaction. I doubt it was true. However there was no indication that the currency was drug proceeds. No seizure.
In another case, another officer located approximately $15,000 hidden in a golf bag. Canine didn’t alert on it and it was rubber banded in a fashion that drug dealers don’t usually use. In fact, there were lots of 1’s and they were paper clipped in stacks of 10 or 20, I don’t remember. We investigated. Turns out, the driver burglarized a restaurant owned by his former employer, the burglary had not yet been reported. Money was “seized” but pretty much immediately returned.
There is a difference between “seized” and “forfeited”. A police officer can seize but he cannot forfeit. A judge has to do that, at least in Illinois. Im an optimist I would sure like to think that the press reports you used above resulted in the return of the seized property.
I have seized currency, vehicles on many occasions and my investigations have resulted in the forfeiture of real estate and real property in Illinois and both coasts. I have never, on any occasion, seized any property that I was not 100% sure was ill bottom gains. On a few occasions, judges gave part or all of it back for various reasons. I am way more than ok with that.
Despite the current climate, I believe most cops are trying to do the right thing.
I am resisting the urge to make a snarky comment in response to your comment about educating myself in the interest of productive discussion.
- Wordslinger - Friday, Aug 7, 15 @ 12:24 am:
Freezeup, nobody elected you Judge Judy and executioner.
- Lynn S, - Friday, Aug 7, 15 @ 1:04 am:
Freezeup,
You may well have done the correct thing in the examples you provide.
HOWEVER, please don’t forget that:
a.) When an asset is seized, the owner of the asset must pay a lawyer to go to court to get that asset. Not only does this put the burden on the asset owner–who may not have the funds to pay the lawyer to get the asset back, especially if the owner is a low- or medium-individual–but it also takes a long amount of time (not at all uncommon for asset cases to take 6 months or longer–and two years is not unexceptional–to wend their way through the court), and during that time the asset owner does not have use of the asset. And oh, btw, you can’t use the asset as collateral to fight a seizure case, so if you’re someone who has all their money tied up in a property that’s been seized, good luck finding a lawyer and funding your lawsuit! (In other words, kiss the asset good-bye…the seizing agency obviously needed more than you did, anyway!/snark)
b.) The agency employing the seizing officer gets to keep the proceeds of the forfeiture. This creates a tremendous conflict of interest, and leads to agency people driving around in luxury vehicles that were seized and “forfeited”.
c.) The unfortunate reality is that not all officers are honest, and this creates one more opportunity for the bad apples to engage in actions that bring dishonor on the honest cops.
Furthermore, if this is an attempt to tax drug dealers on the profits of their business, wouldn’t we be better off if the drugs were legalized and had the snot regulated and taxed out of them, like we do with alcohol? Much better paper trail for everyone involved!!
- Skirmisher - Friday, Aug 7, 15 @ 8:59 am:
Prior to the 1920s the federal government had very little involvement in the criminal justice system. The country would arguably be far better off if it pretty much got out of it again. “Civil Forfeiture”, a creature of the ill-starred federal “war” on drugs, is a Constitutional outrage.
- crazybleedingheart - Friday, Aug 7, 15 @ 10:46 am:
Isn’t it odd, how so many people chose to flash their giant stacks of legal and illegal cash right there in front of Freezeup, including from inside bags on which a canine did not alert. Huh.