JAC agenda 030218 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

NORTH CAROLINA POVERTY RESEARCH FUND 8 Court Fines and Fees: Criminalizing Poverty in North Carolina financial burden fell on women who also had dependent children; almost half were mothers and one in ten were grandmothers.35 Extension of probation In North Carolina, payment of fines and fees is a condition of probation.36 Defaulting on court debt represents a violation of those terms, even if the defendant is in complete compliance otherwise. In response, judges in North Carolina often extend the probationary period. Defendants who remain under the supervision of the criminal justice system are subject to its demands. They must report to a probation officer, appear in court when summoned, observe other terms of probation and, of course, continue to pay court costs, including the monthly supervised probation fee. Extended probation transforms “punishment from a temporally limited experience to a long-term status.”37 Remaining on probation penalizes defendants in other ways too. Some defendants are denied certain civic privileges until they have completely discharged the terms of their sentence. Probationers with a felony conviction cannot vote, run for office or serve on a jury.38 Disfranchisement is especially concentrated in black communities where one in thirteen adults have lost the right to vote due to their criminal records.39 Probation violations also disqualify defendants from accessing public benefits. Strangely, defendants’ inability to pay off fines and fees renders them ineligible for poverty alleviation programs. Federal law mandates that any violation of probation, even for failure to pay court debt, disqualifies defendants for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits (SNAP, formerly food stamps), housing assistance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).40 Sometimes an arrest warrant is enough to trigger the termination of benefits, despite assertions to the contrary by the federal government.41 35 deVuono-powell et al., 13-14. 36 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344. 37 Harris, Evans, and Beckett, “Drawing Blood from Stones: Legal Debt and Social Inequality in the Contemporary United States.” 1755. 38 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-55(a)(2). 39 Jean Chung, “Felony Disenfranchisement: A Primer,” The Sentencing Project. 40 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(9)(A) (TANF), 7 U.S.C. § 2015(k)(1) (food stamps), 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(9) (public housing) and 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(d)(1)(B)(v) (section 8 vouchers), 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(4)(A)(ii) (Supplemental Security Income). See Social Security Administration, “Are Probation and Parole Violators Eligible for SSI?” https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.21/handbook-2120.html. 41 Bannon, Nagrecha, and Diller, Criminal Justice Debt, 28. Court debt and child support Many defendants owe child support. The majority of incarcerated people are parents and about half do not live with their children.1 Court debt makes it more difficult for defendants to pay child support and vice versa. Because child support is enforced in much the same way as fines and fees, including the loss of driving privileges and jail, a slip-up with either one can cause debt—and other associated penalties—to accumulate rapidly, even as defendants’ financial prospects dim. Defendants forced to choose between child support and court debt are caught between competing obligations. One defendant we interviewed, recalled that when he had to choose, he paid fines and fees over child support because he thought he was less likely to go to jail that way . He also sold narcotics to pay both debts. As he noted, “why not do more crimes if you’re already in trouble?” 1. Mumola, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children, 1.