We continue to share preliminary findings from our survey of 1,529 New Jersey residents on their support for sentencing reform in the state across four key areas. The third area of reform concerns the public’s support for implementing practical and equitable reform relating to financial penalties assessed by courts at sentencing.
Financial penalties in criminal cases can shape lives after sentencing, making rehabilitation harder for those unable to pay. Existing work suggests that the consequences of fines, fees, penalties, and other financial assessments imposed on criminal defendants in New Jersey have had dramatic and disproportionate impacts on the rehabilitation and livelihood of people of color in urban communities and are not able to meet these financial obligations. In response, the New Jersey Sentencing Commission recommended adjustments to reduce uncollectible debt and address the substantial racial disparities currently built into the system. Under their recommendations, judges would determine a defendant’s total financial obligation at sentencing, considering seven factors related to ability to pay, which are described below. To date, no statute has been enacted to address these reforms.
For our study, we asked participants if they would be supportive of a law that “would allow a trial court to exercise its discretion to adjust, reduce, or waive any mandatory statutory fines, fees, penalties, assessments, or other legal financial obligations imposed on a defendant in a criminal proceeding based on the defendant’s inability to pay, the interests of justice, or if the legal financial obligation would be contrary to the purposes of rehabilitation.” The Commission developed this potential statutory language.
On a scale of 1 to 4 to 7 (from not at all supportive to neutral to completely supportive), participants leaned toward supporting this sentencing reform (M = 4.66; SD = 1.70). We found a significant association between participants’ general philosophy that sentencing should be rehabilitative-focused and their increased support for this law. Participants who reported personal experiences with the criminal justice system and those with higher levels of education were significantly more likely to support this law. Conversely, females, older participants, those reporting prior victimization, and individuals with retributive or utilitarian punishment philosophies were significantly less likely to support it. Further, participants who identified as Republicans or Independents were also significantly less supportive of this law.
We then asked participants to imagine a defendant who owes the state of New Jersey fines and fees for their current case. They either received no additional background on the defendant or one of twelve descriptions based on factors the Commission has urged judges to consider in determining a defendant’s ability to pay. They include: income relative to an identified percentage of the Federal Poverty Guidelines; whether the individual is to be placed on probation or will be incarcerated; level of education; ability to work and employment status; whether the individual receives or has income-based public assistance, financial resources and assets, financial obligations and dependents; cost of living; and other fines and fees owed to courts. Participants then rated their support for 1) applying the law they read about in the case of the example defendant, and 2) a judge using his discretion to lower this defendant’s fines and fees.
Overall, there were no statistical differences between the background information participants received and their levels of support surrounding either how applicable they believed the law would be to the defendant they read about (M = 4.65, SD = 1.53), or a judge using his discretion to lower that defendant’s fines and fees (M = 4.66, SD = 1.58). When asked more generally how important they found each background factor to be when deciding to adjust, reduce, or waive penalties imposed on a defendant, participants rated the defendant’s level of education as the least important background factor (M = 4.15; SD = 1.81) and their ability to work and employment status as most important background factor (M = 5.11; SD = 1.57). Overall, these preliminary results suggest that the New Jersey public generally leans in favor of reforming the practices of fines and fees in the New Jersey criminal justice system.