In June, we had Rebecca Miller from the Western Center on Law and Poverty speak to us regarding the increase in fines and fees that the criminal justice system has been using to help finance itself. Fines are initial penalties imposed for breaking the law. They are often punitive, but they can have administrative components. There is growing discussion of
whether these are fair or effective, given that many people who are low-income can never repay the fines. Fees, on the other hand, are aimed at revenue generation and control of target populations. These increases came after a reduction in state revenues following the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
There was a tremendous increase of fines/fees as laws were passed resulting in mass incarceration. The Three Strikes Law was one example of this, but there were many other laws in the 1980s and 1990s that were aimed at people of color and imposed financial burdens upon those who could least afford it. There was a feeling in the public at large that the government should play a limited role in funding and directing the affairs of states and local communities, and there has been a great emphasis on personal accountability ever since the Reagan years.
In the case of fees, these interactions are being used to fund government services. By law, we impose a great number of fees on people who enter our criminal justice system whether it is for a traffic ticket or a crime. We charge them the fine (for a ticket or infraction), or restitution (punishment for the crime), and then we charge them administrative fees for collecting the payments, for penalties for late payments, failure to appear in court, inability to pay fines, and a host of other reasons. These administrative fees have one purpose: to generate revenue to operate the court system or other government functions.
There has been some movement away from fines and fees in various areas of criminal justice reform. Advocacy in the area of fees and their impact on re-entry after incarceration has increased public awareness. A Department of Justice report on the fines/fees imposed upon low-income communities of color showed the inordinate burden placed on these communities to fund the government. A growing conversation in our country has played a role in the fee-repeal movement that is taking place. That conversation also has drawn attention to other ways poverty is being punished in our society.
We hope to identify and help decrease the emphasis on those accused of crimes supporting the criminal justice system. The LWVC is working on the problem regarding state-imposed fines and fees that are unjust and unsustainable.
The committee’s second emphasis is on the county jails. Andrea St. Julian from San Diegans for Justice and Paul Parker from the Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB) for San Diego County spoke to us earlier this year. For our August 10th meeting, we will have Darwin Fishman from the Racial Justice Coalition (RJCSD) and Yusef Miller from RJCSD and the Equity and Justice Coalition of North County speak to us about what action we can take regarding our jails.
Our next meeting will be August 10 at noon on Zoom. Members from both the San Diego and North County San Diego Leagues are invited to join us.
Using our New Policing Practices Position
PrOTECT stands for Preventing Overpolicing through Equitable Community Treatment. The PrOTECT Ordinance’s goal is to protect San Diegans from the harmful impact of bias in police practices. It requires officers to have probable cause to stop, detain, or search a person, restricting pretext stops, consent searches and stops for equipment violations–many of the concerns in our recently approved Policing Practices Position. As a reminder, these
are:
- Racial and identity profiling by law enforcement is not acceptable. The LWVSD supports effective data collection on law enforcement officer encounters with the community so that any bias can be determined and addressed.
- Effective anti-bias training is necessary both in the initial training of new law enforcement officers and in regular refresher courses to reduce racial or identity profiling.
- The LWVSD supports seeking alternatives to the deployment of armed law enforcement officers in routine traffic stops, as a means of reducing the number of such stops which escalate into violence.
More information from the Coalition for Police Accountability and Transparency (CPAT) is available at Passprotectsd.com. Councilmember Monica Montgomery Steppe has placed this ordinance on the Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods committee’s work plan for this year, and we expect it to go to the city council later in the year.