Pressing Charges: Criminal Fees and the Excessive Fines Clause lawreview - Minnesota Law Review
By ANNEMARIE FOY. Full Text. Millions of people owe money to the government as a consequence of a criminal charge. But while some of that debt is tied to fines or restitution, much of it is levied as fees, or payments owed to the government for the administration of a defendant's criminal proceedings. Criminal fees lawreview - Minnesota Law Review
Millions of people owe money to the government as a consequence of a criminal charge. But while some of that debt is tied to fines or restitution, much of it is levied as fees, or payments owed to the government for the administration of a defendant’s criminal proceedings. Criminal fees can include costs assessed for pretrial detention, a public defender, a jury, a court appearance, filing a document, electronic monitoring, and more. They are assessed at every stage of a criminal case and for all types of offenses. While state and local governments claim that criminal fees are necessary to fund the administration of justice, most defendants cannot pay, bringing a slew of additional consequences.
This Note suggests that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, recently revived by the U.S. Supreme Court inTimbs v. Indiana, prohibits the assessment of criminal fees. Financial penalties imposed as punishment for a criminal charge, without regard for the cost incurred by the government or the defendant’s ability to pay, are both punitive and excessive. Many fees infringe on criminal defendants’ other constitutional rights—the very problem the Excessive Fines Clause intended to remedy.
Federal and state courts have been slow to meaningfully implementTimbs. This Note critiques those courts’ post-Timbsdecisions and advocates for a different approach to Excessive Fines Clause claims. In the meantime, this Note proposes that state legislatures take up the mantle of reform to bridge the gaps left by the courts. Some state legislatures have already begun eliminating criminal fees over the last few years without undercutting their budgets. This Note surveys and compares state laws and offers suggestions on implementation. By continuing to identify and remove excessive fees, states can prioritize the fair administration of justice, from policing to prosecution.
Executive Summary
The article examines the constitutionality of criminal fees under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. It argues that such fees, which are often levied without regard for the defendant's ability to pay, are punitive and excessive. The article critiques the slow implementation of the Supreme Court's decision in Timbs v. Indiana and proposes that state legislatures take the lead in reforming these fees. It surveys state laws and offers suggestions for implementation, highlighting the importance of prioritizing the fair administration of justice.
Key Points
- ▸ Criminal fees are often assessed without regard for the defendant's ability to pay
- ▸ The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive and punitive fees
- ▸ State legislatures have the power to reform and eliminate excessive criminal fees
Merits
Constitutional Analysis
The article provides a thorough analysis of the Excessive Fines Clause and its application to criminal fees, highlighting the potential for these fees to infringe on defendants' constitutional rights.
Demerits
Limited Scope
The article primarily focuses on the Excessive Fines Clause and may not fully consider other potential constitutional or statutory challenges to criminal fees.
Expert Commentary
The article presents a compelling argument that criminal fees, as currently assessed, may violate the Excessive Fines Clause. The author's critique of post-Timbs decisions and proposals for state legislative reform are well-reasoned and highlight the need for a more nuanced approach to addressing the issue of criminal fees. As the Supreme Court continues to grapple with the implications of Timbs, this article provides a timely and important contribution to the ongoing conversation around criminal justice reform and the protection of defendants' constitutional rights.
Recommendations
- ✓ State legislatures should prioritize the elimination of excessive criminal fees and implement reforms that take into account the financial circumstances of defendants
- ✓ Federal and state courts should re-examine their approach to Excessive Fines Clause claims in light of the article's analysis and the Supreme Court's decision in Timbs v. Indiana
