Monetary sanctions are a particularly important context in which to examine this process because they can be more enduring and pervasive than other forms of justice system supervision.
Previous work has demonstrated the punishing nature of the court process itself prior to conviction ( Feeley 1979 Kohler-Hausmann 2018) and the ways that court surveillance profoundly shapes the lives of the justice-involved ( Goffman 2014 Cozzolino 2018 Brayne 2014 Vanhaelemeesch, Vander Beken, and Vandevelde 2014), but it has not discussed the management of court debt as part of this surveillance of individuals over time. Scholars have yet to examine, however, the possible destabilizing effects of court processes used for managing payments on those burdened with this debt. 1998 Ruback and Shaffer 2005 Olson and Ramker 2001 Beckett and Harris 2011). Researchers also find that the discretion in imposing and collecting monetary sanctions by clerks, judges, and community supervision officers has led to inconsistent and inequitable practices ( Alexander et al. Within a burgeoning literature examining how LFOs shape the lives of those who incur these debts, researchers highlight racial and ethnic differences in amounts imposed ( Harris, Evans, and Beckett 2011), sanctions for nonpayment ( Bannon, Diller, and Nagrecha 2010 Harris 2016 Friedman and Pattillo 2019), and the financial strain LFO payments can place on poor debtors ( Colgan 2018 Beckett and Harris 2011). Research investigating monetary sanctions-the fines, fees, restitution, costs, and surcharges that court systems impose-has revealed the ways these legal financial obligations (LFOs) create precarious conditions for the justice-involved ( Harris 2016 Harris, Evans, and Beckett 2010 Edelman 2017).
0 kommentar(er)
