NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Tennesseans charged with a crime often face a mountain of fees and fines, even if they aren't convicted.

Critics say mandatory costs help pay for operating the criminal-justice system, but may simultaneously create new, indirect costs for governments, while trapping those who are unable to pay in the system.

Mandy Pellegrin, policy director at the Sycamore Institute, said residents have reported owing several thousands of dollars in fines and fees.

"If you use a public defender, there is a fee for that service," Pellegrin explained. "You can face fees for things like a blood alcohol test or a drug test. You often owe a weekly or a monthly fee for probation or parole."

Tennessee law allows judges to reduce or waive costs for those who cannot afford them, but Pellegrin pointed out audits have found wide variation across the state in how judges determine who can and can't pay, and cautioned heavy caseloads often leave little time to accurately assess an individual's ability to pay.

Recent data from the Sycamore Institute documented more than 360 state-authorized fees, fines and taxes.

Pellegrin noted costs can be levied by courts, state officials and sometimes even private entities.

She stated civil action against people who have not paid their fees and fines can lead to garnished wages, interest, and other penalties, further driving individuals into debt.

She believes it's time for the state to assess the role of fines and fees in communities.

"One really good place to start is better understanding the extent to which different local governments in Tennessee are relying on this as a source of revenue," Pellegrin contended.

Research shows criminal-justice system costs can have negative ripple effects because family members often share the burden of financial obligations.

If debts lead to incarceration of a parent, they may also contribute to negative long-term outcomes for children.

Pellegrin added nationwide, Black and Brown communities disproportionately are impacted by fees and fines.


get more stories like this via email

In the coming months, Wisconsin residents will hear plenty of arguments before they vote on a constitutional amendment to change state policy on cash bail.

Some say there is a need to protect the public, while others say it is simply time to end the practice. The Republican-led Legislature recently approved putting the question before voters in April.

Under the plan, judges would be required to consider a larger set of factors in deciding whether to grant bail to violent offenders.

Marianne Oleson, executive assistant to the directors for EX-incarcerated People Organizing of Wisconsin, said the conversation should be about eliminating cash bail.

"A bail system that is based on cash is based on what you can afford; where is the community safety in that?" Oleson asked. "Where is the justice in that?"

Her group believes the practice contributes to Wisconsin leading the U.S. in incarcerating Black defendants.

She argued cash bail also disproportionately affects women and their families. Currently in Wisconsin, bail is only tied to court appearances. The amendment's sponsors contended judges should base decisions on more information, including a person's past criminal record, to keep the public safe.

Oleson countered other approaches, such as ending the cash bail system, also keep public safety in mind.

"If an accused came before a judge, accused of a violent crime, there would be no cash bail, that person would stay," Oleson explained. "But a nonviolent offender would be able to be released, continue working, continue being part of their family."

Efforts to eliminate cash bail have surfaced in states like Illinois and California, but the plans have run into obstacles. Sponsors of the Wisconsin amendment have suggested they will introduce language to make it clear only certain types of violent offenses should be applied to a judge's decision-making, if the ballot question is approved.

The Virginia Parole Board has issued a report that outlines its past problems and the steps it could take to rebuild public trust. The work began in 2021, when Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an Executive Order firing the previous parole board and requesting a review of its duties, procedures and administration.

Chadwick Dotson, Virginia Parole Board chair and report author, said the biggest issue is the parole board's lack of transparency in decision making - in part because other reports about its investigations had been heavily redacted by the State Inspector General's Office.

"If we could make the process more public and if we can provide better feedback about each of our decisions - those decisions to not grant or not parole and the decisions to grant parole - people will still disagree, that's going to happen," Dotson said. "But if they can see the decisions were made soundly, based on evidence and with full justification, it provides a little bit more comfort that will hopefully help people accept our decisions."

The report said parole hearings should be open to the public, more staff should be assigned to assist the board in preparing for hearings, and more funding should available to help carry out those hearings.

Dotson noted challenges to implementing these changes, most notably working with a mostly part-time board and staff.

Some recommendations have already been adopted, including revising policy manuals that had not been updated since the 1990s, and improving how parole examiners make recommendations. Dotson said the groundwork has been laid for a better future at the Virginia Parole Board.

"I think we have put together a system that makes sure that everyone has an opportunity for input, and that we're considering all of the things that need to be considered before making any decision," he said. "I think we've really smoothed out the rough edges of the system as well as we can, with our current board composition."

He added part of the responsibility for improvement lies with the General Assembly. The report recommended legislation to require that the parole board seek input of the Commonwealth's Attorneys, and that the governor be required to seek victim input on pardons.

Virginia is the only Southern state to have abolished the death penalty, and there's a new push in the new year to end it nationally as well.

Almost 300 organizations are demanding that President Joe Biden abolish the federal death penalty. This comes as members of Congress have sent a letter to that effect to both Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Currently, the U.S. Justice Department has halted federal executions to conduct a review of policies and procedures.

Abraham Bonowitz, executive director of the group Death Penalty Action, described what backers are hoping to accomplish.

"We have a coalition of folks that have been organizing around the questions on the federal death penalty and the President's intention to end federal executions, which - he's put a pause on them, but there's more that the president has the power to do," Bonowitz said. "And we wanted to make sure that that stays on the radar."

In 2021, the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act was introduced in both houses of Congress. It would prohibit a death sentence for violations of federal law, and require that anyone convicted before its passage be resentenced. In the House, it's been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. In the Senate, it's in the Judiciary Committee.

At the state level, Bonowitz also hopes to work to ensure passage of bills to abolish the death penalty. Virginia is one of 23 states that have done so. At the federal level, he said there are concerns about what can be approved given the disarray in the current session of Congress so far.

"We don't pretend to think that this is a top-priority issue for anybody," he said. "There are no federal executions going forward. However, we want to make sure when something happens that brings this issue to the forefront - which could be any time - that we're ready."

He noted that since the federal moratorium on executions is under the Biden administration, it could be ended should someone else become president in 2024.