The Council on State Governments, at the request of the Governor and other state leaders, is taking a year-long dive into our state’s criminal justice system. A preliminary report shows we have a recidivism problem: three out of four persons convicted in Massachusetts in one recent year have been convicted before. Among the most common infractions are crimes involving motor vehicles. And within that category, the crime that has sent the most people back to jail is operating with a suspended license.
This fact is not news to advocates of a recently-enacted state law that repeals an automatic driver’s license suspension imposed on most people convicted of drug offenses. For the 27 years that this counterproductive relic from the War On Drugs was in effect (until its repeal this March), Massachusetts residents jailed for drug offenses faced an additional penalty after being released: a five year license suspension and, after the suspension period was served, a $500 license reinstatement fee. Some of those people whose licenses were suspended on this basis ran the risk of driving with a suspended license, and the unlucky ones found themselves back in jail. So a welcome side-effect of the repeal of the license suspension law is the lowering of our recidivism rate — many people who no longer need to serve this license suspension are no longer being convicted of operating with a suspended license.
And as this repeal demonstrates, we’re taking another look at our “tough on crime” presumptions, also welcome news in a state where we spend more on incarcerating people than in funding higher education for them (it costs more than $50,000 annually to incarcerate each inmate in our state prisons).
Which brings us to an amendment that the State Senate adopted in its budget debate last week. Current law requires people receiving court-ordered probation to pay a monthly fee (between $50 and $65) and provides that they can be jailed for failing to pay. Senator William Brownsberger (D-Belmont), Senate Chair of the Judiciary Committee, has concluded that this fee erects an enormous barrier to re-entry for probationers, the majority of whom are indigent and a significant number of whom have mental health and substance abuse problems. He offered a budget amendment to give the courts discretion to decide in each case whether this fee should be imposed and to end the practice of jailing probationers for failing to pay it. The amendment was adopted on a 31-7 vote, and it now goes to a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the annual budgets that each branch has passed. If the House agrees to this provision, it then goes to the Governor. We can make re-entry easier for people on probation and save ourselves the cost of incarcerating them at the same time.
Some of our criminal justice problems are tough to crack. But not all of them.
merrimackguy says
$25 to see a magistrate.
An additional $50 to go further and see a judge.
Not to mention the lost time at work.
I recently paid a $5 fee appealing online a toll violation (it didn’t read my transponder). If I didn’t have a transponder, it would have been a $50 fine. In NH, it you don’t have a transponder and drive through a toll, it’s 50 CENTS in addition to the toll.
All these fees are just new sources for revenue in MA.
hesterprynne says
To what extent does the state rely on the exaction of fees to support core functions like the operation of the judicial system? In working on this post, for example, I noticed that the two times that probation fees were raised in recent years were the two years of our worst budget shortfalls: FY 04 and FY 10.
stomv says
I don’t mind a fee. It forces the user to think: even if my time is worthless, is this effort worth it? The state’s resources are also valuable.
So, I’d support $5 for each. And, if you miss your appointment (as I’ve done on a speeding ticket), that’s where they whack you with the extra $20 or $45. Low fee, high penalty for reserving resources and then no-showing.
merrimackguy says
and it just seems like when they need the cash, the fees go up.
Lawyers and accountants might not notice, but beauticians and barbers probably do. Licensing is part of necessary regulation, and regulation has costs. It doesn’t have to be minimal as everyone wants improved operations and effective enforcement, but fees shouldn’t be used to supplement tax revenues in the annual fund (BTW what is up with the U Mass system and fees? It’s wacky. Is it just so they can talk about “free” tuition for some?).
The MA government has to think creatively. Change the HOV lanes to $25 premium lanes. Expedite your RMV experience for a fee. The feds already do it if you need your passport the same day, or with the TSA lines.
Here’s one- expedited divorces for a fee.
SomervilleTom says
Ok, ok. Maybe the “fee” goes to the lawyers, but for the people involved the effect is the same.
I don’t know if it’s true today. I know that in 1988 and again in 1998 (when my two divorces were battled), the only way to get the process even started was for the woman to claim “cruel and abusive treatment”.
Seems to me that a LOT of attorneys make a fair amount of change as a result. I figure some of that flows back to the state one way or another.
Christopher says
…to charge for your day in court. All fees, except possibly those for no-shows that stomv mentions, should be refunded upon a finding in your favor.
stomv says
Your day in court shouldn’t only be without fee if you win. It should be without (all but nominal?) fee even if you lose.
Justice is important not just for the individual, but for society.
Christopher says
…for crimes that show a person cannot be trusted behind the wheel. Why is that not obvious?
hesterprynne says
Here’s Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in 1989 supporting a federal counterpart to the law mandating license suspensions. The connection between drugs and driving he found and badly wanted to disrupt? Suburban kids using their fathers’ cars to get to the city to buy drugs.
Nice work, Senator Lieberman, from the people against whom (twenty-seven years later) we know that this law was enforced. It was definitely not “the steady stream of suburban kids.”
Christopher says
This is only relevant IMO if the drug crime were specifically driving under the influence of said drugs.
Danny says
As one of the biggest a-holes in recent American politics (policy-wise, I’ve heard personally he’s quite pleasant). It’s a testament to the weirdness of that time that Gore picked him as a running mate.
Christopher says
…his party loyalty wasn’t as much of a question then. It was also before September 11, 2001 which seems to mark when he really started drifting rightward. Even then I recall checking his Vote-Smart rankings and discovering he was still more on the left than people gave him credit for.