Legislature limits judges discretion
Published December 15, 2017
Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, December 9, 2017
It’s bad enough that rising court costs in North Carolina put onerous, long-term burdens on many people.
It’s worse that judges are now hindered in their ability to waive fines and fees for individuals who have no means to pay.
A provision in the state budget that took effect Dec. 1 requires courts to give 15 days’ notice to a list of agencies that receive funds from penalties before a judge can waive fees. That supposedly gives those parties a chance to object. But it seems intended to create so much red tape that courts will become too tangled up to grant waivers.
The effect is to maintain a court system unique in the country for the amount of money it squeezes out of people unfortunate enough to be caught in the justice system.
“The law is believed to be the first of its kind in the country,” Joseph Neff wrote for The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the courts. “It runs counter to reform efforts in other states that are attempting to reduce the number of people jailed because they are unable to pay fines or fees or make bail.”
In North Carolina, the legislature is turning courts into a self-funding operation — and putting excess revenue into its general fund. But when indigents are jailed because they can’t pay, the expense of locking them up is carried by counties.
The new requirement is forcing Guilford County’s court leaders to devise a compliance strategy, according to Chief District Court Judge Tom Jarrell.
“We’re really inventing the wheel on this,” Jarrell said this week. “There’s no precedent for any implementation of this anywhere in the country.”
Jarrell has prepared a form that the clerk’s office can send to funded agencies every 15 days letting them know that judges will consider waiving fees in criminal cases and offering them the opportunity to appear in court and lodge objections. He thinks that will comply with the letter of the law.
If there are objections, judges must hold a hearing and make findings of fact based on a defendant’s “present ability to pay.” The judge then could waive fees, set a payment schedule or order another remedy.
“We have a tool kit full of judgments other than money,” Jarrell said.
Yet, the legislature clearly wants money, which is why it’s imposed fees and court costs that can put an offender thousands of dollars in debt for a DWI or even a lesser infraction.
http://www.greensboro.com/opinion/n_and_r_editorials/our-opinion-legislature-limits-judges-discretion/article_207ce298-9ada-51a3-b828-bb6d7f120fc0.html
