Report Finds Exploitative Disciplinary Fines in One-Third of U.S. Prison Systems
"In yet another example of how the criminal legal system extracts wealth from the poorest families, at least one-third of prison systems nationwide charge fees as a punishment for a rule violation.” So begins a report released by the nonprofit Prison Policy Initiative (PPI) on February 7, 2024, examining the widespread use of monetary fines as disciplinary sanctions.
In the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and 15 state prison systems, those found guilty of violating institutional rules are hit with fines, ranging from $1.00 in Montana to $2,000 for serious disciplinary infractions in Arizona. Prisoners in Alabama are fined up to $500 for “having a social media account,” while BOP charges up to $500 (or 75% of a prisoner’s trust fund balance) for its most serious offenses. In Tennessee, failure to provide a urine sample for drug testing results in a $300 fine.
Some prison systems vary these fines based on the severity of the violation, while others impose flat-rate charges. Often called “fees” or “surcharges,” the fines have other euphemisms: In Georgia, the state Department of Corrections (DOC) imposes a $100 “processing fee” for disposing of a prisoner’s confiscated cellphone.
Given the paltry wages that prisoners earn, “it would take anywhere from a full day of work to multiple years to pay off a single fine,” PPI noted. In Kansas, prisoners work 44 days in the lowest-paying institutional job to satisfy a $20 fine. Seven prison systems impose fines or fees of $100 or more: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Maine, Oregon, Utah and BOP. These sanctions can turn into a lucrative source of income; in fiscal year 2022, for example, the North Carolina DOC collected $313,000 in fines, which went to the state’s general fund.
These fines and fees are also distinct from other possible disciplinary sanctions, such as restitution to cover the cost of damaged state property or pay medical bills for injuries resulting from an assault. Some systems pursue these debts even after a prisoner’s release. While still incarcerated, prisoners have fines deducted directly from their trust accounts, typically up to 50% of all deposits—up to 100% in Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin—regardless of the deposit source. Because their families often fund these accounts, the fines affect those on the outside, too, becoming “little more than a means to exploit incarcerated people,” the report noted. As a result, such charges serve to “undermine the rehabilitative goals of corrections, the safety of people inside, and the odds of success during reentry.”
The report notes that problems with disciplinary fines, which “arguably do nothing to promote a sense of accountability or safety inside of prisons,” are not the only shortcomings in disciplinary procedures, which routinely find prisoners guilty without due process. “[T]his ‘kangaroo court’ system of disciplinary hearings unfairly and harshly punishes people,” the report declares—simply for engaging in behavior “often brought about by the prison environment itself.” See: Prison Disciplinary Fines Only Further Impoverish Incarcerated People and Families, PPI (Feb. 2024).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login