HD39 - Assessing the Need for a Fines Amnesty Program for Virginia's District and Circuit Courts

  • Published: 1993
  • Author: Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 133 (Regular Session, 1992)

Executive Summary:
Fines have long served as a sentencing option for a wide range of offenders. The majority of minor criminal and traffic cases do not call for imprisonment to meet the demands of justice nor the control of crime. Fines serve these purposes well and also avoid the demand for additional prison facilities. But their use also poses dilemmas for the courts. Many offenders are poor and without obvious means to satisfy court judgments. In many courts, fines and costs are also thought to be poorly enforced. If courts lack sufficient enforcement abilities, and if offenders can walk away from their obligations easily, sanctions risk being seen as having no teeth, and thereby drained of any credibility. These dilemmas reflect precisely the problems which gave impetus to the passage of House Joint Resolution No. 133 by the 1992 General Assembly.

The resolution requests the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Virginia Supreme Court to study the viability and advisability of a court fines amnesty program. The office of the Executive Secretary was further requested to examine the mechanism employed by the Virginia Department of Taxation in granting tax amnesty to determine its applicability to a court fines amnesty program, determine incentives which might be offered to those persons who owe unpaid fines and costs to pay them under an amnesty program, determine whether such a program would be viable for collection of court costs and fines which remain unpaid to the district courts and to the circuit courts, and to make appropriate recommendations to the Governor and the 1993 Session of the General Assembly.

In 1987 the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget, in cooperation with the Virginia court system, commenced a study of the scope of fines, fees, court costs, and restitution ordered by the courts of the Commonwealth, including an assessment of the adequacy of collections and collection methods for such amounts. The goal of the study was to develop recommendations and administrative plans to improve court ordered judgment collections. One of the study's findings was that for Fiscal Year 1986-1987 approximately 21% of the fines and costs in district courts were not collected and 60% of the fines and costs in the circuit courts were not collected.

The concept of amnesty programs arises within the context of efforts to improve collection of fines and costs. Generally, amnesty involves a certain period of time wherein delinquent fine debtors are allowed to pay their fines at a discounted or reduced rate. For example, under such a program, payment may be required for 50 percent of the debt with the remaining balance being forgiven. This report attempts to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of such programs, particularly within the context of the role of the courts in the adjudicative process and their function in the management of sentence enforcement. In addition, since improved collection of fines and costs is the underlying basis for this study, the study seeks to review the progress which has occurred in this area since the Department of Planning and Budget's Study.

In submitting its report, appreciation is expressed to the Department of Criminal Justice Services, Department of Planning and Budget, National Center for State Courts, Supreme Court of Arizona and the Virginia Department of Taxation.