Internet Explorer 11 is not supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Judges Must Consider Whether Poor Can Afford Fines, Rules Washington Supreme Court

The state Supreme Court, citing the burden imposed on poor defendants by uncollectable court fees and fines, has reiterated that judges must ask about a defendant’s ability to pay so-called “legal financial obligations” (LFO), and not impose them if they can’t be paid.

The state Supreme Court, citing the burden imposed on poor defendants by uncollectable court fees and fines, has reiterated that judges must ask about a defendant’s ability to pay so-called “legal financial obligations” (LFO), and not impose them if they can’t be paid.

 

The justices found the state’s LFO system “carries problematic consequences” for poor offenders, can impede their ability to re-enter society and can contribute to recidivism.

 

The high court sent two cases back to Pierce County for resentencing based on findings that sentencing judges, at the prosecutor’s request, imposed costs, fees and fines of more than $3,300 in one instance and $2,200 in another without first determining whether either man could pay.

 

The justices said state law requires such an inquiry but cited “significant disparities” in its application as one reason for issuing the ruling. Indeed, the court went out of its way to address the subject, deciding to take the appeal on an issue not initially raised by the men’s attorneys.

 

LFOs are imposed to cover such costs as victim-impact fees, and the costs of the courts’ resources, extradition and legal fees. They can amount to several thousand dollars and are imposed in addition to restitution.

 

Caroline Cournoyer is GOVERNING's senior web editor.