Homeless in Arizona

Sounds like a jobs program for these folks:

It costs money every time an officer makes a traffic stop, every time a prosecutor devotes an hour to a case, every time a judge steps into a courtroom.

Didn't I just say it is a jobs program for cops, prosecutors and judges.

You can thank the police unions for a lot of this BS, which is designed to create high paying jobs for cops.

Source

How a $95 Phoenix traffic ticket becomes $243

Megan Cassidy, The Republic | azcentral.com 8:38 a.m. MST January 27, 2016

If you’re an imperfect driver in Arizona, chances are you’ve helped foot the bill to maintain clean elections, to fund emergency medical training and to help repay victims of crime.

In 2015 alone, the state’s lawbreakers — including traffic offenders — contributed tens of millions to government programs through surcharges automatically added to citation costs.

It’s a practice that’s grown routine in Arizona and throughout the country: Rather than vying for tax dollars to fund specialty programs, legislators shift the burden to those who have committed a civil or criminal infraction.

But critics are beginning to question the merit of forcing low-level offenders to shoulder costs of programs that benefit the public at large. The focus comes amid a national discussion on the often crippling and cyclical effects of city court fines on the working poor.

“It’s my feeling that if we educate people about all the things we’re funding through the court system, they would be upset,” Phoenix City Councilwoman Kate Gallego said. “If you accidentally park on a parking lot that hasn’t been treated for dust, should you really be funding state government?”

Where your dollars end up

In the past two decades, Arizona’s state-mandated surcharges have ballooned from 56 percent to 83 percent of the principal fine for city fees.

For example, when you pay Phoenix, say, $95 for a speeding ticket, you’ll also be required to pony up $79 for state programs.

The state then adds other flat fees — $13 for police training, $2 for a victims’ rights fund, $7 for a court-restitution fund and $20 for the county’s probation department.

Then there’s the additional $27 to support court technology, creating a $243 obligation — an increase of 156 percent from the base fine.

Can’t pay on time? Toss in another $40.

Calls for reform

The rationale behind forcing lawbreakers rather than taxpayers to foot the bill for court and police costs is fairly evident.

It costs money every time an officer makes a traffic stop, every time a prosecutor devotes an hour to a case, every time a judge steps into a courtroom.

“I think the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund was a recognition by the Legislature that there is an inherent cost to the criminal-justice system even for minor violations,” said Andrew LeFevre, a spokesman for the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, which is responsible for reporting on the fund.

“I think there is a legitimate need for folks that are burdening the criminal-justice system to help cover some of the costs of the criminal-justice system,” he said.

Those who favor reforming the system for municipal fines challenge this approach.

“When we peel back the onion a little bit, it lays bare the absurdity of it all.” SPLC Deputy Director Sam Brooke The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center is seeking to abolish what it calls a “modern-day debtors’ prison” that relies on offenders to finance the justice system.

For low-income offenders, an unpayable fine can result in additional fees, suspended licenses, and potentially more charges, fines and jail time if they continue to drive.

SPLC Deputy Legal Director Sam Brooke noted how some of the surcharge fees, including Arizona’s Clean Elections Fund, bear little or no ties to criminal justice.

“When we peel back the onion a little bit, it lays bare the absurdity of it all,” he said.

Even surcharges that benefit law enforcement or courts, he said, should be evenly funded by all citizens.

“Courts serve a critical function in our society,” Brooke said. “Everyone benefits from this; we all should be paying into it rather than requiring the poorest of the poor to be the ones that really shoulder the bill.”

Brooke pointed to a 2011 policy paper by the Conference of State Court Administrators titled “Courts Are Not Revenue Centers.” The report underscored the importance of focusing on justice outcomes rather than collections.

Some, however, doubt that taxpayer funds could reach the financial levels of the current surcharge system.

Kim MacEachern, a staff attorney for Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council, said drawing funds from tax dollars would force the organization to compete against other services and force undue limitations.

Further, she said, some of the APAAC members have little to no tax base to generate revenue.

The APAAC is backed by the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund and helps provide training and education for prosecutors throughout Arizona.

“Without this resource from the CJE community — from the APAAC standpoint — we’d be really losing a huge benefit that couldn’t be recovered and equitably distributed among our members,” she said.

Brooke said to date few governments have enacted policies to address the issue.

"I would describe it as a growing awareness that this is a major problem," he said. "But I would say that there’s still not enough consciousness of the issue and why this is a problem."