Module 2 Question 3

Module 2 Exercises:

Question 3.  

Continuing the same scenario, repeated below.

A defendant was sentenced to probation, a $500 fine, and $250 in fees after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct. The court permitted a payment plan, with $100 due at sentencing and the balance within six months. The defendant borrowed $100 from their parents to pay the $100 at sentencing and missed car payments to pay two $100 installments. However, shortly after they were laid off from their job, and failed to make the remaining payments within the six months.

As a result of unpaid balance, a petition to revoke the defendant’s probation was filed. The defendant appeared before the court for a hearing regarding the failure to pay the legal financial obligations and the probation revocation.

At the hearing, the court conducts an ability to pay assessment. From this interaction the court learns of the defendant’s change in employment, and that the amount originally assessed was a challenge for the defendant while employed. Because of this information, the court extends the payment plan and connects the court user to employment services.

Instructions: Answer each of the following true or false questions about the cost for the court in the above scenario.

In Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the court must inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay if the defendant is at risk of imprisonment. In order to be imprisoned for failure to pay, the defendant must be willful. To deprive a person of their freedom because they cannot pay the fine, through no fault of their own, is fundamentally unfair and contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983). https://perma.cc/A3XH-DTR7.