New Jersey Section 2C:43-3.2 – Assessments for Safe Neighborhoods Services
Contents
New Jersey’s Safe Neighborhood Services Assessments
New Jersey has a law called Section 2C:43-3.2 that allows courts to impose special assessments on convicted defendants to help fund programs for safe neighborhoods and deterring crime. This law, passed in 1993, aims to make criminals pay back the communities they harmed. But it’s also controversial, with some seeing it as an unfair added punishment. This article will break down how New Jersey’s safe neighborhood assessments work, who has to pay, and arguments for and against the law.
What Are Safe Neighborhood Assessments?
Safe neighborhood assessments, also called “penalty enforcement” or “safe street” assessments, are extra fines that courts in New Jersey can order convicted defendants to pay. The money doesn’t go to the state general fund or victims. Instead, it funds programs meant to improve safety and quality of life in the community where the crime occurred.
Assessments can range from $100 to $10,000 depending on the severity of the crime. Judges have discretion on whether and how much to impose. The money funds things like:
- Community policing and crime prevention programs
- Drug and violence intervention programs
- Security improvements like surveillance cameras and better lighting
- Graffiti removal and park improvements
- Re-entry programs to help ex-offenders
So in theory, the extra fines make criminals give back to the areas they harmed.
Who Has to Pay Safe Neighborhood Assessments?
The law says assessments can be imposed on anyone convicted of:
- Any indictable crime (more serious than a disorderly persons offense)
- Petty disorderly persons offenses like shoplifting, trespassing, simple assault
- Municipal ordinance violations that endanger others’ safety
But judges don’t have to order the fines – they’re discretionary. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office suggests judges should consider:
- The severity of the crime
- The defendant’s role and culpability
- Their criminal history and character
- The harm caused to the community
- Their ability to pay
Judges can waive the fines if they’d cause “severe hardship”. Fines can also be offset by community service hours.
Where Does the Money Go?
Assessment money goes into accounts for the municipality where the crime occurred, not the state treasury. The municipality has to use it for designated safe neighborhood programs. Local advisory committees oversee how it’s spent.
There are 566 municipalities in New Jersey that can receive assessment funds. But critics say distribution is uneven. As of 2012, just 10 cities had received over half the total assessments, according to the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. Cities with high crime rates and aggressive collection tend to benefit most.
Arguments Supporting Safe Neighborhood Assessments
Makes Criminals Pay Back Communities They Harm
Supporters say it’s fair to make lawbreakers help fund anti-crime programs. Prisons alone don’t deter crime or repay victims. Assessments make offenders directly give back to their neighborhoods. The money funds programs that might have kept them from choosing crime in the first place.
Holds Offenders Accountable
The fines tell criminals their acts carry consequences beyond just jail time. It drives home that crime harms whole communities, not just individual victims. Supporters say this accountability component makes assessments highly effective deterrents.
Provides Funding for Vital Programs
Safe neighborhood programs often struggle for adequate funding. Penalty assessments give municipalities a dedicated funding source directly tied to improving community safety. The money lets them expand programs proven to reduce crime and recidivism.
Alternative to Long Prison Terms
Some see assessments as a more constructive alternative to harsh mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Judges can impose fines tailored to the crime instead of one-size-fits-all prison terms. This allows nuanced justice focused on rehabilitation.
Arguments Against Safe Neighborhood Assessments
Punishes Poverty
Critics say assessments disproportionately burden the poor, especially minorities in urban areas with high crime rates. Low-income defendants often can’t pay sizable fines, which leads to debt and additional penalties. Wealthier defendants easily pay and move on. This worsens economic and racial inequities in the justice system.
Infringes on Judicial Discretion
Judges may feel pressured to impose assessments even when inappropriate, knowing the revenue benefits their communities. This distorts justice by forcing judges to partly base sentences on funding programs rather than just on the facts of the case.
Imposes Double Jeopardy
Some argue it’s unfair “double punishment” to hit offenders with both jail time and extra fines. Prison alone is meant to repay their debt to society. Additional monetary sanctions resemble double jeopardy.
Inconsistent and Arbitrary
Critics say assessment amounts are inconsistent and arbitrary. They depend too much on the judge’s mood that day. And distribution of funds is uneven based on each area’s collection efforts, not actual need. Clearer statutory guidelines could make the program fairer.
Burdens Municipalities
Collecting and processing assessments creates an administrative burden for municipalities. Local governments must chase down delinquent payments and fund collection litigation. And the money can only fund designated programs, limiting budget flexibility.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
Safe neighborhood assessments have faced lawsuits arguing they violate defendants’ rights. But courts have largely upheld the fines as constitutional. Assessments don’t violate double jeopardy since they are civil penalties, not criminal punishment, according to rulings.
However, some reforms have emerged from litigation:
- Defendants can’t be jailed for not paying assessments they can’t afford. This avoids debtors’ prison.
- Courts must consider defendants’ ability to pay before imposing fines.
- Assessments can’t fund general budget items – only designated safe neighborhood uses.
Reform advocates continue pushing to make the program fairer and more consistent statewide. But overall, New Jersey’s safe neighborhood assessment law remains in effect with the aim of funding community safety.
So in summary, New Jersey’s safe neighborhood assessments are an innovative approach to crime deterrence and restorative justice. But they also raise complex issues around balancing punishment and rehabilitation, judicial discretion, and fairness in policing and sentencing. Communities strive to implement assessments constructively as one part of comprehensive criminal justice reform.