Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:43-3.3 – Additional penalties for persons convicted of crime deposited in

New Jersey’s Controversial Law Adding Fines for Inmates’ Accounts

New Jersey recently passed a law allowing the state to charge fees and fines to money deposited into an incarcerated person’s account while in prison. This controversial law, known as Section 2C:43-3.3, has garnered much debate about its fairness and implications.

What the Law States

Section 2C:43-3.3, which went into effect in July 2022, allows the state to deduct fines, restitution, and other fees from funds deposited into an incarcerated person’s account. This includes money added by friends, family, or other outside sources. The state can take up to 90% of deposited funds to pay for any outstanding fines or fees connected to the inmate’s sentence.

Supporters argue this is a way to recoup costs and ensure victims receive restitution. But critics say it’s an unfair tax on the incarcerated and their support systems.

Background and Legislative Intent

The bill’s sponsors said their intent was to make it easier for inmates to pay outstanding fines and restitution. Before this law, any money added to an inmate’s account was protected from deductions. The sponsors claimed this allowed inmates to avoid paying court-ordered debts.

By passing 2C:43-3.3, legislators wanted to close this “loophole.” Backers said it would incentivize inmates to pay their debts sooner and ensure victims received owed restitution faster.

Key Provisions of the New Law

Section 2C:43-3.3 allows the state to deduct money from an inmate’s account for a few specific purposes:

• Outstanding restitution, fines, penalties or other financial assessments ordered by the court as part of sentencing
• Fees for room, board, and other “maintenance costs” while incarcerated
• Deductions for any child support payments owed

The law caps deductions at 90% of all deposits into an inmate’s account. However, the state can take 100% of any money deposited for the specific purpose of satisfying fines and restitution.

Critically, the law applies to any money deposited into an inmate’s account. This includes funds from friends, family, charities, or other outside sources. The state does not limit deductions to just an inmate’s wages or other income.

Concerns from Advocates and Inmates

While lawmakers presented 2C:43-3.3 as a commonsense reform, inmate advocates and justice reform groups have voiced several concerns:

• Unfair “tax” on family support – By taking money added by others, critics say the state is essentially taxing family and friends trying to support their incarcerated loved ones. This could discourage outside support.
• Debt trap and barrier to reentry – Inmates are released from prison with minimal resources as is. Taking most of any money gifted to them makes re-integrating even harder.
• No connection to rehabilitation – The American justice system aims to rehabilitate offenders and prepare them for reentry. However, critics argue 2C:43-3.3 does nothing to further these goals.
• Potential legal issues – Some lawyers have argued the law may violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines. There are also concerns it could infringe on free speech and association rights.

So far, the law has not faced any significant legal challenges. But several activist groups are considering lawsuits.

Early Data on the Law’s Impact

Section 2C:43-3.3 went into effect in July 2022. So there is limited data on how it has worked in practice so far.

However, inmate advocates say they are already seeing a chilling effect on outside support. Many family members are reluctant to deposit funds, knowing most will go to fines instead of their incarcerated loved one.

For inmates with significant court fees, even small gifts of $20-$50 can be swallowed up almost entirely. Prisoner support groups have needed to rethink how they provide aid to avoid the law’s deductions.

However, state officials claim 2C:43-3.3 has allowed them to deduct several thousand dollars in outstanding fines and fees in just a few months. So from their perspective, the law is working as intended. Still, advocacy groups insist the harm outweighs any nominal benefits.

Ongoing Debate and Potential Changes

Currently, New Jersey is the only state with a law like 2C:43-3.3 specifically allowing deductions from gifted deposits. A few others have proposed similar legislation, but so far none have matched New Jersey’s aggressive approach.

In New Jersey itself, there are signs the law may still evolve. A few state legislators have expressed concerns about unintended consequences and say they are open to amending the statute. Some have suggested capping deductions at a lower percentage, or exempting funds from family.

Advocacy groups like the ACLU and Prison Fellowship are lobbying for reforms. While unlikely to repeal 2C:43-3.3 entirely, lawmakers could agree to soften its impact on inmates and their support systems. Several justice reform organizations are meeting with legislators to discuss possible changes.

For now, the deductions continue under the broad authority of the law’s current language. But there remains possibility for compromise as more data emerges about the effects on inmates and their families. The debate continues around balancing cost recovery, victim restitution, and the larger goals of the justice system.

The Complex Issues Around Paying Inmate Debts

On the surface, Section 2C:43-3.3 was meant to serve legitimate purposes – ensuring fines get paid and victims made whole. But the real world implications reveal complex justice issues.

If inmates leave prison with crippling debt, it undercuts the goal of rehabilitation. Excessive deductions from gifted money also punish family and friends who provide vital support.

Yet victims of crime also have rights that lawmakers want to uphold. The criminal justice system has long struggled to balance different stakeholders’ interests.

Section 2C:43-3.3 provides insight into these competing priorities. There are reasonable arguments on all sides. But for now, the law stands as originally passed, despite advocates’ pushback.

Looking ahead, Section 2C:43-3.3 will likely continue generating lively debate on fines, fees, and the larger goals of incarceration. The saga of this controversial law highlights the many tricky issues facing justice reform today.