New Jersey Section 2C:46-2 – Consequences of nonpayment; summary collection.

New Jersey’s Get Tough Policy on Unpaid Court Fines

New Jersey has enacted some of the strictest laws in the country for going after people who fail to pay their court-ordered fines and restitutions. The main law is Section 2C:46-2 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, which allows courts to order a wide range of punishments for nonpayment, including wage garnishment, property liens, driver’s license suspension, and even jail time.

This controversial law has drawn criticism from civil rights groups who argue it unfairly targets the poor and minorities. But supporters say it provides an important tool for courts to enforce their judgments and ensure accountability. Here’s an in-depth look at the law and what it means for New Jersey residents who owe court fines.

Criticisms of Using Jail Time

Perhaps the most controversial part of 2C:46-2 is the provision allowing judges to jail people for nonpayment. In recent years, this practice has faced increasing scrutiny and legal challenges.

The ACLU of New Jersey argued in a 2017 report that jailing indigent defendants for unpaid fines violates their rights and wastes taxpayer money. They found nearly 1,000 warrants issued under the law in 2015 resulted in people getting jailed at a cost of $10,000 per incarceration.

Reform advocates say jail often leaves people less able to pay their debts due to time away from work and new fees associated with incarceration. It can also result in loss of jobs, housing, or custody of children.

In 2019, a NJ appeals court ruled in State v. Perry that judges must consider a person’s ability to pay before jailing them for nonpayment. The ruling emphasized incarceration should be an absolute last resort reserved for those who can pay but flagrantly refuse.

Disproportionate Impact on Minorities

Another major criticism is that aggressive collection and jailing practices disproportionately impact communities of color.

A 2020 report by New Jersey Institute for Social Justice found Black residents make up just 15% of the population but account for 43% of warrants issued under 2C:46-2.

Activists argue this exacerbates existing racial inequities in the justice system. Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has acknowledged the state’s reliance on fines and fees “falls hardest on the poor, the mentally ill, and people of color.”

Some municipalities with large minority populations like Newark have scaled back enforcement efforts in response to these concerns. But for now, 2C:46-2 remains the law throughout New Jersey.

Supporters Say It’s a Necessary Tool

Those who defend the aggressive collection tactics argue they provide an important mechanism to enforce court orders. The New Jersey Judiciary contends robust collection helps maintain the integrity of judgments.

Supporters say alternatives like community service, reduced fines, or payment plans are still used in many cases. But the threat of escalating enforcement under 2C:46-2 encourages compliance when voluntary methods fall short.

They argue suspending licenses, garnishing wages, and even brief jail stays provide a necessary incentive for people to take court orders seriously. In their view, letting fines go uncollected sends the wrong message and undermines the justice system.