Fines, Fees, and Families: Monetary Sanctions As Stigmatized Intergenerational Exchange

ABSTRACT

This study examines the intergenerational consequences of court-imposed monetary sanctions for parents and children. Research on punishment and families has generally focused on imprisonment, yet monetary sanctions are far more commonly imposed. We extend research on intergenerational financial exchanges to conceptualize payment of monetary sanctions as stigmatized transfers, analyzing 70 semi-structured interviews with debtholders in Minnesota. Adult children reported perceiving anger and financial strain from family members who provide assistance. Those with minor children expressed hopelessness, stress, and financial strain, as they prioritized basic needs over meeting their outstanding financial obligations. We conclude by discussing the implications of these intergenerational impacts for research, law, and policy.

KEYWORDS:

• Intergenerational exchanges
• monetary sanctions
• intergenerational transfers
• legal financial obligations (LFOs)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Chloe Hendrix for her invaluable research assistance on this project. They also want to thank Kristen Lee, Allison Dwyer Emory, Erin Hatton, and other members of the Crime, Law, and Justice Work-in-Progress Group at the University at Buffalo, SUNY for their feedback and comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2024.2333815.

Notes

1. Notably, those conducting this research on the harms of incarceration operate on the assumption that policies that result in a low-level sanction, such as a ticket, for a criminal legal encounter would be considered “family-friendly” (Lee and Wildeman 2021).

2. For more context, Appendix A provides descriptive quantitative detail using Minnesota administrative court data, including calculated mean monetary sanction debt amounts stratified by race and age groups, and details on the percentage of persons unable to pay their court debts within 90 days by offense type.

3. “Probation” here refers to the fee Lisa is obligated to pay for the service of probation, while restitution is payment intended to compensate the victim of her crime (Martin et al. 2018; Page and Soss 2021).

4. A “blow machine” is an alcohol breathalyzer that people convicted of certain crimes must have to retain driving privileges and/or remain out of jail. It is unclear whether Sharon is referencing the alcohol-testing electronic home monitoring which can cost $16–$19/day (Warkentin 2022) or an ignition interlock device with installation costs of $70–150 and monthly calibration fees of $60-$100 (Smart Start 2020).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. “Multi-state Study of Monetary Sanctions.” Alexes Harris (PI).

Notes on contributors

Veronica L. Horowitz

Veronica L. Horowitz is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University at Buffalo, SUNY. Her research focuses broadly on American criminal punishment with emphases on gender, debt, mercy, and imprisonment.

Ryan P. Larson

Ryan P. Larson is an Assistant Professor of Criminology at Hamline University. He studies the complex relationships between crime, punishment, and stratification with an emphasis on quantitative methodologies.

Robert Stewart

Robert Stewart is an Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland. He studies the social, political, and collateral consequences of criminal legal involvement.

Christopher Uggen

Christopher Uggen is Regents Professor in Sociology, Law, and Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. Chris studies crime, law, and inequality, firm in the belief that sound research can help build a more just and peaceful world. Current projects examine voting rights, sentencing, reentry Scandinavian justice, guns, and monetary sanctions.