Rhode Island House Bill H7192

Rhode Island 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/26/22
• Refer: 1/26/22

Caption

Costs

Impact

The bill holds significant implications for state laws governing criminal justice costs. It prohibits courts from imposing certain financial burdens on defendants sentenced to prison terms longer than six months and restricts financial assessments related to excessive fines. This shift reflects an acknowledgment of the detrimental effects that criminal justice fees impose on individuals seeking to rehabilitate and integrate into society. Furthermore, it recognizes that existing fines and fees may prove to be unconstitutional or counterproductive, aligning state law more closely with national standards as decided in recent Supreme Court rulings.

Summary

House Bill 7192, known as the 'SCARCE Act', introduces substantial reforms in the area of criminal procedure concerning costs. The legislation aims to standardize and streamline the assessment, collection, waiver, and extinguishment of court-related fees, fines, and assessments in Rhode Island. The primary intention is to alleviate the financial burdens placed on individuals who have interacted with the criminal justice system, particularly those who are struggling financially. By removing excessive costs, the bill encourages a smoother reintegration process for offenders into society, ultimately fostering public safety and reducing recidivism rates.

Contention

Debate surrounding HB 7192 reflects a broader discussion on the nature of criminal justice financing. Advocates argue that the bill represents a necessary step toward reforming punitive practices that disproportionately affect marginalized communities and hinder their return to productive lives. On the contrary, some critics voice concerns that reducing or eliminating court costs could undermine the judicial system's integrity and accountability, questioning how state funds would sustain public services reliant on these fees. This tension between fostering rehabilitation and ensuring judicial efficacy remains a notable point of contention in discussions of the SCARCE Act.