Texas Senate Bill SB994

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 2/28/11
• Refer: 3/8/11

Caption

Relating to imposing costs on conviction in certain drug cases to support law enforcement.

Impact

The implementation of SB994 would directly alter the financial obligations of individuals convicted of drug offenses, thus impacting the overall penal system within Texas. By increasing the costs associated with such convictions, the bill could potentially deter drug offenses, as individuals may be more cautious due to the financial ramifications. The collected fees are to be allocated to the general revenue fund specifically for law enforcement, reinforcing the need for resources in combating drug-related issues in the state.

Summary

SB994 aims to impose additional costs on individuals convicted of drug offenses under Chapter 481 of the Health and Safety Code in Texas. Specifically, the bill mandates that individuals convicted of a misdemeanor pay a fee of $100, while those convicted of a felony must pay $200. These fees are to be collected in conjunction with other court costs and are designated for law enforcement purposes. The intent behind the bill is to generate revenue to support law enforcement agencies as they address drug-related offenses, reflecting a legislative focus on enhancing public safety and funding for enforcement activities.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB994 appears to be mixed. Supporters argue that it provides necessary funding for law enforcement and emphasizes the state's commitment to fighting drug-related crimes. Critics, however, may view these additional costs as punitive, particularly for individuals who may already be facing significant legal and financial burdens from their convictions. The bill raises broader questions about the fairness of the financial penalties associated with criminal behavior and the potential for exacerbating socioeconomic disparities among those affected.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding SB994 is the appropriateness of imposing additional costs on individuals already navigating the legal consequences of drug offenses. Opponents of the bill might argue that such fees could disproportionately affect lower-income individuals who may struggle to pay these costs, thereby perpetuating cycles of poverty and legal entanglement. There is also concern regarding the utilization of the generated funds and whether they effectively contribute to meaningful law enforcement improvements or simply serve as a revenue-generating mechanism.