The “criminalization of poverty” is a phrase that has commonly been thrown around in progressive and social justice circles for quite some time. At face value, this term explains a process of invoking the formal criminal legal system, specifically the use of fines/fees up to arrests, for certain actions (or inactions) related to economic disadvantage. The two most specific examples of the criminalization of poverty – in my opinion and based on the definition provided above – include the use of excessive fines/fees for vehicle traffic and safety violations (e.g., broken tail light, expired inspection/registration) and select legislation/policy decisions to combat homelessness. Issues regarding the former were blown wide open following the US Department of Justice’s investigation of the Ferguson (MO) Police Department and its municipal court system following the shooting death of Michael Brown in 2014. The investigation found: “Most strikingly, the court issues municipal arrest warrants not on the basis of public safety needs, but rather as a routine response to missed court appearances and required fine payments. In 2013 alone, the court issued over 9,000 warrants on cases stemming in large part from minor violations such as parking infractions, traffic tickets, or housing code violations… yet, Ferguson’s municipal court routinely issues warrants for people to be arrested and incarcerated for failing to timely pay related fines and fees.” Some cities and state legislation have essentially made it illegal – via fines and arrest – to camp out and set up tents in certain public areas. A prime example of these types of practices was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Safer Cities Initiative (SCI) under the leadership of Chief Bill Bratton as well as a bill recently signed into law in Kentucky.
Such practices and laws truly represent the criminalization of poverty – that is, punishing people for being poor. We should try to avoid them at all costs (no pun intended). Increasing the monetary fines on people who already cannot pay their original tickets (followed by issuing bench warrants for their arrest due to failure to pay) and fining/arresting people for being homeless and camping out are not sound legislative or policy decisions. One of my mentors, Mike White, wrote an outstanding response essay to the LAPD’s SCI at the time that is worthy of your attention. It’s still relevant today as jurisdictions and law enforcement organizations continue to grapple with ways of addressing homelessness by striking a balance between the interests of businesses and community members with the well-being of those forced to live on the streets.
However, efforts to combat the “criminalization of poverty” by some legislatures and prosecutors have expanded beyond the traditional, and literal, sense of the term. There have been practices across various jurisdictions by select prosecutors’ offices to either decline to criminally charge or to drop charges of offenders for low-level crimes, particularly larceny-theft. There is also a debate as to whether similar practices are occurring for more serious crimes, such as illegal possession of a firearm (i.e., Violation of Uniform Firearms Act; VUFA), although it is beyond the scope of this blog post to explore the extent to which this is happening; most District Attorney’s Offices lack the publicly available data portals necessary to rigorously evaluate these claims. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, under Larry Krasner, has even stated, “We do not believe that arresting people and convicting them for illegal gun possession is a viable strategy to reduce shootings.” The recent practices of failing to prosecute people for certain crimes, namely larceny-theft but also illegal firearm possession, has morphed from the aim of reducing the “criminalization of poverty” into the “decriminalization of crime.”
There is an important differentiation here between the two concepts. Again, and to be clear, I am all for alleviating the toxic and corrupting influences of excessive fines/fees as well as removing the heavy-handed approach of brute justice system force (e.g., fines and arrests) that is sometimes used on homeless populations. But, the practice of not bringing or declining charges for a slew of low-level property and/or qualify of life crimes (up to more serious weapons offenses) is wrong and misguided. I say this not as a conservative right-winger, but as someone who falls slightly left of center politically. Holding law violators accountable by arrest through prosecution is not contributing to the criminalization of poverty. Most poor people do not resort to crime, and most poor communities are filled with law-abiding citizens who pursue their financial needs through legitimate means only. Failing to hold law violators accountable is, essentially, decriminalizing crime.
The motivation to elaborate on these ideas comes from a recent initiative out of Atlantic County, New Jersey (see below). I’m currently working with the Atlantic City Police Department (ACPD) as a research partner for on ongoing evaluation. According to police officials, the previous prosecutor did not vigorously pursue criminal charges for certain crimes like retail theft and shoplifting. This was a policy and philosophical choice, coupled with COVID-19 limitations placed on the municipal courts statewide that precluded them from issuing warrants for failure to appear. With a new acting/interim county prosecutor at the helm in Atlantic County, along with a May 2022 directive from the NJ Attorney General that resumes the use of warrants by municipal courts, this is no longer the case. It appears that the initiative had collaborative support from the local business community.
It remains to be seen what impact this new initiative will have on the Atlantic City community regarding crime, victimization, and public safety. The smart approach would be to rigorously evaluate its success or lack thereof using a number of outcome measures, including community members’ perceptions and business leaders’ level of satisfaction. Perhaps it will be a welcomed addition that stands in stark contrast to the status quo in other areas of the country that seem to not quite understand the differences between the “criminalization of poverty” and the “decriminalization of crime.” The latter has far-reaching ramifications: public perceptions of illegitimacy for the police and the broader criminal legal system due to ineffectiveness, more individuals in the community (including offenders) gaining personal and vicarious experience with “punishment avoidance” (which affect perceptions of deterrence and the certainty of getting caught), and the loss of confidence by the business community due to economic losses from crime.