Robert Boyer Jr. was only 18 when he first came into contact with the criminal justice system. He spent time in prison for drug-related charges, fraud, and probation violation.

He’s out now, and has been sober for seven years. But he’s still stuck in the system, bound to it by $240,000 in fines that he racked up from his multiple brushes with the law and is now struggling to pay off.

“This will be over my head forever,” said Boyer, 47, who now works as a journeyman roofer. “I’ll be 69-years-old and think, ‘Man I still gotta pay King County.’”

Boyer isn’t a standalone case. He joins countless others across Washington state who have been ordered to pay a cocktail of fines and fees, known as legal financial obligations (LFO), associated with court contact. 

Despite attempts at LFO reform by Washington Legislature in 2018, a lack of statewide standard criteria for courts to apply them leaves defendants facing a debtors’ prison, according to Alexes Harris, a University of Washington sociology professor and author of “A Pound of Flesh: Monetary Sanctions as Punishment for the Poor.”

The 2018 house bill removed the annual 12% interest rate on fines that are not directly going to victim repayment, and restricted courts from punishing defendants who are found to be too poor to pay.

But the interest still exists on restitution charged for victim injury or loss. And while victims can be specific people, in Boyer’s case, the victim is the state.

The Washington State Supreme Court Minority and Justice Commission found that superior courts imposed $130 million in LFOs throughout Washington in 2018. Yet, only $7.7 million were paid, highlighting the outstanding debt among defendants with LFOs. 

The allocation of LFOs was changed to prioritize restitution for victims in 2018. However, the commission found that over half of the LFO payments collected by superior courts in 2018 were distributed to local and state funds rather than to victim restitution.

“Our courts and our justice system are relying on getting money from poor people in order to operate,” said Nancy Talner, Staff Attorney at American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

However, LFOs such as the victim penalty assessment and criminal filing fees fund victim programs and pay court clerks, according to a 2019 Washington state court filing.

“Even if some offenders are unable to pay these fees, some will be able to and the imposition of these fees on all offenders serves to create funding for these purposes,” attorneys for the state wrote.

Currently, impoverished defendants can have fines waived that are nonmandatory. Washington state law defines a person as indigent if they receive public assistance, are involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, or make an annual income of 125% or less than the federal poverty line, an equivalent of $32,000 or less a year for a family of four.

People found to be indigent must still pay mandatory fines, which include a $500 victim penalty assessment and $100 fee for DNA collection. Misdemeanor victim assessment runs $250. 

Harris said those who cannot pay discretionary fines should not have to pay mandatory fines. Others disagree. 

“Truth of the matter is, if there is not an obligation to pay — if there is no consequence for failure to pay — they won’t pay,” said Ed Orcutt, member of the Washington state House of Representatives for the 20th District. “They should all be mandatory.”

Orcutt has spent time sitting on a bench with a district court judge where he observed cases of LFO debt. This particular judge worked with offenders to pay their LFOs, instead of imprisoning them for nonpayment, said Orcutt.

Bearden vs. Georgia, a 1983 Supreme Court case, established the term “willful nonpayment” to describe those who have the means to pay their LFOs, yet refuse to do so. If the court finds the person is willfully not paying, they can be arrested.

However, Harris said that Washington lacks standard criteria by which judges can assess a defendant’s ability to pay. Courts are often using their discretion in defining willful nonpayment. 

She has seen courts across the state examine a defendant’s appearance or habits — manicured nails or smoking, respectively — as evidence of their ability to pay.

These decisions are “based on value judgements, a characterization of poor people, that are inappropriate,” says Harris.  

Boyer describes himself as one of the lucky ones now that he is clean, sober, and has a family. 

He recently reunited with his son and daughter, who he left almost 20 years ago when they were 3 and 8 years old, respectively. His partner Rebecca also has five kids, and a grandson, Logan, who Boyer loves to be a positive role model for now. 

“All I wanted was a family,” said Boyer. “Drugs was my family; it was the one that always hurt me, but the one I always went back to.”