Turning Justice into Profit: Rethinking Private Debt Collectors in Criminal Courts

Turning Justice into Profit: Rethinking Private Debt Collectors in Criminal Courts

By Jaiden Hines, LSU Student & Louisiana Progress College Fellow

Imagine you’re driving home from work one day and flashing lights appear in your rearview mirror. You pull over, confused because you weren’t speeding, and your seatbelt is on. As you roll the window down, the officer explains that your break tags are expired by just a few weeks. 

You glance at the corner of your windshield, and sure enough the faded sticker shows an expired date. Despite the explanation you gave about not realizing it had expired, and money has been tight, the officer writes you a ticket. You sigh, accept the ticket, promise you’ll take your vehicle to get inspected the following weekend, and drive off in frustration. 

Some weeks later, you go online and pay your ticket to put it behind you. Or so you think.  Months later, you receive an email from a company you can’t recognize. It isn’t spam. It’s a notice from a private collection agency demanding payment because your ticket has gone to collections; you didn’t pay off the full amount on the original fine. 

The amount they’re asking for now is nearly triple the original fine, thanks to the added processing fees and interest. The collection agency has even threatened to garnish your wages if the ticket isn’t handled immediately. 

You call the courthouse to try and settle the matter, only to be told that the case has been outsourced, and they can’t assist you. Suddenly, a minor traffic infraction has become a financial crisis, not because of the initial cost or court proceedings, but because of private debt collectors profiting from our justice system. 

This and similar situations are far from rare. Across the United States, courts rely on fines and fees to fund their day-to-day operations. However, when people can’t afford to pay, that debt is often turned over to private collection agencies. This practice tends to blur the lines between justice and profit, harming not only people who may be struggling financially but also the entire community.

It’s no secret that courts run on fines and fees to offset operational costs and budgets. As the cost of operation and taxes increased, financial penalties for defendants also expanded. Over time, unpaid court debt skyrocketed to more than $27 billion nationwide. In response, some states turned to private collection agencies to handle these matters. These agencies then tack on surcharges, interest fees, and other costs to make a profit. This deepens the financial distress on low-income families and erodes public trust in the justice system, which strains entire communities. 

The National Center for Access to Justice’s Fines and Fees Justice Index highlights the need for serious reform. The index graded every state on 17 key policies designed to protect individuals from excessive fines and fees, such as abolition of all fees, no juvenile fees, conflicts of interest that surround fees, ability to pay, private collection add on fees, payment plans, etc. Not one state received a passing score. Louisiana scored an 18 out of 100, placing 40^th nationally and 13th out of 17 in the South. 

But increased awareness of these harmful tactics has sparked some efforts to reform this system in multiple states. In recent years, several states have begun to reassess how court debt is managed. The Fines & Fees Justice Center’s 2025 Justice Roundup highlights a wave of bipartisan reform, reporting a wide range of changes being made and new ideas being put on record. 

Oklahoma (HB 1460) is a strong example because it eliminates many court fees, marking a significant step toward reducing financial barriers within the justice system and demonstrating how strategic advocacy can drive policy change. It also shows that eliminating fees can remove the incentive for using private collection agencies. FFJC’s reports highlight that policy tools, such as ability-to-pay calculators and payment plan standards, can make the process more humane and efficient. 

The Florida Attorney General offers another perspective. The AG concluded that clerks of court do not have the statutory authority to sell court-ordered debts to private debt-collecting agencies unless the law specifically allows it, which it does not. This sets a vital legal precedent for other states, as it highlights the limitations of privatization without clear authority being established. Both states are encouraging some shift, one through actual policy change and the other through legal opinion, representing steps in the right direction. 

Momentum is building to rethink the role of private collection agencies in criminal debt collection. Whether legislative reform, attorney general opinions, or advocacy coalitions, the goal remains the same: The justice system should serve the people, not profits. If we push for transparency, fairness, and legal clarity, states can take informed and meaningful steps towards a system that prioritizes accountability and rehabilitation over profit.