Juvenile Economic Sanctions

• Date: 01 February 2014
• Author: R. Barry Ruback,Alison C. Cares,Stacy Hoskins Haynes
• Published date: 01 February 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12063

RESEARCH ARTICLE

JUVENILE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

Juvenile Economic Sanctions

An Analysis of Their Imposition, Payment, and Effect

on Recidivism

Stacy Hoskins Haynes

Mississippi State University

Alison C. Cares

Assumption College

R. Barry Ruback

Pennsylvania State University

Research Summary

Economic sanctions, particularly restitution, can help juvenile offenders both learn the

extent of the harm they caused and assume responsibility for repairing that harm. If

that assumption is true, then restitution should be imposed in every case for which

it is appropriate, other factors should not affect imposition, and paying restitution

should be negatively related to recidivism. This analysis of 921 juvenile cases in five

Pennsylvania counties found that restitution was imposed in only 33% of cases for

which it was appropriate, whereas fees were imposed in 66% of cases. Consistent with

expectations, restitution was more likely to be imposed for property offenses, but contrary

to expectations, restitution was more likely to be imposed for felonies and for males.

Judges wereless likely to revoke the sentences of juveniles who paid a greater percentage of

their total economic sanctions and of juveniles whose violation of sentencing conditions

was for nonpayment of economic sanctions.

Policy Implications

Given that support for both punitive and progressive policies exists, policy makers have

a unique opportunity to pursue alternatives, like economic sanctions, that appeal to

both perspectives. Economic sanctions are particularly important for juveniles because

they are less likely to interfere with other financial obligations (in large part because

juveniles have fewer financial obligations than do adults) and because they avoid the

Direct correspondence to Stacy Hoskins Haynes, Department of Sociology, P.O. Box C, Mississippi State, MS

39762 (e-mail: shaynes@soc.msstate.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12063 C2014 American Society of Criminology 31

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 13 rIssue 1

Research Article Juvenile Economic Sanctions

stigma associated with more punitive sentences, such as incarceration. The negative re-

lationship between payment of economic sanctions and recidivism, found in this study

and in other studies, also suggests that, in both the short and the long term, economic

sanctions are more cost-effective. Furthermore, the restorative aspect of economic sanc-

tions, particularly restitution, suggests that policy makers should consider how best to

impose and collect economic sanctions, as they also are consistent with efforts to improve

the treatment of crime victims.

Keywords

juvenile offenders,economic sanctions,restitution,recidivis m,restorative justice

Punitive policies (e.g., boot camps, three-strikes laws, and mandatory minimum

sentences) have dominated the criminal and juvenile justice systems for more than

40 years (Bishop, 2012; Cullen, Fisher, and Applegate, 2000). Although support for

harsh sentencing policies exists, scholars have identified several “cracks” in the penal harm

movement, including public support of rehabilitation, doubts about the effectiveness of “get

tough” approaches, the implementation of progressive policies that provide treatment and

support to offenders, and greater reliance on the principles of effective intervention to guide

correctional practices (Listwan, Jonson, Cullen, and Latessa, 2008). These findings have

suggested that the focus on punitiveness might have been exaggerated (Matthews, 2005)

and that, instead, the public tends to be both punitive and progressive (Cullen et al., 2000).

Support for rehabilitation has been particularly strong for juveniles. According to sur-

veys of both juvenile justice practitioners (Mears, Shollenberger, Willison, Owens, and

Butts, 2010) and the general public (Nagin, Piquero, Scott, and Steinberg, 2006), reha-

bilitation is the primary goal of the juvenile justice system. The juvenile court is based on

the belief that juveniles, compared with adults, are less responsible for their behavior and

therefore should receive less serious punishment (Bernard and Kurlychek, 2010).

Punishments for juveniles should be scaled below those for adults for three reasons

(VonHirsch, 2001). First, juveniles are less culpable because they are less able to understand

the harmfulness of their actions and they have less impulse control. Given this diminished

culpability and juveniles’ greater potential for reform, the U.S. Supreme Court has prohib-

ited both the death penalty (Roper v. Simmons, 2005) and sentences of life without parole

(Miller v. Alabama, 2012) for juvenile offenders. Second,punishments have a greater “bite”

when applied to juveniles. That is, they are perceived to be more punitive for juveniles

than for adults because they interfere with juveniles’ developmental interests. Third, there

is greater “tolerance” for juveniles’ indiscretions. That is, because juveniles are learning to

make their own decisions, there is greater sympathy for their failures and a belief that they

should be judged by a less stringent standard and be given more chances to correct their

mistakes (Von Hirsch, 2001).

32 Criminology & Public Policy