More Than a Nudge?

• Date: 01 November 2018
• Author: Maureen Outlaw
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12406
• Published date: 01 November 2018

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

RESTITUTION PAYMENT AND

RECIDIVISM

More Than a Nudge?

Follow-Up, Fairness, and Lower Recidivism

Maureen Outlaw

Providence College

Investigation into the advantages and disadvantages of the use of economic sanctions

in the criminal justice system is firmly grounded in both theory and scholarship.

Scholars and analysists frequently debate the efficacy of imposing economic burdens

on individuals who are, by and large, at a serious economic disadvantage already (Harris,

2016). Whether fines (punitive economic sanctions), fees/costs (reimbursement to the state

for the cost of prosecution), or restitution (restorative compensation to victims for the

harm caused by the crime), economic sanctions comprise a tangible penalty, but they also

run the risk of inducing further criminal activity by increasing offenders’ hardship and

their financial obligations (Harris, 2016; Ruback and Bergstrom, 2006; Ruback, Cares,

and Hoskins, 2006). Of all the types of economic sanctions, however, victim restitution

has generally been considered more likely to have a positive impact on both victims (who

receive some compensation) and offenders (who get the opportunity to redress some of the

harm they caused). It is also generally viewed as more fair than fines or fees by both offenders

and victims (Ruback, Hoskins, Cares, and Feldmeyer, 2006; Ruback et al., 2008). As such,

the use of restitution offers a potential set of benefits to victims, offenders, and society as a

whole.

Although all states in the United States currently allow for the imposition of restitution

in criminal cases, there is a lot of variability in its use from state to state. More than half

of states mandate restitution in at least some cases (Haynes, Cares, and Ruback, 2015).

Having restitution ordered more consistently, however, does not necessarily translate into it

being paid more reliably (Davis, Smith and Hildebrand, 1991). States have struggled with

mechanisms to ensure payment of restitution without resorting to further penalizing of-

fenders who lack the ability to pay.In the experimental analysis that ser vesas a backdrop for

Direct correspondence to Maureen Outlaw, Department of Sociology, Providence College, 1 Cunningham

Square, Providence RI 02918 (e-mail: moutlaw@providence.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12406 C2018 American Society of Criminology 783

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 4