Research Note

• Author: Wesley G. Jennings,Alex R. Piquero
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Date: 01 July 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016669213
• Subject Matter: Research Notes

Research Note
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2017, Vol. 15(3) 325-340
Research Note: Justice
ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
System–Imposed Financial
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204016669213
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
Penalties Increase the Likelihood
of Recidivism in a Sample of
Adolescent Offenders
Alex R. Piquero1 and Wesley G. Jennings2
Abstract
Although the use of financial penalties is pervasive in the justice system, there has been limited (and
mostly dated) empirical research that has investigated the effect of financial costs incurred by
juvenile offenders and the extent to which such costs relate to the likelihood of recidivism and
reintegration into society. This study uses data from a large cohort of adolescent offenders to
examine how demographics and case characteristics relate to financial penalties imposed by the
justice system and the degree to which such monetary penalties are related to recidivism in a 2-year
follow-up. Results suggest that financial penalties increase the likelihood of recidivism. Study lim-
itations and directions for future research are also discussed.
Keywords
juveniles, delinquency, recidivism, restitution, costs, fines, fees
There are a wide range of criminal punishments available to judges and juries when it comes to
sanctioning an offender for their transgression(s), the most common of which is probation, with
other options including imprisonment and other community correction alternatives (boot camps,
intensive supervision, etc.; see Morris & Tonry, 1990). One type of punishment that is also used is
that of a fine, a punishment that has been around for several centuries (e.g., Beccaria, 1764/1986;
Ruback & Bergstrom, 2006). One would suspect, then, that knowledge about the effect of fines on
subsequent reoffending, or recidivism, would be as commonplace as are recidivism-based investi-
gations for the more widely used punishments. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions (Albrecht &
Johnson, 1980; Glaser & Gordon, 1988; MacDonald, Greene, & Worzella, 1992) that is not the case,
as much of the research surrounding fines has been administrative or process based (cf. Hillsman,
1 Program in Criminology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
2 University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Alex R. Piquero, Program in Criminology, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Rd., GR31, Richardson,
TX 75080, USA.
Email: apiquero@utdallas.edu

---

326
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(3)
1990) and seems to be more focused on the extent to which the use of monetary penalties dispro-
portionately impacts poor defendants because of their general inability to pay (Beckett, Harris, &
Evans, 2008; Council of Economic Advisers, 2015). Still, even in the handful of studies that have
examined the relationship between fines and recidivism, the results have been mixed.
There are also other types of ‘‘costs’’ that could be incurred by a sanctioned offender, such as
legal financial obligations, to include ‘‘fees (cost assessments, surcharges, and interest), fines, and
restitution orders that are imposed by courts and other criminal justice agencies on persons accused
of crimes’’ (Beckett & Harris, 2011, p. 509). According to the Council of Economic Advisers (2015,
p. 1), fines ‘‘are monetary punishments for infractions, misdemeanors, or felonies [and] are intended
to deter crime, punish offenders, and compensate victims for losses.’’ On the other hand, fees
are itemized payments for court activities, supervision, or incarceration charged to defendants deter-
mined guilty of infractions, misdemeanors or felonies. Fee collections are intended to support opera-
tional costs in the criminal justice system and may also be used to compensate victims for losses. Fees
may also have a punitive and deterrent purpose, but are not designed to cater to specific offense
categories.1
Most recently, Beckett and Harris (2011) provided a detailed history of the use of monetary
sanctions in the adult criminal justice system in the United States, and they reported that monetary
sanctions have (1) existed for many centuries in the United States, (2) legislatures have authorized
new fees and fines in recent years, and (3) that criminal justice agencies appear to be more increas-
ingly open to imposing them. Furthermore, they indicated that there were over 20 different fines and
fees that can be imposed on an offender when convicted of a felony in the state of Washington, for
example. Overall, their analysis of the imposition of financial penalties on adult offenders in
Washington state led them to conclude that the magnitude of the fines and fees imposed, the low
repayment rates, and the accrual of interest for lack of timely repayment all served as explanations as
to why justice system debt is often, and likely will be, a long-term debt/burden with implications for
recidivism and reintegration.
Caution is needed here, however, as it is critically important to understand that there are stark
philosophical differences between the adult criminal justice system and the juvenile justice system,
and these differences inform the variability in their applications of and expectations for financial
sanctions. For instance, the adult criminal justice system is primarily retribution oriented, and as
such, the imposition of financial penalties is clearly intended to serve as punishments (generally in
addition to probation or incarceration). In contrast, certain financial penalties, such as restitution, for
example, in the juvenile justice system is more heavily predicated on the juvenile justice system’s
rehabilitation-oriented philosophy and on its inherent mission and goals of promoting accountabil-
ity, increasing youth competency (e.g., education, vocational skills, life skills, etc.), repairing the
harm done to the victim/s, and engaging the community in this process (Bazemore, 1992; Bazemore
& Maloney, 1994; Maloney, Romig, & Armstrong, 1988; Umbreit, 1989; Van Ness, 1990; Zehr,
1990). Acknowledging these important differences between the adult criminal justice system and the
juvenile justice system, for present study purposes, it is worth noting that research on the relationship
between the imposition of financial penalties and recidivism in general and among juvenile offen-
ders in particular is noticeably lacking in the literature. This state of affairs is rather unfortunate for
several reasons.
First, not only may the imposition of financial penalties be applied disproportionately to persons
who lack the financial means by which to pay them, which may increase their likelihood of
reoffending, but these monetary sanctions may also be disproportionately applied to minority
(offending) youth who are already at increased risk for differential juvenile and adult justice system
involvement (Piquero, 2008). Second, the imposition of financial penalties to young persons, who

---

Piquero and Jennings
327
typically do not have the requisite financial resources to pay such costs because of the lack of
(gainful) employment, may also serve as a barrier to their eventual and effective reintegration back
into mainstream society. This circumstance may, in turn, increase the likelihood of further penetra-
tion into the juvenile (and potentially adult) justice system that is likely to lead to additional
disruptions and adverse consequences in other life domains such as education and eventual employ-
ment. Third, serious juvenile offenders who encounter experience with the juvenile justice system
are at a key period in the life course, when turning points and life events may influence their
subsequent offending trajectory (Laub & Sampson, 2001; Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein,
2003; Piquero, Hawkins, & Kazemian, 2012). It is well known that the majority of criminal careers
end by the end of adolescence (Moffitt, 1993), yet individuals who experience snares, such as an
excessive financial penalty, may be redirected away from potential desistance and back toward
offending in order to obtain resources to pay such penalties. As a result of these juvenile-specific
issues, studying the consequences of excessive financial penalties among adolescent offenders
represents a critically important opportunity among the policy-relevant group, given the potential
impact that their continued offending and its consequences may have on the youth, their families,
and society more generally (see Cohen & Piquero, 2009; Mulvey et al., 2004).
At the same time, there are a handful of older studies that do provide some evidence to inform
expectations for our analysis of the relationship between financial penalties and recidivism among
juveniles. For example, recidivism rates derived from the 1980s and 1990s among youth court
ordered to pay for restitution range from 10% to 80% (Beck-Zierdt, 1980; Crotty & Meier, 1980;
Roy, 1995; Schneider & Schneider, 1984). Furthermore, Schneider (1986) reviewed the results
from randomized experiments that were simultaneously conducted in four jurisdictions: Boise, ID;
Washington, DC; Clayton County, GA; and Oklahoma County, OK. In general, the results sug-
gested that the imposition of restitution was significantly related to recidivism, although addi-
tional evidence demonstrated that in two of the four jurisdictions, the juveniles who were
randomly assigned to restitution as a sanction had fewer contacts with the court in the 2- to 3-
year follow-up period. Alternatively, Butts and Snyder (1992) analyzed 7,233 juvenile cases that
were...