Restitution

• Date: 01 November 2018
• Author: Alison C. Cares,Stacy H. Haynes
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12402
• Published date: 01 November 2018

POLICY ESSAY

RESTITUTION PAYMENT AND

RECIDIVISM

Restitution

A Different Kind of Economic Sanction?

Alison C. Cares

Assumption College

Stacy H. Haynes

Mississippi State University

Economic sanctions, also known as legal financial obligations (Harris, 2016), mon-

etary sanctions (Beckett and Harris, 2011), and criminal penalties (Piquero and

Jennings, 2017), are one aspect of sentencing that has been largely overlooked. In

the United States, however, the use of economic sanctions is widespread and the amount

of economic sanctions imposed is high. Research findings have revealed that economic

sanctions are imposed in 21% to 100% of cases (Harris, Evans, and Beckett, 2011; U.S.

Sentencing Commission, 2018) and that median amounts imposed per case range from

$486 to $1,398 (Greenburg, Meredith, and Morse, 2016; Harris et al., 2011; Ruback and

Clark, 2011; Weisburd,Einat, and Kowalski, 2008). These findings may be why, particularly

during the last 10 years, economic sanctions have received greater research attention.

Economic sanctions have also been the focus of considerable policy change, such as the

ordinance eliminating county costs and fees in San Francisco (Thandani, 2018), the court

decision limiting the imposition of some fines and fees in New Orleans (Sledge, 2018), and

the state supreme court cases banning a special surcharge (NBC Montana, 2018). These

types of policy changes are the result of widespread concerns about imposing high amounts

of economic sanctions on mostly poor offenders (Hitt, 2015; Human Rights Watch, 2014)

and about subsequently incarcerating those who are unable to pay, an act signaling a return

to the use of debtors’ prisons (ACLU of Ohio, 2013; Sobol, 2016; U.S. Department of

Justice, 2015). A related concern is that high amounts of economic sanctions and payment

enforcement practices may amplify recidivism (Harris, 2016), in part, by encouraging

offenders to engage in illegal activities to pay their amounts owed. Given these findings and

Direct correspondence to Alison C. Cares, Department of Sociology & Criminology, Assumption College, 500

Salisbury Street, Worcester, MA 01609 (e-mail: a.cares@assumption.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12402 C2018 American Society of Criminology 815

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 4