Research Summary Restitution is court‐ordered payment by an offender to compensate a crime victim for direct tangible losses resulting from the crime. Making regular restitution payments, it has been argued, may serve as a continual reminder to offenders of the harm they caused and their need to restore justice. In this study, we examined the recidivism of offenders who were delinquent in paying restitution and who had participated in a prior experiment aimed at testing whether receiving monthly letters would increase their payment of restitution. Findings from that experiment revealed that offenders who had received letters containing information about the economic sanctions they had paid and what they still owed paid a significantly larger proportion of the restitution owed and made significantly more monthly payments than did offenders in the other three experimental conditions. Results of the present follow‐up study revealed that even though recidivists (as measured by a new arrest) and nonrecidivists did not differ significantly in the amount of restitution they owed, nonrecidivists were more likely to have paid something toward the restitution they owed and more likely to have made more monthly payments. Statistical tests indicated that payment mediated the relationship between the experimental manipulation of information and observed recidivism, suggesting that the experimental manipulation of information led to more payments that, in turn, led to less recidivism. Policy Implications The findings from the prior experiment indicated that offenders who had received information about the economic sanctions they had paid and what they still owed were more likely to make payments. In that study, scholars concluded that giving offenders this information was cost‐effective, in that for every dollar spent, more than $6 in restitution was received. The results of this follow‐up analysis of recidivism demonstrate that the cost‐effectiveness of providing information is greater than previously indicated. At a cost of $64.19 per day for jail in Pennsylvania, the difference of 46.4 days between offenders who received information and those in the other experimental conditions could be as much as $2,978.42 per offender, less the costs of monitoring payments.

A victim's decision to report a crime to the police is typically made after talking with someone else, usually a friend or relative, but sometimes a stranger. The advice this person gives depends primarily on the seriousness of the crime, and to some extent on the gender and age of the victim. The present research, which used experimental vignettes, examined the role of social networks in reporting: How do the relationships among a victim, the advisor, and the offender affect the advice to report or not to report a violent or nonviolent crime? Results from Study 1 indicated that relationships matter: Crimes are least likely to be reported if the offender is part of the same triad as the victim and the advisor, and crimes are most likely to be reported if the victim, the advisor, and the offender are all strangers. Study 1 also found that males are more likely to protect friends who are offenders (by advising against reporting), while females are more likely to protect friends who are victims (by advising them to report). Study 2 found that the effect of these relationships on reporting is conditioned by the nature of the organization to which the offender belongs, such that males are particularly likely to protect their friends in athletic organizations and fraternities when accused of minor property crimes. Both studies found that gender differences in the advice to report are moderated by characteristics of the crime and triad structure.

No abstract