The Use and Effects of Financial Penalties in Municipal Courts

Abstract

With prison, jail, and probation caseloads overloaded, financial penalties appeal as alternative sanctions. Using probation data for cases sentenced in municipal courts, this paper presents regression analyses suggesting that judges tended to employ rational discretion in imposing economic sanctions, for monetary assessments without jail were most likely to be given to low‐risk offenders and assignment of probation alone and jail terms was most strongly influenced by offense. The amount of the financial sanction was also significantly related to the type of crime. Controlling for individual attributes and offense, the odds of subsequent arrest and incarceration were significantly less for those given a financial penalty than for those receiving a jail sentence.

Monetary Sanctions: Legal Financial Obligations in US Systems of Justice

“…On the negative side, to the extent that people are unable to pay the monetary sanctions imposed, recidivism might be expected to increase. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that monetary sanctions increase the likelihood of probation revocation among adults (Gordon & Glaser 1991). In a study of a sample of juveniles in Pennsylvania, owing restitution and other costs significantly increased the likelihood of subsequent adjudication and conviction (Piquero & Jennings 2016).…”

“…In other states, such as Pennsylvania, race and ethnicity appear to have no association with the total amount of monetary sanctions but type of offense is most pertinent (Ruback & Clark 2011, Ruback et al 2004. Across several states, fines and fees are more likely to be imposed for drug and traffic offenses, whereas restitution is more likely to be assessed for property crimes (Gordon & Glaser 1991, Ruback & Clark 2011, Ruback et al 2004). Other characteristics also predict the imposition of monetary sanctions for both misdemeanor and felony offenses (Gordon & Glaser 1991, Ruback & Clark 2011.…”

“…On the positive side, there is some evidence to suggest that monetary sanctions directed primarily at restitution contribute to lower recidivism rates (Gordon & Glaser 1991, Ruback et al 2004). On the negative side, to the extent that people are unable to pay the monetary sanctions imposed, recidivism might be expected to increase.…”

“…Across several states, fines and fees are more likely to be imposed for drug and traffic offenses, whereas restitution is more likely to be assessed for property crimes (Gordon & Glaser 1991, Ruback & Clark 2011, Ruback et al 2004). Other characteristics also predict the imposition of monetary sanctions for both misdemeanor and felony offenses (Gordon & Glaser 1991, Ruback & Clark 2011. Men are more likely to have higher monetary sanctions assessed in Washington State ).…”

“…Monetary sanctions are often referred to as intermediate, alternative, or less-restrictive punishments (Gordon & Glaser 1991, Hillsman 1990 Pa.C.S.A § 9721). Yet in current practice, monetary sanctions are very often sentenced in addition to other common penalties such as community service, probation or parole, and incarceration (Adamson 1983, Bannon et al 2010, Blackmon 2009, Oshinsky 1997.…”