Citation

Ruback RB, Ruth GR, Shaffer JN. Crime Delinq. 2005; 51(3): 318-342.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2005, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This research analyzed decisions in 170,260 restitution-eligible cases in Pennsylvania from 1990 to 1998 to infer the policies underlying the imposition of restitution when it was discretionary and to assess whether a 1995 statutory change making restitution mandatory changed those policies. Multilevel analyses of restitution decisions from the 1990-1994 prestatutory change period suggested that judges considered restitution to be both a victim-focused sanction, in that restitution was ordered more for offenders who committed more serious crimes and for property offenders (whose crimes could be more easily quantified), and an offender-focused sanction, in that restitution was ordered more for offenders who pleaded guilty, offenders with no prior record, White offenders, and female offenders. The statutory change increased the proportion of restitution orders statewide from 1996 to 1998. Moreover, it appeared to meet the policy goal of greater focus on victims. (Abstract Adapted from Source: Crime and Delinquency, 2005. Copyright © 2005 by SAGE Publications)

1990s
Pennsylvania
Victim Restitution
Crime Effects
Property Crime
Adult Crime
Adult Offender
Offender Punishment
Crime Victim
10-05