Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Crime & Delinquency
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ruback, R. B.
Right arrow Articles by Shaffer, J. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Assessing the Impact of Statutory Change: A Statewide Multilevel Analysis of Restitution Orders in Pennsylvania

R. Barry Ruback

Department of Sociology, Penn State University

Gretchen R. Ruth

Department of Sociology, Penn State University

Jennifer N. Shaffer

Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Arizona State University

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 1990-1994prestatutory 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.

Key Words: restitution • sentencing • contextual factor • economic sanctions

Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 51, No. 3, 318-342 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0011128704269108
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?