Making Money 'Work' and Post-Verdict Bargaining (From Israel Studies in Criminology, P 205-223, 1979, S Giora Shoham and Anthony Grahame, ed. - See NCJ-74408)

• NCJ Number: 74413
• Author(s): Y Hassin
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 18 pages
• Sale Source: Turtledove Publishing
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: Israel

Annotation

The attitudes of 120 prisoners convicted of property crimes were examined to assess the possible success of a bargaining arrangement between criminals and legal authorities which would allow for reduced sentences for convicted offenders who compensated the economic victims of the their crimes.

Abstract

Study data were collected via questionnaires. Involvement in crime as a way of life was expressed by 44 percent of the prisoners; 21 percent claim that friends influenced their career choice. The rest of the respondents blamed their criminality on various social pressures. Imprisonment was regarded as a professional risk by 71 percent of the prisoners, while the others stated that they simply did not plan to be caught. The attitude that imprisonment is full payment for any debt to society increases with the number of times imprisoned. This attitude was accompanied by the notion that there is no need to return any money or property to the victims of the crimes, but that this money is to be invested so that it can work for the prisoner and grow during the incarceration period. Almost all of the prisoners felt that the victims of crime should be compensated, but only 29 percent felt that they should be the ones to do any of the compensating. However, once convicted, 72 percent stated that they would be prepared to bargain all of their stolen money and property for a cancellation or reduction of sentence. An additional 11 percent stated willingness to bargain part of their money or property for reduction of sentence. The use of post-conviction bargaining and following monitoring for first offenders convicted of property crimes appears feasible. This approach would relieve society and the victims of crimes of the economic burden attached to them. It would also reserve imprisonment for use in more serious cases and reduce the amount of civil litigation to recover compensation from criminals. In addition, it would minimize the economic damage to the crime victim and the state and would eliminate benefits to criminals from investment of stolen property. While post-conviction bargaining will not render absolute justice in terms of applying the strongest possible sanction for criminal acts, it could be a means of achieving practical, utilitarian results which could be of more benefit to society as a whole. Footnotes which include references are included.