Use and Effectiveness of Fines, Jail and Probation in Municipal Courts

• NCJ Number: 116284
• Author(s): D Glaser; M A Gordon
• Date Published: 1988
• Length: 183 pages
• Grant Number(s): 86-IJ-CX-0028
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Corporate Author: University of Southern California
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study used data from 2,000 cases closed in Los Angeles County in 1984 to examine the attributes of offenders receiving various penalties and the relative effectiveness of various penalties for differing types of offenders. Data set archived by the NIJ Data Resources Program at the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, located at URL http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/nacjd.

Abstract

In these cases, the Los Angeles Municipal Courts sentenced 55 percent to probation without financial penalties, 23 percent to probation plus financial penalty, 8 percent to jail without financial penalty, and 14 percent to jail plus probation plus financial penalty. Offense was the main determinant of the type of penalty imposed, although offender characteristics of race, educational attainment, and employment status also were related to penalty or combination of penalties used. Overall, about two-thirds of fines and cost-of-probation penalties were paid in full, while 55 percent of restitution charges were paid in full. Prior criminal record and drug problem best predicted postrelease recidivism and nonpayment of fines. Since jailing costs $900 per month, incapacitates only briefly, and criminalizes those not already highly criminalized, it is recommended that a cost-benefit approach to sanctions be used that considers offender criminality and ability to pay, as well nonfinancial penalties such as community service and house arrest. 24 tables and 16 footnotes. (Author abstract modified)