This series of papers investigates money as a criminal sanction using a variety of approaches. Paper 1, "Money As A Criminal Penalty: Its Uses and Meanings," explores the theoretical underpinnings and empirical use of monetary penalties, providing a thorough assessment of the complexities entailed in the fair and efficient use of these sanctions. Paper 2, "Substitute & Supplement: The Multiple Functions of Monetary Penalties in Federal Sentencing," uses an innovative approach of focusing on severity and likelihood for both sanctions. The results of hierarchical linear modeling suggest that monetary penalties are used as both a substitute and supplement to incarceration. The main contribution is a more accurate characterization of the relationship between prison and monetary penalties. Paper 3, "Assessing the Effect of Booker on Monetary Penalties and Prison," explores the effect of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Booker (2005) on the use of monetary penalties and incarceration in federal sentencing. This analysis uses a matching algorithm to create comparison groups with more balanced observable characteristics. The result is consistent evidence that race and gender continue to be quite influential in sentencing outcomes and that greater post-Booker judicial discretion is associated with more volatility in the use of monetary penalties than prison. By providing a thorough, multi-faceted, and methodologically rigorous account of monetary penalties, these papers significantly advance our understanding of a ubiquitous and complex criminal sanction.

In 2016, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors permanently repealed fees charged to youth in the county’s juvenile justice system. Unlike other types of monetary sanctions, like fines and restitution, fees are not intended to punish defendants or repair survivors. Instead, fees are imposed to recoup administrative costs. Increasingly, advocates are highlighting the harm that monetary sanctions can inflict on justice-involved youth and their families, and are calling for fees to be repealed. This study examines whether removing these fees has an appreciable effect on families’ overall financial burden by applying a rigorous causal-inference approach to data on 2,401 youth placed on probation before and after the fee repeal.

This work has been supported, in part, by the University of California Multicampus Research Programs and Initiatives grants MRP-19-600774 and M21PR3278.