NCJ Number
47061
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 14 Issue: 3 Dated: (MAY-JUNE 1978) Pages: 203-224
Date Published
1978
Length
22 pages
Annotation
VICTIM COMPENSATION AND RESTITUTION PROGRAMS ARE DISCUSSED, AND THE RELATIVE ADEQUACY OF SUCH PROGRAMS IS ANALYZED ON THE BASIS OF DATA FROM THE NATIONAL CRIME SURVEY (NCS).
Abstract
THE CONCEPT OF CRIME VICTIM RESTITUTION BY OFFENDERS CAN BE TRACED BACK TO 1910 PROBATION STATUTES. COMPENSATION SCHEMES USUALLY OPERATED THROUGH AUTONOMOUS BOARDS WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL STATES AND DATE PRIMARILY FROM THE EARLY 1960'S. UNTIL THE 1970'S, RESTITUTION SCHEMES HAD BEEN APPLIED LARGELY IN AN UNSYSTEMATIC MANNER AT THE DISCRETION OF INDIVIDUAL DECISIONMAKERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS. ABOUT HALF THE STATES HAVE IMPLEMENTED LEGISLATION FOR SOME FORM OF VICTIM COMPENSATION; THE PROGRAMS ARE USUALLY PORTRAYED AS SINCERE AND RATIONAL SOCIAL PLANS DESIGNED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CRIME VICTIM. IN REALITY, HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE CASE. MOST PROGRAMS ARE NOT GROUNDED ON RATIONAL PRINCIPLES; MOST PROGRAMS ARE ENCUMBERED BY EXTENSIVE RESTRICTIONS UPON THEIR ABILITY TO ACTUALLY MEET THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS. COMPENSATION PROGRAMS TYPICALLY EXCLUDE VICTIMS OF NONVIOLENT CRIMES, THUS EXCLUDING ABOUT 90 PERCENT OF ALL CRIME VICTIMS WHO, DESPITE THE NONVIOLENT NATURE OF THE CRIME, OFTEN SUFFER GREAT HARDSHIP AND EMOTIONAL DAMAGE AND WHO ARE UNLIKELY TO RECEIVE RESTITUTION FROM OTHER SOURCES. FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON BENEFITS FOR VIOLENT CRIME VICTIMS, SUCH AS THE EXCLUSION OF MENTAL INJURY AND MINIMUM FINANCIAL LOSS STANDARDS, SUCCESSFULLY EXCLUDE ALL BUT A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF VICTIMS FROM COMPENSATION. THE BASIC PREMISE OF RESTITUTION SCHEMES IS THAT THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME. THE MAJOR DIFFICULTY WITH THIS APPROACH IS THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE OFFENDER'S CAPTURE AND ABILITY TO MAKE RESTITUTION. AS IN PUBLIC COMPENSATION SCHEMES, RESTITUTION IS LIMITED AS TO THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS IT CAN REACH BECAUSE FEW OFFENDERS ARE CAUGHT, AND BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OPERATES IN SUCH A WAY AS TO VIRTUALLY ASSURE THAT OFFENDERS WILL NOT MAKE RESTITUTION. VICTIM RESTITUTION ASSUMES A LOW PRIORITY IN THE HIERARCHY OF TRADITIONAL SYSTEM GOALS OF PUNISHMENT, DETERRENCE, REHABILITATION, AND INCAPACITATION. CONSEQUENTLY, RESTITUTION HAS GENERALLY BEEN LIMITED TO VICTIMS OF LESS SERIOUS OFFENSES AND PROPERTY CRIMES, OFFENSES WITH THE LOWEST POLICE CLEARANCE RATES. IN THE PAST 4 OR 5 YEARS, HOWEVER, INNOVATIVE RESTITUTION PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WHICH INDICATE THAT IT CAN BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY, PARTICULARLY IN OFFENSES WHERE THE LOSS IS NOT EXCESSIVE. THE NEED FOR MORE ADEQUATE VICTIM RESTITUTION, COMPENSATION, AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IS SUGGESTED, AND THE ROLE OF THE VICTIM ADVOCATE IS BRIEFLY DISCUSSED. (JAP)