NCJ Number
16518
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 10 Issue: 7 Dated: (SEPTEMBER 1974) Pages: 605-636
Date Published
1974
Length
31 pages
Annotation
DISCUSSION OF DIFFERENT ACTUAL OR PROPOSED SYSTEMS IN EITHER THE STATE OR THE OFFENDER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VICTIM COMPENSATION OR RESTITUTION.
Abstract
THE USE OF VICTIM COMPENSATION, RESTITUTION, AND COMPOSITION IS TRACED THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FIVE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF RESTITUTION OR COMPENSATION ARE IDENTIFIED AND COMPARED. STATE PARTICIPATION IN VICTIM RESTITUTION AS PART OF OFFENDER PUNISHMENT IS ALSO DISCUSSED IN DETAIL. COVERED ARE THE IDEA OF CIVIL VERSUS CRIMINAL WRONGS AND THE TREND TOWARD EMPHASIZING OFFENDER PUNISHMENT OVER VICTIM RESTITUTION. SOME OF THE MOST WIDELY EMPLOYED ARGUMENTS FOR STATE COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME ARE PRESENTED. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VICTIM COMPENSATION (A STATE RESPONSIBILITY) AND VICTIM RESTITUTION (A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFENDER) ARE NOTED. THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT THE AMERICAN TREND IS TOWARD VICTIM COMPENSATION CONSIDERED IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING. THE IDEA OF OFFENDER LIABILITY, IN THE FORM OF CORRECTIONAL RESTITUTION, IS ALSO EXPLORED. DISCUSSED IS THE IDEA OF MAKING RESTITUTION OR COMPENSATION PART OF THE OFFENDER'S PUNISHMENT AND/OR SENTENCE. SUCH A SYSTEM WOULD BOTH PUNISH THE OFFENDER AND MAKE PROVISIONS FOR COMPENSATING VICTIMS OF CRIME FOR LOSS, PERSONAL INJURY, AND ANY OTHER DISADVANTAGE. THE OPERATION OF A SYSTEM IN WHICH THE OFFENDER WOULD HAVE TO MAKE RESTITUTION THROUGH PERSONAL WORK AFTER SERVING HIS PUNISHMENT IS ALSO OUTLINED.