Restitution in Criminal Law

• NCJ Number: 86347
• Author(s): A T Harland
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 182 pages
• Grant Number(s): 78-NI-AX-0074
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Corporate Author: Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Ctr
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: National Evaluation of Adult Restitution Programs - Research Report, Number 6

Annotation

This descriptive review of restitution in criminal law throughout the United States considers its use at various stages in criminal processing, the substantive and procedural parameters for restitution, and the rationales for it.

Abstract

The earliest stage in criminal processing where restitution is statutorily authorized is at compromise and settlement, and it may also be introduced as an aspect of pretrial diversion. When invoked at sentencing, it is most often associated with probation but may also be in combination with incarceration. Substantive and procedural constraints on restitution include limitations on who may be considered a victim for restitutive purposes, the nature of the offense for which restitution may be ordered, the type of disposition and the offender's ability to pay. Summary procedures are most common in setting the amount and conditions of restitution, with the burden placed upon the offender to contest restitution at the sentencing hearing. Although legislation and appellate courts have given little attention to policies and procedures for collecting and disbursing restitution monies, court action and legislation has mandated payment schedules, the modification of a restitution order upon nonpayment, and enforcement strategies such as liens against the offender's property, attachment of earnings, and levying execution. Rationales for the use of restitution include its convenience for compensating crime victims, its rehabilitation value, and as an alternative to prison. The widespread use of restitution in jurisdictions throughout the United States indicates the need for further study of this practice. A useful starting point might be a cross-jurisdictional state-of-the-art survey to identify significant administrative and procedural variation in restitution programs, primary goals and objectives, and primary goals and objectives. A total of 749 footnotes is provided.