NCJ Number
114136
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 52 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1988) Pages: 3-14
Date Published
1988
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This article reviews what has been learned about restitution since the 1972 establishment of the Minnesota Restitution Center in light of early theory in this area by Stephen Schaefer.
Abstract
In his work (1960-1975), Schaefer described restitution as a synthetic punishment that could unite all the objectives of corrections in a single method. He also viewed restitution as a mechanism for integrating victim and offender interests. An analysis of experiences with restitution programming indicates that it can be implemented without undue difficulty in both the adult and juvenile justice systems. Studies of the effectiveness of such programs show successful offender completion rates ranging from 52 to 91 percent. Restitution amounts have not been difficult to determine, and compliance rates have been high when the programs focused on systematic efforts to secure compliance. These findings also are applicable to victim-offender reconciliation programs. Studies of victim, offender, and community attitudes toward restitution suggest that it is logically consistent with the notion of just deserts and that it is generally perceived to be fair. Studies comparing recidivism rates among offenders assigned to restitution or other correctional programs suggest that restitution is more likely to result in program completion and that program completion is related to lower recidivism. Finally, public opinion surveys indicate public and victim support for substituting restitution for other sanctions, including incarceration. The need to clarify differences between restitution and community service is discussed, as are future directions for restitution. 4 figures and 73 references.