Is Restitution Legislation the Chameleon of the Victims' Movement? (From Criminal Justice, Restitution, and Reconciliation, P 73-80, 1990, Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson, eds. -- See NCJ-126460)

• NCJ Number: 126467
• Author(s): C Shapiro
• Date Published: 1990
• Length: 8 pages
• Sale Source: Criminal Justice Press/Willow Tree Press
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper explores problems raised by statutory restitution provisions as well as enforcement issues and pervasive value conflict inherent in the U.S. criminal justice system.

Abstract

The key concern of the discussion is how restitution legislation is chameleon-like, in that it assumes different "colors" depending on the use to which it is put. Although most States have included restitution within "Victims Bills of Rights" legislation, there is considerable variation in statutory language and provisions within States and even within jurisdictions. In most cases, the problem is that restitution is just another "add-on" to a long laundry list of probation supervision conditions. Restitution will only receive its due emphasis when risk-control and retribution cease to become the primary foci of probation. The enforcement of restitution as a probation condition is typically compromised by probation-officer role confusion, duplication of services, lack of specific policy guidelines, and competition for limited resources. Values affecting laws, individual victims, offenders, and local communities fluctuate as rapidly as resources dictate. The first step toward more effective restitution legislation is to clarify the philosophical underpinnings of restitution orders by placing greater emphasis on restitution in relation to retribution and risk control. 21 references