Source: (2014) The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 104(2): 389-430.
Restitution is a familiar tool. Court-ordered restitution is used widely
in white-collar cases, and voluntary restitution also plays a background role,
although published decisions rarely acknowledge and examine it. While the
availability of mandatory restitution may appear on its face to obviate the need to encourage offenders to voluntarily repay their victims, a closer look
at existing practices demonstrates that the prevailing mandatory approach is
ineffective. Mechanisms for enforcing restitution judgments are imperfect
at best, collection rates are abysmally low, and offenders use a panoply of
evasive tactics to avoid their obligations.2 Consequently, mandatory
restitution orders may have expressive value, but their restorative effects
tend to fall short of the mark. Their use in lieu of possibly more helpful
alternative measures fails to leverage the power of the courts to induce
remedial, and possibly more socially responsible, behavior. (excerpt)
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.
Donate Now