fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (03/06/85)
All of these 'real world' postings are from Reason magazine, unless otherwise noted. Restitution -- making criminals compensate the victims of their crimes -- has been almost completely absent from the American criminal-justice system. So when the higheest legal officer of the nation's second-most populous state calls for making restitution part of the penal system, it is an event worth noting. Robert Abrams, attorney general of New York, recently argued for restitution in a New York Times opinion piece. Not only would the propsect of facing "economic sanctions" help deter criminal activity, Abrams contended, but "restitution also supports the rehabiliation aims of modern penology by encouraging the offender to acknowledge and assume responsibility for his act." Indeed, the notion of individual responsibility is a fundamental pillar of a free society, in which the rights of individuals are held inviolable. What follows from the application of this principle to true criminal acts -- acts where someone's rights have been violated -- is the requirement of restitution. But in the American legal system, crimes are conceived of as offenses against the state, so the government monopolizes criminal prosecution. Victims, if they seek restitution, must sue for it in civil courts. And for a variety of reasons -- time and expense, fear of reprisal from their victimizers, reluctance to go through a second trial, etc -- this option is often rejected. "Several states now mandate victim restitution where feasible," Abrams reported. "In Arizona," he noted, "courts may allocate all or part of criminal fines as restitution to the victim." And in New York, recent legislation now enables authorities to confiscate and sell a criminal's property, with the proceeds "distributed first to the victim as restitution for damages". A perennial argument against restitution is that most criminals are destitute, so restitution would be applied differently for rich and poor offenders. Abrams specifically engaged this argument, suggesting that through "expanded work-release programs and prison-based industries," criminals might earn the means to pay back their victims. In a later letter to the Times, anthropologist Rolando Alum, Jr., noted that restitution is an old idea that has been incorporated into the penal systems of many societies, both ancient and modern. He called Abram's proposals "plausible options for our penal system." Indeed, Alum wrote, they "should be quite effective in an open society." Not only effective, but just, as well. --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/07/85)
I agree with making restitution rather than punishment the basis for
treatment of crime. I am not so sure that fostering a plethora of
civil suits tho is the best way to institute such a policy.
Rather the court system should administer a system of restitution
and trying to bring criminal offenders to see the consequences of
their crimes rather than the current system of jailing them with
a bunch of other criminals who foster further lawlessness rather
than improved behavior.
For one I actually agree with a Libertarian position!
tim sevener whuxl!orb