Introduction
Restitution denotes a lawful act that entails returning something to a victim which was unlawfully taken or compensating them for harm caused. In criminology, restitution is ordered as a part of a plea or sentence agreement where the offenders compensate the victims for the damage they caused (Martin & Fowle, 2020). Punishing offenders due to their unjust acts fails to address the core causes as well as social circumstances that prompted criminality, and thus punishments need to be lenient and integrate more rehabilitative approaches such as restitution. Restitution strives to make victims whole again by reinstating their position before the crime happened. Besides, when offenders fulfill their restitution obligations, they experience greater self-worth feeling as they recognize the price of their criminal conduct. More so, restitution holds a deterrent influence since offenders attempt to avoid future delinquency and guarantee that victims’ status will be restored after damage.
Remarkably, restitution takes various forms, like community services, returning taken property, and monetary payments. Community service restitution seems to be common when adult offenders are involved since it avoids offenders’ contact with their victims. This seems easy as the offender is not required to get a job to pay the victim, and monitoring the offender’s improvement gets easier. Monetary restitution refers to the reimbursement a victim receives to cover losses instigated by the misconduct (Martin & Fowle, 2020). Also, the offender may be forced to return stolen assets or property to the victim. These restitutions are under two classes indirect and direct type. Direct restitution entails paying the victims directly, particularly through money for damages caused (Martin & Fowle, 2020). On the other hand, indirect restitution demands other work or community services that benefit society as a whole (Martin & Fowle, 2020). Besides, indirect restitution is ideal when direct compensation will not be adequate or possible for the victim. This paper highlights different restitution types, associated problems, its collection, improvement areas, and new policies or programs that could help reestablish victims.
Restitution Problems
Restitution, although an alternative punishment, still comes with its challenges. Among the main issues in restitution is that some wrongdoers cannot pay the requested sum due to restricted financial resources or are reluctant to commit due to a lack of repentance or meanness (Martin & Fowle, 2020). Besides, this leaves victims with deep hollows since they are not compensated for the damages and harm they suffered. Again, the restitution collection process seems complicated and lengthy (Paik, 2020). Victims could be needed to maneuver intricate legal systems; after all, they may fail to receive compensation for years. Besides, victims may lack the know-how to collect restitution or may have limited access to legal support and resources to assist them.
Collection Process
Restitution is usually ordered via a court directive. Notably, the court determines the restitution amount owed and orders the wrongdoer to recompense the victim (Bawono, 2021). When the offender fails, legal consequences may follow, such as imprisonment or fines. Typically, restitution is collected through various methods like tax refunds, property liens, or wage garnishment. Even though these approaches may seem effective, much more can be done to streamline the process.
One area that can be improved in this process is ensuring that victims have it easier when collecting their compensation. Besides, this could entail offering more support and resources to victims in getting their payments and smoothening the legal course to ensure victims are not subjected to burdensome processes (Bawono, 2021). For instance, technology utilization can help streamline this restitution process. Digitized wage garnishment and online payments can make the process less burdensome and more efficient for offenders and victims. Also, jurisdictions need to implement a restitution fund for victims, which can assist in compensating the victims when offenders are not in a position to pay (Bawono, 2021). Such a scheme can ensure victims receive something irrespective of the wrongdoer’s financial status. In addition, during sentencing, the importance of restitution should be emphasized, at the courts should take up the role of following if the victim is compensated rather than leaving them alone to pursue their compensation.
New Policies and Programs
Victims have the right to be compensated for damages they have suffered from crimes, and this calls for restitution policies and programs to help victims. Victims compensation fund would be an ideal program to help victims get their payback (Martin & Fowle, 2020). Notably, this fund can help assist crime victims by offering financial support, including lost wages, costs incurred from the crime, or medical bill compensation. Besides, this fund can be publicly financed through taxes, and it would assist victims in moving on with their lives normally and recovering from crime trauma. Education or training programs in which offenders earn can help compensate victims (Bawono, 2021). This would ensure offenders become productive society members and victims receive something to nurse the damages sustained.
Conclusion
Restitution seems an essential component in criminal justice since it holds offenders liable for their crimes and helps in compensating victims for damage incurred. Even though there are some problems with this approach, some areas can be improved for it to be effective. By adopting new policies and programs and leveraging technology, victims can be sure they will receive restitution which they are eligible to. Besides, through restitution, offenders can be seen as responsible society members. Restitution aims to ensure that the justice system becomes just and fair.
References
Bawono, B. T. (2021). Restitution Rights As A Construction Of Justice Referring To The Law On Protection Of Witnesses And Victims. International Journal of Law Reconstruction, 5(1), 25-36.
Martin, K. D., & Fowle, M. Z. (2020). Restitution without Restoration? Exploring the Gap between the Perception and Implementation of Restitution. Sociological Perspectives, 63(6), 1015-1037.
Paik, L. (2020). Reflection on the Rhetoric and Realities of Restitution. UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review, 4(1).
write