The New Restitution: How Debt, Taxation, and Punishment are Transforming Restorative Aims in Criminal Justice

• In Event: Multi-State Study of Monetary Sanctions

Abstract

The otherwise straightforward rationale for restitution (a way to compensate a victim for the harm of a criminal act) begins to unravel with the fact that it actually takes two forms: direct and indirect. With direct restitution, a person commits an offense with quantifiable harm and literally repays the victim for that harm. With indirect restitution, however, a jurisdiction collects restitution from anyone convicted of any type of offense and then disburses restitution to victims who apply for funds and meet certain requirements (e.g. ability to prove loss from crime, crime reported in a timely fashion). To explore how restitution functions as both a tax and a punishment, this project uses data about state-run Victim Compensation Funds, policies governing assessment and collection of restitution, statistics about the amount of unpaid restitution debt, and interviews with people who owe restitution. We find that the tax-like nature of most restitution reflects a nationwide shift toward jurisdictions using monetary sanctions as a source of revenue. We also find that paying restitution to the state, versus to an individual person, not only eludes the purposes of restitution, but it engenders resentment and confusion amongst those who have to pay it. The findings point to a need for revised policy guiding the collection and distribution of restitution in the United States.

Authors

• Karin Martin, The Graduate Center, John Jay College / CUNY

• Kimberly Spencer-Suarez, Columbia University