Thus, restitution is said to better satisfy a victim's need for vindication, as the offender must personally acknowledge and account for the offence. Potentially, for the offender, restitution can not only be less punitive, but more rehabilitative than incarceration. It allows the offender to express guilt in a concrete manner.
It provides an alternative sanction with far less stigmatization than incarceration, ultimately better facilitating reintegration. In the United States the Earn-It programme in Quincy, Massachusetts combines restitution orders scheduled, monitored and enforced by the juvenile courts with the support of the local business community in hiring and paying probationed juveniles to work. A portion of the money earned goes to pay the restitution ordered by the court.
Actual loss suffered by the victim and offender's ability to pay figure into the calculus of restitution. Where the offender could not pay all of the restitution, a compensation scheme could supplement the difference. When matched with similar offenders processed through the juvenile justice system, the Vermont Juvenile Court Diversion programme showed significantly lower recidivism rates employing restitution as an alternative sanction to incarceration or intensive probation.
Proponents also cite evidence that restitution sanctions can reduce prison populations and reduce recidivism at a higher rate than incarceration. However, restitution faces many obstacles to effective implementation. Many offenders are never caught, never prosecuted, never convicted; and for those that are convicted, restitution often cannot be monitored and enforced.
Most jurisdictions lack a tradition of ordering restitution and the mechanisms for assuring completion--rarely is restitution ordered, and even rarer is its completion. Some have criticized existing restitution programmes for having too restrictive selection criteria and not truly serving as alternatives to incarceration. Most programmes appear to serve white and middle-class offenders.
Unsystematic application further makes restitution programmes ineffective. Similar research in New Zealand demonstrated that restitution was poorly used, with officials citing reasons such as: violent offences precluded consideration of reparation as a sanction; restitution failed to account for emotional harm; that the system did not view it as a stand-alone sanction; that it did not achieve retributive purposes.
British models also show a "fundamental ambivalence" about the role of restitution in sentencing. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content.
Chapter 1: Introduction to Criminal Law. Search for:. Specific and General Deterrence Deterrence prevents future crime by frightening the defendant or the public. Incapacitation Incapacitation prevents future crime by removing the defendant from society. Retribution Retribution prevents future crime by removing the desire for personal avengement in the form of assault, battery, and criminal homicide, for example against the defendant. Restitution Restitution prevents future crime by punishing the defendant financially.
Figure 1. Key Takeaways Specific deterrence prevents crime by frightening an individual defendant with punishment. General deterrence prevents crime by frightening the public with the punishment of an individual defendant. Incapacitation prevents crime by removing a defendant from society. Retribution prevents crime by giving victims or society a feeling of avengement. Restorative Justice What is Restorative Justice? What is the RJPI? Retribution vs. All rights reserved.
0コメント