Case for Creative Restitution in Corrections

• NCJ Number: 72209
• Journal: Federal Probation Volume: 43 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1979) Pages: 28-35
• Author(s): J H Bridges; J T Gandy; J D Jorgensen
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 8 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Creative restitution incorprates the idea of reeciprocity, thereby satisfying society's need for punishment while providing an offender the opportunity to become proactively engaged in making amends to victims and society.

Abstract

The principles inherent in creative restitution are deeply rooted in the history of civilization, with early criminal law developing around the principle that private wrongs were generally settled on a personal basis. Punishment evolved as the primary philosophical orientation when the State increased its share of offenders' payments, and the victim became the forgotten party. However, volunteerism and self-help have gradually emerged, embracing the concept of restitution. Creative restitution is evolving as a system of monetary payments to the victim, service to the victim, or service to the general community. Restitution made directly to the victim is preferable. Characteristics of creative restitution are that it is an active role for the offender, that the activity has socially constructive consequences related to the offense, that the relationship between offense and restitution is reparative and restorative, and that the reparation may leave the situation better than before the offense was committed. In this last respect, offenders can build their self-respect and gain that of others by performing a meaningful service directly for their victim or generally for society, and thereby become reconciled with society. While restitution must be developed through a contractual relationship between the offender and the victim, and the offender cannot be forced to become involved in such a process, restitution can be built into almost any aspect of the criminal justice process as an option to all offenders. For example, creative restitution could be a means for reducing charges in plea bargaining, a means for testing inmate readiness to accept responsibility for their previous behavior, or a condition of parole enforcement. Theoretical foundations of creative restitution include the symbolic interaction theory (if criminal behavior patterns are to cease, criminal associations should be severed) and the differential association theory (if criminal behavior is learned, then prosocial behavior can be learned). Thirty-six references are provided.