Restitution, An Analysis of the Victim-Offender Relationship Towards a Working Model in Australia

• NCJ Number: 80063
• Author(s): A M E Duckworth
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 19 pages
• Corporate Author: Western Australia Dept of Corrections
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: Australia
• Note: Research and Information number 17 - A version of this paper was presented for discussion at the Conference of Ministers in Charge of Prisons, Probation and Parole, Broome 1979.

Annotation

This paper briefly traces the history of restitution, its demise and recent reappearance as a model for administering justice, and then outlines a provisional model of victim-offender restitution for Australia.

Abstract

Interest in restitution has revived in recent years because of disillusionment with the treatment and deterrent models of justice, increasing concern for the victim, and pressures to contain correctional costs. A review of restitution in European history notes that the concept operated as part of the justice system until States began to assume control over criminal law in the Middle Ages. Debate on restitution programs continued sporadically until the present day when penal reformers have again advanced the concept. Several restitution programs currently operating in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain are described which illustrate a variety of philosophies and goals, but all represent a common dissatisfaction with the justice system and its neglect of the victim. The community service order popular in Great Britain and to a limited extent, in Australia, requires an offender to perform useful work for the community after normal working hours instead of going to prison. Programs in North America have centered more directly on the victim-offender relationship by negotiating restitution payments or service between the parties. In contrast to the community service order, these schemes directly compensate the victim and allow offenders to feel they have paid for the crime in a satisfying and relevant way. A similar model for Australia is proposed which initially would deal with relatively minor cases, such as petty theft, that involve identifiable victims and defendants who wish to plead guilty. In these circumstances, restitution would be tried first in preference to a traditional sentence. Offender and victim should consent to meet together in an informal setting with a third party to work out a universally acceptable plan that would define the form of restitution payments. Sample cases, the third party's role, and documentation are discussed. Problems which might accompany the implementation of a restitution program are addressed, including selection of offenders, offender employment and offenders' ability to pay, insurance, and costs. The paper contains 31 footnotes.