NCJ Number
108489
Date Published
1987
Length
0 pages
Annotation
The presenters provide a historical overview of community service and restitution and examine their effectiveness in achieving traditional correctional goals.
Abstract
The historical overview by Michael Smith, director of the Vera Institute in New York, notes that community service was initially provided in lieu of fines for poor offenders and then was more recently propounded by the British as an alternative to jail for less serious offenders. Restitution was popular when victims initiated action against offenders, but when the State assumed responsibility for prosecutions, restitution diminished in use until the cause was recently advanced by victim advocates. In examining the effectiveness of community service and restitution in achieving traditional correctional goals, Judge Lee Sarokin of the U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J., argues that neither community service nor restitution achieves deterrence or rehabilitation. This is because it is neither onerous enough to deter crime nor significant enough to achieve behavioral modification. Judge Sarokin is particularly concerned that community service and restitution not be the popular sentences for white-collar crimes. Judge Albert Kramer of the Quincy District Court in Massachusetts argues that both community service and restitution have the symbolic and actual value of forcing the offender to contribute something positive to the community or the crime victim. He argues that compared to prison, these alternatives are cheaper and have better potential for achieving a rehabilitative goal. He speaks from the experience of having initiated a community work program for offenders in Quincy. Audience questions are included.