Restitution and the Justice Model (From Justice and Fairness, P 52-65, 1981, David Fogel and Joe Hudson, ed. - See NCJ-76564)

• NCJ Number: 76567
• Author(s): J Hudson; B Galaway
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 14 pages
• Grant Number(s): 78-NI-AX-0110
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article reviews the historical evolution of restitution and considers recent policy, legal, and program developments before examining the extent to which restitutive sanctions are conceptually and practically consistent with justice-as-fairness.

Abstract

The idea that rule breakers should be held responsible for making good the damages done is an ancient settlement procedure. With the development of the common law during the 12th and 13th centuries, distinctions were made between civil and criminal law. The interest of the state gradually overshadowed and supplanted those of the victim; restitution was incorporated into the civil law of torts and played an insignificant role in the administration of criminal law. In the 1970's, interest has been revived in using a restitution sanction at alternative points of the justice system. Data show that more restitution programs operate at the pretrial and probation levels than at later points in the criminal justice system. A 1978 survey of all criminal justice State planning agencies, criminal justice local planning units, and all State departments of corrections in the country reported 87 operational restitution projects serving adults. These programs used financial restitution, community service, or a combination of both. The extent to which recent developments in restitution policy, legislation, and programming are consistent with the justice model of corrections is examined. The components of the justice model considered are justice as fairness, offender volition and responsibility, the use of noncustodial sanctions, and consideration for the victim of the crime. Both financial restitution and community service involve more definite penalties imposed upon the offender and hold potential for reducing the severity of penalties, especially the use of incarceration. In addition, they potentially provide victims with an opportunity for meaningful involvement in the justice system. Hopefully, increased use of restitution as the sole penalty for the offender and more creative involvement of victims in the sanctioning process will develop in the future. Forty footnotes are provided.