Victim Compensation and Restitution Essay in Criminal Justice
Funding a Victim Compensation Program
A victim compensation program may be a financial reimbursement or other forms of returns to the individuals, or where applicable, to the relatives of victims who have suffered direct loss from a crime. The compensation program covers a wide variety of crime-related expenses such as mental health counseling, medical costs, wages lost as a direct result of the criminal activity, funeral costs, among others (CSG Justice Center Staff, 2017). All the areas of compensation mentioned here apply differently based on the context of crime and compensation relevance. Victim compensation program is funded and operated at both national and state levels. In the U.S, each state has a well established crime compensation program that allocates funds to the victims of crimes.
The compensation program is funded from the fines and fees collected in the judicial system from perpetrators of crime. It follows that whenever a crime has been committed, the judicial process will see to it that the relevant fee and fine from the crime is collected as part of guaranteeing justice to the affected individuals. It also follows that in each state, fees collected from traffic offenders are usually collected within a common pool. Among the uses of the fines and fees collected from people who receive traffic violations is compensation of individuals who are proven to be victims of a crime. There are also certain states that allocate general state funds to the victims compensation program. Therefore, a victim compensation program is funded and operated at the state level through fees and fines collected within the justice system from criminals, from traffic offenders, and from general state funds (CSG Justice Center Staff, 2017).
Understanding the law of victim compensation and restitution is essential for students studying criminal justice or preparing legal assignments. If you’re working on a law essay, homework, or research paper, our experts can guide you with detailed explanations and structured writing support. At My Homework Helpline’s Law Homework Assistance, we provide personalized academic help to ensure your assignments are accurate, well-researched, and ready to impress.
Historical View of Restitution
Restitution, from the criminal perspective, is all about partial or complete compensation for loss that a criminal pays to a victim. The restitution is mostly part of the condition for probation or sentence of the criminal. As the Office of Justice Programs puts it, the historical perspective of restitution has seen its evolution from more than just an individual way of giving back what is lost or reclaiming what belongs to a victim (Rhyme & O’ Connor, 1980). In today’s criminal justice system, restitution is embraced nationally as a correctional tool mostly for non-incarcerated convicted defendants who are obligated to compensate victims fully, or in part, of the amount that is lost as result of their criminal activities (Rhyme & O’ Connor, 1980).
The historical perspective of restitution helps to understand today’s models because first, it lays the foundation from which the concept of compensation in all levels is understood. For instance, when a child is involved in an act that causes harm to another being or leads to damage of property, the court can order supervised tasks that the child participates in as a form of punishment. This way, the child understands the magnitude of their mistake and the victim is also not denied justice for reasons like the perpetrator being a child. Secondly, it helps understand how today’s models create positive solutions and positive behaviors. Unlike the historical ways where a criminal offense was severely punished, today’s model offers an opportunity for rehabilitation, compensation, responsibility, behavior change, assistance of victims, social assistance, among many other issues covered in the models. A good example is where rather than a linear decision of punishment that incarcerates adult offenders or does not take action for children, restitution ensures that punishment is holistic and not meant to inspire hate but to bring positive change by compensating the victims, holding perpetrators responsible, and ensuring social justice.
Why an Incarcerated Prisoner Should Not Make Restitution to a Victim
As highlighted in the preceding section, restitution mostly works by compensating victims as a condition for probation. Part of the logic behind restitution is to minimize punishment through incarceration and to have an alternative to the conventional imprisonment of convicted offenders. An incarcerated prisoner should not make restitution to a victim because that would amount to double punishment. The intent of the court of law is not to severely punish an individual but to ensure justice is served fairly proportionate to the crime that has been committed. If an incarcerated individual is instructed to make restitution to a victim, then this would directly imply that the judicial system, specifically the judge handling the case, is partial and inconsiderate of the details involved. While it is important to ensure that justice is duly served, it is equally significant to ensure that the process is impartial and consistent with the current legal provisions. Therefore, it is either incarceration and not restitution or compensation and non-incarceration. When a judge makes a ruling on imprisoning an offender, then the incarcerated prisoner is already paying for their actions. For this reason, it is not necessary to ask the same incarcerated prisoner to make restitution as this is ethically unfair and legally irrational. This is why the current model of restitution is adopted by a majority of judges as it helps compensate victims and hold offenders directly responsible.
References
CSG Justice Center Staff. (2017, January 13). In Brief: Victim Compensation Programs and Restitution. CSG Justice Center. https://csgjusticecenter.org/2017/01/13/in-brief-victim-compensation-programs-and-restitution/#:~:text=Funding%20for%20crime%20victim%20compensation
Rhyme, R. F., & O’ Connor, W. P. (1980). Making Restitution Work – A Historical Perspective. Www.ojp.gov. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/making-restitution-work-historical-perspective