Citation

Harland AT, Rosen CJ. Violence Vict. 1990; 5(2): 127-140.

Affiliation

Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1990, Springer Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

2278953

Abstract

Restitution is unique among criminal justice policies by virtue of the widespread support it has attained from many diverse constituencies. Restitution has received such universal praise as a panacea for victims of crime that in recent years a number of American jurisdictions have adopted legislation that creates a presumptive norm that restitution be awarded in appropriate cases. Despite popular support for its increased use and enactment of enabling legislation, restitution continues to be underutilized in actual case dispositions. The authors suggest that the underuse problem will not be cured and the powerful potential that restitution holds as a criminal justice sanction will not be realized until a consensus regarding the definition of restitution is achieved, significant gaps in the technical data about how restitution is effectuated are closed, and practical impediments to awarding and collecting restitution are dissolved. These goals, in turn, cannot be met until policy makers confront and begin to resolve the inherent conflicts posed when a restorative sanction, such as restitution, is pursued in a criminal justice system that is primarily punitive in nature.

Language: en