Victims' Institute Does Study on Restitution in Texas

Is crime an offense against the individual or society, and how should restitution, or "restorative justice," be handled?

That question has been debated throughout the ages, and even considered by Mosaic Law, the Code of Hammurabi and Roman law, which all contained provisions for restitution.

A recent study by the Crime Victims' Institute at Sam Houston State University provides a look at where Texas stands on restitution, and makes a number of suggestions for changes that may require legislation.

Glen Kercher, director of the institute, said that his study began after Speaker of the House of Representatives Tom Craddick said in 2005 that restitution payment would be a key issue for the 79th Legislative Session. The report has been forwarded to Craddick and other legislators.

The study traces a historical progression in which crimes were primarily regarded as harms against individual victims, until about the 12th century. Offenders were made to pay fines to the king rather than pay restitution to a victim.

In the United States crimes were viewed as acts against the state and criminals ordered to pay their debt to society through fines and imprisonment. Victims were sent to civil courts for restitution issues.

Since the 1970s victim rights have been on the upswing, and in 1972 the first modern restitution center was created in Minnesota.

The issue is often complicated by such variables as an offender's ability to pay and the ability of already-stressed criminal justice agencies to administer the process.

In Texas, the Legislative Budget Board estimated that approximately 50 percent of restitution ordered is actually collected, an amount that is higher than the national figure. In Texas the responsibility for supervising restitution payments falls to Community Supervision and Corrections Departments and the Pardons and Parole Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

The Crime Victims Institute report offers 18 recommendations:

         · Legislation should be enacted that establishes guidelines for the amounts of restitution ordered for particular types of crime or for categories of victim losses.

         · Restitution payments should be a priority over other payments due from the offender, including fines and fees.

         · Texas should create an automated system of monitoring, managing, collecting, and disbursing restitution money.

         · Texas should allow an offender's tax refunds, lottery winnings, and assets acquired while incarcerated to be subject to forfeiture when necessary to fulfill restitution obligations.

         · Funding should be made available for Community Corrections Facilities restitution centers in large metropolitan areas of the state.

         · Texas should provide more opportunities for offenders to earn money while incarcerated.

         · The first priority for the money earned while in prison should be victim restitution, followed by all other needs.

         · Statutory provisions should be in place to prevent offenders from disposing of property/assets that can go toward unpaid restitution.

         · Legislation should be enacted making it a crime to dispose of property/assets that can go toward unpaid restitution.

         · When victims receive restitution payments after they have been compensated from the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, the restitution money collected in these instances should be reimbursed back to the Fund.

         · Probation and parole departments could designate specialized officers or a departmental unit for the collection of restitution.

         · Probation and parole officers should be required to submit reports to the courts on offenders who have not fulfilled restitution requirements.

         · Victims should be provided with updated information about the restitution scheduled of the offender, as well as the contact information for the officer in charge of collecting the restitution.

         · Alternative means for collecting restitution should be established, such as civil remedies, garnishment of wages, statutory ability to extend supervision for nonpayment, denial of professional licenses, or acceptance of credit card payments.

         · Offenders should be prevented from obtaining drivers' licenses, professional licenses, and other special privileges provided by the state when restitution obligations are not fulfilled.

         · Offenders should be required to play full restitution before a judge can lessen the degree of the offense.

         · A good faith effort to locate victims for restitution payments should be given greater priority by impressing on them the importance of notifying the department whenever their mailing address changes.

—END—

SHSU Media Contact: Frank Krystyniak
March 5, 2007
Please send comments, corrections, news tips to Today@Sam.edu.