Victims of violent crime could face a great deal of financial distress which devastates their emotional trauma and physical injuries. Individuals that recover from violence or abuse face difficulties in paying for the cost of medical care and counseling. They may have to replace the displaced property or replace lost income due to disability or death of an individual. Every state has a crime compensation program which can provide financial assistance for the victims and their families. Even though no amount of money could erase the trauma suffered by the victims, the aid can be crucial in recovering from the crime. This paper discusses victim restitution and compensation programs by analyzing how the programs are funded, the historical perspective of restitution, and the reasons why an incarcerated prisoner should not make restitution.
Funding and operation of a victim restitution program at the state level
A typical victim compensation program is usually funded through the state from public taxes. The role is usually delegated to the respective department of justice based on their respective states. The justice system is usually supported by the state and usually comes up with a mechanism which different criminal activities can be compensated. Compensation programs have grown over the years and have become well established throughout the state. The programs pay approximately $500 million annually for its victims and have offered compensation for more than 200,000 victims.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another source of funding for the victim restitution program is achieved through the offenders. Offenders usually have to pay a certain amount of money as fines for their offenses. This is because some states fund their programs through the use of fines and fees charged against those convicted of the crime. There are some states which fund their programs entirely through funds acquired from victims. Additionally, federal grants which can provide an additional 35% of money paid for its victims do so through the use of offender assessments and fines.
The operation of the victim restitution program is accomplished through reimbursement of victims of violent crimes. Every state operates its own crime victim compensation program. The program aims to reimburse victims of violent crimes such as rape, homicide, assault, rape, and even burglary. Some states also cover for extra costs such as travel for medical treatment, crime scene cleanup, financial counseling, and relocation of victims that have to move to a place of physical safety. Individuals that would like to apply for crime victim compensations should file a claim form in the state where the crime occurred. The compensation program should then examine records from the police, receipts, and other information before they decide to pay a victim.
Crime victim compensation programs usually have a maximum amount that can be paid for each claim. It varies from one state to another and can range from $10,000 to $100,000. They also provide a limit that can be paid for some expenses such as counseling, medical, and funeral expenses. It may take several months or weeks to process a claim for victims, states can thus offer emergency awards for victims which compensate payments of $500 to $1000 to cover emergency expenses for food, shelter, or medications (Lux et al., 2018).
The significance of the historical perspective of restitution in understanding today’ s model
Traditional models, compensation, and restitution are based on the value of a property which is not subject to loss. The traditional model was informal and the rule of the law did not apply to society. The model of restitution was based on an assessment of the damage and was not according to a fair value of the loss. This is different from today ’s society where it is based on the fair value of the loss. For instance, damages that have been paid under the law of contract is an example of modern restitution. Additionally, there are fines which are suspect for bond upon release is another example of modern restitution.
Institutionalized restitution goes back to ancient times. The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi created restitution of victims where they were entitled to receive a certain payment of property. In the later years of the nineteenth century, the aim of restitution was to make peace. In Britain, offenders had to make payments to the victim ’s family and the victim in order to restore peace (Barkan, 2001). The approach of restitution has been adopted in modern times through the law of restitution. The courts of law established restitution with the aim of presiding protecting offenders from retaliation.
The early definition did not have a differentiation of the victim from the crime. The victim or their family had to take personal revenge against the offender. Such personal revenge was considered one of the earliest forms of restitution. Aggressive retaliation was considered as the struggle of man to gain back what was lost after the loss of property (Virgo, 2015). The modern definition and application of restitution are based on the rule of law. It is used to prevent any form of retaliation that could occur from the victims and their families. Victims can have the assurance that the offenders receive complementary restitution of the crime which they committed.
The historical definition of restitution was defined as a monetary payment by the offender to the victim for the harm resulting from the offense. Restitution was based on monetary payments and in-kind services paid to the victim (Kirchhoff, 2010). The modern definition of restitution is that it is an act of restoring and the restoration of anything to its rightful owner. It is the act of making or providing an equivalent for the loss, damage, or injury of a specific crime.
Why an incarcerated prisoner should not make restitution to a victim
In defense of the prisoner, the incarcerated prisoner should not make restitution because they may not have a good financial source. Even after the restitution is made, the offender would not be able to pay the offense because of his financial position. The amount that is to be paid as restitution is a huge amount. In case the offender has to pay for restitution, they would have to work for the rest of their lives and not be able to make the entire payment for the rest of their lives.
Payment for restitution after the offender has been convicted and imprisoned may act as a double punishment for the individual. A system that is fair and just would provide an equal repayment for the offender based on their offenses. In order for justice to be served, the offender may have to either be incarcerated or pay for the offense separately in terms of restitution. For the given case, the offender has already been imprisoned. The offender has paid for their crimes and would need an additional payment for the crimes.
Being imprisoned, the incarcerated prisoner would be restricted from freedom of accessing their finances. The prisoner would thus be restricted from being able to access their finances. Additionally, the prisoner would not have the ability to work or gain additional finances once they are in prison. Even if they decide to work when they are incarcerated, prisoner wages are dismally small and may not pay for the crimes which they committed.
References
Barkan, E. (2001). The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiating historical injustices . JHU Press.
Kirchhoff, G. F. (2010). History and a theoretical structure of victimology. International handbook of victimology , 95-123.
Lux, M., Cirman, A., K ährik, A., & Miaskowska-Daszkiewicz, K. (2018). Property Restitution After 1990. In Private Rental Housing in Transition Countries (pp. 71-95). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Virgo, G. (2015). Principles of the Law of Restitution . Oxford University Press, USA.
