Advocates of restitution claim it is beneficial on a number of fronts. Outline and discuss restitution as a means of rehabilitating offenders, as a means of reconciling offenders to their victims, and as a means of punishing offenders

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The United States does not utilize restitution as often as other counts as a sentencing option, though support of it is growing. It is argued restitution serves as a form of rehabilitation as it forces the offender to understand the consequences and harm created by his actions. He must either interact directly with the person he victimized or other similarly situated individuals in cases of symbolic restitution. It allows the offender to make things right, which can be healing for the offender as well. It can be a conduit to reconciling offender to their victims as their role in the criminal justice process, after the complaint, has been minimized. It can serve to reduce the desire for revenge and can assist in psychological healing. It is considered a punishment by those who contend offenders have not had to repay the victim and society directly. This diverts offenders from their true responsibility and it may serve to deter them from offending again. This argument is somewhat flawed, however, as it does not recognize the majority of individuals in prison are there for street crimes and are often poor. Only allowing individuals of means to have this as a sentencing option would violate the 14th Amendment. Having individuals pay restitution for a considerable number of years due to their limited income may extend the punishment beyond what is reasonable.