Realizing the Promise of Restitution

• Author: Maureen C. Outlaw
• Published date: 01 August 2014
• Date: 01 August 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12107

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

PAYING RESTITUTION

Realizing the Promise of Restitution

Maureen C. Outlaw

Providence College

It has been more than 30 years since victim restitution re-emerged as a formal sanction in

the criminal justice system. Responding to the call from the victim’s rights movement

of the 1970s, The Victim Witness Protection Act of 1982 authorized restitution “to

any victim of the offense ...inaddition to or in lieu of any other penalty authorized by

law.” As was the intent of the act, states began to follow suit with their own restitutionlaws

and policies in an attempt to give victims a voice and a place in the criminal justice process.

Research regarding the use and effectiveness of victim restitution has indicated that its

utilization is both a blessing and a curse. First, restitution is not ordered in every case, even in

jurisdictions with so-called “mandatory restitution” laws (Ruback,Ruth, and Shaffer, 2005).

Rather, it is more likely to be ordered when the offender is female, White, and educated

(Ruback, 2004) and when the damage from the crime is easily quantifiable (Outlaw and

Ruback, 1999). Second, restitution often goes unpaid (Davis, Smith, and Hillenbrand,

1991), drastically reducing any benefit it could provide to the victim or the offender, and

efforts to increase payment and enforcement often prove too costly to be of use (Weisburd,

Einat, and Kowalski, 2008). Finally, because restitution, when ordered, is rarely the only

financial sanction the offender must bear,offenders are often confused about how much they

owe, how to pay,or what the money is for (Ruback, Hoskins, Cares, and Feldmeyer, 2006).

When offenders do pay restitution, there is an obvious benefit for victims. Additionally,

a few studies have indicated some rehabilitative effect and lower recidivism (Outlaw and

Ruback, 1999; Ruback, 2004) among those who pay restitution, although the effect might

be limited to specific populations.

Ruback, Gladfelter, and Lantz’s (2014, this issue) study presents an experimental test

of a strategy to increase payment of restitution and, therefore, to allow the sanction to

provide the benefits to offenders and victims that justify its use. Taking its lead from

previous attempts to affect restitution payment (Davis and Bannister, 1995; Lurigio and

Davis, 1990; Weisburd et al., 2008) and research regarding attitude change (e.g., Glasman

Direct correspondence to Maureen Outlaw, Department of Sociology, Howley Hall, Providence College, 1

Cunningham Square, Providence, RI 02918 (e-mail: moutlaw@providence.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12107 C2014 American Society of Criminology 401

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 13 rIssue 3