Compensation and Restitution
When Justice Has a Dollar Amount
A victim of assault faces medical bills, lost wages, and therapy costs totaling tens of thousands of dollars. The court orders the offender to pay restitution, but that person earns minimum wage and will take decades to repay, if they pay at all. A burglary victim receives compensation from a state fund that covers a fraction of what was stolen. A family member of a homicide victim learns that wrongful death suits are civil matters separate from criminal prosecution, requiring them to hire lawyers and relive trauma in another proceeding. Financial harm from crime is real and often devastating, yet the mechanisms meant to provide remedies rarely make victims whole. Whether this represents a failure of imagination and will, or an unavoidable reality of limited resources and offender poverty, shapes debates about how justice should address economic harm.
The Case for Meaningful Financial Remedies
Advocates argue that victims should not bear the financial costs of crimes committed against them. Medical expenses, property damage, lost income, and psychological trauma have concrete economic impacts that compound the original harm. Restitution from offenders acknowledges responsibility and provides tangible accountability. State compensation funds exist because most offenders lack resources, recognizing that society shares an obligation to help victims recover. From this view, current systems fail dramatically. Restitution orders go uncollected or amount to token payments spread over decades. Compensation programs have strict eligibility requirements, low caps, and exclude many types of harm or victims. Victims who cannot afford to miss work, pay for therapy, or replace stolen property face choices between financial ruin and forgoing recovery. A just system would ensure victims receive prompt, adequate compensation regardless of offender assets, funding this through general revenues, offender fees, or dedicated taxes.
The Case for Limited Expectations and Practical Constraints
Others maintain that while compensating victims is desirable, expectations must align with reality. Most people who commit crimes are poor. Ordering restitution they cannot pay accomplishes nothing except adding debt that impedes their reintegration. State compensation programs cost significant public money, and expanding them means either raising taxes or cutting other services. Moreover, not all harms can be quantified financially. How much is fair compensation for trauma, for loss of security, for a life cut short? Creating extensive compensation systems risks treating justice as primarily transactional, reducing complex harms to dollar amounts and creating incentives for fraudulent claims. From this perspective, the justice system should focus on accountability through appropriate punishment and rehabilitation. Financial remedies are secondary. Victims may pursue civil suits if they choose, but expecting the criminal justice system or taxpayers to make every victim financially whole is unrealistic and inappropriate.
The Collection Problem
Even when courts order restitution, collection rates are abysmal. Offenders leaving prison face barriers to employment, housing, and stability. Adding substantial debt on top of those challenges often ensures they will never pay. Aggressive collection, including wage garnishment or revocation of probation for non-payment, further destabilizes people trying to rebuild their lives. Yet without enforcement, restitution orders become meaningless. Victims see offenders move on while their own financial burdens remain. The gap between what is ordered and what is paid frustrates everyone and raises questions about whether restitution serves any purpose beyond symbolism.
The Question
If most offenders lack resources to pay restitution, does ordering it serve justice or create false hope for victims while burdening offenders with unpayable debt? Should taxpayers fund comprehensive victim compensation even when it means significant public expense, or are there limits to society's financial obligation toward crime victims? And when calculating compensation, can any amount truly make a victim whole, or does the attempt to quantify harm in dollars diminish experiences that cannot be reduced to economic terms?