skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 76567 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Restitution and the Justice Model (From Justice and Fairness, P 52-65, 1981, David Fogel and Joe Hudson, ed. - See NCJ-76564)
Author(s): J Hudson; B Galaway
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 14
Sponsoring Agency: Anderson Publishing Co
Cincinnati, OH 45202
National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 78-NI-AX-0110
Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
Publicity Director
2035 Reading Road
Cincinnati, OH 45202
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article reviews the historical evolution of restitution and considers recent policy, legal, and program developments before examining the extent to which restitutive sanctions are conceptually and practically consistent with justice-as-fairness.
Abstract: The idea that rule breakers should be held responsible for making good the damages done is an ancient settlement procedure. With the development of the common law during the 12th and 13th centuries, distinctions were made between civil and criminal law. The interest of the state gradually overshadowed and supplanted those of the victim; restitution was incorporated into the civil law of torts and played an insignificant role in the administration of criminal law. In the 1970's, interest has been revived in using a restitution sanction at alternative points of the justice system. Data show that more restitution programs operate at the pretrial and probation levels than at later points in the criminal justice system. A 1978 survey of all criminal justice State planning agencies, criminal justice local planning units, and all State departments of corrections in the country reported 87 operational restitution projects serving adults. These programs used financial restitution, community service, or a combination of both. The extent to which recent developments in restitution policy, legislation, and programming are consistent with the justice model of corrections is examined. The components of the justice model considered are justice as fairness, offender volition and responsibility, the use of noncustodial sanctions, and consideration for the victim of the crime. Both financial restitution and community service involve more definite penalties imposed upon the offender and hold potential for reducing the severity of penalties, especially the use of incarceration. In addition, they potentially provide victims with an opportunity for meaningful involvement in the justice system. Hopefully, increased use of restitution as the sole penalty for the offender and more creative involvement of victims in the sanctioning process will develop in the future. Forty footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Community service order; Restitution; Restitution programs; Sentencing/Sanctions; Victim compensation
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.