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: 98030 Find in a Library
Title: Where Offenders Pay for Their Crimes - Victim Restitution and Its Constitutionality
Journal: Notre Dame Law Review  Volume:59  Issue:3  Dated:(1984)  Pages:685-716
Author(s): T M Kelly
Date Published: 1984
Page Count: 32
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: An analysis of the 1982 Victim and Witness Protection Act, which provided that convicted offenders pay restitution to their victims, concludes that the constitutionality of the restitution provisions hould be upheld, despite a decision by a U.S. District Court that these provisions are unconstitutional.
Abstract: In United States v. Welden, the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held the restitution provisions unconstitutional as violations of the convicted person's seventh amendment right to a jury trial of the restitution issue. The court also held the law violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. Restitution has a long history. The 1982 law aims to aid victims without infringing on offenders' constitutional rights. The Welden court made sweeping statements; however, the bases are suspect and the government has appealed the decision. The court focused on the section allowing enforcement of restitution orders in the same manner as civil judgments and concluded that the law turns a restitution order into a civil judgment. It concluded that defendents at sentencing required the substantive and procedural rights guaranteed in a Federal civil suit -procedure, discovery, cross-examination, and others. However, Federal law prior to the 1982 act allowed enforcement of penalties in a manner like that of civil judgments. A sentence does not thereby become a civil judgment. The restitution order is a sentencing option. The law's restitution provisions must be given a fair chance to accomplish their goal of addressing the needs of victims and witnesses. Footnotes are supplied.
Index Term(s): Appellate courts; Restitution; Right to Due Process; Victim Witness Protection Act 1982
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.