Argument for criminal justice class - Assignment Example

Victims of a criminal act should be compensated and restituted by an offender Restitution refers to an act ofpayment to a victim by an offender due to loss or wrongful act committed by the offender. In the United States, a third of state’s criminal justice allows courts to make restitution orders to victims. Compensation refers to an act where an offended person recovers loss from the offender. Restitution and compensation are meant to make the victim recover expenses incurred from the crime such as medical expenses, lost wages, costs of traveling to the court, lost or damaged property and any other expense arising directly from the crime.

A victim can increase the chances of restitution through two ways; fill in all the expenses he has incurred in the Victim Impact Statement and also request the prosecutor early in the prosecution stages that the restitution order is made as part of the sentencing. In any criminal tax case, the Victim Witness Protection Act provides for means of calculating the amount of loss by stating that the restitution order will require the property be returned or if this is not possible, the offender to pay the value of the property.

For a judge to make a clear, definite and precise restitution order, the victim should be allowed to testify.Scholars have put advantages of restitution to include; assistance provided to victims of crime due to the loss suffered emotional, physical, or financial; the notion of a victim receiving compensation would encourage them to appear in court to testify during the trial of the offender and also report crimes, this would in turn help in curbing crime. Psychologist Albert Eglash has put forward a theory that restitution would aid in reforming a criminal.

He argues that restitution may make the offender redirect the thoughts which motivated the offence since it is related to the offence.To be able to counter your opponent’s arguments on the unfairness of victim restitution, I will look into the possible argument she would put forward and its weakness. Firstly, she can say that monetary punishment is not an adequate deterrent of crime. My response to this would be that this is something which should not be assumed, and the proponent of such an argument should be put to strict prove of the assumption.

On the argument that the offender has no means to meet the financial obligation, my take will be that it will be that the innocent tax payer’s money will no longer be used for apprehension and incarceration of criminals, but the criminal himself will bear this cost. The savings to taxpayers would be enormous.On the argument that the monetary that it puts monetary strain on the family; my counter argument will be that a crime offends not only the victim but the whole society at large including the family of the offender.

This then puts task of crime prevention on every society member. By the family member making payments to the victims, the criminal justice system will be putting it to task of curbing crime. This argument can be furthered by showing that crime no longer pays. This will change the current situation where criminals are allowed to serve their jail sentences and later come out of the jail to enjoy the proceeds of crime. Criminals will have to make full restitution and legal costs. This will make it hard on certain types of criminals who commit crimes involving high magnitude of money with anticipation of lenient sanctions..Work CitedAlbert Eglash, "Creative Restitution: Son: Suggestions for Prison Rehabilitation Programs," American Journal of Correction 40 (November, -December 1958): 20.Gary S. Becker, "cost benefit" analysis should see his "Crime and Punishment," Journal of Political Economy 76 (1968): 169-217.