Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should we require restitution instead of or in addition to prison and fines for criminals that are not dangerous?
We should require restitution instead of or in addition to prison and fines for criminals that are not dangerous.
Restitution could be collected via the taxing authority making it easier to administer, through deductions on a person's paycheck and/or additional amounts paid at income tax time.
Victims are compensated for their losses and suffering.
Victims don't need to file a separate civil lawsuit.
Criminals may think twice about certain crimes because the cost of restitution would be so high, especially for crimes affecting a lot of people.
The purpose of prison should primarily be to contain dangerous individuals in order to protect society. Non-violent criminals are not dangerous.
Restitution could be for lower level offenses, with higher and higher penalties, including jail time, for future offenses.
Some people would choose to not to work or to work the least amount possible, rather than give restitution.
Restitution would be too difficult to implement for cases affecting a lot of victims.
Some crimes impact people worldwide, such as hacking and virus creation. The cost of restitution in these cases would take a lifetime to pay back.
If a person already is paying the maximum amount of restitution allowed per month (maximum percentage of income), the prospect of future convictions won't have the same level of deterrent.
It could reduce government revenue because people would pay more in restitution than fines.
Should Criminal Justice Sentences be Exclusively Comprised of Community Time and Fines?
Should we drink almond milk instead of cow's milk?
Should We Colonize Venus Before Mars?