Although the criminal justice system claims to be “not only to punish the offender, but also to rehabilitate him”,164 rehabilitation is a nominal objective rather than a true objective of criminal restitution.165 that they intend to make restitution a rehabilitation objective. to induce the defendant to question the damage it has caused. Restitution is rather aimed at punishing “the bad guy”. Ultimately, a reduction in well-being resulting from a deprivation or obligation imposed by the State, imposed as a result of criminal proceedings in a manner that consistently restricts a fundamental joy of life, should be considered a punishment. Despite the fairly obvious and contemplated criminal consequences of imposing a refund obligation in criminal proceedings, courts continue to avoid invoking constitutional measures of protection, usually accompanied by criminal sanctions. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a victim who has already received payment from the accused in a civil action or other settlement to be reimbursed by the same accused in the criminal proceedings. Since her losses have been reimbursed, she no longer has any financial damage at the time of the criminal conviction. Nevertheless, courts regularly find that a private or civil agreement between “a criminal offender” and the victim “does not preclude a district court from imposing a refund order for the same underlying injustice.” 188 . United States vs. Wright, 496 F.3d 371, 380 (5 cir. 2007) (5th cir.
2007) (finding that because a system was “virtually” identical to the sentencing system, with the exception of the identity of the victims, events were part of a common system or plan and the return to those victims was appropriate). By decision of the Tribunal, it approved a wide range of losses for which a defendant can be held financially liable. Now, courts can hold an accused to account for an “arbitrary” amount of losses, based on what the judge considers to be the “relative guilt” of an accused. 31 In addition, defendants have already been ordered to pay criminal reparation for unproven charges, costs incurred by persons who are related only tangentially to victims of crime, and consequences arising from conduct for which an accused has been positively acquitted.32 . See z.B. Transcript of Oral Argument at 13, 44-45, Paroline, 134 p. Ct. 1710 (no. 12-8561) (Discussion of the difficulties in calculating reparation for the “horrible crime” of “rape [of a child]”). In 1982, at the height of the victims` rights movement, Congress passed the Federal Victim and Witness Protection Act (“VWPA”) which us introduced a new era of restitution. As a result of the VWPA, reparation became for the first time a common element in criminal conviction at the federal level. Matthew Dickman, Should Crime Pay?: A Critical Assessment of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 97 Calif.
. . .