A Survey of Public Acceptance of Restitution as an Alternative to Imprisonment for Property Offenders *

Abstract

The proposition that the public will be likely to accept a reduction in the use of imprisonment as a penalty for property offenders if these offenders are required to make restitution was tested through the use of simultaneously conducted surveys of two random samples of 1200 persons each drawn from the New Zealand electoral rolls. Both the control and experimental (restitution) groups were presented with six crime incidents describing serious property crimes, were asked to indicate if imprisonment or some other penalty was selected, were permitted to indicate one or more penalties from descriptive statements representing fine, probation, community service sentence, and non-residential periodic detention; the restitution group was permitted to include restitution as a non-custodial penalty. Response rates of 76% for the control group and 80% for the restitution group were achieved from postal questionnaires. For all six crime incidents higher proportions of the control than restitution group recommended imprisonment; the null hypothesis was rejected at the .05 level for five of the six incidents (alpha = .094 for the null hypothesis not rejected). Differences between the restitution and control groups are found across most age groups, for both sexes, for New Zealand electors of European descent, and for electors who reported that they had not been victimized in the last year. Over 65% of the restitution group members recommending non-custodial penalties selected restitution for each offender although they were less likely to select restitution for the unemployed as compared to the employed offender. This study provides support for the view that the public will accept a reduction in the use of imprisonment for serious property offenders if there is a concomitant increase in requiring these offenders to restore their victim losses.

There has been substantial growth in programmes designed to impose and enforce an explicit restitution requirement on offenders since the establishment of the Minnesota Restitution Centre in 1972.1 The idea that an offender should be required to repay his or her victim as a part of the penalty for offending has been piloted in a number of restitution projects in both the American juvenile and adult systems.2 Considerable interest in the concept has been generated in Canada3, Britain4, Australia5 and New Zealand6. While the concept of requiring offenders to redress the damage done has an inherent appeal to justice and fairness, the concept has also received wide support from persons seeking alternatives to the use of imprisonment as a penalty for crime7. McDonald, after a detailed study of the cost of corrections in New York state, recommended restitution as one of several less costly alternatives to be used instead of imprisonment.8 The New Zealand Penal Policy Review Committee suggested “… public opinion is more likely to accept a reduction in the use of imprisonment if a corresponding move towards more effective redress for the victim can be seen”9.

The research to date indicates considerable support for the concept of restitution. Gandy found ld… overwhelming support for the concept of creative restitution … .” among members of a women's club in Colorado.10 Gandy and Galaway found that restitution was perceived as a viable sanction for burglary, embezzlement, destruction of property and shoplifting among citizens of Columbia, South Carolina.11 Cannady reports 80% of a sample of citizens in Charleston, South Carolina, favourable to restitution as a sentence for juvenile offenders.12 Surveys of criminal justice officials in the United States13 and New Zealand14 indicate support for restitution. Hudson, Chesney, and McLaglan found over 80% of samples of United States state corrections administrators and of state legislators favoured the use of restitution with either juvenile or adult offenders.15 Surveys of both offenders and crime victims have found these groups also supportive of restitution. Novack, Galaway and Hudson's survey of offenders and victims who had participated in several American restitution projects found that 61% of the offenders and 60% of the victims considered restitution requirements fair.16 Sloper found 71% of New Zealand prison inmates surveyed agreed with a statement of where there is a victim, the offender should have to make good any damage done.17 Vennard found support for restitution among crime victims in Britain,18 Hinrichs among victims of juvenile offenders in Pennsylvania19 and Chesney among crime victims in Minnesota.20 Both Vennard and Hinricks conclude that restitution will lead to greater victim satisfaction with the justice system. Henderson and Gitchoff in a qualitative study of crime victims found that, “as to property victims, most victims appear willing to have the property restored, rather than wreak vengeance on the offender”.21

Gandy's study indicated support for restitution as an alternative to prison for property offenders22 and Shaw's survey of the British population explicitly addressed this issue.23 Persons interviewed were given 10 proposed measures for reducing the prison population and for each measure were asked “Can you tell me whether you personally think it is a good or bad idea?” Sixty-six per cent of the respondents reported that restitution was a good idea for reducing the prison population; the only choice to secure a higher proportion of support was requiring offenders to perform community service instead of going to prison.

While restitution can be defended and may be acceptable independent of any presumed impact on prison populations, further advantages will accrue if an increase in restitution will result in public acceptance of a reduced use of imprisonment. This is most likely to occur in relation to property offenders who are perceived as less serious than persons who have committed acts of violence and for whom setting restitution amounts will be easier. This research was designed as a preliminary test of the proposition advanced by the Penal Policy Review Committee in regards to property offenders only. The hypothesis to be tested is that New Zealand electors who have the opportunity to recommend restitution either alone or in combination with other non-custodial penalties will be less likely to recommend imprisonment for property offenders than electors who do not have the option of including restitution as a non-custodial penalty.