Federal Criminal Restitution:
Factors to Consider for a Potential Expansion of Federal Courts' Authority to Order Restitution
GAO-18-115: Published: Oct 12, 2017. Publicly Released: Oct 12, 2017.
Additional Materials:
- Highlights Page:
- Full Report:
- Accessible Version:
Contact:
(202) 512-8777
goodwing@gao.gov
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov
What GAO Found
Federal courts have authority to award restitution for authorized losses to eligible victims. Generally, victims are those directly and proximately harmed as a result of a defendant's offense of conviction and they may be awarded compensation for their actual or “out-of-pocket” losses. Provisions for the potential expansion of restitution contained in the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 that GAO reviewed could allow for courts to award restitution to additional victims and for a greater scope of losses. Stakeholders GAO interviewed identified various factors to consider related to these potential expansion provisions, for example:
- Restitution for related conduct and no proximate cause requirement . A factor stakeholders stated should be considered in potentially allowing restitution for conduct that is broader than the offense of conviction was that it could be a violation of a defendant's constitutional right to due process because restitution could be awarded for conduct for which the defendant's guilt was not established. In addition, they said it could lead to increased complexity to determine victim losses, which could create challenges for federal prosecutors and could result in less restitution being awarded. For a potential expansion of restitution to compensate harm that was not proximately caused by the defendant (i.e., harm that was not reasonably foreseeable as a result of the offense) stakeholders said factors that should be considered include that the current proximate harm requirement does not present challenges and that such an expansion could lead to additional sentencing-related hearings and litigation.
- Restitution to restore victims to their position had the offense not been committed . Stakeholders said this provision is already a goal of federal restitution, but that a potential expansion could allow judges more discretion to order restitution for victim losses not specified by statute, which could help restore the victim to his or her pre-offense condition.
- Restitution for any injury, harm, or loss, including emotional distress . A factor stakeholders identified in potentially expanding restitution to cover intangible losses, including emotional distress, included that it could increase the complexity of the restitution process because these are not easily quantified losses. Relatedly, stakeholders said that the suitability of criminal versus civil proceedings should be considered because the civil system, through which crime victims may seek compensation at their own expense, is set up to handle these issues and losses, whereas officials involved in criminal cases lack the specialized skills to determine these kinds of losses.
Stakeholders GAO interviewed identified additional factors related to the potential broadening of courts' authority to order restitution generally; for example, they told GAO that increased restitution debt and collectability challenges should be considered. According to the Department of Justice, the amount of outstanding restitution debt owed in federal cases as of the end of fiscal year 2016 was $110.2 billion. Stakeholders stated that defendants often lack the financial resources to pay restitution and adding to the uncollected restitution debt through a potential expansion of authority could lead to further collection challenges.
Why GAO Did This Study
Victims of federal crimes may be compensated for their losses through criminal proceedings when federal courts order restitution during a defendant's sentencing. Federal law dictates the crimes for which restitution is mandatory versus discretionary and what types of losses may be compensated. Federal prosecutors and Department of Justice officials are responsible for proving and litigating issues related to victims' losses for restitution orders, enforcing orders of restitution, and collecting criminal debt, including unpaid restitution.
The Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-324, contains a provision for GAO to conduct a review on the factors that should be considered when broadening restitution provisions. This report describes factors stakeholders believe should be considered for a potential expansion of federal courts' authority to award restitution.
To gather information on factors, GAO interviewed a non-generalizable group of stakeholders knowledgeable about the restitution process, including individuals and entities representing federal judges and court officials, federal prosecutors and Department of Justice officials, victims, and defendants and their counsel. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, legal cases, agency documentation, summary data on orders for restitution from fiscal years 1996 through 2016, and the amount of outstanding restitution debt owed in federal cases as of the end of fiscal year 2016.
For more information, contact Gretta L. Goodwin at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov.
Feb 12, 2019
-
Military Courts:
DOD Should Assess the Tradeoffs Associated With Expanding Public Access to and Information About Terrorism TrialsGAO-19-283: Published: Feb 12, 2019. Publicly Released: Feb 12, 2019.
Feb 7, 2019
-
Unaccompanied Children:
Agency Efforts to Identify and Reunify Children Separated from Parents at the BorderGAO-19-368T: Published: Feb 7, 2019. Publicly Released: Feb 7, 2019.
Dec 13, 2018
-
Federal Law Enforcement:
Purchases and Inventory Controls of Firearms, Ammunition, and Tactical EquipmentGAO-19-175: Published: Dec 13, 2018. Publicly Released: Dec 13, 2018.
Dec 12, 2018
-
Sexual Assault:
Information on the Availability of Forensic ExaminersGAO-19-259T: Published: Dec 12, 2018. Publicly Released: Dec 12, 2018.
Nov 14, 2018
-
Illegal Marijuana:
Opportunities Exist to Improve Oversight of State and Local Eradication EffortsGAO-19-9: Published: Nov 14, 2018. Publicly Released: Nov 14, 2018.
Oct 24, 2018
-
Unaccompanied Children:
Agency Efforts to Reunify Children Separated from Parents at the BorderGAO-19-163: Published: Oct 9, 2018. Publicly Released: Oct 24, 2018.
Sep 26, 2018
-
Native American Youth:
Information on Involvement in Justice Systems and Grant Programs to Help Address Juvenile DelinquencyGAO-18-697T: Published: Sep 26, 2018. Publicly Released: Sep 26, 2018.
Sep 5, 2018
-
Law Enforcement:
Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of ProsecutionsGAO-18-440: Published: Sep 5, 2018. Publicly Released: Sep 5, 2018. -
Native American Youth:
Involvement in Justice Systems and Information on Grants to Help Address Juvenile DelinquencyGAO-18-591: Published: Sep 5, 2018. Publicly Released: Sep 5, 2018.
Jul 18, 2018
-
DNA Evidence:
Preliminary Observations on DOJ's DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Grant ProgramGAO-18-651T: Published: Jul 18, 2018. Publicly Released: Jul 18, 2018.
Looking for more? Browse all our products here