ABSTRACT
Two more recent but related trends in conditions the court may impose are restitution and community work orders. Restitution requires the offender to make payment (perhaps monetary) to a victim to offset the damages done in the commission of the crime. If the offenders cannot afford to repay at least a part of the loss suffered by the victim, it is possible to restore the victim’s losses through personal services. Probation with restitution thus has the potential for being a reparative sentence, and Galaway (1983) argues that it should be the penalty of choice for property offenders. Restitution can lessen the loss of the victim, maximize reconciliation of the offender and community, and marshal community support for the offender, perhaps through enlisting a community sponsor to monitor and encourage the offender’s compliance. A good example of this can be seen in California, where in 1982 voters passed a victim’s bill of rights. Part of this initiative was a crime victim restitution program that enables the court to order offenders to repay victims and the community through restitution or community service (see van DijkKaam & Wemmers, 1999 ).
