Turley provides a  lengthy commentary on proposed changes to federal restitution that must be read by all criminal defense lawyers.  His commentary comes from the testimony he gave to the House Judiciary Committee.  You can skip over the opening rhetoric and cut to the substance.

The highlights of the proposed changes are:

• Mandatory restitution for all federal crimes, eliminating all judicial discretion.


• Pre-Indictment asset seizures to cover potential post-conviction restitution.


• Pre-Appeal payment of restitution.


• Expansion of the definition of “Victim” due restitution.


• Inclusion of victims’ attorneys fees for the representation of victims in the investigation and prosecution of an offense (go figure that one out).


• Extension of probation and supervisory release until restitution is paid.

Bearing in mind that this was his testimony to the committee, and therefore presents far more by way of rhetoric than would otherwise be the case, Jonathon explains in detail why each of these changes has substantial harmful collateral consequences for the system.

But then, as one wag commented, the public wants victims to receive restitution, so who cares what happens to the criminals.  While lacking in depth, this comment captures much of the sentiment that could propel these changes forward regardless of how much havoc they could cause.

One interesting anecdote from Turley’s post worth repeating:

Many years ago during the height of federal sentencing reform, a federal judge complained to me that he spent his career distinguishing himself as an attorney and, in recognition of this experience, he was made a federal judge – but he was then told not to use that lifetime of experience in sentencing criminals.

While I have some doubts that this was ever said, it’s point is well taken.  Just when you thought that one-size-fits-all justice might be on the wane, Congress comes up with a new brainstorm like these restitution proposals.  Read the full post.  It’s quite disheartening.