Compensation for damage to the victim is one of the central problems in ensuring their rights and legitimate interests violated by the committed crime. Traditionally, the primary method of such compensation described in the article is restitution, that is, filing a civil lawsuit against the person guilty or responsible for the payment of damage. At the same time, it is evident that, in many cases, restitution does not guarantee the satisfaction of the interests of the victims and the achievement of the ideals of social justice. If necessary, the state should backfill those costs once it is possible to recover them from convicted criminals to ensure that victims are fully compensated (Wiley, 2022). The United States has a transparent system of redress, but what the government currently provides does not fully meet the needs of crime victims, especially regarding their recovery.
I fully agree that the state, which is required to carry out its duty of justice, does not always support victims of crime in a manner that leaves them satisfied. Changing the approach to restitution can significantly improve the situation since the money will be allocated immediately, and the main goal will be the return of the victim to the community. Budgetary constraints are one issue that might prevent the law from being implemented. I agree that the majority of the funds for restitution should come from fines. The state frequently wastes time, resources, and effort to collect pennies from violators who cannot pay restitution charges (Wiley, 2022). Another significant change is that the state has to make compensation payments immediately, even if the investigation is still ongoing. Litigation can take a long time, and help is frequently required immediately.
Reference
Wiley, H. (2022). Panel proposes paying crime victims, curbing traffic stops. Los Angeles Times. Web.