Restitution in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (12 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Oct. 15, 2019 |
| Report Number |
RS22708 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist in American Public Law |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised July 11, 2014 (11 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Aug. 22, 2007 (6 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
Federal courts may not order a defendant to pay restitution to the victims of his or her crimes
unless authorized by statute to do so. Several statutes supply such authorization. For instance,
federal courts are statutorily required to order victim restitution when sentencing a defendant
either for an offense against property, including fraud or deceit, proscribed in Title 18 of the
United States Code or for a crime of violence. The obligation exists even if the defendant is
indigent, and restitution must take the form of in-kind, lump sum, or installment payments.
Federal courts are permitted, but not required, to order victim restitution when sentencing a
defendant for any offense proscribed in Title 18 for which restitution is not required. Federal
courts are permitted to order victim restitution when sentencing a defendant for various controlled
substance and aviation safety offenses. In addition, a federal court may order restitution pursuant
to a plea bargain or as a condition of probation or supervised release.
As a general rule, restitution is available only to victims who have suffered a physical injury or
financial loss as a direct and proximate consequence of the crime of conviction, and only to the
extent of their losses. Several provisions governing restitution following conviction for particular
crimes permit awards for types of losses that might not otherwise be permitted under the general
restitution provisions. For example, the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008
(18 U.S.C. 3663(b)(6)) authorizes restitution orders to compensate victims for the cost of
remediating the intended or actual harm caused by certain identity theft violations. The courts are
divided over the extent to which a defendant convicted of possession of child pornography may
be ordered to make restitution to the child depicted in the material.
When restitution is authorized, a probation officer gathers information from victims, the
government, the defendant, and other sources for a report to the court. The parties receive copies
of the report and may contest its recommendations. The court has considerable discretion as to the
manner and scheduling of restitution payments, but the authority may not be delegated to
probation or prison officials. Furthermore, the order must provide for full restitution for all
victims unless the sheer number of victims or the complications of a given case preclude such an
order.
Under the abatement doctrine, when a defendant dies before his or her appeal has become final,
the law treats the indictment and conviction as though they had never happened. The conviction is
vacated and the indictment dismissed. The courts do not agree on whether the doctrine also
reaches unfulfilled obligations under a restitution order.
This report is an abridged version of CRS Report RL34138, Restitution in Federal Criminal
Cases—without footnotes, citations to most authorities, or appendixes found in the longer report.
Related reports include CRS Report RL33679, Crime Victims’ Rights Act: A Summary and Legal
Analysis of 18 U.S.C. 3771, available in abridged form as CRS Report RS22518, Crime Victims’
Rights Act: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 3771.
