A victim can increase the chances of restitution through two ways; fill in all the expenses he has incurred in the Victim Impact Statement and also request the prosecutor early in the prosecution stages that the restitution order is made as part of the sentencing. In any criminal tax case, the Victim Witness Protection Act provides for means of calculating the amount of loss by stating that the restitution order will require the property be returned or if this is not possible, the offender to pay the value of the property. For a judge to make a clear, definite and precise restitution order, the victim should be allowed to testify.
Scholars have put advantages of restitution to include; assistance provided to victims of crime due to the loss suffered emotional, physical, or financial; the notion of a victim receiving compensation would encourage them to appear in court to testify during the trial of the offender and also report crimes, this would in turn help in curbing crime. Psychologist Albert Eglash has put forward a theory that restitution would aid in reforming a criminal. He argues that restitution may make the offender redirect the thoughts which motivated the offence since it is related to the offence.
To be able to counter your opponent’s arguments on the unfairness of victim restitution, I will look into the possible argument she would put forward and its weakness. Firstly, she can say that monetary punishment is not an adequate deterrent of crime. My response to this would be that this is something which should not be assumed, and the proponent of such an argument should be put to strict prove of the assumption. On the argument that the offender has no means to meet the financial obligation, my take will be that it will be that the innocent tax payer’s money will no longer be used for apprehension and incarceration of criminals, but the