Lucianne.com links to a San Francisco Chronicle article about CA requiring criminals to reimburse victims for their losses.
Convicted criminals in California must repay their victims for financial losses even for the minor crimes classified as infractions, like a mauling that killed a disabled person’s service dog, an appellate court has ruled.What the article doesn’t clarify is where they expect criminals to get the money to repay victims. Most have no income source beyond crime, and it isn’t easy for ex-cons to find lawful work. The concept is a good one, its execution is likely to be fraught.
For example, CA is a community property state, married people own jointly everything acquired during marriage. Can you take a family’s home to reimburse a victim if the husband criminally damages another by, for instance, drunk driving? How about their car, or chattel? Their retirement IRAs?
If the court-assigned debt is one that cannot be shed via bankruptcy, then the resulting ruinous credit rating will further prevent former criminals from gaining employment. A credit check is often part of the employment screening process.
