(Inspired by a recent thread where it was reported that a prosecutor who knowingly kept an innocent man in jail for 25 years was sentenced to ten days and $500.)
Why does literal restitution (in which the meaning of the judge’s sentence is “The convicted must successfully reverse his crime, so that it’s as if he had never done it”) seem so infrequent in modern courts? Am I just imagining that it’s uncommon - does it really happen all the time but I never hear much about it?
Clearly in murder, rape, and some other things, restitution is nonsense. Forget those. I’m talking about the vast remainder of cases, in which restitution does make sense - either partial sense or complete sense.