I was just reading this story, the pertinent part reading:
My question is what is the point of ordering the $400 million restitution?
The guy’s 25 years old and clearly not the brightest crayon in the box. I’ll go out on a limb and bet that he doesn’t have $400 million stuffed under his mattress, and even if he wasn’t going to spend at least the next dozen or so years in prison, he would never earn even a tiny fraction of that amount in his entire life.
So what’s the point?
Perhaps the 17 years is the max time they can put him in prison, but they want to ruin the rest of his life by taking away everything he could ever acquire. I think the principle of restitution is not the problem, but in this case it’s probably pointless. Still, he could hit the lottery some day, I wouldn’t want to see him forced to live on the streets some day because of this fine, but I don’t want to see even an unlikely success allow him to live a life of luxury even if due to improbable circumstances.
The point of restitution is not to punish the criminal but to make the injured parties whole. It’s not like a fine; the ability to pay is irrelevant. Sure, he’ll probably never be able to pay back more than a fraction of the award, but you never know. He might win the lottery or make a billion shorting Microsoft or something, and there’s no reason not to order the restitution (other than the relatively insignificant cost of litigation involved in proving the amount at issue).
How do restitution orders (up here or down in your neck of the woods) interact with bankruptcy? I am most emphatically not a lawyer of either the Canadian or American subspecies, but would’t declaring bankruptcy make the restitution order uncollectable even if the culprit happened to come into fabulous riches sometime after the bankruptcy was discharged? (Not sure discharged is the right word - when the person properly completes everything that needs to be done so he is no longer bankrupt). Or do restitution orders remain even after bankruptcy?
More authoritative source:
Or if the perp was paid for the harm they caused, the fine makes sure they don’t profit from it if they’re ever paid up for it after they get out of prison.
If he gets a minimum wage job, how much of that can the government take out of his paycheck? Would his possible welfare and/or foodstamp allotment be based on his before the government take, or after?
I still don’t understand why he set the fire in the first place. He’s not in the military is he, just a civilian worker? It seems to me that if he tells his supervisor he’s got an emergency at home, secures his workstation, he can take off early. Sure, he’ll have to fill out a leave slip and his boss might be mad, but better that than all the trouble he’s caused for himself?
This sentence is the result of a plea bargain that left sentencing at between 15 and 19 years. The plea deal seems to have been agreed to by the defendant, in part, because without it the trial was going to leave him facing the possibility of life in prison. Obviously the complete reasoning isn’t available to the general public.
FTM, as I said in my Pit thread, I don’t have any problem with his lengthy prison sentence - not only did the first fire he set do astronomical damage, and put many lives at risk as they fought the fire, but the idiot set another fire about a week later. Any arsonist who doesn’t realize just how fickle fire is after a $450 million dollar in damages fire doesn’t deserve any sympathy, IMNSHO.
As for his post prison existence? The majority of ex-cons find it hard enough to get legitimate employment. Add to the fact this poor schlub is going to have his mental health issues part of the public record, and probably easily found any time he tries to apply for work, I have no problem saying I think he’s likely worked his last shift, anywhere.
I cannot see this order for restitution to be little more than the government’s way to get around the plea deal, and make sure they keep punishing this guy for the rest of his life. Especially considering how difficult it is to get court ordered restitution discharged in bankruptcy. Finally, handing out sentences like this, based on the possibility someone might win the Powerball sometime in the future when the government refuses to prosecute major banks for flagrant violations of banking laws is disgusting. There is no justification other than the judge is showing he’s perfectly happy to help the government screw poor individuals when they want, even though they’ll let rich criminals walk away.
I don’t see how any of what you write is possible since the article clearly states:
[QUOTE=Huffington Post]
The $400 million in restitution was mandated by federal statute, but prosecutors don’t expect to collect anywhere near that sum.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine.
I didn’t read the HuffPo article. I follow the story in more local news reporting.
And anyone with a working brain has to know there’s not going to be any kind of significant recovery of this restitution. Whatever their motives might be.
None of which changes that it’s pretty digusting that they’re saddling this poor schlub with this, after refusing to prosecute the criminals the DOJ found at HSBC.
How does a restitution order of this size not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines?
For restitution awards, the majority rule is that Eighth Amendment is only implicated when the restitution order is disproportionately large relative to the actual loss suffered by the victim or the fine that could be imposed. See United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 205 (3d Cir. 2007), for example.
Since the fire caused $450 million in damage, the restitution award is clearly in proportion to the government’s loss (even if the injuries to firefighters and others caused by the fire were not included in the analysis).
I don’t think restitution is a fine anyway.
As for the question about what’s the point? Well, what’s the point in sentencing a mass murderer or mass rapist to multiple-hundred years in jail. Or even better, LIFE + multiple-hundred years, as one sometime sees?
The application of law has evolved into a strictly theoretical construction, which only sort of happens to manifest itself in its treatment of real live people and property.
Similar to quantum physics theory, which consists entirely of arcane theoretical mathematics which only just-so-happens to manifest itself also in actual real-life observable phenomena.
Indeed, why seek restitution for any criminal action at all, when it will essentially always be the case that in some utterly irrelevant case some greater criminal got away with something more serious?
It is still disgusting, and that does not imply that no one should pay restitution, rather that the payment of restitution should be more fairly applied.
Am I the only one that thought "boy he’s lucky, he could be on the hook for the whole $450 million, not $400 million.
How is that disgusting or unfair? What if an uninsured drunk driver hit you with their car and you were stuck with $1,000,000 in medical bills. Would you rather be awarded $1,000,000 plus special damages OR some arbitrary amount based on some criminal’s ability to pay?
That has nothing to do with it. It would be disgusting if I was hit by an uninsured drunk driver who was destitute and ordered to pay a million dollars, while rich uninsured drivers weren’t ordered to pay anything, or even prosecuted. And even if that happened it wouldn’t be a reason to say no one should pay restitution.