Proposal: Modify Georgia Law to allow counties to experiment with privatized criminal enforcement and victim restitution in the area of property theft

Our current system of justice is clearly focused on prohibition, apprehension and incarceration. The proposal above replaces incarceration with restitution. Making the victim's restitution the end result of just law makes moral and economic sense. Keep reading and see what you think.

At sentencing, this law would allow the victim to choose restitution from the convict instead of incarceration. A Gwinnett County victim could opt to receive monetary restitution directly from the convicted thief. Restitution would be based on a multiplier that is applied to the value of the stolen property. Property value would be determined prior to sentencing. Each county commission subject to state guidelines would set the multiplier. If the multiplier were 10, and automobile worth $4,500 would command a repayment of $45,000. Such restitution would be tax free to the victim and totally marketable.

The restitution multiplier would not be static. County commissioners could change it as needed. Like any price in a free market, it would fluctuate based on supply and demand. If 10 times the value of stolen property did not attract management companies into this market, commissioners would simply raise the multiplier. The cost of restitution, punishment, and rehabilitation belong to the party that created the problem: the criminal.

Criminals that could not pay the restitution would become indentured to the victim. This is where privatization comes into play. Victims could elect to sell this marketable obligation to the highest bidder and have no further contact with the criminal. Ideally, multiple insurance and bonding companies would bid on such obligations, thereby maximizing the victim's financial restitution.

In the example above, let's say the restitution obligation was purchased for $9,000. This would give the victim 2 times the value of the stolen car, and the party purchasing the obligation would have the potential to earn $36,000. This potential profit would be above and beyond the cost to house, feed, monitor or otherwise keep up with the convict as he or she worked off the obligation. Each criminal would hold a different potential for profit and reward depending on their ability and willingness to repay. Convicts with the potential to earn higher incomes or contribute to their upkeep, would be more desirable. Some criminals would be difficult to manage and others would not. Companies that understood these facts and how they affected return on investment would profit the most. If no bids were received, the convict would simply serve in a public prison as in the case today.

There are many variations and enhancements a restitution based criminal justice system could have. Repeat offenders could have higher multipliers. Repentant or first time offenders could avoid court completely by publicly apologizing to the victim, then negotiating a restitution or repayment schedule through a third party guarantor. In Japan, such negotiations may include letters from the victim to the court recommending no further punishment is needed. This would provide relief to over crowded state and county courts.

Such a system of justice would create incentives that benefit everybody involved. Taxpayers would have reduced incarceration costs. Victims would receive immediate restitution. Depending on capability and level of cooperation, convicts could quickly repay their debts and return to free society. Convicts would be treated humanly since they would be viewed as financial assets instead of liabilities.

Some people will be offended by this proposal. They will decry the insensitivity and slave-like bondage being proposed. To these, I say read Section 1 of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. It says:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Those that worry about prisoner abuse and public oversight should ask themselves the following question. Who is more likely to abuse prisoners: those who profit from speedy repayment and the efficient management of prisoners, or those who simply baby sit for fixed time periods? Laws that prohibit abuse today would continue to apply regardless of who managed the system.

A restitution-based system is simply more effective than a stand-alone rehabilitation and punishment. Focusing on restitution will lead to private investment in an incentive based criminal justice system. The cost of justice would operate in a free market. The citizens of Georgia would get more justice, cheaper justice and higher quality justice.

Our current system is not carrying its own weight and those creating the injustice- the criminals-are not bearing enough of the burden. History is made by those not afraid to change the status quo. Make a mark on American history.