VICTIM RESTITUTION REVISIONS S.B. 969 (S-2): FLOOR ANALYSIS
Senate Bill 969 (Substitute S-2 as reported) Sponsor: Senator John D. Cherry, Jr.
Committee: Judiciary
The bill would amend the juvenile code to do all of the following:
-- Eliminate a court’s authority to order a juvenile offender to make partial, rather than full, restitution to victims, the Crime Victims Compensation Board, or to any legal entity that compensated the victim.
-- Require a court to state on the record, with specificity, its reasons for not ordering restitution to a victim, if the victim received other compensation. If an entity were entitled to restitution because it had compensated the victim, and the entity refused the restitution, that restitution would have to be deposited in the Crime Victim’s Rights Fund.
-- Specify that a restitution order would remain in effect until it was satisfied in full.
-- Disallow an offender from petitioning for a cancellation of an unpaid portion of restitution.
-- Remove the $5,000 maximum limit on the amount of restitution a juvenile offender’s parents may be ordered to pay.
-- Delete a requirement that an order of restitution be as fair as possible without complicating or prolonging the disposition or sentencing process.
-- Delete a restriction that prohibits a court from ordering a juvenile offender to pay restitution in an amount over 30% of his or her net income in a pay period.
-- Eliminate consideration of the defendant’s earning ability, financial resources, and other special circumstances as factors in determining the amount of restitution. (Financial resources of a juvenile offender’s supervisory parent could still be considered in determining whether to order the parent to pay restitution.)
-- Specify that an order of restitution would be a judgment and lien against all property of the offender for the amount of restitution.
-- Require a court to give to the Department of Corrections (DOC) a copy of the restitution order, if a person ordered to pay restitution were remanded to the DOC’s jurisdiction.
The bill would take effect on June 1, 1996, and is tie-barred to Senate Bill 929.
MCL 712A.30 & 712A.31 Legislative Analyst: P. Affholter
The fiscal impact would depend on the ability of a juvenile offender to pay full restitution ordered by the court. It is indeterminate whether the stricter enforcement methods would produce additional revenue for the Crime Victims Compensation Board.
The bill would have no fiscal impact on the Department of Corrections.
Date Completed: 4-25-96 Fiscal Analyst: M. Bain
M. Hansen
floor\sb969
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.