le. There is, of course, a reason that the concept of restitution appeals to America's sense of justice. Restitution also provides an alternative to imprisonment for nonviolent criminals, reducing the need for taxpayers to continue building prisons. Working with the purpose of paying back someone that has been wronged allows a criminal to understand and deal with the real consequences of his actions. Restitution would be far less expensive than the current system. Experience shows that the cost per prisoner can be as low as ten percent of that of incarceration, depending on the degree of supervision necessary. Removing nonviolent offenders from prison would also relieve overcrowding, eliminating the necessity of appropriating billions more public dollars for prison construction. Restitution would deter crime with the same effectiveness as prison. Prisons themselves have not done much of a job when it comes to deterrence. Nations with the highest incarceration rates often have the highest crime rates. But studies of model restitution programs demonstrate that they greatly reduce the incidence of further crime, since they restore a sense of individual responsibility, making the offender more likely to be able to adjust to society. Reducing recidivism is the most direct way to reduce crime. Criminal justice authorities also tell us that it is not so much the type of punishment that deters crime, but rather the certainty of punishment. With respect to deterrence, virtually any sanction, imposed swiftly and surely, has a deterrent effect. An effectively run restitution program will deter crime. It is believed that in many cases, aggressive restitution programs would be a greater deterrent than the threat of prison. To quote author David Simon, I remember talking in prison with a hardened convict who had spent nineteen of his thirty-eight years locked up. He was in for a heavy narcotics offense that drew a mandatory life sentence. " How in t...
