Summary

During fiscal year 1997, the judicial circuit or district where an offender was sentenced was a major factor in whether he or she was ordered to pay criminal fines and victim restitution. This finding calls into question whether the objective of uniformity in the imposition of fines and restitution is being met. Across districts, for example, the percentage of offenders ordered to pay restitution ranged from three percent to 49 percent. An important factor in determining whether an offender was ordered to pay a fine or restitution was the type of offense committed. Although six percent of offenders sentenced for immigration violations were ordered to pay a fine, nearly one-third of property offenders were ordered to pay. Similarly, one percent of drug offenders were ordered to pay restitution, while nearly two-thirds of fraud offenders were ordered to pay. Although race, education, citizenship, length of sentence, and type of sentence (prison or probation) all influenced the likelihood that fines and restitution would be ordered, the judicial circuit or district in which sentencing took place was a major factor. Some court officials and prosecutors attributed the differences to the nature and type of offenses committed or types of offenders sentenced in the districts. Some officials believed that the culture in the judicial district among the prosecutors and court officials contributed to whether offenders were fined or ordered to pay restitution. The culture included how prosecutors and court officials cooperated to identify victims and their losses. Since restitution for some offenses became mandatory in April 1996, the percentage of offenders, overall who were ordered to pay restitution has actually declined--from 26 percent before passage of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act to 12 percent after the law became effective. Some court officials and prosecutors believe that it is still too early to gauge the full impact of the act. This testimony summarizes the May 1999 report, GAO/GGD-99-70.

GAO noted that: (1) although offender characteristics, type of offense, and the nature of the sentence played a role, the judicial circuit or district where an offender was sentenced was a major factor in determining the likelihood of an offender's being ordered to pay a fine or restitution during FY 1997; (2) this variation among judicial circuits and districts occurred overall for all federal offenders sentenced under sentencing guidelines during that year; (3) although occurring less, this variation persisted when GAO performed multivariate statistical analyses for federal offenders sentenced under sentencing guidelines for four types of offenses; (4) the large statistical variation among circuits and districts raises a question, on a broad level, about whether the goal of uniformity in the imposition of fines and restitution is being met; (5) under current conditions, offenders could be much more likely in some jurisdictions than in others to be ordered to pay a fine or restitution for the same type of crime; (6) although the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act was intended to eliminate much of the discretion judges previously had in waiving restitution for certain types of crimes, the overall percentages of offenders ordered to pay restitution has declined; (7) of the three offenses GAO analyzed, the percentages of robbery offenders ordered to pay restitution increased, while the percentages of larceny and fraud offenders decreased; and (8) however, there may be mitigating circumstances, such as recovery of stolen money that help explain why restitution was not ordered in a particular case.