(This piece was published in the “Valley Voices” column of Fresno’s daily newspaper, The Fresno Bee.)
I vote a definite “thumbs up” for Jan M. Biggs, Fresno lawyer and former trustee of the Clovis Unified School District. As reported May 25, an audit uncovered that he had apparently embezzled partnership and client funds from a local law firm. However, Mr. Biggs acknowledged his wrongdoing. Furthermore, he said: “I am working to pay back what I took.”
I am overjoyed that the principle of restitution is clearly being applied in this case. In fact, the article’s final quotation actually utilizes this word: “’…and he’s paying for it by making restitution,’ (Ralph Lockwood) said.” Restitution means the offender agrees to repay the victim the amount that was embezzled or otherwise stolen.
Restitution provides both an equitable punishment and a deterrent to crime – factors the prison system does not deliver. Restitution is founded upon the “principle of similar measure.” In other words, “thieves are required to pay back something to the owner from whom they have stolen,” according to forensic author Dr. Vern Poythress. In the voice of the Old Testament prophet, “As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head.”
In societies where restitution has been implemented successfully, “The amount paid varies with the situation: sometimes double, sometimes four times, sometimes five times,” Dr. Poythress states. “The (first) repayment … is simple restoration, while the (second) repayment … is punishment for the criminal intent. …The penalty must involve two parts, restoration of the original and punishment for evil intent.”
Restitution also delivers practical social benefits. The chief advantage is that a criminal, rather than going to prison where he’ll likely become worse, is required to do something constructive by paying someone else. And instead of creating additional cost for the taxpayer, he himself pays off his “debt to society.”
Indeed, prisons and jails have lost their purpose of being a place where a convict expresses “penitence.” We derive our word “penitentiary” from this purpose. Instead, modern prisons foster a sense of impunity. Statistically, convicts serve only a fraction of their sentences. According to James Wootton of the Safe Streets Alliance, “Judges pretend that defendants will get long sentences, and they get out of the back door.” Thus, “(young offenders) learn early on that crime pays,” writes Mortimer B. Zuckerman. In fact, Zuckerman states, “They are not deterred by the pangs of conscience or the prospect of prison, which is for them a peer group rite of passage.” Furthermore, neither adding more police officers, in itself, nor the so-called “Three Strikes and You’re Out” laws can solve the inherent problem. To the contrary, they make the problem worse by over-burdening the prison system.
So I ask myself why Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson advocates more jail space for juveniles, along with adding more police officers. He made these references in his State of the City address, and they were lauded in a May 26 editorial. The jail system teaches young offenders that crime pays. While I fully recognize the severe problem of juvenile crime locally, as well as the unusually high level of automobile thefts, I believe the solution is not more jail space. Rather, we should focus on a socially constructive alternative, one whereby not only the guilty parties receive real punishment, but also the victims are repaid for their losses. Restitution provides the feasible alternative. I wonder why this important item is absent from our local, state and national agendas when we talk about reducing crime rates.
Unlike Mr. Patterson, however, Mr. Biggs is on the right track. Mr. Biggs deserves our accolade for his courage to admit his misconduct, for his honest repentance, and for his strength of character to accept and to apply the correct legal consequence. His example of upholding an age-old principle that is so sadly lacking in our modern society should be emulated more widely.