The New Zealand Experience Implementing the Reparation Sentence

Abstract

The New Zealand Criminal Justice Act of 1985 establishes reparation as a sentence and establishes a policy of this being a preferred sentence for property offenders. 1987 and 1988 data indicated that reparation was getting relatively limited use. Data was secured from a review of court files, interviews with probation officers and judges, a survey of probation officers, and a public survey to study implementation of the reparation provisions of the Act. A reparation sentence is imposed in 56% of property offences for which there is an identifiable loss indicated in police reports; losses are only identified in 59% of police reports for property offences. Sixty-four percent of employed property offenders were sentenced to reparation compared to 54% of unemployed property offenders. Reparation is imposed as a sole sentence for 22% of offenders sentenced to reparation. District and senior probation officers believe that reparation is being under-utilized in their districts. Judges and probation officers do not perceive reducing imprisonment as an aim for the reparation sentence. Probation officers, however, report that there are offenders from their district going to prison who could be handled in the community if reparation were combined with other noncustodial penalties. Comparisons of 1989 with 1983 public data found some erosion of the findings that the public would support a reduction in the use of imprisonment if this was linked with an increase in reparation, although there was no overall increase in the public expectation that property offenders be imprisoned. Judges are more likely to perceive imprisonment as an appropriate penalty for burglars than either the general public or probation officers. Compliance, after one year, is higher for fines than for reparation. After one year, 58% of the offenders sentenced to reparation were in full compliance. Enforcement actions were required for 76% of the offenders sentenced to reparation. Judges and probation officers perceived that victim-offender meetings are useful but these seldom occur. There is also considerable confusion as to whether the reparation sentence is intended primarily as a service for victims or as a sanction for offenders. Finally, there is ambiguity regarding an appropriate role of probation in administration of the reparation sentence.