Author ORCID Identifier
Diversion, Restitution, Victims' Rights Movement, Criminal legal system, Selection bias, Public prosecutors, Victim input
In this Article, I explore the practical and theoretical conflicts that might surface when the diversion movement and the Victims’ Rights Movement intersect. I focus on two possible sites of tension: victim input into the diversion offer and the victim’s right to receive restitution as a term of diversion. Protocols to give victims greater voice in the justice process have been a mainstay of the burgeoning Victims’ Rights Movement for the past several decades, but I argue that those protocols must be understood within (and thus limited by) the contexts of fiscal responsibility, compassion for the offender, and proportionality in the justice system that lie at the heart of diversion schemes. Any other arrangement risks elevating retribution over rehabilitation and inserts a level of arbitrariness into the diversion process that would subvert our commitment to fairness and transparency.
SMU Law Review
Kay L. Levine, Victims' Rights in the Diversion Landscape, 74 SMU L. REV. 501 (2021).