Justice Notes: Restitution
A White-Collar Journal forum for criminal justice, lived experience, and the personal search for redemption
RESTITUTION: Double Indemnity or Fair Retribution?
Welcome back to Justice Notes,
where I explore the overlooked architecture of punishment in America’s criminal justice system—with a special focus on the lives of white-collar defendants and the long road of reentry. This week, I take on the issue of restitution—a well-intentioned concept that often turns into a permanent form of punishment.
If we want to talk about second chances, we need to ask: Is restitution serving justice, or simply extending the sentence by other means?
White-collar crime has long been the stepchild in America’s broader conversation about mass incarceration. While much of the public focus—rightfully—has been on systemic racism, overcrowded prisons, and harsh sentencing for drug-related offenses, the plight of white-collar defendants has largely gone unnoticed. That’s beginning to change.
One of the key voices in this overdue reckoning is the White Collar Support Group, founded by Jeff Grant—a former lawyer who served time in federal prison. What began as a small support circle has evolved into a national movement. In 2020, The New Yorker published a profile of the group, elevating its work to national attention. Last year, they hosted a well-attended conference in New York City. Another is scheduled for this October, and with it, a deepening focus on a subject that affects almost every returning white-collar inmate:
Restitution.
From its inception, the group has focused on the challenges of reentry: stigma, employment barriers, and psychological fallout. But recently, it has led a growing call to examine how restitution functions—not as compensation alone, but as a form of extended punishment.
Let’s start with the basics. Under federal sentencing guidelines, the financial losses suffered by victims play a major role in determining the length of a defendant’s prison sentence. A $1 million loss? Expect years of additional time. But here’s the rub: after serving that sentence, the defendant is then required to pay back that same $1 million to the victims.
That’s double indemnity—punishment twice for the same offense. First through incarceration, and then through a financial judgment that rarely takes the defendant’s new reality into account.
During incarceration, inmates earn mere pennies per hour. Social Security payments are suspended. Upon release, returning citizens find most professional doors slammed shut. The sectors in which many white-collar defendants once thrived—finance, law, corporate leadership—are closed to them by regulation and reputation. Still, the courts rarely adjust restitution obligations to reflect post-prison realities.
And the result?
A financial life sentence.
Court-ordered payments become impossible to meet. This leads to technical violations, civil judgments, and in some cases, renewed incarceration. Families are destabilized. Mental health suffers. Reentry efforts collapse. And the very goals of the justice system—rehabilitation, reintegration, and public safety—are undermined.
If we want to build a justice system that balances accountability with recovery, restitution must be part of that equation.
✅ That means income-based repayment plans.
✅ It means hardship waivers.
✅ It means periodic judicial review.
✅ And it means asking a fundamental question: Are we trying to destroy this person’s life, or rebuild it?
Groups like the White Collar Support Group are stepping forward to raise these issues—loudly, clearly, and with increasing public support. As the national conversation about justice reform continues to expand, we must include restitution in that discussion. Not as an afterthought, but as a core issue.
Because without that change, there is no second chance. Only a sentence that never ends.
If this piece resonated with you, consider sharing it or leaving a comment. To support this work and help spread awareness about justice reform for white-collar defendants, subscribe to White-Collar Journal and stay connected.
Well-written, balanced piece that raises important questions about “double indemnity.” The bind of making restitution without adequate income is very discouraging to those who have served their time, desire to make realistic amends and move on having “paid the price for their crimes.”
Of course, victims should be compensated, but there must be a more equitable solution because you “can’t get blood from a stone.”
A truly illogical - and unjust - system.