Victims' money goes to others, despite N.C. law putting them first
(Law says crime victims should come first, but court system diverts funds to government.)
For 10 years, North Carolina's Court System has improperly diverted millions of dollars meant to compensate crime victims and deposited the money in state and local treasuries.
In 1998, the N.C. General Assembly put crime victims first in line to receive any money paid by probationers, parolees and prisoners, money assessed by judges after the offenders were convicted.
But officials at the Administrative Office of the Courts in Raleigh interpreted the law to put crime victims third in line, behind fees for probation and community service. An incorrect computer setting compounded that error by putting many crime victims sixth in line, behind fines and city and county fees.
Court officials say the courts' antiquated computer systems, which date to the 1980s and earlier, make it virtually impossible to say how much money went to N.C. Government accounts rather than victims.
But The News & Observer of Raleigh examined 244,489 cases where restitution was ordered; in 80,148 cases, restitution was NOT paid in full, even though court officials collected $8.5 million in fees and fines that by law had a lower priority than crime victims.
The latter number does not include cases closed early when the offender went to prison after making some payments. It does not include closed cases where a judge forgave unpaid costs before closing the case. And it does not include millions of closed cases that are archived and not accessible.
Court system officials did assess the damage to victims in one year: 2005. They say if crime victims had been first priority, they would have received an additional $825,823.
The court system's actions for the past decade irked former state Rep. Rick Eddins, R-Wake, who sponsored the 1998 victims rights legislation.
“Our intent was for the crime victims to be No.1,” Eddins said. “The victims for the last 10 years should get every penny.”
5 years, and still waiting:
Vernon Hutchins has been awaiting his money for years. The Air Force veteran recalled the day in July 2004 when he came home to “total devastation.”
Thieves had broken into his two-bedroom house in Charlotte's Enderly Park neighborhood and had stolen thousands of dollars worth of possessions, including antique pocket watches, a coin collection assembled over 20 years, and a diamond ring his mother had given to his father.
The thieves, he said, had broken a window, damaged electronic equipment and smashed much of his furniture. They had thrown his belongings in large piles on the floor.
“I was broken-hearted,” said Hutchins, 58, who works for UNC Charlotte, making scientific equipment used in research.
Later caught and convicted, the thieves were ordered to pay Hutchins $1,173. The money wouldn't have come close to replacing what he lost, he said, “but it would have been nice to know the law was on my side.”
The court system did collect $570 from one defendant for probation supervision fees. Hutchins questions why none of that money came to him.
“I feel like I'm totally alone here …,” said Hutchins, who adds that his home has been broken into several other times. “I don't have any faith in the court system at all.”
Thousands of others have fared no better. They include:
Larhonda Hunter of Raleigh, who had to get more than 160 stitches after an attacker slashed her face and body with a box cutter. “I was in the trauma center for five or six hours,” she said. The woman convicted in the crime, Josalyn Cotton, was ordered to pay $600 restitution to Hunter, plus $2,348 in court costs and other fees. Cotton has paid $900 to date, but Hunter hasn't received a penny.
Erika Ortiz of Raleigh, who was robbed of $20 at knifepoint in 2003. Her attacker paid $210 before a judge revoked her probation and sent her to prison. The courts sent all the money to the general fund as probation supervision fees. Ortiz received nothing.
David Conley and his wife, Stephanie, of Raleigh. George Barber broke into a garage in 2003 while the Conleys slept upstairs. Barber, who was drunk, set the garage on fire. A judge ordered Barber to pay $2,782 in restitution for the damage. Barber paid $276.11 in probation fees and court costs before his probation was revoked. “I never saw one dime,” Conley said. “The victim is left holding the bag.”
Victims' Rights history:
Support for Victims of Crime grew in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a period of steadily rising crime rates. Mothers Against Drunk Driving and groups supporting victims of crime advanced their agenda. In 1996, N.C. voters overwhelmingly approved a Victims Rights Amendment to the N.C. state constitution.
The amendment gave crime victims the right to be informed of and present at court hearings, to speak at sentencing, to confer with prosecutors and to be notified when the offender was released from prison.
The amendment also gave crime victims the right to receive restitution as prescribed by law. Eddins, the Wake County Republican, was a lead sponsor of the resulting law, passed in 1998, which moved crime victims to first priority for payment; they had previously been fourth.
In June 1999, Tom Andrews, a lawyer for the court system, wrote a memo instructing clerks how to fill out the Restitution Work Sheet and Order, a new form at the time.
Court computers were set to send money first to probation and community service fees, Andrews wrote. That would send the money to the state treasury, not victims.
Those fees were for services being currently provided, Andrews reasoned, while restitution was for past-due obligations. “Basic accounting principles dictate that current obligations be satisfied out of current receipts ahead of past-due obligations,” wrote Andrews, now retired from the court system.
This didn't mean that no money went to victims. The court system disbursed $26 million in restitution in the fiscal year July 2007 through June 2008. But that is only part of what judges ordered to be paid. Court officials say their antiquated computer systems have made it nearly impossible to calculate what percentage of restitution, fines and fees ordered has been paid.
But Andrews' memo put crime victim restitution at Priority 3 for the next 10 years, reducing the payments to victims. Tom Ross, AOC director at the time and now president of Davidson College, said he was probably told about the policy, but said he doesn't remember it.
Reached Friday, Andrews said the memo was “based on my own understanding and reasoning,” but declined to elaborate. “I've been retired so long it wouldn't make sense for me to comment,” said Andrews, who left the state courts office more than four years ago.
Another complication pushed crime victims even further down the list.
There are two types of restitution: one for crime victims and one for non-victims, such as a hospital or a doctor not paid for services provided to the victim.
The law assigns a lower priority to non-victim restitution. But the courts' computers have been programmed to lump victim and non-victim restitution together as Priority 6, unless the clerk manually overrides the program and moves the crime victim higher.
This ensures a longer wait for restitution.
A pledge for CHANGE:
Crime victims will be better served in future cases, says the new boss of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
John Smith, a former Superior Court judge from Wilmington who became the AOC director in February, said he did not know that his department had given crime victims lower priority than the law required until he was informed by The News & Observer.
“Restitution should be first. That's the intent of the legislature,” Smith said in an interview. “We can fix the … problem in one fell swoop, in about 30 minutes after you leave. Restitution will be given first priority.”
Smith that day ordered a reprogramming of computers to move restitution as the top priority in all future cases.
But Smith said it would be difficult to revisit past cases.
“That's the law of unintended consequences, when you tell a computer to go back and recalculate everything,” Smith said.
Gregg Stahl, Smith's top deputy, said that victims seeking to collect in past cases would have to speak with the clerk of court in the county where the offender was convicted. Clerks would decide restitution owed case-by-case, Stahl said.
One clerk's office has already changed its policies. After a News & Observer reporter inquired about the priority given crime victims, Wake County Clerk of Court Lorrin Freeman and Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Don Stephens realized the law wasn't being followed.
Freeman and Stephens agreed to manually enter all restitution cases as priority No.1. Freeman said her staff is making the change in cases from Jan.1, 2008, forward.
In Mecklenburg County, Clerk of Court Martha Curran said she plans to bring the issue to the attention of other county courts officials during a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. “It's certainly a legitimate issue,” she said.
But Curran noted that the courts are facing critical financial shortages – and possible layoffs. Court officials would have to examine whether they have the resources to manually reenter cases, she said.
A fraction of justice:
It's too soon to say whether any changes will help people like Lavargust Gray.
Gray was enjoying a meal at the food court of Charlotte's Eastland Mall on April 15, 2006, when two men approached. One of them, with a hand in a jacket pocket, demanded that he turn over everything he had just bought: a cell phone and Air Jordan tennis shoes.
Gray, who was 15 at the time, complied.
The robbers wound up paying more than $800 in probation fees after they were caught and convicted.
They were ordered to pay Gray $250 to compensate him for what he lost. Instead, Gray got $50.82.
“That's just not right,” he said.
View Larger Map
Sources: Charlotte Observer, News & Observer, U.S. Office of Justice Programs, NC General Assembly, Wikipedia, Google Maps
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment