VWPAVictim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (United States)
References in periodicals archive ?
Criminal or Civil Nature of the VWPA and MVRA Through the Lens of the Ex
to restitution orders under the MVRA and VWPA); see also Judge William
Congress implemented the VWPA and the MVRA "to add a punitive
In response to the Task Force's Final Report, Congress passed the VWPA, which codified numerous recommendations made in the report.
(18) Neither pain and suffering nor lost wages were compensated under the VWPA. See Note, Victim Restitution in the Criminal Process: A Procedural Analysis, 97 HARV.
(36) The court also relied heavily on a contextual interpretation of [section] 2259, arguing [section] 2259 provides greater protection for victims than do the VWPA or MVRA, and therefore, a narrow interpretation of its proximate causation requirement would be "contrary to the purposes of restitution under [section] 2259." (37) In direct contradiction to the rulings of the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, the First Circuit held that proof of specific linkage between a defendant's offense and a victim's harm is unnecessary for finding proximate causation satisfied in possession cases.
[section] 3663(a)(1)(A) (stating courts "may order" restitution under VWPA); United States v.
The court held that the sums expended by the left-behind mother in trying to recover her children from Germany under the AC proceedings were direct losses within the VWPA. (161) It should be noted that in this case compensation was ordered even though the children were not returned under the AC proceedings.
This was a change from the VWPA, which allowed a court to decline ordering restitution based on a defendant's indigency.