Summary

Thurgood Marshall Hughey v. United States — Opinion of the Court

If a prosecutor chooses to charge fewer than the maximum possible number of crimes, the potential recovery of victims of crime is undoubtedly limited, but so too is the potential sentence that may be imposed on a defendant. And although a plea agreement does operate to limit the acts for which a court may order the defendant to pay restitution, it also ensures that restitution will be ordered as to the count or counts to which the defendant pleads guilty pursuant to the agreement.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Hughey v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The Government also emphasizes policy considerations that purportedly support court-ordered restitution for acts outside the offense of conviction. Without such authority, the Government insists, in many cases courts cannot compensate victims for the full losses they suffered as a result of a defendant's conduct. The potential for undercompensation is heightened by prosecutorial discretion in charging a defendant, the argument goes, because prosecutors often frame their indictments with a view to success at trial rather than to a victim's interest in full compensation.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Hughey v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Further, the open-ended approach to restitution advocated by the Government, taken with § 3579 (a) (2) 's requirement that a court explain its refusal to award full restitution, would in some cases undermine the statute's goal of compensating victims. Section 3579 (d) authorizes a court to decline to award restitution altogether where "the court determines that the complication and prolongation of the sentencing process resulting from the fashioning of an order of restitution . . . outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims."
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature