By Francis Scarcella
The Daily Item
SUNBURY — Northumberland County judges say their hands are tied over a law that allows various Pennsylvania state- and county-level departments to dip their hands into restitution paid by offenders to their victims, which ultimately delays for months, even years, what those victims receive.
An elderly county woman granted anonymity because of the nature of her case says “it’s a shame” that the $10,000 she is owed from the convict only dribbles in after the Department of Corrections and the Northumberland County court system get their cut first.
“I don’t even care anymore,” she said. “If I get a check, I get one. If not, then what can I do? Everyone is getting my money and I didn’t even do anything wrong.”
She believes she will not be paid in full for at least 10 years.
Steven Kremer pleaded guilty to theft by deception for stealing more than $27,000 from Sunbury Motor Co., and was ordered to pay $500 monthly and a total of $30,088.90 as part of his sentence.
What Sunbury Motors receives each month, according to calculations, is about $221, a figure that will not reach the full $500 every 30 days until state and county departments seize $3,000 to fund sometimes unrelated and extraneous programs.
There’s a Victim Witness Services Fund, and a Crime Victim Compensation Fund that gets funded before the crime victim gets compensated.
It’s a problem over which he has little sway, Northumberland County President Judge William Wiest said.
“Everyone wants to see the victims get what they are owed,” Wiest said Thursday.
“We try to do what we can in order to make sure victims get their money. There are also cases where we can’t order individuals to pay more than they make. So when a payment gets to a victim it is a lot lower than they like to see.”
Judge Charles Saylor echoed Wiest’s comments.
“We all want to see the victims get back what is theirs,” he said. “I agree there needs to be a better way and a way to make it more fair to everyone.”
According to Title 42, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Part IV Financial Matters, funds are first distributed to satisfy the collection agency fee, then the Crime Victim Compensation and Victim Witness Services funds — but only in cases where a defendant has been sentenced to incarceration, probation or is admitted into an accelerated rehabilitation program.
A county’s probation department also first gets a piece of the action to fund fees for electronic monitoring, offender supervision, alcohol highway safety, services, sheriff’s departments and witnesses.
At least 50 percent of what is left fulfills restitution to the victim until it is paid in full, which upsets that 70-year-old Northumberland County woman.
“It was ordered by a judge that I receive restitution for money that was stolen from me,” she said. “I get a check every month and I am happy about that but it was ordered I receive $350 but I only get about $200. Sometimes less and very rarely do I get more than $200.”
“It’s not fair and it’s not right,” said the woman who asked not to be identified because the burglar has since been freed and fears she would be again targeted by speaking out against him.
When restitution is ordered to more than one recipient at the same time, the court system prioritizes the payments to award the victim, the crime victims’s compensation board and any other governmental agency and insurance company.
State Reps. Kurt Masser and Lynda Schlegel-Culver want to change legislation passed by the General Assembly in 1998.
That law mandated a county’s probation department be responsible for collecting restitution and ordered that 50 percent of money be channeled toward costs, fines and fees before the victim gets his share.
“I am definitely looking into this,” said Masser, R-107, of Elysburg. “It isn’t fair to victims and this needs to be addressed.”
The legislation also permitted a wage attachment, allowed courts to use private collection agencies and mandated that the Department of Corrections deduct funds from inmate accounts while they serve time in prison.
Moreover, a county tacks on additional fees that create a higher total for the convict whose ability to pay may be limited. An offender who owes $80 in electronic monitoring fees, for example, would also be hit for another $10 for offender supervision fees and another $10 in service fees, creating a new balance of $100.
Paying off that new balance takes priority from the offender’s payments before the victim sees a dime.
‘I think this is backwards,” said Culver, R-108, of Sunbury.
“We have to make sure the victim gets their money and we need to look at this more closely.”
To make matters worse, the state House also recently passed a bill that would require 50 percent of county inmates’ money be diverted to pay court costs and fines before restitution payments.
The legislation is awaiting action in the state Senate. In some cases there are 20 or more fees — including one for domestic violence.
Even if a perpetrator’s crime had nothing to do with domestic violence, $10 of his restitution will still first go toward that program. Of his payments, one-time fees of $250 to the DNA Detection Fund or $8 to the Judicial Computer Project will come out of the restitution before that 70-year-old Northumberland County woman gets her check.
Dustin Heddings, of Milton, was charged with personal use marijuana and was fined nearly $500. He began to make a payment of $50 and had a second case of burglary placed on him.
He plead guilty to conspiracy to commit burglary and was ordered to repay $600. However, no payment has been made to the victims because he is still paying off his first court costs for the marijuana charge.
Northumberland County Prothonotary Justin Dunkelberger said he is also trying to make changes.
“As we continue to move forward with our cost collections efforts here in Northumberland County, we continue to battle the lingering stigma of ‘This is how it’s always been done,’” he said. “In the case of payment distributions — that needs to come from the top, Harrisburg, and until that happens we will continue to see cases where victims do not receive complete justice.
“There is no logical reason I have heard to date, where a person victimized by crime should have to wait on their restitution, all the while the state and county get their fees paid at the outset.
“Yet that is the system we have and must follow until allowed to do otherwise. Some might say that is crime, too.”