Ellingberg v. United States (Restitution & Ex Post Facto Clause)
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
Ellingberg v. United States (Restitution & Ex Post Facto Clause)
-
ナレーター：
-
著者：
概要
Send us a text
The Court unanimously held that restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is a form of criminal punishment, meaning it cannot be applied to conduct that occurred before the statute was enacted without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause. Although Ellingburg’s offense predated the MVRA, he was sentenced under it and ordered to pay restitution. The Eighth Circuit had treated MVRA restitution as a civil, nonpunitive measure, but the Supreme Court rejected that view. Looking to the statute’s text, structure, and placement within the criminal code, the Court emphasized that restitution is imposed only on convicted defendants, at sentencing, alongside imprisonment and fines, and through procedures governing criminal penalties. Prior precedents likewise treated MVRA restitution as punitive. While restitution also serves compensatory aims, victims cannot control or negotiate it as they could in a civil action, underscoring its criminal nature. The Court therefore reversed and remanded.