Recompense made sense

It boils down to this: If we can, why wouldn’t we?

Albemarle County police worked 580 hours of overtime on the Interstate 64 sniper case last year.

That cost taxpayers $19,551.

County authorities tried to get some of that money back from one of the two persons convicted in the string of shootings, but a judge denied the request, saying that the law under which the repayment was sought was not applicable.

The law concerns restitution.

Offenders may be required to “pay back” some of the costs of their crimes. This is a fairly recent innovation in law, which had previously focused on traditional punishment of the offenders or, at most, probation or parole as part of an effort toward rehabilitation.

Restitution brought victims into the picture, acknowledging their losses and suffering. Restitution is generally considered a victim’s-rights issue, in which those wronged by crime may be accorded at least some compensation.

Restitution sometimes also aids in rehabilitation, if the offender is legitimately contrite and takes it as a way to pay a moral as well as a financial debt. In such cases, it also may promote healing for the victim.

But the law also allows authorities to seek compensation on behalf of the taxpayers. The commonwealth’s attorney must make the request. Such requests are fairly rare.

Albemarle police said they had submitted requests to the commonwealth’s attorney in the past.

This case, however, took on special significance because of its sheer impact. The quantifiable impact includes overtime — and police officials said the $19,551 was a low-ball estimate.

For the public, the impact includes the fear and horror of those early morning hours in March 2008, when two shooters fired at homes, businesses and vehicles in the Crozet-Waynesboro area, wounding two. Although not quantifiable, this emotional element helps make this case an obvious choice for the pursuit of restitution.

However, Judge Cheryl Higgins said the case did not meet the requirements of the law.

The attorney for Slade Allen Woodson, from whom restitution was sought (the second shooter was a 16-year-old juvenile at the time), argued that working complex, time-consuming cases is simply what police do. It is part of the job, part of the territory.

She has a point. We expect police to do what it takes to protect us. Not all cases are of equal difficulty, but all cases should call forth equal dedication from officers. In that sense, the I-64 sniper case isn’t so different after all.

But police sought restitution from a purely practical point of view. They spent $19,551 on overtime as a direct result of working a case that was extraordinarily dangerous to the public. That money could have been used elsewhere.

“One of the county’s core values is stewardship,” said police spokesman Lt. Todd Hopwood. “Why wouldn’t we try to get it back?”

Police agencies ought not expect or rely on restitution. Ultimately it is the taxpayers’ responsibility to fund their police services.

But if restitution can be fairly claimed, why not go for it?