Tennessee Senate Bill SB2243

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/24
• Engrossed: 3/18/24
• Enrolled: 4/15/24
• Passed: 4/29/24
• Chaptered: 5/9/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 35, Part 3, relative to restitution.

Impact

The enactment of SB2243 is expected to enhance the rights of victims within the criminal justice system in Tennessee. By providing clearer definitions of what qualifies as pecuniary loss, the bill aims to streamline restitution processes and make it easier for victims to receive fair compensation. This could lead to a more supportive legal environment for victims as they seek restitution, potentially encouraging more victims to come forward and participate in the justice system without the fear that their financial losses will be inadequately compensated.

Summary

Senate Bill 2243 aims to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, specifically focusing on the section related to restitution for victims of crimes. This bill redefines certain terminology used within the law and clarifies what constitutes 'pecuniary loss' for victims, thereby impacting how restitution is calculated and awarded in criminal cases. The bill introduces more explicit definitions regarding the financial losses that can be claimed by victims, ensuring that victims may recover reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to their involvement in the legal process, such as cooperating with law enforcement or prosecution related to an offense.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB2243 appears to be positive, especially among advocates for victims' rights. Proponents appreciate the effort to clarify and strengthen the restitution laws, arguing that it reflects an important acknowledgment of the hardships faced by crime victims. There seems to be a collective agreement that the bill is a step in the right direction towards ensuring that victims are adequately supported and compensated for their losses during the legal process.

Contention

While the bill seems to have garnered support from various stakeholders, there may be concerns regarding the practical implications of implementing these changes within the existing legal framework. Some critics may argue that expanding definitions could lead to ambiguities in court interpretations, potentially complicating the restitution process. Furthermore, there might be discussions on how effectively these changes are enforced and what oversight mechanisms should be in place to ensure victims receive the compensation they are entitled to.