SB 6083
In CommitteeSenate
Restitution/postsecondary
Discouraging violent protests at postsecondary institutions by amending a court's ability to waive restitution owed to postsecondary institutions.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill prevents courts from waiving restitution that offenders owe to colleges and universities when their crimes (like vandalism during protests) damage campus property. It strengthens enforcement tools for collecting restitution and clarifies when courts can reduce or waive payments—specifically excluding postsecondary institutions from the usual exceptions that apply to insurers and most state agencies. The goal is to protect campus property and ensure institutions can recover costs from offenders.
- Prohibits courts from waiving restitution owed to postsecondary institutions (e.g., universities, community colleges) unless the offender lacks current or likely future ability to pay—specifically excluding postsecondary institutions from the general rule allowing waiver for insurers and most state agencies.
- Clarifies that restitution orders must identify the institution owed money and can be enforced like a civil judgment by the institution.
- Extends the period for enforcing restitution to up to 20 years (10 years initially, extendable once for another 10 years if the offender hasn’t made a good faith effort to pay).
- Requires courts to consider an offender’s ability to pay when setting monthly restitution payments, but explicitly states that inability to pay while incarcerated does not excuse compliance unless it results from refusing or losing a job in a class I or II position.
- Maintains restitution as mandatory for many crimes (e.g., property damage, injuries), with limited exceptions only for 'extraordinary circumstances' stated on the record.
Who is affected
- Postsecondary institutions (e.g., universities, community colleges, technical schools) — Students, faculty, and staff at public and private colleges, universities, and technical schools in Washington may be protected from property damage or disruption caused by protests, and institutions may more easily recover costs for repairs or other losses resulting from illegal activity at protests.
- Individuals convicted of crimes involving property damage to campuses — Individuals convicted of crimes that cause damage to campus property (e.g., vandalism during protests) may be required to pay restitution to the institution, unless the court determines they lack the current or likely future ability to pay (e.g., if they are indigent).
- Courts and judicial officers — Courts gain clearer authority to enforce restitution orders and extend collection periods, and may not waive restitution to postsecondary institutions based solely on inability to pay—unlike restitution owed to insurers or most state agencies.
- Victims of property crimes on campuses — Victims of crimes (including campus-related property damage) may benefit from stronger enforcement of restitution orders, and the state ensures restitution is prioritized for institutions affected by violent or destructive protests.
Pro/Con Analysis
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill strengthens enforcement of restitution for campus property damage, potentially deterring destructive protests by increasing the personal financial liability of offenders. This may reduce repeat offenses and signal that institutions will not bear the cost of vandalism — supporting campus safety and stability for students and staff.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(3)(a), Sec. 4(3), Sec. 5(4)By ensuring restitution is enforceable like a civil judgment and clearly identifying the institution owed, the bill helps colleges and universities recover costs from property damage (e.g., from protests), which can preserve academic resources, reduce tuition-driven cost shifts, and support equitable access to education — especially beneficial for public institutions facing budget pressures.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(10), Sec. 4(2)(b), Sec. 5(2)(b)The bill reinforces that restitution must begin at sentencing (not just after release) and prohibits courts from using incarceration as a tool to avoid payment unless job refusal is proven — this balances accountability with fairness, aiming to prevent offenders from delaying payment until after release while still protecting against punitive incarceration for inability to pay.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)The 20-year enforcement window (with one 10-year extension) provides institutions with a realistic chance to collect restitution over time, especially for high-cost damage — though this is offset by the risk of uncollectible debt if offenders remain indigent. The extension requires a court finding of *lack* of good faith effort, which adds a modest safeguard against indefinite collection.
FinancialRef: Sec. 2(3)The bill explicitly bars incarceration for nonpayment *unless* the offender refused or lost a class I/II job — a reasonable safeguard against criminalizing poverty. This may reduce unnecessary jail time for low-income offenders while still promoting restitution compliance.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill removes courts’ discretion to waive restitution for postsecondary institutions based solely on inability to pay, unlike for insurers and most state agencies — potentially imposing lifelong debt on low-income offenders, including incarcerated individuals, even if they lack assets or earning capacity. While courts must still consider ability to pay when setting monthly amounts, the requirement to pay remains unless the offender is deemed indigent *and* lacks likely future ability — a high bar. This could disproportionately burden formerly incarcerated people reentering society with limited means, especially those convicted of minor property crimes.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(3)(a), Sec. 4(3), Sec. 5(4)Extending restitution enforcement to up to 20 years (with one 10-year extension) increases the long-term financial and legal exposure for offenders, potentially hindering their economic reintegration. This could affect employment, housing, and credit access for years after release, especially for those with limited means — though the extension requires a finding that the offender hasn’t made a good faith effort to pay, which may mitigate abuse.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(3)The bill clarifies that restitution orders must name the institution and be enforceable like civil judgments, which improves administrative clarity for courts and institutions. However, it also shifts enforcement burden to postsecondary institutions (not the state or counties), potentially straining campus legal offices or requiring new contracts with collection agencies — especially impactful for smaller community colleges with limited legal resources.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(10), Sec. 4(2)(b), Sec. 5(2)(b)The bill explicitly prohibits postponing restitution payments until after release from confinement and requires courts to consider ability to pay *including* future earnings — but also bars incarceration for nonpayment unless tied to job refusal in class I/II positions. This could reduce recidivism by encouraging early financial accountability, but may also pressure low-income offenders to pay while still incarcerated (e.g., using meager prison wages), potentially undermining rehabilitation goals.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 3(1)By excluding postsecondary institutions from the general rule allowing waiver of restitution for insurers and state agencies, the bill makes restitution obligations more rigid and harder to discharge in bankruptcy or through court modification — increasing the likelihood of long-term debt traps for low-income offenders. This is not a tax increase, but it shifts financial risk from institutions to individuals, with minimal offsetting support for indigent offenders.
FinancialRef: Sec. 2(2), Sec. 3(3)(a), Sec. 4(3), Sec. 5(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Postsecondary institutions (e.g., UW, WSU, community colleges) gain stronger legal tools to recover costs of campus damage (e.g., from protests), potentially reducing budget strain and preserving resources for students. However, they must now actively enforce restitution orders (e.g., through legal or collection channels), which may strain smaller institutions’ resources.
Low-income individuals convicted of property crimes (e.g., vandalism) face increased risk of long-term debt and financial hardship, as courts can no longer waive restitution based solely on inability to pay — even if incarcerated or unemployed. This may hinder reentry and economic stability, especially for those without assets or stable employment.
Courts gain clearer authority to enforce restitution and extend collection periods, improving administrative consistency. However, judges must now apply a stricter standard for waiving restitution for institutions (vs. insurers/state agencies), increasing legal complexity and potentially requiring more hearings on ability to pay.
Victims of campus-related property damage (e.g., students, faculty, staff) benefit from stronger restitution enforcement, ensuring institutions can repair harm without shifting costs to tuition or fees. However, individual victims are not direct beneficiaries unless they are also the institutions — restitution goes to the institution, not individuals for personal property loss.