The ineffectiveness of civil reparation in embezzlement proceedings: perspective from Peruvian judicial operators

Abstract

The study examined the perceptions of 50 judicial officials in a prosecutorial district in northern Peru regarding the political and criminal principles underpinning the partial decriminalization of custodial sentences for embezzlement offenses. A descriptive-relational quantitative methodology based on a Likert scale was employed (α: 0.90 / V-Aiken .95 / CVR-Lawshe I-CVI= 1.0). Descriptive statistics were calculated, along with the degree of alignment between the principles of minimal intervention in criminal law and the feasibility of administrative sanctions. Legal practitioners explicitly endorse the constitutional principles of minimal intervention, subsidiarity, and proportionality, yet simultaneously apply legal classifications that contradict these very principles. Aspects of comparative criminal law reform regarding restorative justice mechanisms and the enforcement of civil restitution were analyzed, demonstrating that the effectiveness of restitutionary sentences for property crimes is low. Positive r coefficients were identified between minimal intervention and the disposition toward decriminalization. The partial decriminalization of simple embezzlement constitutes a policy consistent with the constitutional principles of minimal intervention. Consequently, this paper proposes a reconceptualization of criminal classification toward restorative administrative sanctions that prioritize material restitution over incarceration for crimes that do not result in a net financial loss.