Priority Justice Reform Bill Advances in House with powerful testimony

HB26- 1017 Criminal Restitution Prohibited for Insurers would change how criminal restitution works by removing insurance companies from the definition of a “victim” for restitution purposes. Under the bill, insurers could no longer collect restitution through the criminal courts when they suffer losses; instead, they could pursue those losses through civil lawsuits against offenders if necessary. This bill passed the House Judiciary Committee on February 3rd, 7-4.

Colorado’s restitution system was created to help victims recover, not to trap families in cycles of poverty after someone has already served their sentence. Yet large portions of restitution payments can go to insurance companies instead of directly to victims, turning a tool for healing into long-term financial punishment that follows people long after incarceration. HB26-1017 takes a common-sense step by prioritizing real victims over corporate reimbursement so restitution works the way it was intended.

Research and reporting have shown that restitution debt is one of the biggest barriers to successful reentry. People leaving incarceration already face steep odds, including housing barriers, limited employment opportunities, supervision fees, and the cost of rebuilding their lives. When restitution functions like lifelong debt collection rather than repair, it delays stability and increases the likelihood that someone falls back into the system. Public safety improves when people can work, support their families, and reintegrate, not when they are buried in unpayable debt. Below is the prepared testimony of one of our partners in this work, Kyle Giddings, Deputy Director of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee,

My name is Kyle Giddings. I’m the Deputy Director of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, and I’m here today to urge a yes vote on 1017.

In 2013, after years of struggling with addiction, I ended up in the criminal legal system. I took responsibility for my actions and pled guilty in my case. After that plea, I was ordered to pay $78 thousand dollars in restitution—not to a direct victim, but to an insurance company.

I accepted that obligation. I started paying.

One year later, I received a letter from the court informing me that my remaining balance would begin accruing 12 percent interest until it was fully paid—interest that thankfully dropped to 8 percent in 2019, but only after years of compounding damage.

I have been paying restitution since 2013. As of today, I have paid $54 thousand dollars toward that obligation.

In interest alone, I now owe an additional $64 thousand dollars

That means my total remaining balance is $88 thousand dollars—more than I originally owed—after more than a decade of making payments.

I am one of the lucky ones. I have a stable job. I get to advocate for my community and for people impacted by the criminal justice system. Even after a $1,100 monthly wage garnishment, I can still afford my apartment and feed my family.

But it is not easy. And it gets harder every year.

But I am still one of the lucky ones. Not everyone leaving incarceration is as fortunate as I have been.

It’s time for Colorado to join states like Louisiana and Massachusetts and show there is a meaningful difference between compensating a natural person who was harmed and reimbursing a corporation designed to manage risk, and stop using the state for corporate debt collections.