Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard HB26-1017 Criminal Restitution Prohibited for Insurers. The bill addresses issues in Colorado’s restitution system by prioritizing payments to direct victims rather than institutional payors like insurance companies that have already compensated victims.
Aaron gave testimony in support of the bill, sharing his experience navigating Colorado’s restitution system after incarceration and describing how restitution orders can grow indefinitely due to interest and payments directed toward institutional claims rather than victims. His testimony highlights how current restitution structures can create lifelong, unpayable debt that undermines rehabilitation and reentry, even for individuals who have served their sentences and are working to rebuild their lives.
Aaron’s written testimony is attached below.
“Chair Weissman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my experience with Colorado’s restitution system. I am here today in support of HB26-1017.
In 2018, I was convicted of vehicular assault and sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Corrections. I take full responsibility for what I did. I hurt people, and I served my time. While incarcerated, I earned my bachelor’s degree in computer science, served as a wildland firefighter, and prepared myself to re-enter society as a productive citizen. I am now out, employed, and I have not reoffended.
The Numbers That Expose the System
The court ultimately ordered $298,710 in restitution in my case. Of that amount, only $6,205 was direct victim restitution — money owed to the people I actually hurt. I have paid $5,245 of that, leaving a balance of $959.73. The remaining $292,505 — over 98% of the original order — was ordered to government agencies and insurance programs through subrogation claims. These are entities like TRICARE and military medical programs that had already compensated the victims through their existing coverage. I have paid nothing toward those claims — not because I refused to, but because the system directs my payments to direct victims first.
Under Colorado law, restitution accrues interest at 8% per year. As of today, the interest alone on the insurance subrogation portion is $179,403 — nearly thirty times the entire amount of direct victim restitution in my case. My total balance now stands at $475,739. I pay $100 per month. The state intercepts my tax refunds and has placed liens on my property. At this rate, the debt grows faster than I could ever pay it, even if I dedicated every spare dollar I earn to restitution for the rest of my life.
The Lifelong Consequences
This debt is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. It does not expire. It follows me until my death — and for two years beyond it. I cannot build credit. I cannot purchase a home. The 8% statutory interest rate compounds on a balance I can never meaningfully reduce. Every year, I fall further behind despite doing everything the system asks of me.
I served twelve years. I came out and rebuilt my life. I am working, I am paying, and I have stayed out of trouble. But the system is not designed for me to succeed. It is designed for a debt to grow in perpetuity — not to make victims whole, but to serve as a permanent collection mechanism for institutional payors that have already been compensated through their own programs.
I Tried to Work Within the System
I want this Committee to know that I did not simply accept this situation. I tried to resolve it through the process Colorado law provides. Under Section 18-1.3-603, restitution may be reduced with the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the victim. So I hired an attorney and attempted to negotiate lump-sum settlements with the agencies listed on my restitution order.
My attorney contacted the District Attorney’s restitution office. He left voicemails. He sent emails. He followed up repeatedly. The restitution office manager never responded. My attorney then attempted to reach the agencies directly. They had no obligation to negotiate, and they did not engage.
My own attorney ultimately advised me that pursuing a settlement was not worth the legal fees, because the agencies receiving my restitution have no incentive to negotiate. And why would they? They hold a permanent judgment backed by the State of Colorado, accruing 8% annual interest, with automatic enforcement through tax intercepts, liens, and wage garnishments. No private creditor in America has that kind of collection power. There is no reason for any institutional payor to accept a reduced settlement when the alternative is a guaranteed, state-enforced, interest-bearing judgment that never expires.
I spent money I did not have on legal counsel to try to resolve this debt responsibly. The system gave me no path to do so. The statute requires consent that will never be given, because the system removes every incentive to give it.
Restitution Is Not a Collection Agency
Colorado’s restitution statute declares three purposes: to make victims whole, to deter future criminal conduct, and to rehabilitate offenders. See § 18-1.3-601, C.R.S. In my case, the system is accomplishing none of them.
The victims have already been made whole. Their medical costs were covered by their insurance programs. The direct victim restitution owed to them was $6,205, and I have paid all but $959.73. Of my total $475,739 balance, 99.2% goes to government agencies and insurance programs — not to any person I harmed.
The debt does not deter future criminal conduct. I served twelve years in prison. That is the deterrent. An unpayable financial obligation growing at 8% per year on top of a completed prison sentence does not add meaningful deterrence. It adds despair.
And the debt actively undermines rehabilitation. The legislature recognized that restitution should serve as a “mechanism for the rehabilitation of offenders.” A permanent, mathematically unpayable debt that prevents someone from building credit, purchasing a home, or achieving financial stability does the opposite. It punishes reentry. It punishes the very behavior the system is supposed to encourage.
When restitution stops serving its statutory purposes and becomes an indefinite revenue stream for institutional payors, it is no longer restitution. It is a collection agency operating under the authority of a criminal sentence. That is not what this legislature intended when it enacted the restitution statute, and it is not what justice requires.
Why I Support HB26-1017
HB26-1017 takes a critical step toward fixing this system. The bill’s legislative declaration states the right principle: direct victims should be prioritized, and insurance companies that compensated victims through their business operations should recover losses through civil remedies rather than criminal restitution orders. That principle is sound, and it is long overdue.
Criminal restitution was designed to make victims whole. It was not designed to give institutional payors a permanent, state-enforced collection mechanism with 8% guaranteed interest and no expiration date. This bill begins to restore the system to its intended purpose by ensuring that restitution dollars go to the people who were actually harmed, not to insurance companies that have already been compensated through their own business models.
I urge this Committee to pass HB26-1017.
Closing
I did something terrible. I went to prison for it. I paid my debt to the people I hurt. I came home and built a life. I hired a lawyer and tried to resolve the remaining debt through the process the law provides. The system would not let me.
HB26-1017 is a meaningful step toward a restitution system that serves its actual purpose — making victims whole, not enriching institutions at the expense of people who are trying to rebuild their lives. I support this bill, and I ask you to pass it.”
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
