Some men charged with physically or sexually assaulting women are discovering an easy way to get their charges dropped: by cash, cheque or credit card. It seems restitution can be bought instead of earned, simply by giving money to a women's shelter, a practice that is becoming increasingly common in courts across the country.

Until the mid-'90s, those convicted of sexual assault were put on probation or thrown in jail. Since then, however, more and more Crown attorneys have offered the option of making a court-approved restitution payment to a local shelter or sexual assault centre. What happens is that Crown and defence lawyers agree on a conditional discharge for the abuser, requiring him to make a payment to a violence-against-women organization and be put on probation instead of going to jail. The deal must be approved by a judge, and then as long as the abuser meets his probation requirements, the charge against him is withdrawn and kept off his criminal record.

Women's organizations agree they desperately need the money, but they are divided as to whether they should accept it. Sandy Onyalo, executive director of the Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre, says that although she has yet to receive a court-ordered payment, she doubts she'd take one. "For a lot of women, money is not the issue. The majority feels it's demeaning and diminishes the nature of the crime."

Others will accept the money, but not without conditions. Ontario's Chatham-Kent Sexual Assault Crisis Centre is one of the few with a clear policy concerning court-ordered payments: it will accept them only if the abuser meets a set of conditions, among them forfeiting the right to publication, and convincing a majority of the centre's board of directors that he shows genuine remorse for his actions.

The policy was developed in 2000, after the centre was approached by a law firm representing a local chiropractor charged with sexually assaulting 14 patients. Workers at the centre were asked if they were interested in a sizable donation ($15,000), and if so, could they write a letter -- to potentially be used as part of the chiropractor's defence -- stating such. They refused, and he was eventually found guilty. The executive director of the centre, Michelle Schryer, says it was not an easy decision. Clearly, they could have used the money, but at what cost? "We didn't want a two-tier system of justice so those with financial privilege have the opportunity to pay," she says. "And we didn't want women to feel betrayed by us."

Most organizations don't have such policies, but it's an issue they'll have to address as court-ordered payments become more common. According to Pamela Cross, legal director of Toronto's Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children, the switch to court-ordered payments is part of the justice system's growing focus on diverting abusers from crowded jails and courtrooms. "In many cases, perpetrators have the opportunity to make restitution, and the charge is withdrawn," she says. "And overwhelmed judges are mindful of that."

Besides being angered by the fact that abusers can pay their way out of their crimes, though, women's organizations say there is a more perverse injustice at work: some abusers receive charitable tax receipts for their payments. And there is little that shelter workers can do about it.

By all rights, perpetrators shouldn't get tax receipts: according to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, charitable organizations may issue tax receipts only for donations meeting the legal requirement of a gift: that it is given freely and has no direct personal benefit to the donor. But because shelter workers normally don't interrogate would-be donors, the perpetrator-donor would likely be issued a receipt, as is standard practice, unless he divulged that he was making a court-ordered payment. The same outcome would be likely if he put a cheque in the mail without any explanation and requested a receipt. "We don't pry into a donor's objective," says Sandra Danco, executive director of the Edmonton Women's Shelter. "That's absurd."

While it would be preferable for the courts to accept restitution payments on behalf of shelters and therefore avoid the issue of tax receipts altogether, many point out that the larger problem is that payments can hardly be considered restitution. Marilyn Churley, NDP member of provincial parliament for the Ontario riding of Toronto-Danforth, says it's unacceptable for abusers to buy absolution and calls on the provincial government to open an investigation into court-ordered payments. "In the era of cutbacks, it's just going to be more and more tempting for governments to turn a blind eye to this kind of practice," she says. "We have to see what kinds of deals are being struck this way and set up meetings with [women's] centres to create some kind of standard criteria so if the practice stays in place, an abuser won't get off the hook easily by buying redemption."

With no change on the horizon, however, many shelters will continue accepting funds knowing abusers may be getting receipts. "We don't really know who's signing those cheques when we get donations," says Caitlin Coull, public education co-ordinator at the Sexual Assault Crisis Centre in Kingston. "But there are times when, if you have a survivor knocking at your door wanting counselling and you don't have enough money, you'd be willing to take it from the devil himself. There's just never enough."