They can and most likely will.
Then maybe there will be a substitute for justice. It’s not a healer, but a few million never hurt. I just hope the victim gets to normalcy.
They got their justice. He has been in prison for 15 years.
Until a timemachine is invented that’s the best the system can do for the poor women.
Actually (and its not my field of law), UK justice tends towards discouraging litiguousness of this nature. His victims will be asked why, after 15 years, they are deciding to sue now if not simply because this man has accrued wealth, and how that wealth causes them additional suffering for which he is responsible.
UK judges routinely throw out moneygrabber claims which are not in the public interest - some of the stuff which gets into US courtrooms would be dismissed instantly in the UK.
This man comitted horrific crimes and was sent to prison for them. In 1989 he attempted another and was given a life sentence for it, in this case interpreted as at least 15 years. In the last 15 years this man has done nothing wrong.
HOLD THE FUCK ON!!!
I just noticed re-reading the link the sidebar quote of the woman saying he should give all the money to organizations! Huh? I think the victims should get the money.
I was thinking it was one victim (yes, we get some UK news in the US)
In the previous case, I thought maybe she should get a cut and the rest go to programs. Seeing as there are multiple victims, divvy it up to them. The gov’t taxes people enough to fund these programs. And the funding is aided by the lottery tickets bought.
If these victims don’t get all the “winnings” something is seriously wrong.
Fuck, I hate rapists!
Posts 23 and 24. Do you 2 know the ramifications of rape? Do you think it goes away after a few years? I know 2 women who were raped. One is getting along reasonably well, but still terrified if she’s in an unfamiliar place. The second was a g/f I dated for 5 years. 10 years prior she was raped and absolutly freaked if I touched her neck as her attacker held her there to have his way.
The attacker was a friend of her brothers, so it wasn’t like trust could conquer it.
I’m not saying that victims have it easy but what do you want? That convicts be followed all their lives so they can never enjoy anything again. He is paying for his crimes the way that has been set up.
Society has been set up so as to punish people by sending them to prisons. Stocks are no longer used. This guy is a rapist scumbag but again so what?
He bought his ticket and won fair and square. If a judge wants to give his victims some cash out of that if and when a victim sues him that’s fine and dandy but otherwise like it or lump it the money is rightfully his.
Can convicted felons play the Lottery in the US?
This case was talked about on Irish radio yesterday. There was a legal editor(I think that was the job title any way) from one of the broadsheets on and he said that last year a judge found that a victim could sue a attacker who was broke at the time of the attack but had recently received a large amount of money from a inheritance. So there is precedent for such a claim. I agree that a lot of judges wouldn’t be as open to such a claim though.
Indeed, I have every sympathy for the victims and accept that their anguish will never really end. But unless part of the sentence handed down to the despicable monster all those years ago was a mandate to hand over a certain portion of all financial assets for evermore, that money is legally his.
We might discuss changing the UK legal system in order to prevent similar future instances, but if they are solely as a response to this one case that would appear to be more of a reflex than an informed proposal.
What about other form of gambling? Should he have to give up other form of winnings as well? What other crimes would fall under this rather strange form of criminal justice system?
Unfortunately, the victims simply CAN’T sue.
To sue for this sort of thing the claim has to be lodged within six years of the event (or if the victim is under 18 at the time six years from their 18th birthday).
I’m not saying it’s right - I’m just saying it’s true.
On the bright side he has been moved from an open prison to a more secure prison “for his own safety”. Life on Rule 43 in a proper jail is no pic-nic. Especially for someone with access to that sort of cash.
What is trully sickening is the vile Blunkett playing up to the ravening tabloids bloodthirst when this sort of thing is realistically never going to happen again. The worst Home Secretary EVAH!
Of course, I was forgetting this crucial stipulation.
Agreed (sans Howard of course). David Blunkett: :rolleyes:
Are you sure about that. The Radio prog that I mentioned talked about a statute of limitations but said that ultimately it’s at the discretion of the judge?
No I am not 100% certain. However on Radio 5 this morning they had a specialist lawyer in this field on and that was his opinion.
That sounds good enough for me 
Pity.
Well, it’s all going to be alright, because Tessa Jowell thinks we can change the law retrospectively and take the guy’s winnings:
It’s good to see that the government can in fact retrospectively decide to steal our money on a whim; and I feel reassured by the fact that it will only happen in “very specific” cases. Oh yes. That is certainly a comfort.
Seriously though, if we wanted to mandate an fixed standard of shittiness to which offenders should be subjected, then that should be part of the sentencing. The very idea that we should be able to retrospectively decide that someone’s got it a bit too good and should be punished some more is just utterly repugnant, even leaving aside the question of why we should.
<insert standard “yes, I am aware that rapists are evil” disclaimer here>
But that’s this government all over isn’t it - The Worst government since the Marquess Of Bute.
Remember Tony “pretty straight guy” Blairs plan to march louts to cash-points?
They don’t stand for anything, they just react to the red-tops (and the Mail).
If you thought the Dangerous Dogs Act was as bad as it could get. Think again.
As much as it annoys me, that’s his money.
Chill out Duffer,
were talking about the UK lottery here, not rapists.
As the chances of winning are ridiculously small, why shouldnt all criminals serving time, be encouraged to spend their pound on the lottery. Think of it as a stupid tax - they give it to camelot, camilot give it to the general public ! Where is the problem in that?
As for Blunkett - what a prat.
sin
Im in the he-played-the-lottery-and-won-fair-and-square camp. Taking his money from him via retroactive legislation is just asinine.