I don’t intend this to be a debate, I was just curious as to what the “official” line from governments is. A British woman was on the news this morning claiming that she was being ignored while the Japanese government paid out massive compensation to victims of the Tokyo subway nerve gas attack in 1995. I was wondering why compensation is paid to injury victims, robbery victims or families hit by crime. The only reason I could think of was that it’s a “guilt” payment by the government to say “sorry we failed to prevent this crime”.
I know that compensation is paid in Britain, and was recently introduced in Australia. Is it also paid in the US?
a similar question has been mulling around in my head mattk. compensation given to families who lose a child, for example at the hands of an error in surgery. why? i can fully understand that if a hospital has made a grevious mistake then they should be brought up on that, to prevent it happening in the future etc., and that if the wage-earner in the house is killed then of course compensation can help those that s/he leaves behind.
i’m trying to not sound heartless here, but how can a monetary compensation ease the suffering of grieving parents? my own personal feeling is that the importance of money is severely over-rated in such situations, what IS important is that preventative methods (where the money maybe should be going) be explored to prevent further mistakes - negligent or otherwise.
Illinois has a Victims Compensation Act for victims of violent crime, with compensation up to $27,000. Deductions are made from the possible award due to insurance benefits, worker’s compensation claims, and such.
Statutes don’t generally include the reasoning behind them, however, and this one is no exception. Therefore, without researching the legislative history behind the Act (which I am not about to do) would be speculation on my part.
Were I to offer a WAG, however, I would say the purpose is to assist in paying for lost wages, medical expenses, etc., for crime victims so the victim isn’t just personally injured but bankrupted as the result of being a victim of a criminal act. While one can sue the perpetrator for damages, one generally can not get money from someone who has no assets, which I would think would be the case for most perps.
While I tend towards being a libertarian philosophically, I also believe in safety nets, and criminal victims compensation seems to me to be a good use of government funds, or at least as good as many uses of my tax dollars that I can think of.
Cheers, 2nd Law. I don’t want to debate the rights and wrongs of paying compensation – I can see arguments on both sides – but I do wonder how it’s justified by the bodies that set up or maintain the payments. In your opinion, why do the authorities feel the need to compensate for someone’s lost wages or other hardships? Is it basically another form of social security (in which case, why is it separate from, for example, “standard” social security payments)?
in my state (MI), I’ve actually asked/learned more than a little about it. In the first place, it is customary for pretty much all persons convicted in this state to pay a fee to the “Victims’ Compensation Fund” (generally about $30 each, which actually adds up, and can be more if the judge orders, many crimes have no potential of victim compensation).
Compensation is paid for medical bills (past what insurances pay). It will not compensate the victim for property losses (although restitution can be ordered). NOr will it compensate you for time lost going to court (you may be eligible for witness fees). It will not pay “pain and suffering” costs. IIRC, wages lost were also not part of the program.
naturally, each jurisdiction has differing compensations.
(IIRC)The concept behind such laws arose from stories of assault victims who, in addition to lossing time from work, pain and suffering etc, had to pay medical bills due to some one’s criminal action. It is a completely seperate fund and has no relation to Social Security (a federal program), or welfare or anything of that nature.
It seems to me a very reasonable thing to compensate the victims of crime. After all, society (or the goverment thereof) has decided to live with a certain level of criminality and sets certain laws that affect me and may make me the victim of a crime. Society (through the law) restricts my ability to defend myself from crime (by carrying a firearm etc). It also releases people who are likely to commit crimes. While I understand this may be a good thing in general, the fact is that it has had the effect of injuring me as the victim of a crime. I can see the reason for society compensating the victims of crime before I see the reason to pay welfare and other things. In fact I see NO reason to justify welfare.
Thanks wring and sailor. I can certainly see the logic in asking convicted criminals to pay towards medical costs or lost earnings incurred by their victims. I guess sailor’s reasoning mirrors my guess as to the reason why it’s paid generally (although I disagree on the welfare point!). However, it almost seems to imply that all crime is preventable, and that a government is accountable for each and every one. Is that really realistic?
The problem is that once governments start paying victims, more hands outstretch for the money. Shortly after the US government offered payment of reparations to Japanese citizens kept unlawfully in internment camps, some African American groups clamored for payment because the US government allowed slavery.
In the US victims of crimes have a set period by which they must claim damages, although this statute of limitations varies from state to state. However the international community and the governments themselves do not recognize any limitation. England could decide tomorrow to pay reparations to the American victims of the American Revolution.
The fund in question has been created through fines assesed on criminals, and paid by them. It’s more like child support, which although the check is cut by the Friend of the Court, the moneys actually came from the non custodial parent.
This is a WAG based on a vague memory of a high school class dealing with ancient world history, but doesn’t compensation for a crime victim go back to either the Celts or possibly, the Vikings? I remember hearing about how victims of crimes or their families (in the case of murder) would be paid money/livestock/etc. and that the concept of prison wasn’t used.
I think monetary compensation goes back to the very beginnings of our legal system and is much older than our penal concept of rehabilitation.
Compensation payments to victims of crime in the UK are meant to be a recognition by society of the suffering that a fellow citizen has undergone.
There is some concern in the case of sexual abuse in state care since these often concern events many years ago with no forensic evidence (I can vouch for the fact that there as were such incidents since I was there as a child but was fortunate not to be victim).
The problem is that around 2/3rds of residents in state care ended up in jail, on drugs and habitual criminals mainly because they were ill-prepared for real life before leaving care.
As soon as the question of compensation raised its head the number of accusations and claims went up, but I have noted that virtually all these have come from the 66% jailbirds and not from the 33% such as myself who managed to organise a life.
Typical of many claims is that they were assaulted at night in the bedrooms, but since virtually all children in care slept in rooms with at least 4 other individuals and we are talking of livewire children who never miss a thing it is, in my view, impossible that such things could have gone on unnoticed to other children in the dormitories, certainly not in the dead of night when these are generally alleged to have occurred.
Since I work with convicts I know just how they think, any chance they have to make a claim against the prison system for bad food, unjust treatment(this always makes me bvreak out a wry smile) etc, I would say that most, in fact the vast majority of these claims laid by such folk are sipmply a means of enriching themselves.
I have known people who were awarded compensation when they were victims of crime and the perpetrator was never caught.
Where the victim was caught it is normal practice to sue them first but as has been pointed out, many criminals have few assets .
to clear up a few things:
A victim of a crime can sue the perpatrator for damages, including pain, suffering etc.
The court can order restitution for financial harm (pay back money that was stolen, damage to property etc.) These debts would be paid directly from the convicted person to the court system and then to the victim. In many cases (especially probation cases), you don’t get off supervision until after your restitution has been paid.
Often if you are a witness in a criminal case, you are entitled to a fee (nominal, trust me, I got something like $14 for a day, plus 0.10 per mile traveled to court, no, it didn’t include parking fees)
IN ADDITION: in some jurisdictions, you may apply for relief through a victim’s compensation fund, which has rules that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Generally, these payments are direct costs (ie medical bills not covered by insurance), and not the “pain and suffering” type of thing.
Or at least this is the case in Michigan. YMMV
Why? My bottom line cynical guess would be that the legislators decided when they saw it come up for a vote that a “yes” vote would be more likely to get them re-elected than a “no” vote. In a less cynical mode, I’d say that one of the basic reasons of government is to spread the risk of living, not unlike insurance. Which is why there are such things as disaster relief and fire departments. Victim’s compensation can be looked upon as disaster relief for an individual.
As for why it isn’t treated like social security, well, it isn’t a national program but a state program, and at least in Illinois it is administered by a different bureaucracy.
I can’t remember if it was weregeld, or just geld. But there was a story Gramps used to tell me about a boy who was accused of something, and for payment the boys father offered 40 pieces of silver. When the time came to trade, the other group decided that they wanted the silver and the boy and attacked the father. The father killed the others. What the point was I don’t quite remember.