Monday, 3 September 2007

Victims compensation long overdue

I'm right behind the call by the Sensible Sentencing Trust to compensate victims of crime, but surprised at how little compensation they're after on victims' behalf.

"Compensation" is a bit of a misnomer, suggesting that what's proposed is money from taxpayers, when what they're proposing is that just ten percent of a criminal's fines are directed to the victims of crime to help them put their lives back together again. Ten percent? I'd be calling for one-hundred percent! It's not a debt to society or the state they need to repay, it's a debt to the people they've injured.

The principle in setting fines should be that criminals should never be able to gain a value from their crimes, and should to the fullest extent possible be forced to make restitution for their crimes to their victim(s). If setting the figure at ten percent is the only way to set those particular balls rolling, then I'm all for it.


  1. Yup, the fine person who assualted me earlier in the year has been convicted and fined. Of course all of that will be going to the state.

  2. Is it 10% of the fine for the specific act, or 10% of ALL fines?

    If the latter, that would be more acceptable. Otherwise, compensation is not a reflection of the crime, but a reflection of the criminal's ability to pay.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.