Victim 'can sue Lotto rapist for damages'

#3
Anchor_Faced_Jack said:
I'm not sure if it is a good thing...................

Now the flood gates will open up
Now quite what is wrong with a flod of victims getting their just deserts from their abusers/attackers etc. Just remeber who is the victim, and who carried out the assault.
 

OSLO

War Hero
#4
Does this mean that victims are entitled to a share of earnings/winnings that their attacker might gain in the future? For which crimes?

Isn't the point of prison to punish and rehabilitate? While I could endorse a restriction of freedoms during prison time (including a ban on games of chance and a forfeiture of winnings to the state if gained while in prison), I'm not sure that there is "justice" in giving earnings/winnings to a victim post-sentence. If there was an award at the time of the trial, then it should, naturally, be paid in full.
 

slim

War Hero
#5
OSLO said:
Does this mean that victims are entitled to a share of earnings/winnings that their attacker might gain in the future? For which crimes?

Isn't the point of prison to punish and rehabilitate? While I could endorse a restriction of freedoms during prison time (including a ban on games of chance and a forfeiture of winnings to the state if gained while in prison), I'm not sure that there is "justice" in giving earnings/winnings to a victim post-sentence. If there was an award at the time of the trial, then it should, naturally, be paid in full.
Perhaps the answer is to award victims compensation at the time of the trial. This compensation to be paid IF the perpetrator accrues sufficient funds in their lifetime.
 
#6
OSLO said:
Does this mean that victims are entitled to a share of earnings/winnings that their attacker might gain in the future? For which crimes?

Isn't the point of prison to punish and rehabilitate? While I could endorse a restriction of freedoms during prison time (including a ban on games of chance and a forfeiture of winnings to the state if gained while in prison), I'm not sure that there is "justice" in giving earnings/winnings to a victim post-sentence. If there was an award at the time of the trial, then it should, naturally, be paid in full.
But criminal action is only to deal with the crime itself, civil action is about compensation for loss and suffering for the victim. A Slim suggest perhaps suitable awards should be made at the time of the criminal trial with some statuary payback scheme.

Perhaps making criminals pay say 25% of any earnings to the victim until some ammount set by the tria judge is reached may be a valid way and as the reality of the burden it will cause to the guilty ones sinks in it may be an additional disincentive to criminality, particularly crimes against the person where there is already good case law for very big numbers being involved.
 

OSLO

War Hero
#7
Imagine the cost of running an agency to keep track of ex-cons and ensure that compensation payment is received. Much better for any compensation to be accrued by immediate forfeiture of money and property at the time of the trial, providing mitigating circumstances for family, etc.
 
#8
The victim did not want to sue her attacker after the the original court case

But as soon as she heard that he had won £7 million 16 years later she was straight in

It just doesn't feel right

What if you were adrift once an pusser fined you at the table

then when you got your gratuity they said "You have more money now, I want some more of it"

Where will it end?
 
#9
Maxi_77 said:
Anchor_Faced_Jack said:
I'm not sure if it is a good thing...................

Now the flood gates will open up
Now quite what is wrong with a flod of victims getting their just deserts from their abusers/attackers etc. Just remeber who is the victim, and who carried out the assault.
Opportunistic money grabbing springs to mind, pretty much a reflection of the base level of british society I guess.

I recognise your point downthread that criminal punishment and civil action are different things, but there is something about this which leaves me uncomfortable. I just can't particularly articulate why at the moment, probably because amending the law when it becomes financially beneficial to do so is questionable.
 

exile1

Lantern Swinger
#10
I fear the lawyers wil be the real beneficaries............... laws made by the legal profession via parliament for the benefi of................
 
#11
Karma said:
Maxi_77 said:
Anchor_Faced_Jack said:
I'm not sure if it is a good thing...................

Now the flood gates will open up
Now quite what is wrong with a flod of victims getting their just deserts from their abusers/attackers etc. Just remeber who is the victim, and who carried out the assault.
Opportunistic money grabbing springs to mind, pretty much a reflection of the base level of british society I guess.

I recognise your point downthread that criminal punishment and civil action are different things, but there is something about this which leaves me uncomfortable. I just can't particularly articulate why at the moment, probably because amending the law when it becomes financially beneficial to do so is questionable.
At the same time and I do undestand to some extend your point, when the case was brought the Law Lords did admit that both the cut off date was arbritary, there was no good reason for it being the period selected, just some one had picked a number, and that there were previous cases where arbritary timebars had been lifted on request.

You wil probably have noticed that in general I am not a particularly vindictive person, but in this case there is a great sense of pleasure at the prospect of this b*st*ard seing at least some of his cash just slipp through his fingers, and that he will have to pay for that priviledge on top of any award.
 
#13
Maxi_77 said:
You wil probably have noticed that in general I am not a particularly vindictive person, but in this case there is a great sense of pleasure at the prospect of this b*st*ard seing at least some of his cash just slipp through his fingers, and that he will have to pay for that priviledge on top of any award.
Indeed, sometimes I have difficulty in avoiding an emotional reaction. Sometimes being libertarian can be challenging :)
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#14
Karma said:
Maxi_77 said:
.... but in this case there is a great sense of pleasure at the prospect of this b*st*ard seing at least some of his cash just slipp through his fingers, and that he will have to pay for that priviledge on top of any award.
Indeed, sometimes I have difficulty in avoiding an emotional reaction. Sometimes being libertarian can be challenging :)
My question is: If he'd repaid his debt to society & was fully rehabilitated under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974- ie: the conviction was spent, lead a blameless life ever since, started a business & through sheer hard work made the same sum of money in legitimate profit - what would be the moral/legal standing on that issue?

The purpose of the Act, from my understanding, was that once a conviction & subsequent sentence was "spent", then it was as if the offence "had never taken place" & no further penalties incurred by the offender for that particular conviction.
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#15
He may have paid his debt 'to society' but NOT TO HER. His crime was quite beyond sympathy and he should have been hanged.
 
#16
Ninja_Stoker said:
Karma said:
Maxi_77 said:
.... but in this case there is a great sense of pleasure at the prospect of this b*st*ard seing at least some of his cash just slipp through his fingers, and that he will have to pay for that priviledge on top of any award.
Indeed, sometimes I have difficulty in avoiding an emotional reaction. Sometimes being libertarian can be challenging :)
My question is: If he'd repaid his debt to society & was fully rehabilitated under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974- ie: the conviction was spent, lead a blameless life ever since, started a business & through sheer hard work made the same sum of money in legitimate profit - what would be the moral/legal standing on that issue?

The purpose of the Act, from my understanding, was that once a conviction & subsequent sentence was "spent", then it was as if the offence "had never taken place" & no further penalties incurred by the offender for that particular conviction.
Simply whilst his debt to society is dealt with through the criminal courts, his debt to her is a civil matter which sheis now trying to resolve. And I do hope she succeeds, perhaps it will make the odd bastard stop and think, or make some fear retribution just as their victims feal fear every time they go out.
 
#17
I think the crime was evil and he should have been punished harder etc. However 16yrs later we see the wee twinkle of $£$£ in the eye of a victim. Not a Barrack Block Lawyer or legal expert but I guess that that chap may be covered under the Rehab of Offenders Act. This would open the floodgates into lots of claims that ultimtately would line the pockets of the legal trade.

If any financial penalty is made it should be at the time of the trial and % based. The trouble is that a Champagne Charlie Investment Banker who raped someone can afford for 15% of his assets/property to be sold off. Whereas a wee scrote with nothing will be on legal aid and have very little hard cash to stump up.

Morally this is a difficult question but I fear that her family have driven this as a quick easy buck. He was evil, but I hope that the case is dismissed as out of time. I can see where yer wee woman & her family is coming from and if it was my wee Granny I would be doing the same (emotive energy) but we must look at the big picture. This after event compensation culture is not healthy to decent society.
 
#18
Hopefully it will send a message to criminals that even after a (usually short custodial sentance) they will still owe their victim a debt. He raped her, she will have to live with that for the rest of her life, so he should owe her a debt for the rest of his life.
 
#19
DerbyCounty said:
I think the crime was evil and he should have been punished harder etc. However 16yrs later we see the wee twinkle of $£$£ in the eye of a victim. Not a Barrack Block Lawyer or legal expert but I guess that that chap may be covered under the Rehab of Offenders Act. This would open the floodgates into lots of claims that ultimtately would line the pockets of the legal trade.

If any financial penalty is made it should be at the time of the trial and % based. The trouble is that a Champagne Charlie Investment Banker who raped someone can afford for 15% of his assets/property to be sold off. Whereas a wee scrote with nothing will be on legal aid and have very little hard cash to stump up.

Morally this is a difficult question but I fear that her family have driven this as a quick easy buck. He was evil, but I hope that the case is dismissed as out of time. I can see where yer wee woman & her family is coming from and if it was my wee Granny I would be doing the same (emotive energy) but we must look at the big picture. This after event compensation culture is not healthy to decent society.[/quote]

The judiciary take into account at the time of sentencing a persons financial situation. This is why it is common to see lower fines and penalties awarded to those of reduced financial circumstances than say a wealthy person who commits a similar offense. This of course is in same ways fair as to fine a wealthy person the same as a chav on the dole would not be an effective punishment. I do believe though that if the chav on the dole through some means suddenly acquires wealth then retrospective punishment should be considered.
As for a decent society, if we were a decent society those guilty of rape and some other crimes of violence would never be free.
 

Yorkie_S/M

Lantern Swinger
#20
Do you ever fully pay for a crime. Not that this applies to me, but every time I have applied for a job there is always the question on the application form "Do you have a ciminal record?" or words to that effect. So that when you have done your time that is it, never applies. This applies even moreso if the crime is sexual. Still I do believe a compensation clause could be written into a sentence in certain circumstances.
 

Similar threads