Rape Victim Given Permission To Sue The Rapist.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by jambutty

But the whole point here is should a victim be able to claim compensation from the criminal after s/he has served the time if the criminal happens to come into some money after being convicted?l.

Simple answer no.

I think you need to detach the actual crime from the story here and think about the idea.

You should not be able to claim after the 6 year period just because the criminal comes into money. It is not crime dependant in my opinion. As stated you are punished by the court, that should be the end of it. Surely this would be like punishing the criminal twice.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by katex

Well at the very least he should be made to pay some of this money into the 'victim's fund' (if only the £5,000).

Why, he served his time as punishment decided on by the law of this land. Why should he be punished again? I know that rape is a very sensitive subject, would you think the same if he was a burglar or a tax dodger?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Neil

Why, he served his time as punishment decided on by the law of this land. Why should he be punished again? I know that rape is a very sensitive subject, would you think the same if he was a burglar or a tax dodger?

YES i would if they came into the money the way he did whilst on day release n still serving his too short sentence.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

YES i would if they came into the money the way he did whilst on day release n still serving his too short sentence.

Then it is the law which is wrong, and not this man, who bought a lottery ticket quite legally.

Will you have the situation where a woman who was raped by a penniless barsteward, feels cheated, because she won't be able to sue him?

[blazey]

Originally Posted by garinda

Then it is the law which is wrong, and not this man, who bought a lottery ticket quite legally.

Will you have the situation where a woman who was raped by a penniless barsteward, feels cheated, because she won't be able to sue him?

Dont be naive garinda, tax payers would then pay her compensation so its all nice and fair.

Isn't this a bit like double jeopardy?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

Then it is the law which is wrong, and not this man, who bought a lottery ticket quite legally.

Will you have the situation where a woman who was raped by a penniless barsteward, feels cheated, because she won't be able to sue him?

said the law should be changed,much earlier in tht thread, to make the piece of crap part with it would be natural justice.

[harwood red]

Originally Posted by Neil

Why, he served his time as punishment decided on by the law of this land. Why should he be punished again? I know that rape is a very sensitive subject, would you think the same if he was a burglar or a tax dodger?

But when it comes down to fraud and law breaking where money is involved there is often an attachment made to the persons estate to recoup some of the money lost!!

I have to agree though I think that if this was the law then you would have the courts full of people trying to claim compensation years after the crime..where would it end??

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

said the law should be changed,much earlier in tht thread, to make the piece of crap part with it would be natural justice.

I agree, there is some sort of poetic justice in this case, but in my mind it still doesn't make it right.

We all should be equal before the law, as I've said in another thread this week. If out judical system says that a person has paid for his crime, that should be the end of the matter, regardless if he subsequently comes into a fortune, or is declared bankrupt.

Compensation for the victim should be paid in relation to the severity of the crime, not how much is in his, or her, attacker's bank balance.