Should rape victim be allowed to sue lottery winner?

#2
I think all criminals who offend against the person should automatically have huge damages awarded against them as a standard sentence.

If they then come into any money except that required to meet their basic needs, then this is put into the pot and paid to the victims as compensation.

That way murderers and rapist etc who sue because of slopping out etc will win their compensation and see it paid to their victim.
 
#4
Bat_Crab said:
Would she have sued him if he hadn't won the lottery?
Would there have been any point if he hadn't won the lottery? As he now has got the money, she should be able to recover damages from him. He caused her injury, he should have to pay for that.
 
#5
Bat_Crab said:
Would she have sued him if he hadn't won the lottery?
Of course not there is no point in suing unless the person can both pay the damages awarded and your own legal bill. On the other hand as suggested above perhaps it is a good thing for victims to be able to keep the sword of damocles hanging over there attackers heads for a very long time.
 
#6
Hoare, of Newcastle, notched up jail terms of 33 years from 1973 for one rape, three rape bids and assaults.
Once someone has done their time then the 6 year rule could come into force, that would give his victims up to 39 years to claim. He's obviously not remorseful in any way as he'd have passed on some of the winnings to his victims privately.
 
#7
So the level of compensation you recieve as a victim should depend on how rich your assailant is or becomes in the future?
 
#8
Bat_Crab said:
So the level of compensation you recieve as a victim should depend on how rich your assailant is or becomes in the future?
The level of compensation should be set by a court. The ability to pay is a totally seperate matter.
 
#9
Bat_Crab said:
Would she have sued him if he hadn't won the lottery?
She didn't originally simply because he was penniless at that stage.

I don't like this story. I accept that the 6 years mark is an arbitary figure but if you are going to change this, at what point do you stop?

10 years? 25 years? Life of victim?

All are arbitary and each one as good the other. Moving the figure out gives Lawyers another way of making money (never a good thing :roll: ) and gives victims an opportunity for Revenge.

I know there is a difference between civil & criminal cases but isn't this what we have courts for now? To punish appropriately according to the circumstances that the Court finds itself in at time of sentencing?

An example. Some punter does wrong and gets jailed for it. His circumstances are taken into consideation by the Judge during sentencing.

X years time he is released. He has allegedly paid for his crimes and has been punished. His mum has died and left the house to him and he now has a material value.

Is it right that the original victim of the crime has a right to claim compensation now?

Doesn't feel right to me.
 
#10
Bat_Crab said:
So the level of compensation you recieve as a victim should depend on how rich your assailant is or becomes in the future?
No it should not, but in this country it will be. Why do you think sueing the council etc. is a thing they all do?
 
#11
Perhaps victims should have access to the assailant's estate when they die? The punishment should be styled to suit the offence and compensation should be set according to the crime committed, not the wealth of the perpetrator.
 
#12
Bat_Crab said:
So the level of compensation you recieve as a victim should depend on how rich your assailant is or becomes in the future?
There should be a standard compensation order (Let us say £1 Million for arguments sake).

As soon as the perp is found guilty the order is slapped on him or her, as well as the compensation order, they would also be required to pay for the cost of food, accomodation, TV licences etc whilst in jail.

Work to eat in other words.

As I said, if they win compensation or come into any money, they pay it to their victim.

At one fell swoop you would rob Human Rights Lawyers of much of their ill gotten income too.

The taxpayer wins, the victims wins, the scumbag criminal and scumbag lawyer loses out.

Its a win win situation.
 
#13
Bat_Crab said:
So the level of compensation you recieve as a victim should depend on how rich your assailant is or becomes in the future?
In the same way as Heather Mills is getting a bigger payout than a woman married to a workshy dole recipient or an office clerk?

OTOH. The_Cads idea is quite good where the money goes into a pot for all victims.
 
#14
EX_REME said:
Bat_Crab said:
So the level of compensation you recieve as a victim should depend on how rich your assailant is or becomes in the future?
No it should not, but in this country it will be. Why do you think sueing the council etc. is a thing they all do?
WTF are you on about?
 
#15
in_the_cheapseats said:
Bat_Crab said:
Would she have sued him if he hadn't won the lottery?
She didn't originally simply because he was penniless at that stage.

I don't like this story. I accept that the 6 years mark is an arbitary figure but if you are going to change this, at what point do you stop?

10 years? 25 years? Life of victim?

All are arbitary and each one as good the other. Moving the figure out gives Lawyers another way of making money (never a good thing :roll: ) and gives victims an opportunity for Revenge.

I know there is a difference between civil & criminal cases but isn't this what we have courts for now? To punish appropriately according to the circumstances that the Court finds itself in at time of sentencing?

An example. Some punter does wrong and gets jailed for it. His circumstances are taken into consideation by the Judge during sentencing.

X years time he is released. He has allegedly paid for his crimes and has been punished. His mum has died and left the house to him and he now has a material value.

Is it right that the original victim of the crime has a right to claim compensation now?

Doesn't feel right to me.
I agree that changing the time ruling could give rise to a whole load of problems in the future. So as said, perhaps the 6 year rule should come into force on completion of sentence. Should he have been allowed to win in the first place whilst still serving a jail sentence?
 
#16
The victim suffers for life, why shouldn't the criminal?
 
#18
Perhaps she should be allowed to sue for the right to hack of one of his testicles. A bonus ball might also be available...
 
#19
The_Cad said:
The victim suffers for life, why shouldn't the criminal?
Because it would hurt his feeling and he would then try to sue the government for that... and probably win :roll:
 
#20
I'm split on this to be honest. On one hand I think dam right he should give her ALL of his winnings cos he ruined her life the barestard. But in the other its a case of when do you draw the line, this happened in 1988 ffs, without sounding to harsh but get over it, he didnt actually rape her*, and not only that she is only know as Mrs A, what sort of message does that put out for women of rapes and attempted rapes.

I hate to say it but I have got that strange niggling feeling she has been sitting on her arse for the last 20 years milking the system, and she saw an opportunity that arouse. I cant say I wouldnt do the same, who wouldnt want a couple of mil in the bank??!!

Where'd they get the 6 year figure from though, seems awfully randum.


* I am not saying that an attempted rape is less important but considerating victims of actual rape probably have read this story it seems sort of unfair.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top