Offender and state compensation for victims of crime

Abstract

This article comprises an overview of the principal normative and operational issues that arise in both common and civil law states' arrangements for the compensation and reparation of victims of crime. Balancing what are inevitably generalized statements about jurisdictions within federal common law countries and within the European Union, the article illustrates these issues with details drawn from the civil and criminal justice systems of England and Wales. The article begins with some general observations about the ways in which compensation and reparation by offenders and compensation by the state form elements in a state's overall objectives for victims within its criminal justice system, and addresses the question of what we might understand by 'compensation' in a criminal justice context, and how that sits with civil justice. For this purpose 'compensation' may be understood both in the compendious sense of any offender or state financial payment in respect of a victim's loss or injury or of the offender's direct or indirect restoration of stolen or damaged property, and in its discrete sense of a purely monetary response distinct from the non-monetary responses that characterize 'reparation' À responses now widely associated with restorative justice. The article provides some detail on compensation and reparation by offenders as forms of criminal justice disposals, and on the scope and the functions of state compensation schemes.

Performance Evaluations and Victim Satisfaction With State Compensation for Violent Crime: A Prospective Study

“…Fry's work led to the introduction of state compensation schemes in New Zealand, Great Britain, and the United States in the early 1960s. A number of other countries followed during the following decades (see Brienen & Hoegen, 2000;Buck, 2005;Chappell, 1970;Davies, 1991;Greer, 1994;Matrix Insight, 2008, 2009Miers, 2014aMiers, , 2014bMikaelsson & Wergens, 2001;Ramker & Meagher, 1982;Smith & Hillenbrand, 1997;Willis, 1984;Young, 1997).…”

Sympathy for the applicant: investigating its role in decisions about state compensation for violent crime victimization

“…An important development for victims of violent crime has been the introduction of state compensation funds. Inspired by pleas from Margery Fry, a British magistrate who argued that national states should feel responsible for the compensation of victims who cannot get compensation from their offender, New Zealand, Great Britain and the United States set up state compensation schemes in the early 1960s (see Goldscheid, 2004 ; Villmow, 1991 ; Wolfgang, 1965 ), while many other countries followed during the following decades (see Brienen & Hoegen, 2000 ; Buck, 2005 ; Chappell, 1970 ; Davies, 1991 ; Freckelton, 2001 ; Greer, 1994 ; Matrix Insight, 2008 , 2009 ; Miers, 2014a , 2014b ; Mikaelsson & Wergens, 2001 ; Ramker & Meagher, 1982 ; Smith & Hillenbrand, 1997 ; Willis, 1984 ; Young, 1999 ). In line with Fry’s pleas, all these funds serve as a last resort for victims of intentionally committed violent crimes who cannot get compensation from the offender or through any other means (Groenhuijsen, 2001 ).…”

Legal and public policy considerations that justify legislative development of the law of delict

“…A detailed description of the historical development leading to the enactment of these schemes and a discussion of the operation of the schemes in the respective jurisdictions fall outside the scope of this contribution. However, for a comprehensive discussion of these issues, see, in general, Scott 1967;Cameron 1963;Fry 1959;Goodey 2003;Greer 1996;McGillis & Smith 1983; National Center for Victims of Crime 2004; Canadian Resource Center for Victims of Crime sd; Miers 2014;and Wessels 2018: 226-237, 243-318 for a critical analysis of some of the existing policies and programmes that have a bearing on the position of crime victims in South Africa and for a detailed comparison between the crime victim compensation schemes in the UK and the Netherlands (including a discussion of the practical considerations that may have to be taken into account, should the South African legislature decide to enact such a scheme). 13 Cane 2013: 303-308.…”