State Payments to Victims of Violent Crime: Discretion and Bias in Awards for Sexual Offences

Abstract

State monetary schemes for victims of violent crime began in the 1960s and operate in 35 countries today, yet knowledge is lacking on who is applying, how decisions are reached, variation in awards, and why amounts may differ. Analysing 291 sexual offence cases in Queensland, we ask whether awards differ by victim sex/gender and by societal constructs of ideal, real rape, and credible victims. We found that male child victims received higher awards than female child victims for more serious sexual offences, and that awards to females aged 12 and older were affected by elements associated with real rape and credible victims. We call upon researchers and governments to pursue and expand this new area of research.

US law enforcement’s role in victim compensation dissemination

“…It has commonly been argued that victims of sexual assault are often not seen as ideal or innocent victims by some law enforcement officers (Daly and Holder, 2019). In a Canadian study of sexual assault reporting, Johnson (2017) found that although some officers treat victims in a procedurally just manner regardless of their circumstances, others are dismissive, displaying judgmental responses characterized by skepticism and disbelief toward victims who do not fit the ‘ideal’ victim stereotype.…”

Money justice

“…Undertaking this research requires specialised datasets, and to our knowledge, few exist. One is Daly and Holder's (2019) study of payments for sexual offences in Queensland's scheme for victims of violent crime (cell B1). It found that male child sexual assault victims were more likely to receive the highest level of recognition payment of $10,000 than their female counterparts.…”

“…In criminology and victimology, inequalities among victims are depicted by 'victim labels' (van Dyck, 2009) such as deserving and undeserving, ideal and not ideal, and credible and not credible. However, except for Daly and Holder (2019) and Miers (2019), these terms have only been empirically applied to victims in criminal justice, not to decisions to award payments to victims. 8 With notable exceptions (e.g., Chamallas, 2005;Daly & Holder, 2019;Goodman, 2017;Miers, 2019;Renaud, 2018;Swanston et al, 2001), extant research on money justice and inequalities is scant in both criminology and allied fields.…”

“…However, except for Daly and Holder (2019) and Miers (2019), these terms have only been empirically applied to victims in criminal justice, not to decisions to award payments to victims. 8 With notable exceptions (e.g., Chamallas, 2005;Daly & Holder, 2019;Goodman, 2017;Miers, 2019;Renaud, 2018;Swanston et al, 2001), extant research on money justice and inequalities is scant in both criminology and allied fields.…”

“…As a sampling frame, the matrix fills a vacuum in the literature by arraying cases with money outcomes systematically, which in turn provides a proper basis for case selection and comparison (Table 1). We created the matrix's columns and rows by joining research on (1) civil justice, state schemes for victims of violent crime, and redress schemes for institutional abuse (Daly, 2014;Daly & Davis, 2021a, 2021bDaly & Holder, 2019) and ( 2) historical injustice and transitional justice cases (Barkan, 2000;Brooks, 1999;de Greiff, 2006;Hayner, 2011;Torpey, 2006b). All the justice mechanisms used, except one (civil justice), were intended to reach large numbers of people.…”