Criminals Owe Their Victims, Not Society
When my pink Rambler was stolen, the LAPD did fuck all to catch the thief, despite my handing Pacific Division's Officer (now Sergeant) Lowe, a pile of evidence on the guy. However, some cop eventually picked up him on a bench warrant.
He was -- miraculously -- ordered to pay restitution for the damage he did to my car and the possessions he took from my trunk.
And this is how it should be. I was victimized, not the "state." I've long felt that we should jail the creep until he pays the victim -- along with the state for his room and board in his cage.
An article by Wendy McElroy at The Independent Institute argues for this -- for payment to be made to the victims. An excerpt:
I would like to challenge a basic concept in the law. Namely, that criminals owe a debt to society. I believe an individual who commits a crime owes a debt--that is, restitution--to the individual who has been harmed....Repaying individuals for their injuries is associated with the civil courts, which traditionally handle private and nonviolent matters such as contract disputes. Civil judgments attempt to restore to individuals what they have lost or, at least, to provide whatever compensation is possible. Often, court costs can be assessed against those found "guilty."
Repaying society is associated with the criminal courts, which handle violence such as rape and murder. Criminal judgments do not attempt to compensate the individuals harmed except, perhaps, by providing the satisfaction of seeing someone punished. Indeed, as taxpayers, the victims themselves pay for that satisfaction by supporting an expensive judicial and prison system.
I believe both civil and criminal court systems should aim at compensating the victim.What would a criminal system organized around restitution look like? No one knows. The current system has evolved, for better or worse, over centuries and circumstances. Any other system would do the same. But it is possible to sketch a working hypothesis that gets the discussion rolling.
A criminal court that focused on restitution would force those convicted to repay their victims not only for direct financial losses but also in compensation for emotional trauma. Criminals would bear the cost of court proceedings and of collecting any restitution that is not rendered voluntarily. If criminals did not have the means to pay a judgment or could not be trusted to do so over time, they could be monitored or confined to an institution for the sole purpose of working to earn that compensation and to pay the cost of confinement. The taxpayer would be taken out of the loop.
Objections immediately arise: for example, some categories of crime are so heinous that they do not seem to allow restitution. How can you compensate a victim of rape or murder?
I have always found this objection to be odd. The fact that there may be no perfect or adequate form of restitution is not an argument against providing whatever repayment is possible. A rapist cannot restore a victim's sense of safety but he or she can be made to pay such items as medical bills, the cost of counseling, and compensation for emotional trauma. A murderer cannot repay his debt to the dead but he can be forced to earn money to pay in perpetuity the expenses of a victim's family: food, mortgage, tuition, and so on. It is odd to argue that only non-criminal or trivial injuries deserve restitution. The more serious the injury, the more it seems that the victim deserves compensation.
The term, "debt to society" is a colloquialism recognizing that the costs of crime are enormous, including the pay and equipage of countless police - as well as the horrible mission creep which jails Americans for nonsense like carrying prescription medicine in dated rationing containers.
It doesn't prohibit victim compensation any more than the existence of police relieves you of the duty of self-defense.
Radwaste at November 1, 2015 1:09 AM
If the criminal owes a 'Debt to Society' then the 'Representatives' of society get to collect, i.e. Government. Just like child support, it has become a means of collecting taxes without the hassle of legislation and such. The police have become just about nothing but tax collectors.
warhawke223 at November 1, 2015 5:59 AM
" A rapist cannot restore a victim's sense of safety but he or she can be made to pay such items as medical bills, the cost of counseling, and compensation for emotional trauma. A murderer cannot repay his debt to the dead but he can be forced to earn money to pay in perpetuity the expenses of a victim's family: food, mortgage, tuition, and so on. It is odd to argue that only non-criminal or trivial injuries deserve restitution. The more serious the injury, the more it seems that the victim deserves compensation."
Three points:
You can't get blood out of a turnip. How do you force someone to "earn money"?
How exactly are you going to enforce this, without putting the perp in shackles?
If you do this, to extract mandatory payments, how do you distinguish this from unconstitutional slavery/indentured servitude?
As Warhawk says, this will become just another bloated government bureaucracy, that cost far more than it generates in compensation.
If the perpetrator has any assets, you can go after him in court (small claims in easiest) and the Sheriff will execute a judgment. You can already do this under the law.
Isab at November 1, 2015 7:21 AM
I agree that the victim should be compensated first. But for really serious crimes like murder, rape, and kidnapping, I submit that in a lesser sense we are all victims, because those crimes have the effect of making everybody justifiably feel less safe. Thus the criminal "owes society" too.
As for Isab's first question: to me, that's easy. A person who can't pay restitution for a serious crime because of bankruptcy should be sold into slavery for a limited time. Do it by auction, and let guarding be the auction winner's problem. This will create a nice added incentive not to do the crime.
Note, I did say *serious* crimes. I would want serious safeguards so that this solution does not get applied to the kind of petty legislation that caused the problems in Ferguson, nor to any victimless crime, ever.
jdgalt at November 1, 2015 7:36 AM
"As for Isab's first question: to me, that's easy. A person who can't pay restitution for a serious crime because of bankruptcy should be sold into slavery for a limited time. Do it by auction, and let guarding be the auction winner's problem. This will create a nice added incentive not to do the crime."
I think the child support laws already go too far. Your scheme would be blatantly unconstitutional.
The state's recourse for unpaid court ordered child support should not be greater than the collection means available to a private citizen who is owed money.
Isab at November 1, 2015 7:57 AM
Isab: hasn't "due process" been used to take private citizen's property before in a Constitutional manner?
In other news, the best way to see that a penalty is paid by the perpetrator of a violent crime is to defend yourself effectively.
Prisons are full of people alive today whose victims thought nothing could ever happen to them.
Radwaste at November 1, 2015 8:03 AM
"Isab: hasn't "due process" been used to take private citizen's property before in a Constitutional manner?"
Yes, but due process is a complicated two part issue. You can easily violate both procedural due process, and/or substantive due process, and government is one of the worst offenders, because you, the tax payer, are essentially paying for both sides of the legal fight,
Our legal system has become so complex, that the surest way to bankrupt someone, and exhaust their assets is to force them to defend themselves against specious or minor charges.
The biggest problem with making *criminals pay*. Is often identifying, what is a just debt, and what the real damages are. Not always that easy to calculate,
Isab at November 1, 2015 8:51 AM
Yes, the victim deserves compensation but this could start our society down a slippery slope. One of our societie's values is that each life is equally valuable under the Constitution - i.e. All men are created equal.
Civil courts allow different compensation based on the "value" of the life but criminal courts do not.
Would this have unintended consequences? Would I be able kill an unemployed person with fewer consequences than a high earning CEO? Could a wealthy person just compensate the family to avoid consequences?
Jen at November 1, 2015 10:26 AM
This is an excellent idea and is seen in the sadly underrepresented Sharia law.
The assailant took your eye? Blind him. The drunk driver killed your child? Gas his child.
And no more low-pain low-mess executions. Instead of hanging, we should use the Islamist methods of strangling by crane, stoning, or beheading.
Criminals should also have to pay for their incarceration. Like sex offenders forced to live away from anything public where a child might venture, criminals should be locked into a lifetime of repayment, ensuring that they will never reintegrate into society.
Serves them right. Convictions are for losers, low-rent disposable people, not for the wealthy important folks like the Kennedys!
And one more idea: let's charge the families for the cost of executions. Serves them right for raising a criminal!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 1, 2015 12:44 PM
Who tha he11 was I 'repaying' when I got busted for a stop sign violation?
jefe at November 1, 2015 3:19 PM
"Would I be able kill an unemployed person with fewer consequences than a high earning CEO? Could a wealthy person just compensate the family to avoid consequences?"
Yes, and yes, and both of these things are true right now. It even holds true for people in political office – if you shot a County Commissioner, the consequences are much less dire than if you tried a senator or president.
"Who tha he11 was I 'repaying' when I got busted for a stop sign violation?"
You paid the city, county or state for your misbehavior, which was just one example of the thousands of cases which increase the injury and fatality rate in your state. If no one ran stop signs, there would not be a statute against it.
The majority of laws are to stem common misbehavior. Laws are enacted after such misbehavior. This is a point missed by a majority.
Radwaste at November 1, 2015 3:39 PM
Criminals can also be sued for tort damages.
Michael Ejercito at November 1, 2015 6:27 PM
At my 50th HS reunion a couple of weeks ago, one of my classmates mentioned his work on "Restorative Justice" in CO. (http://peteleecolorado.com/restorative-justice/) Sounds similar, but with enough mumbo-jumbo to attract politicians and bureaucrats.
Mike Poccia at November 2, 2015 6:11 AM
There are children who grew to adulthood and having children of their own, without the custodial parent seeing a cent of child support. The parent works off the books, drives without a license, claims injury therefore has too little money to pay. Sometimes they disappear. In FL a person can declare bankruptcy and still keep his/her home. That's why OJ Simpson established FL as his home state. Chasing down someone who isn't a high-profile criminal (murderer, serial rapist, child abductor & abuser, bomber), is on most law enforcements' low priority lists, likely because the above-mentioned (as well as drunk drivers or drug cases), are more urgent. It falls to the custodial parent to locate the parent in arrears, and most don't have the time or money. Likely the same situation would exist with victim reimbursement. It's a great and fair idea, but I don't know how it would get over the hurdles faced by those trying to collect child support. Likely they wouldn't be jailed, as jails are already overcrowded
Samm at November 2, 2015 5:38 PM
Leave a comment