Undoubtedly, becoming a victim of criminal activity is a terrifying experience, especially if the offense is violent in nature. A crime victim must deal with trauma, ongoing inquiries about the incident, a drawn-out search for justice, and the chance of losing something at the end of this torturous experience even when there is little to no physical violence present. These variables together highlight the need for victim compensation, which is a government initiative aimed at compensating people who suffer losses as a result of violent crimes like rape, homicide, and assault. (Doerner & Lab, 2014). Victim compensation programs are available in all states, and they primarily cover counseling expenses, dental and medical expenses, funeral costs, and lost wages. The maximum amount payable for a claim may range from $10,000 to $100,000 but this varies from one state to another (NACVCB, n.d.). In the USA, over 6.8 million violent crime incidents and 19.6 million property crime incidents are reported annually, making violent crime a significant concern (Truman, Langton, & Planty, 2013). Victim compensation primarily serves as a support framework for crime victims and for many people the underlying belief is that it should be a governmental obligation. This belief is firmly grounded in two philosophical beliefs, which are the social welfare concept and the social contract philosophy.
Social contract
The social contract view is the oldest and arguably the most common argument in support of state compensation for crime victims. This argument, which has its roots in taxation and the accompanying responsibility to provide services, posits that there is an unwritten contract imposing responsibility on the state to cater for the well-being and safety of every citizen by virtue of its collection of taxes (Doerner & Lab, 2014). The primary argument here is that society, which through the state effectively prohibits individuals from protecting themselves, acquires an inherent responsibility to provide this protection. Governments often posit that the provision of security to their citizens is their primary responsibility, which provides a justification for the maintenance of armies, the collection of intelligence and policing. Consequently, when the state fails to stop a violent crime from occurring, it is deemed to have defaulted on its responsibility to provide protection and is thus obligated to provide the victim with some reparation.
Regardless of whether or not any direct responsibility is attributable to the government for the occurrence of the crime, the fact is that an individual’s safety has been destroyed. Hence, from a philosophical position, the argument presented is that the government, which has assumed responsibility for providing safety but has failed to do this by allowing a violent crime to occur, must take responsibility for this failure by providing compensation. This argument primarily arises in terrorism-related offenses, which represent a direct attack on a state agency or a large number of citizens. Here, the governments, by providing compensation, acts in much the same way as a large company that has inadvertently brought harm to an individual.
Social welfare
The second philosophical argument posited by victim compensation advocates is the social welfare argument. This argument has its roots in the social welfare concept, which postulates that the government has an incumbent responsibility to ensure that all members of the society can enjoy a certain minimum living standard even when they are incapable of providing it for themselves. That is, the government is obligated to cater for the deprived, the disabled, and the unfortunate (Doerner & Lab, 2014). The primary import of this argument is that if an individual encounters a certain problem not of his or her making, but which inhibits the person from living the good life to which he or she is entitled, then the government must step in to address this problem. Hence, the philosophy here is that a crime victim who suffers deprivations can be classified in these categories because his or her suffering is not self-induced. Hence, it is imperative that the government rescues these individuals by providing compensation because they are, under the definition, deprived.
The selection of a philosophical framework to justify victim compensation is dependent on personal leanings, but each framework has a different effect. Adherents of the social welfare philosophy often tend towards a “financial means test” in which compensation is reserved only for destitute individuals (Doerner & Lab, 2014, p. 110). However, the proponents of the social contract argument opine that compensation should be available to all people irrespective of their financial status.
Reasons for the provision of victim compensation by the government
It is imperative for any government to pay compensation to victims of violent criminal activity within its jurisdiction whether these crimes lead to actual physical harm or only to the loss of property. The first justification for this position is that abuse and violence are very traumatic experiences for the victims, who are often needy individuals and thus necessitate lengthy, challenging, and extensive healing processes. It is imperative for such victims to enjoy time and space to heal without having to worry about other financial concerns that may arise from this violence such as lost income, medical and counseling costs. Compensation programs benefit over 200,000 people each year, with the amounts incurred to fund these programs exceeding $500 million (NACVCB, n.d.). 49% of homeless people fall victim to violent crimes, which is a much higher rate than that experienced by housed people (Meinbresse, et al., 2014). Since these attacks usually injure the victims both physically and psychologically, they often necessitate medical treatment, which is unaffordable for 70% of this group (Meinbresse, et al., 2014). Consequently, without compensation, these individuals cannot get their injuries treated and thus may be unable to work making them even more likely to remain homeless. Hence, it is imperative for the government to provide victim compensation because a failure to do this condemns the most vulnerable to even more suffering thus compounding their problems.
Another reason that justifies the continued existence of compensation programs is the shortcomings inherent to the other forms of recouping losses available to crime victims. Examples of these methods are restitution as well as civil litigation and insurance. However, methods such as restitution, which entails money or service transfer to the victim from the offender to cater for the damages occasioned by the offender’s actions is potentially unviable. This non-viability arises because most offenders typically come from the lower echelons of society, which means they are financially incapable of providing recompense (Doerner & Lab, 2014). Additionally, the calculation of restitution is a difficult task, since no dollar amount can replace items of sentimental value lost or destroyed by offenders. Other methods such as civil suits and insurance are similarly ineffective because they require the victim to incur some financial expenses such as advocate fees, which means that they effectively end up punishing the victim. Consequently, victim compensation remains the only completely viable alternative.
Conclusively, victim compensation is evidently still an integral element of criminal justice. A concept rooted in the philosophical ideas of the social contract and social welfare, compensation continues to be the most feasible method of reimbursing victims of violent crime and must thus continue to prevail. Hence, victim compensation, while imperfect, undoubtedly trumps other methods of reimbursement such as restitution, insurance, and civil litigation.
References
Doerner, W. G., & Lab, S. P. (2014). Victimology (7th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elseveier/Anderson Publishing Company.
Meinbresse, M., Brinkley-Rubinstein, L., Grassette, A., Benson, J., Hamilton, R., Malott, M., & Jenkins, D. (2014). Exploring the Experiences of Violence Among Individuals Who Are Homeless Using a Consumer-Led Approach. Violence and Victims, 29(1), 122-136.
NACVCB. (n.d.). Crime Victims Compensation: An Overview. Retrieved May 21, 2017, from http://www.nacvcb.org/index.asp?bid=14
Truman, J., Langton, L., & Planty, M. (2013). Criminal victimization, 2012 (NCJ 243389). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
