« Alexander Tabarrok (editor): Changing the Guard, Private Prisons and the Control of Crime. Oakland: Independent Institute, 2003. | Main | Bruce Benson, "To Serve and Protect; Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice." Independent Institute. NYU Press. 1998. »
February 26, 2005
Roger E Meiners: Victim Compensation, Economic, Legal and Political Aspects. Lexington Books. Massachusetts. 1978.
Xiii The fundamental question of this text and victim compensation in general is written as:
What is the extent of the state's duty to compensate citizens for harm from criminal actions?
Are existing civil remedies adequate?
To what extent would victim compensation replace private individual insurance?
Would national health care serve as an alternative to the proposed victim-compensation programs?
How do victim-compensation schemes affect the incentives and behavior of criminals and potential victims?
There is no place for the state in a just society because the nature of the state is to monopolize coercion. The real question is to what extent is the state responsible for the inefficiencies in our justice system? Is victim compensation one of these inefficiencies?
Chapter 1, Introduction:
1. The modern context of victim compensation is the granting of public funds to the victims of crimes to cover such as medical costs, lost wages, compensatory damages (pain and suffering). It is not representative of the value of lost property.
2. Public Choice: Will a system of compensatory justice be feasible within the context of a public system of legal services and courts. I for one highly doubt it.
Society is at fault for crime?
3. If the state is at fault for crime then the state owes a debt as compensation this is a Social Contract.
If we see the need for the existence of a social contract why not assure ourselves the fulfillment of such a contract by placing it in the private setting as it is proven to be more responsive than the state. Individuals will be better served by private contracts than social contracts.
90% of criminal in the Atlanta prison system are indigent and incapable of being productive enough to repay their debts.
I don't believe this for one second. Productivity is subjective. Low productive workers are forced out of the work force thanks to minimum wage laws and arbitrary labor regulations. What is the lowest training necessary industry and how much do they make a year? Worst case scenario they can be blood donors, or tattoo canvases.
4. Few victims actually seek compensation because of the opportunity costs associated with the current justice system.
Why the hell do we care about the difference between a criminal and a civil crime?
5. The system of state funded victim compensation that this book proposes is nothing short of forceful and coercive insurance payments, theft to avoid theft.
Empirical evidence supports that harsh punishment deters crime.
Accepting a state authority is an acceptance of the social contract. An increase in crime is a justification in an increased tax rate, which can increase crime thanks to Hoppe's analysis of time preference. The state wants more crime so it can reap more taxes. State also stands to benefit more from a prisoner than if they were allowed to repay the victim.
Chapter 2, Historical and Foreign Methods of Compensation:
7. Babylonian Code of Hammurabi: eye for an eye justice.
Compensation in history was motivated less by a concern for the victim than by a desire to punish society for failing to find the criminal.
This seems compatible with Hoppe's theory of the development of civilization. Competing monarchs served as judges and a provisionary of legal justice.
For a long time the criminal paid the victim but then the state claimed harm as well.
9. Criminal pays (historical), but there appears no solution if he is to poor in comparison to his crime.
A state is incapable of forcing the most productive labor from a criminal or a citizen. Productivity requires some degree of autonomy. The state canÂ’t stand freedom; it's too risky they insist upon controlling individuals (See Benson: prisoners businesses).
Great Britain and New Zealand.
10. The Accident Compensation Act of 1972: This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. It pays not based on justice, wrong doing or crime but mere expense and pain. If two people beet the crap out of each other they can both seek restitution and money from the state.
12. Listed accidents with their monetary values.
14. The Theft Act of 1968: Return stolen property or pay for damages. This is different than in America where you have to file two separate cases.
Civil Evidence Act of 1968: A criminal found guilty of criminal case can be used as evidence in his civil case.
Criminal Damage Act 1971: no more than L400.
15. Compensation in Northern Ireland:
Riots are uninsurable according to private agencies.
Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act of 1920: paid by county treasurer.
Source: D.R. Miers, Paying for Malicious Injuries Claims, Irish Jurist 5 (Summer 1970), p. 56.
This section is very interesting because it is no longer one criminal but entire gangs of rioters. Is this the socialization of crime and compensation?
16. Australian Compensation Schemes.
17. Compensation in Canada.
19. Compensation in Non-English Countries. Not often because of extensive welfare programs.
First International Symposium on Victimology: all countries as a matter of urgency should implement compensation to victims of crime.
In this citation it says that the members of this symposium stand to gain personal benefits if countries agree. What the hell is this all about?
Source: Israel Drapkin and Amilio Viano, eds., Victimology: A New Focus (Lexinton, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1974), p.210.
Chapter 3: American Compensation Plans.
25. California was the first state to implement victim compensation.
1966 they started taking fines from criminals and depositing them into the state treasury. These were miniscule amounts. In 1973 they increased the maximum awards pay outs to $10,000 and so on, but only few victims were claiming assistance. Then from 1974 to 1977 they insisted police be informing victims of the program and it tripled in size. Because of this rapid growth, the program still only assists a small percentage of victims.
26. New York.
Good Samaritan statute: Some guy tried to stop a drunk from bothering people on a subway and got stabbed to death.
This story would make a good short article for LewRockwell.com, public transportation and public police have led to this problem. Now it's creeping into the courts and legislation.
28. $3 million was paid out in awards to victims. 1976
I wonder how much the courts, police, and jails consumed during that year. Wouldn't it be cheaper not to do anything at all?
Source: Crime Victims Compensation Board, Annual Report.
29. Maryland.
Awarded 1.7 million dollars. Criminals paid $5 court fee, totaled at $130, 000.
Where the hell is the rest of the money coming from?
30. Hawaii. First to offer payments for pain and suffering.
31. Massachusetts.
31. New Jersey.
32. Alaska. Highest average payout. Mandatory posters to explain program.
32. Illinois. 1975 planned on suing criminals to contribute to the compensation program.
33. Washington. Money per body part.
Isn't this incentive to not be productive. If I can fix my arm I don't get my money.
Recovery from the criminal means that the victim must repay the state.
I'll take the money guaranteed up front and ignore the criminal.
34. Minnesota.
34. Delaware. additional penalties levied on criminal even if fine is suspended
34. North Dakota.
35. Kentucky
35. Ohio. $3 from everyone convicted of a crime except non moving traffic violations.
35. Wisconsin.
35. Pennsylvania.
36. Virginia. $10 fine to criminals.
36. Michigan.
36. Florida can fine a criminal up to $10,000.
38. Georgia. Compensation is money from the taxpayer to the victim. Restitution is money from the criminal to the victim. Criminals work at community employment places, they pay their own living expenses, give money to state, and victim. It's working great (LEAA Law enforcement assistance administration).
Source: Bill Read, Restitution Program Coordinator. Offender Restitution Progress in Georgia, Georgie Department of Offender Rehabilitation, Atlanta, Georgia, 1977.
Basically each state has implemented a method to grow victim compensation into the realm of workmen's compensation. By imposing a small distributed fine over the violators of all the state legislations and regulations these states are capable of raising fractional amounts of funding to be divvied out as compensation to victims. Georgia is the only state that appeared to be doing anything close to justifiable restitution.
39. Federal Compensation $49.3 million paid out.
Chapter 4: Public Choice Considerations of Victim Compensation.
49. Lawyers like the idea of federal compensation programs because it will increase the demands for their services.
Police like federal compensation because so much crime goes unreported. Now there will be incentive to report crime and get money back. This will lead to more crimes reported and assist in justifying greater police budgets.
The Department of Justice would be expanded in size because the money will be distributed through out the department.
50. Incentive to seek restitution from criminal through civil proceedings is less because money from the state is cheaper and easier.
93. Conclusions: 1974 Punishment per crime is low, and odds of a criminal being sent to prison for any single criminal act are low.
94. How much criminals make, tax free as criminals.
We need tougher punishment. Criminals cause a lot of damage victim compensation is an attempt to lift the burden of that damage but if the costs of it productive legislation outweigh its payback then society, we, and the victims would have been better off with nothing at all.
Posted by djdamico at February 26, 2005 8:14 PM