NCJ Number
55290
Journal
Criminal Law Review Dated: (OCTOBER 1978) Pages: 599-611
Date Published
1978
Length
13 pages
Annotation
A BRIEF HISTORY OF VICTIM COMPENSATION IN THE ENGLISH COURTS IS TRACED, AND ITS PRESENT USE IS EXAMINED, TOGETHER WITH PROPOSALS FOR ITS MORE EFFECTIVE USE.
Abstract
THE BASIS OF EARLY ENGLISH CRIMINAL LAW WAS THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION BY THE OFFENDER OR THE OFFENDER'S KIN TO THE VICTIM. PAYMENTS WERE SCALED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE INJURY AND THE SOCIAL STANDING OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. WITH THE GRADUAL INCREASE IN STATE POWER, THE STATE BEGAN TO CLAIM A SHARE IN THIS COMPENSATION, AND THE SIZE OF THIS SHARE GREW UNTIL VICTIM COMPENSATION DIMINISHED TO INSIGNIFICANCE, RATIONALIZED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT CRIME IS PRINCIPALLY A CRIME AGAINST SOCIETY IN GENERAL MORE THAN AGAINST A PARTICULAR VICTIM. IN AN EFFORT TO REINSTITUTE THE PRACTICE OF VICTIM COMPENSATION, COURT ISSUANCE OF COMPENSATION ORDERS WAS CONSOLIDATED INTO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1972, ALTHOUGH GUIDELINES FOR THEIR USE WERE LACKING. A STUDY OF COURT USES OF COMPENSATION ORDERS AFTER THE LAW'S ENACTMENT REVEALED A LACK OF CONSISTENT USE OF THEM IN COURTS THROUGHOUT ENGLAND. THERE WAS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT MAGISTRATES GAVE VICTIM COMPENSATION PRIORITY IN DISPOSITIONS WHICH MAY INCLUDE FINES AS WELL AS IMPRISONMENT. THE USE OF COMPENSATION ORDERS WHERE THE OFFENDER HAS FEW FINANCIAL RESOURCES OR IS TO BE IMPRISONED AND DEPRIVED OF INCOME RESOURCES ARE OTHER FACTORS TENDING TO FRUSTRATE MAGISTRATES IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO ISSUE COMPENSATION ORDERS. IN THE FACE OF THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED UNDER THE PRESENT SCHEME, THE EXPANSION OF VICTIM COMPENSATION ISSUED THROUGH STATE COMPENSATION BOARDS IS PROPOSED, THUS ELIMINATING THE NECESSITY TO DEPEND SOLELY ON THE OFFENDER TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION. MAGISTRATES WOULD STILL HAVE THE OPTION TO ORDER COMPENSATION TO BE PAID BY THE OFFENDER, BUT IT WOULD GO INTO A GENERAL FUND TO BE USED AS PART OF THE FUNDS DISPENSED BY COMPENSATION BOARDS. THE RESOURCES OF THE OFFENDER WOULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE A A DETERMINING FACTOR IN THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE VICTIM. UNTIL THIS EXPANSION OF STATE COMPENSATION SCHEMES CAN OCCUR, COURTS SHOULD GIVE PRIORITY TO VICTIM COMPENSATION ORDERS OVER FINES, SO AS TO INSURE THAT WHATEVER RESOURCES THE OFFENDER MAY HAVE FOUND GO TO THE VICTIM RATHER THAN THE STATE. (RCB)