NCJ Number
104136
Journal
Rutgers Law Journal Volume: 17 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1985) Pages: 51-94
Date Published
1985
Length
41 pages
Annotation
After reviewing alternatives to and rationales for victim compensation, this study critiques the victim compensation laws of New Jersey, Minnesota, and Kansas and recommends changes.
Abstract
Alternatives to victim compensation are offender restitution to the victim, private insurance, and tort remedies. All of these approaches have limitations that must be addressed through victim compensation programs. Rationales for victim compensation programs include state responsibility for citizen protection, for indigent citizens, and for failure to prevent the harm. Once a State has selected a particular rationale to support its victim compensation statute, the statute should consistently reflect that rationale. Major restrictions of the New Jersey, Minnesota, and Kansas victim compensation statutes are intended to exclude culpable victims, restrict compensation for victim pain and suffering, exclude awards for property losses, and limit minimum and maximum awards. State-funded victim compensation programs should not discriminate against those who have little or no opportunity to collect from collateral sources, and they should reevaluate the concept of the 'innocent victim.' The far-reaching elimination of ostensibly culpable victims denies many needful victims of financial assistance. States should provide compensation for pain and suffering and some property losses. 214 footnotes.