Victims Right's

[beatenwoman2005]

I have to say as a victim it would appear to me that there are no systems in place for dealing with compensation for victims of crime.

It appears that the accused (who is eventually convicted) seems to have all of the supports in place regarding a FAIR trail, FAIR representation, hot meals, a place to sleep, education, etc...etc....etc... the list goes on and on and on...

What people fail to see is what the remainder of the day is...... a VICTIM, their family, a huge loss regarding being victimized....

It is up to the VICTIM in Canada to pick up the pieces (In the Province I reside) to rebuild that part of their life... there are no STIPENDS in place to index Compensation for Victims of crime, and no way to regain that amount of money taken from that system (If your lucky enough to have a compensation plan by the government in your province).. but yet there are so many structured items for that of a convicted felon..

WHO on this site can see what this system is doing regarding IGNORING the right' of a victim?

I feel that if a convict is convicted of a crime that should be compensated~! It should be up to the "SYSTEM" to correct this issue on behalf of the victim as that is the job of JUSTICE, to correct a wrong doing. Not only should the system seek a CONVICTION but hold a criminal "ACCOUNTABLE" for their actions if it has caused a financial hardship, physically mentally, emotionally...etc.... Why should the rest of society pick up the tab for someone else's criminal action?

If more convictions accompanied a FINANCIAL BURDEN we would see a better society for it. It would not only be a jail sentence, but a financial sentence, this should be the way things work.

What are all the thought's out there on this?

Edited July 31, 2007 by beatenwoman2005

[geoffrey]

Sue the offender. I, as a taxpayer, should have zero obligation to pay for others wrongs. Why should I be liable? Why should I pay?

Edited July 31, 2007 by geoffrey

[M.Dancer]

I think in the cases where the police or the justice system are negligent (as in the case of the balcony rapist) and endanger the public, the governments have an obligation to compensate.

.....otherwise sue the criminals.

[guyser]

Sue the offender. I, as a taxpayer, should have zero obligation to pay for others wrongs. Why should I be liable? Why should I pay?

You already do.

Victim surcharge on tickets. Bad idea neing run by even more "bad" bureaucracy.

[shavluk]

who is going to pay me for having to read this?

it hurt my senses

mind you i don't think the government should be paying half of who they are paying

[beatenwoman2005]

Sue the offender. I, as a taxpayer, should have zero obligation to pay for others wrongs. Why should I be liable? Why should I pay?

You can sue the offender, but in all cases in Canada it is nearly impossible to sue the offender, especially since LEGAL AID in Canada does not cover costs of a lawsuit in this regard, or for that matter ANY CIVIL proceeding in Canada is NOT covered by Legal AID....

Yet LEGAL AID covers the cost of defending an accused. This needs to be corrected.....~!~!~!

There should be government tables, STRUCTURED similar to that of the Child support tables in Canada based on a CRIME~!

REPAY, REPAY, REPAY for the crimes that were Committed.

You already pay for the accused to have a fair trial in 99.9% of criminal convictions. You pay for the jails, you pay for their LIFE.....The money for these issues come from the public.

I believe something should be put into place where a "PERPETRATOR" should be held financially accountable for the rest of their life (IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES TO PAY MEDICARE, AND COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME BACK).

There is nothing in place by the justice departments in Canada to recover the costs of a PERPETRATOR'S crime.

It is high time that criminals be held accountable for the financial destruction that they create, perhaps this would reduce crime in CANADA.

Edited July 31, 2007 by beatenwoman2005

[geoffrey]

If your lawsuit is succesful, the person you sued will pay the costs. If it's not successful, chances are you had a faulty claim. I don't want a system where anyone can sue each other with no financial risk. The possibility of a loss keeps most ridiculous claims out of court.

I'm all fine with forced labour and the such for criminals, but the taxpayers have no moral obligation towards any victim of another's action IMO.

[geoffrey]

Victim surcharge on tickets. Bad idea neing run by even more "bad" bureaucracy.

I always wondered who the victim of my parking violation on an empty street was?

[gc1765]

I always wondered who the victim of my parking violation on an empty street was?

Probably the same person who is the victim of me smoking pot ....way back when I actually used to smoke the stuff

[beatenwoman2005]

If your lawsuit is succesful, the person you sued will pay the costs. If it's not successful, chances are you had a faulty claim. I don't want a system where anyone can sue each other with no financial risk. The possibility of a loss keeps most ridiculous claims out of court.

I'm all fine with forced labour and the such for criminals, but the taxpayers have no moral obligation towards any victim of another's action IMO.

Regarding a faulty claim- one must have money to obtain justice then for a victim of a violent crime? What if the individual does not have any money currently in their savings when they are found GUILTY in a court of law? So they have just added a burden AGAIN on the victims... this is a sick, sick line of thinking.... obviously your a person with money who has perhaps CROSSED the line at some point in your life.....hmmmmm

Interesting, so I assume you want nothing to do with the medical system in Canada because it treats VICTIMS, oh yes, the Medicare system pays for medical treatment, and oh yes, the SYSTEM pays for court processes.........to represent serial killers, child abusers, etc... etc.. etc...

According to you these people(VICTIMS) who had these things happen to them are not entitled to medical treatment, or any other supports that would enable them to become functioning people again. They should just become part of the LOST, homeless zombies on the streets of Canada..

My My my... you must have been an excellent achiever in the field of accounting. I will pray for you that none of your family ever has anything happen such as a MURDER, assault, or any other form of a violent crime.

If one would look at the court system today and WHY it is bogged down, and WHY there are problems with Medicare, and WHY there are problems with violent acts it is because there is no FINANCIAL Accountability regarding the criminal....

Perhaps at some point during the course of your life you have been a perpetrator of a violent crime?

Edited August 1, 2007 by beatenwoman2005

[ScottSA]

So stop being a victim.

[Bonam]

I'm all fine with forced labour and the such for criminals, but the taxpayers have no moral obligation towards any victim of another's action IMO.

The proposal isn't for tax payers to pay. Rather, I think what is being suggested is that a criminal, upon convinction and sentencing for a crime, should also be compelled to pay an amount of money deemed appropriate to compensate the victim, and that this should happen as part of the main trial, and not require a seperate lawsuit. Of course, a problem with that would be that since many criminals are poor, they as a result would often be unable to pay (and not own anything worth repossessing) enough to compensate the victim.

At least, that's what the text of the original post seems to say, though the poll options imply that it should be the government that pays.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Bonam

[beatenwoman2005]

I'm all fine with forced labour and the such for criminals, but the taxpayers have no moral obligation towards any victim of another's action IMO.

The proposal isn't for tax payers to pay. Rather, I think what is being suggested is that a criminal, upon convinction and sentencing for a crime, should also be compelled to pay an amount of money deemed appropriate to compensate the victim, and that this should happen as part of the main trial, and not require a seperate lawsuit. Of course, a problem with that would be that since many criminals are poor, they as a result would often be unable to pay (and not own anything worth repossessing) enough to compensate the victim.

At least, that's what the text of the original post seems to say, though the poll options imply that it should be the government that pays.

This money should be Ordered upon conviction by a judge.

This is correct, upon sentencing there should be restitution regarding that of an individual that is found guilty of committing a criminal offense under FEDERAL law.

This amount should be made PAYABLE to the system through a "GARNISHEE" order over several years after the convict has been released from jail and has obtained employment. This repayable amount should not conflict with the WELFARE tables that an individual is required to have in order for survival.

This should be put into place as the cost of crime today is MILLIONS, and Millions of dollars each year. The cost of Medicare, the cost of our police, the cost of our courts, the cost to the VICTIMS.......

This is a sure way to REDUCE crime in CANADA.....

Edited August 1, 2007 by beatenwoman2005

[gc1765]

If they (the criminals) have the money, they should pay the victim...they should also pay the taxpayer for the cost of their trial etc...

Edited August 1, 2007 by gc1765

[geoffrey]

This amount should be made PAYABLE to the system through a "GARNISHEE" order over several years after the convict has been released from jail and has obtained employment. This repayable amount should not conflict with the WELFARE tables that an individual is required to have in order for survival.

That sounds like a big motivator to return to a life of crime. You can't garnish black market wages. Once your time in jail has been spent, you should be able to return to a completely normal life.

If you disagree with the lenient sentancing, then yes, I think your right. But once time is served, your done.

That'll be about the only time you'll hear me take the side of criminals.

If they (the criminals) have the money, they should pay the victim...they should also pay the taxpayer for the cost of their trial etc...

Agreed. I also think the government should pay people for their costs and damages when they fail to prosecute someone. I defended a ridiculous speeding ticket and won, the judge essientially told the prosecutor and attending officer that their case was so ridiculous he was shocked it was brought to trial. Threw it out within 5 minutes.

However, I had to fight this ticket out of town, costing me two days of my vacation (worth, what, $500-600), $200 in gas for two return trips (to plead not guilty and then a month later to my actual date), my actual time preparing and going to trial. This ran me well over $1,000 in costs at the end of the day. It would have been cheaper for me to pay the ticket (though, you guys know me and my hate of government, it wasn't happening).

You should never have to admit guilt because of financial concerns. If your not-guilty, you should fight it on the government dime.

I think the government should owe me my costs at the bare minimum for their reckless prosecution.

However, that doesn't happen. Until it does, I don't think we can expect criminals to cover court costs either.

That's just my little speeding ticket. Can you imagine the costs to an individual falsely charged with murder or sexual assault? The government should fully compensate these people.

Edited August 1, 2007 by geoffrey

[gc1765]

Agreed. I also think the government should pay people for their costs and damages when they fail to prosecute someone. I defended a ridiculous speeding ticket and won, the judge essientially told the prosecutor and attending officer that their case was so ridiculous he was shocked it was brought to trial. Threw it out within 5 minutes.

You make some good points, and it's hard for me to disagree with them. In fact, interestingly enough, I think you made the best argument against yourself:

I, as a taxpayer, should have zero obligation to pay for others wrongs. Why should I be liable? Why should I pay?

[beatenwoman2005]

I would like to ad this-

THE UNITED NATIONS has deemed that a victim is entitled to compensation.

Canada, and the USA are members of the UN....

Take a peek at the database....

[Riverwind]

If a victim is _always_ entitled to compensation does that mean that it is no longer necessary to buy insurance? Why pay to ensure my belongings from theft if the government is obligated to compensate me if I am a victim of crime?

If people have experienced trauma for whatever reason then they should be able to access the care they need under the health care system. I don't see why people should be compensated monetarily by the government.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Riverwind

[guyser]

If people have experienced trauma for whatever reason then they should be able to access the care they need under the health care system. I don't see why people should be compensated monetarily by the government.

There are numerous reason why the Gov should pay compensation. Liability for one.

[B. Max]

There are numerous reason why the Gov should pay compensation. Liability for one.

Why is the tax payer liable.

[guyser]

There are numerous reason why the Gov should pay compensation. Liability for one.

Why is the tax payer liable.

Because the tax payer pays taxes .

Clarify- I am not saying the gov should pay for a non-gov problem.

[B. Max]

Because the tax payer pays taxes .

Clarify- I am not saying the gov should pay for a non-gov problem.

What's a government problem. Letting an uninsured driver on the road who causes an accident.

[Bonam]

THE UNITED NATIONS has deemed that a victim is entitled to compensation.

Canada, and the USA are members of the UN....

No offense but the UN has no jurisdiction over our internal policies, nor should it, considering what a worthless joke the UN is.

While I'm not really decided one way or another on the issue of compensation for victims, appealing to UN authority on any issue, especially when it comes to internal policies of sovereign nations, is useless, and won't win you any support.

[bush_cheney2004]

I would like to ad this-

THE UNITED NATIONS has deemed that a victim is entitled to compensation.

Canada, and the USA are members of the UN....

Take a peek at the database....

Sheesh....what does the USA have to do with victim compensation in Canada? We already have victim's funds in many states thank you very much.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/voc/vict_fund.html

[beatenwoman2005]

If a victim is _always_ entitled to compensation does that mean that it is no longer necessary to buy insurance? Why pay to ensure my belongings from theft if the government is obligated to compensate me if I am a victim of crime?

If people have experienced trauma for whatever reason then they should be able to access the care they need under the health care system. I don't see why people should be compensated monetarily by the government.

If people have experienced trauma for whatever reason then they should be able to access the care they need under the health care system. I don't see why people should be compensated monetarily by the government.

There are numerous reason why the Gov should pay compensation. Liability for one.

There are numerous reason why the Gov should pay compensation. Liability for one.

Why is the tax payer liable.

Yes it is up to the GOVERNMENT in Canada to provide Compensation for victims of crime, this does not INCLUDE items that have been stolen.

Compensation for victims of crime is required to assist a victims in regaining their ability to live out a normal life. Or do you people feel that only the CONVICTED should be entitled to any supports such as FREE legal council, FREE HOUSING, FREE EDUCATION, FREE....FREE........etc...etc...etc....

It is sick, just sickening that you people on here have no feelings when it comes to people who have been assaulted by a criminal. You think a person can just get back to being NORMAL after a sexual assault? Or a child can get back to normal after being SODOMIZED? The list of offenses that cause physical and mental impairments goes on and on and on.....

SO the victims life is worth LESS than a FELONS? I am going to assume that on this site the people that are participating in this thread are a large number of convicted felon's.

The tax payer is liable just as much to the victim as to the convicted... as "THE STATE" pursues charges against the felon regarding what happened to the victim. The victim still has to deal with their own life.

The UN does make valid points regarding assistance to people around the globe, without HUMAN RIGHT'S, just imagine how the ENTIRE world could be...

Now think of HITLER'S idea's having lived on... the entire planet would be filled with evil doers then.

Victims are not compensated Monetarily, unless there is a loss of Counsellings, wages, re constructive surgery is sometimes required...etc...etc...etc....... Then the system is required to step in and provide assistance to those in peril so they are able to get back to their life.....

There are many "WALKING WOUNDED" out there, because they are victims....